discount tire has a great tire size calculator, it still depends on brand though. the 305 is a little fatter than the 285, and real close to 33''. Or maybe im mistaken on 265 (ish) width. about 11.5'' right ?
Holy cr@p! Is this tire price out of line?
- Thread starter ashooter
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
discount tire has a great tire size calculator, it still depends on brand though. the 305 is a little fatter than the 285, and real close to 33''. Or maybe im mistaken on 265 (ish) width. about 11.5'' right ?
- Thread starter
- #22
Well, converting based on 1mm = 0.0394"...
- 255's would be 10.05" wide
- 265's would be 10.44" wide
- 285's would be 11.23" wide
Not sure how these measure out in real life, and I'm not sure if this is width at sidewall or tread.
It'd be interesting if some math guru could figure out a way to calc the theoretical weight difference between these three sizes, assuming similar tire construction. I just kinda wonder how much the reduced width offsets the increased height between 265's and 255's.... Also, how much more the 285 would weight than either of the others. Kinda academic I know, since there's a LOT more to tire weight than just the external dimensions. But in theory, you can see that a 285 would be substantially heavier than a 255, in addition to the larger frontal area.
- 255's would be 10.05" wide
- 265's would be 10.44" wide
- 285's would be 11.23" wide
Not sure how these measure out in real life, and I'm not sure if this is width at sidewall or tread.
It'd be interesting if some math guru could figure out a way to calc the theoretical weight difference between these three sizes, assuming similar tire construction. I just kinda wonder how much the reduced width offsets the increased height between 265's and 255's.... Also, how much more the 285 would weight than either of the others. Kinda academic I know, since there's a LOT more to tire weight than just the external dimensions. But in theory, you can see that a 285 would be substantially heavier than a 255, in addition to the larger frontal area.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #23
In case anyone is as much of a dork as I am and finds this interesting:
Assuming these tires are cylinders, the surface areas would be:
- 255/85/16 = 2763.33 sq in
- 265/75/16 = 2612.89 sq in
- 285/75/16 = 2852.64 sq in
The 285 is going to have substantially more frontal area as well as weight (in theory). Not sure if that has anything at all to do with how they will feel when the rubber meets the road, but there it is... I know all this was hashed and rehashed in the "fat vs. skinny" thread, so this is just me playing with numbers.
Assuming these tires are cylinders, the surface areas would be:
- 255/85/16 = 2763.33 sq in
- 265/75/16 = 2612.89 sq in
- 285/75/16 = 2852.64 sq in
The 285 is going to have substantially more frontal area as well as weight (in theory). Not sure if that has anything at all to do with how they will feel when the rubber meets the road, but there it is... I know all this was hashed and rehashed in the "fat vs. skinny" thread, so this is just me playing with numbers.
the tire design has a significant impact on the effective contact width. Clearly my 285 MTRs have a much narrower contact patch than my 285 NTGs, the latter being very "square".
Yep. Given equal inflation pressures, the narrow tire will have a longer contact ratio (length X Width). This translates into more lateral stability on slick surfaces and to somewhat less rolling resistance. It may also improve handling slightly.
Mike S
ashooter, where in Texas are you? I am in Texarkana, we have a dedicated Cooper store here and they came down alot on that tire. I can't remember the exact price but I am considering the ST's or the Cepek F/C's. They came down to roughly the same price on both of them , the ST a little cheaper but it was right around $700 for 4 tires including everything.
By the way for those of you driving the ST's how is the road noise? I am considering the 255 also, mainly for a bit better economy
By the way for those of you driving the ST's how is the road noise? I am considering the 255 also, mainly for a bit better economy
My 2 cents, that's waaaay high. I got 5 of that exact tire for $153/ mounted & balanced at a local tire store (Becker's Tires). Now one place did quote $210/ tire and I laughed and asked if they were serious. Hope you find some, I love 'em.
They make a LITTLE noise. Not annoying at all.
Well, the Cooper site doesn't list weight, but Interco does
TrXus MT / STS :: Interco Tire
For the Truxus -
255/85's are 8 ply, and weigh 53lbs (33" x 10")
265/75's are 8 ply and weigh 54 lbs (31.6" x 10.4")
285/75's are 10 ply and weigh 61 lbs (32.8" x 11.2)
33x12.50R16LT 10 ply, 67 lbs
34x12.50R16LT 10ply 73lbs
35x12.50R16LT 10ply 76lbs
The 265's vs. the 255's, the 255's are going to feel sluggish. 2 Things are going to add to that. The obvious one is the 1.5" larger diameter. The not so obvious one is the rotational momentum. It may weigh a pound less, but that weight is further from the center than the with the 265.
The big difference between the 285's and the 255's from a weight standpoint, on the Truxus at least, is the 285's are 10 ply vs. 8 ply. Couldn't tell on Cooper's site if there is a ply difference.
The 1.2" narrow tread should have less rolling resistance, and should improve gas mileage vs. 285's.
You're actually reducing you effective gear ratio slightly (as in probably impercievable) from 285's to 255's. The bigger deal is going to be the weight. If the 255's are 8 ply and 285's are 10 ply - but that's an 'if" you'll have to check with cooper on. Guessing they'll be lighter even if they are 10 ply, based on looking at the 285's, vs. the 33x12.50's.
So what's all this mean? You're gonna be more sluggish than 265's, but likely not as sluggish as 285's.
Much in the sense that if you squeeze turnips really hard blood will come out. You have a very inefficient engine dealing with nearly 3 tons in an undergeared state. Gearing to tire diameter is your issue. I got 12 mpg highway on 285 BFG AT's with stock gears and get 13-15 highway (75 mph low end, 65 mph high end) on 35x12.5 trxus MT's (soft, sticky, heavy tire) with 5.29's (speedo gear adjustment for 285's, Yellow Box GPS calibrated for the 35's with 5.29's).
When I had stock gears, there was no performance or mpg difference between those 285 BFG's and 33x12.5 trxus. Going to 35s on stock gears made no difference in mpg. Pedal to the floor is pedal to the floor no matter how many silly skinny tires you buy.
- Thread starter
- #31
:shotts:
Aw hell... maybe I'll just stick with 265's. They're easier to find if I need a replacement anyway.
I think tires are like shoes - depends on what you like and what you want them to do. For me, 265's make sense. My driving is about 50% pavement and 50% rough/rocky ranch roads in a place that has an avg annual rainfall of 13 inches and gets a dusting of snow about once per decade. I might have to cross a washed out ravine a half dozen times per year, and I might drive out through the brush half as often, so practically speaking, 265's are fine.
These Cruisers have so much ground clearance built into their design, that extra inch I'd get from going to a 33" tire is probably not going to make any difference at all... but it might look a little bit "cooler".
Aw hell... maybe I'll just stick with 265's. They're easier to find if I need a replacement anyway.
I think tires are like shoes - depends on what you like and what you want them to do. For me, 265's make sense. My driving is about 50% pavement and 50% rough/rocky ranch roads in a place that has an avg annual rainfall of 13 inches and gets a dusting of snow about once per decade. I might have to cross a washed out ravine a half dozen times per year, and I might drive out through the brush half as often, so practically speaking, 265's are fine.
These Cruisers have so much ground clearance built into their design, that extra inch I'd get from going to a 33" tire is probably not going to make any difference at all... but it might look a little bit "cooler".
but it might look a little bit "cooler".
DUH! Don't let anyone fool you. They may talk about tread type, and optimum size, and which is the roundest, and who has the best sidewalls, but when it comes down to it, they buy the tires that look cool.
(that should crank this thread up to 3 pages with all the responses of "Not me")
I agree. You've got to factor in rolling resistance.
DUH! Don't let anyone fool you. They may talk about tread type, and optimum size, and which is the roundest, and who has the best sidewalls, but when it comes down to it, they buy the tires that look cool.
(that should crank this thread up to 3 pages with all the responses of "Not me")
That's also the same reason 95% of people lift. Because it looks cool. To lift and then screw up the tires makes zero sense. A 3" lifted 80 can make a 35x12.5 start to look smallish - a skinny 33 might as well be stock.
Oh, and AT's would be fine for the wheeling I do since I don't have mud, they just suck in the snow
- Thread starter
- #35
That's also the same reason 95% of people lift. Because it looks cool. To lift and then screw up the tires makes zero sense. A 3" lifted 80 can make a 35x12.5 start to look smallish - a skinny 33 might as well be stock.
Oh, and AT's would be fine for the wheeling I do since I don't have mud, they just suck in the snow
Yeah but I'm not lifted. Just thinking about getting the most performace for the buck for my intended use.
we can't all be rock-crawlers.
Agreed - a skinny 33 is an excellent choice for a stock 80. Not sure what you get for avoiding a standard tire size you find everywhere in 285/75/16, but I think a 33's on a stock 80 is a perfectly good choice without worrying about much else.
The cost of aerodynamics in lifting is far worse than anything you can do with tire width. Go for it - tire size is the single biggest factor in improving looks and offroad performance you can make, and if you are only going 33's maybe do a OME stock height lift and some point and you'll have a great looking rig with no other complicating issues.