LX 20 to 18/17 (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Absolutely.

This is more for the instance of later year LX (BBK), and with a plus one size 32-33" tire to avoid fitment mods while also considering AHC.
I will say that IMO and this is strictly my personal experience that in general on any LC the factory offset is not good. Its too conservative and some added width is actually needed. Your point on tire and wheel options stands. In 5x150 lug patterns, there is a pretty limited amount of quality wheels out there but I will say the tire choices are increasing steadily.

Like I replied to @TeCKis300 it also does not really achieve the perfect factory geometry. Part of the issue with that is also AHC.
When you do end up doing a sensor lift like most here would, a lower offset would actually help offset the effects of the added camber. Pun intended.

This in itself is a lengthy conversation because unfortunately with any lift, a proper alignment becomes much more difficult to achieve and cant really be done to OE spec.
This is actually why I have left my AHC at factory height until now that i have the truck balanced and leveled and will be done once i get the rake angle front to rear where i like. I will be going to a local truck outfitter once I'm done with all that (still doing research on it) who will do a proper camber adjustment alignment like they would custom trucks and aligned at Normal ride height. I will also be adding additional caster to bring back a more quick torque neutral steering rebound.

One of the things that i really liked about the 300 suspension is the reduced shock angles. This could potentially make the wheel travel more linear and would help in all of the specifics outlined above. Hoping to see some show up to the forums soon.

As far as the AHC leveling. Match the rear springs. Thats it. It was just you and I suspected. I bought an additional pair to have a soft and firm option and I prefer the twin tall setup. Now my HOU does not fight the load and my pressures should be all in line. When i go from L to N there is no adjustment period. The shocks pressurize and come up level and stay there. No weird behavior. No more depressurized sag when shut off and parked with the release whine.
The rear left shock was doing way more work than it needed to.

Not sure I agree with you on offsets. The stock setup is ideal for stock fitments and stock geometry. Yes, it's a giant confluence and balance of parameters but there's well understood strategies for fitment. Some of your comments lead me to believe you're trying to compensate with some other parameters due to your current +25 offset. This when paired with a relatively small tire (i.e. 32.8") would result in impacts to ride, stability, traction, and handling. Some say it works but they may not have the perception to understand what has changed and/or too many things have changed all at once, and not for the better. It does sound like you're very attuned and can sense things have changed, but perhaps not exactly sure what dials to turn to get back to better.

This platform doesn't need as much caster if other parameters are right. For example, I'm on 35s but with pretty optimal +35offset (for the tire diameter). I'm on the low end of spec for caster, and it works sublimely. To your point, yes, lift can impact stuff, and it does for more aggressive lifts. A mild 1-1.5" lift should still keep the suspension geometry in its sweet spot where response is generally linear with less impact to bump steer and such. I've dialed in a touch of camber to help with taller tire aspect ratios as they do tend to rollover on sidewalls. Some camber can also help with 17s and aggressive offsets, as it changes the contact point across the tread to bring it in closer to where the kingpin inclination angle wants it.
 
Thanks for sharing your experiences, but here to disagree that you need additional width from the wheel. Rock Warriors (+50) are proven and the stance you refer to seem more about your preference for appearance than experience.

Thanks for reading and weighing in brother.

I respectfully disagree, not that the rock warriors are a bad choice or wheel, they are great. Its just that there is not enough track width on the OE fitment. Not for performance nor for wheeling off-road. There is just too much body overhang. Thats not a knock on the suspension thats more of a limitation of the size of body on the frame. I honestly think it's purposely overly conservative to retain as much suspension travel as possible and I don't personally take anything OEM as gospel.
They make a LOT of compromises and a few mistakes as well. It is made to suit mass market. We have to remember that too.
The tundra front end conversions here for this and other reasons are very interesting.

Please don't mistake all of my suggestions above for being ignorant of the principles involved or distrustful of Toyota.
Like I've said, my own fitment, +25 is too wide. It's just one of the compromises i had to make due to lack of wheels available.
In the 33" tire size, I think +35 is the sweet spot for all I want to achieve but i will agree its the upper bound, not the ideal all around choice.


Not sure I agree with you on offsets. The stock setup is ideal for stock fitments and stock geometry. Yes, it's a giant confluence and balance of parameters but there's well understood strategies for fitment. Some of your comments lead me to believe you're trying to compensate with some other parameters due to your current +25 offset. This when paired with a relatively small tire (i.e. 32.8") would result in impacts to ride, stability, traction, and handling. Some say it works but they may not have the perception to understand what has changed and/or too many things have changed all at once, and not for the better. It does sound like you're very attuned and can sense things have changed, but perhaps not exactly sure what dials to turn to get back to better.

This platform doesn't need as much caster if other parameters are right. For example, I'm on 35s but with pretty optimal +35offset (for the tire diameter). I'm on the low end of spec for caster, and it works sublimely. To your point, yes, lift can impact stuff, and it does for more aggressive lifts. A mild 1-1.5" lift should still keep the suspension geometry in its sweet spot where response is generally linear with less impact to bump steer and such. I've dialed in a touch of camber to help with taller tire aspect ratios as they do tend to rollover on sidewalls. Some camber can also help with 17s and aggressive offsets, as it changes the contact point across the tread to bring it in closer to where the kingpin inclination angle wants it.

Yeah im sorry thats what I meant. Its my suggestion that does not achieve the perfect OE fitment or geometry.
The OE is after all what we would have to describe as "correct".

And thanks, while I am learning a lot about all of this still, i am very observant. I am an engineer myself although not in this field.
I know what the issues are stemming from for the most part and definitely have not got the fit that I want nailed down like I've stated a couple of times.
Also, people are doing outlandish negative offset fitments out there in the truck scene, and we are talking +54 - +25 for my ride.
I was worried but once they were on i found that to the less than 3 inches of total track width increase, which is very negligible, actually improved my handling.

There is a particular stretch of highway under construction between Austin and Houston that was nerve racking to drive on the "perfect" factory setup.
Road imperfections added a scary amount of steering input (not bumps, that was also a diff. issue) and that is due to the low or zero scrub having too much influence on contact patch pivot point. I respect everyones opinion, specially yours, but i will not pretend like Toyota has any standing in performance dynamics specially not on the LC. Also i was very worried my wheel would not self center and it does so beautifully. It also tracks dead straight like its on rails.

I know you dont like to deviate from OEM (says the guy on 35s LOL) but in that vain, isn't the suggested tire offering for TRD BBS forged 18" an OE 265/60?
I think thats crazy conservative. Toyota didn't even plus size the HE tires if i am correct.

I dont think people should shy away from lower offsets unless we have concrete reasons just because its not by the book.
I am very happy with my choice in general other than tire musings, and if you find me a good +35 wheel i will buy it. :)

Also, since i know you know them, can i have the angles for our setup and whatever calculator you are using for scrub? This one is a bit crude no?
 
Last edited:
Hey @grinchy where can this be found brother? Should be the same on later MYs?


Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 1.33.20 PM.png
 
Last edited:
I disagree on more track width in relation to body lines being “needed” for stability. Toyota does this stuff well, and the video of a KDSS cruiser doing an emergency lane change maneuver is quite impressive, even if it isn’t the full story for on-road stability. They wouldn’t put a vehicle on the market if it was designed with unsafe body overhangs.


you need to keep in mind that keeping all the rocks and mud flinging off the tires at high and low speed inside the wheel wells and off the body is a goal of theirs. Plus considerations for scrub, tire wear, handling, whether or not a 95# woman can dry steer the vehicle on fresh asphalt.. there are thousands of design considerations and the fact that the vast majority of vehicles on the road today have these similarities suggests the industry as a whole agrees on a lot of them.

But to narrow things down a bit more, check out a 4Runner, rav4, tundra, sequoia, highlander, 200. All have roughly similar potential uses, and all have wheels that stay well within the wheel well, and I’d bet all have very similar geometry for contact patch and steering axis. I get that you feel toyota didn’t optimize this, but they just aren’t going to willingly take the risk of putting vehicles that are less safe than possible with regard to this simple (for them) engineering element on the road.

Independent of wheel offset, they clearly don’t want the tire tread flush with the side of the body.

Yeah, tundra suspension can be a great upgrade depending on your goals, and track width may be one of them. But usually for those people more travel probably is too. Plus less compromises from spacers, on that we definitely agree. Even though a potential tundra swap was a major reason I paid extra for a cruiser over an LX when I got mine, with more experience and observation I probably will not be going down that road. The rim and tire sitting flush with the fender means too much stuff will get sprayed all over the side of the truck, and the benefit of the width and travel won’t outweigh that drawback, for how I use mine. The singular benefit that keeps me from writing it off altogether is less lower arm angle for a given lift, which reduces the “jacking” feeling of hitting bumps while cornering. More offset via wheels would have zero impact on this.

So yeah, I believe 50mm offers perfect driving dynamics for a 285/70r17 and it is no surprise toyota designed these wheels specifically with that in mind. Well, that and offering them OEM on tundras while trying to avoid being sued outed existence for offering an unsafe product. 35 would help with a /75 tire, not only for scrub but to avoid KDSS interference on the 200s that have it, and perhaps help offset the increase in vehicle height. And this highlights what others have mentioned.. it’s all a series of compromises.

I’m hungry. Apologies if this didn’t make any sense.

Edit: toyota clearly doesn’t want to build a Raptor. I think keeping that in mind can help put their choices in perspective.
 
I disagree on more track width in relation to body lines being “needed” for stability. Toyota does this stuff well, and the video of a KDSS cruiser doing an emergency lane change maneuver is quite impressive, even if it isn’t the full story for on-road stability. They wouldn’t put a vehicle on the market if it was designed with unsafe body overhangs.


you need to keep in mind that keeping all the rocks and mud flinging off the tires at high and low speed inside the wheel wells and off the body is a goal of theirs. Plus considerations for scrub, tire wear, handling, whether or not a 95# woman can dry steer the vehicle on fresh asphalt.. there are thousands of design considerations and the fact that the vast majority of vehicles on the road today have these similarities suggests the industry as a whole agrees on a lot of them.

But to narrow things down a bit more, check out a 4Runner, rav4, tundra, sequoia, highlander, 200. All have roughly similar potential uses, and all have wheels that stay well within the wheel well, and I’d bet all have very similar geometry for contact patch and steering axis. I get that you feel toyota didn’t optimize this, but they just aren’t going to willingly take the risk of putting vehicles that are less safe than possible with regard to this simple (for them) engineering element on the road.

Independent of wheel offset, they clearly don’t want the tire tread flush with the side of the body.

Yeah, tundra suspension can be a great upgrade depending on your goals, and track width may be one of them. But usually for those people more travel probably is too. Plus less compromises from spacers, on that we definitely agree. Even though a potential tundra swap was a major reason I paid extra for a cruiser over an LX when I got mine, with more experience and observation I probably will not be going down that road. The rim and tire sitting flush with the fender means too much stuff will get sprayed all over the side of the truck, and the benefit of the width and travel won’t outweigh that drawback, for how I use mine. The singular benefit that keeps me from writing it off altogether is less lower arm angle for a given lift, which reduces the “jacking” feeling of hitting bumps while cornering. More offset via wheels would have zero impact on this.

So yeah, I believe 50mm offers perfect driving dynamics for a 285/70r17 and it is no surprise toyota designed these wheels specifically with that in mind. Well, that and offering them OEM on tundras while trying to avoid being sued outed existence for offering an unsafe product. 35 would help with a /75 tire, not only for scrub but to avoid KDSS interference on the 200s that have it, and perhaps help offset the increase in vehicle height. And this highlights what others have mentioned.. it’s all a series of compromises.

I’m hungry. Apologies if this didn’t make any sense.

Edit: toyota clearly doesn’t want to build a Raptor. I think keeping that in mind can help put their choices in perspective.

This deserves a more thorough response but since I am wrapping up my day i will be brief as i can.

We can agree what T does is conservative, thats exactly where I am coming from. If only they did try to build a raptor... That would be the day.
I was floored to hear some of what i did from the horses mouth. So yes totally, i think like you are saying the considerations are much more inline with the standard offering of the brand and done mostly for conservative reasons like steering weight, ease of driving, mud sling and other quality of life aspects.

But on the other hand, no, i don't think its more safe actually both from my experience and light research. You actually want positive scrub in a double wishbone IFS specially when the steering wheels are driven unless im mistaken.
The stability display in the moose tests etc is more from the VSC and traction control systems than any performance "tuning" Toyota does and is much more representative of KDSS / AHC working than any brilliant suspension design which in itself i think they both are.
The LC in particular from watching the development videos is not necessarily even outfitted for on road performance but more durability, capability, strength.
That is really my only concern with going out of spec and not lifting. I don't want to stress any CVs or other components and I don't think +35 on a 33" would do that.

Im here to learn and i know this is a bit demanding and technical to have to write out so i don't blame anyone if they just tell me I'm wrong.
Still would like to hear why. Im curious why a lot of the forum is chasing zero scrub when it doesn't seem to be the best for our use cases.
There is obviously a need to go out of spec for fitting larger and larger setups but it seems everyone is against any amount of it.
It's also weird to me since there are so many heavily modified vehicles that this would be the place where they would draw the line.

I could be wrong if +60-50 that is sold is not a zero scrub radius on OE tire packages. I was hoping to find that answer today.
If it is, my point stands. It should have positive scrub for the best dynamics. I would love to have the angle spec to actually figure it out. Ill keep looking.

EDIT: Heres what i was looking for to post as a source to my claim above. I actually remember this from an old friends moms GX.
 
Last edited:


😂 The lean!!!!
 
This deserves a more thorough response but since I am wrapping up my day i will be brief as i can.

We can agree what T does is conservative, thats exactly where I am coming from. If only they did try to build a raptor... That would be the day.
I was floored to hear some of what i did from the horses mouth. So yes totally, i think like you are saying the considerations are much more inline with the standard offering of the brand and done mostly for conservative reasons like steering weight, ease of driving, mud sling and other quality of life aspects.

But on the other hand, no, i don't think its more safe actually both from my experience and light research. You actually want positive scrub in a double wishbone IFS specially when the steering wheels are driven unless im mistaken.
The stability display in the moose tests etc is more from the VSC and traction control systems than any performance "tuning" Toyota does and is much more representative of KDSS / AHC working than any brilliant suspension design which in itself i think they both are.
The LC in particular from watching the development videos is not necessarily even outfitted for on road performance but more durability, capability, strength.
That is really my only concern with going out of spec and not lifting. I don't want to stress any CVs or other components and I don't think +35 on a 33" would do that.

Im here to learn and i know this is a bit demanding and technical to have to write out so i don't blame anyone if they just tell me I'm wrong.
Still would like to hear why. Im curious why a lot of the forum is chasing zero scrub when it doesn't seem to be the best for our use cases.
There is obviously a need to go out of spec for fitting larger and larger setups but it seems everyone is against any amount of it.
It's also weird to me since there are so many heavily modified vehicles that this would be the place where they would draw the line.

I could be wrong if +60-50 that is sold is not a zero scrub radius on OE tire packages. I was hoping to find that answer today.
If it is, my point stands. It should have positive scrub for the best dynamics. I would love to have the angle spec to actually figure it out. Ill keep looking.

I hope no one takes offense at anything I write. It's all in good technical discussion after all to tease out these details.

We don't know exactly that +60 (pre 2015) or +54 (post 2016) offset is ultimately zero scrub radius or mildly positive scrub radius. Only that it's dynamically correct for the geometry and platform as designed. It very well could be mildly positive on account of the 4WD drivetrain. What I can tell you from my race days is that the 200-series chassis is setup very well for a lumbering body on frame 4x4.

The optimal offset is designed into the geometry of the chassis, arms, and the suspension upright. What absolutely offset a vehicle uses is less important than relative offset for the changes we're making. Notably, offset is very much tied to the kingpin inclination angle. We're not changing this geometry appreciably with mods we're making, including most reasonable lifts. Therefore it's relatively easy to project linearly what optimal offset is for a given tire size. You can see from the black line that a each relatively larger tire is going to need less offset to have the red line meet the tires center at the tread surface.

offfset.jpg


I'm being nice to say +25 is okay. It's not, it's flat out wrong (esp for smaller tires) from my experience. With notable symptoms and handling impacts. I previously ran a 33.2" tire on +35 offset. Even there, where offset is less aggressive on a taller tire, which is more optimal than what you're running, I can tell there were compromises. Uneven terrain, heavy acceleration or decel (particularly towing 8k lbs), will have the steering pull more than expects. Same with off-roading with more steering impact. Turn in may seem sharp with the wider stance, but traction can be compromised as the wheels scrub. Tire sidewalls fight each other and roll over easier making for perceived loss of roll resistance. This happens at all speeds, but most telling is low speed maneuvering in say a parking structure where tires turning has them squealing telling you the tires aren't exactly working together.

The same +35 offset with my now 35" tires brings scrub radius magically back to a few percent of where Toyota intended it. Much of the same pulling or tracking symptoms are back to stock, which is to say they are great. Albeit with taller tires and sidewall, higher roll center, ultimate handling is compromised, but the handling qualities are on point and ride is nothing less than what Lexus intended.

It's all ultimately a confluence of parameters. Can't change one chasing a single perceived better quality without impacting others. I actually worked hard to keep my tires just inset as that's where the most clearance exists for fender and tire well. It also helps maintain some semblance of efficiency keeping the tires in the aero of the body lines.
 
I hope no one takes offense at anything I write. It's all in good technical discussion after all to tease out these details.

We don't know exactly that +60 (pre 2015) or +54 (post 2016) offset is ultimately zero scrub radius or mildly positive scrub radius. Only that it's dynamically correct for the geometry and platform as designed. It very well could be mildly positive on account of the 4WD drivetrain. What I can tell you from my race days is that the 200-series chassis is setup very well for a lumbering body on frame 4x4.

The optimal offset is designed into the geometry of the chassis, arms, and the suspension upright. What absolutely offset a vehicle uses is less important than relative offset for the changes we're making. Notably, offset is very much tied to the kingpin inclination angle. We're not changing this geometry appreciably with mods we're making, including most reasonable lifts. Therefore it's relatively easy to project linearly what optimal offset is for a given tire size. You can see from the black line that a each relatively larger tire is going to need less offset to have the red line meet the tires center at the tread surface.

offfset.jpg


I'm being nice to say +25 is okay. It's not, it's flat out wrong (esp for smaller tires) from my experience. With notable symptoms and handling impacts. I previously ran a 33.2" tire on +35 offset. Even there, where offset is less aggressive on a taller tire, which is more optimal than what you're running, I can tell there were compromises. Uneven terrain, heavy acceleration or decel (particularly towing 8k lbs), will have the steering pull more than expects. Same with off-roading with more steering impact. Turn in may seem sharp with the wider stance, but traction can be compromised as the wheels scrub. Tire sidewalls fight each other and roll over easier making for perceived loss of roll resistance. This happens at all speeds, but most telling is low speed maneuvering in say a parking structure where tires turning has them squealing telling you the tires aren't exactly working together.

The same +35 offset with my now 35" tires brings scrub radius magically back to a few percent of where Toyota intended it. Much of the same pulling or tracking symptoms are back to stock, which is to say they are great. Albeit with taller tires and sidewall, higher roll center, ultimate handling is compromised, but the handling qualities are on point and ride is nothing less than what Lexus intended.

It's all ultimately a confluence of parameters. Can't change one chasing a single perceived better quality without impacting others. I actually worked hard to keep my tires just inset as that's where the most clearance exists for fender and tire well. It also helps maintain some semblance of efficiency keeping the tires in the aero of the body lines.

Forgive me and no offense at all and thank you! I am very happy to be discussing this and welcome any inputl
Please don't take anything i say as hostility either, its hard to convey tone in text. I am ultimately trying to learn and converse and im glad to be doing it with you.

That being said my I remind you that I am not talking about +25 but +35 for any plus size before needing modifications.
Which OP didn't even want to do LOL, but I'm happy to make the best of another tire recommendation thread.

+25 admittedly isn't good for or any non mod necessitating tire size. This is the third time I'm saying it so not sure why you brought that up.
Also remember part of the +35 recommendation and choosing that as my ideal offset for up to a 33-34" (in listed size) is stance from a visual aesthetic choice where the body has a lot to do with it instead of suspension. I just don't think it has as much impact as the forum usually feels it does and is not a big of a compromise in my eyes. I even think it has positive attributes over a more neutral offset as ive said.

That being said my truck handles and drives like a champ and experiences none of that even at that much more of a sub optimal offset which is part of the experience where I draw my opinion from. @bloc drove it himself the other day which is why he tagged me.
If you are ever in Austin, I invite you to do the same before i swap into another set some day for a more optimal offset.

Were you not lifted though when you ran +35? And how are you sure it was properly aligned?
The symptoms you described can be easily attributable to both those things and accentuated when towing is involved.
As I attempted to describe earlier, any lift you do throws factory alignment specs out the window.
This is why I have yet to do either of those things. Interestingly enough my tires are wearing perfectly even as well after having been aligned prior to my setup changing.

Let me end on another approach. Following the logic at play here, if a single additional 1" of pos scrub is as impactful as you say it is, then how can that principle not also apply to going 20-30mm wider in tire on OE offsets? Especially when considering camber impact at high steering angles where that measure would effectively double.
 
With either this calculator or some simple right angle math, you can see that even the Toyota spec'd offset for the RW wheel is aggressive in creating extra positive scrub radius. I think a lot of people use the 1" extra tire diameter works out to about 10mm less offset based on the difference between the stock wheel and an RW + 33" tire which is factory approved. But if you do the math, adding 1" of tire diameter only moves the required offset by 3-4mm (depending on what you decide/measure is the SAI) where as the RW actually subtracts 10mm. By all that, you actually need to go to a 34" tire to get close to stock scrub radius on a RW wheel. If you went to a 35" wheel from a factory 285/60R18 (or 285/50R20), you only need 15mm less offset to maintain stock scrub radius. So going to +25 on a 33" tire is adding 30mm of positive scrub. All of this is regardless of whether the LX/LC are spec'd with positive scrub from the factory.
 
With either this calculator or some simple right angle math, you can see that even the Toyota spec'd offset for the RW wheel is aggressive in creating extra positive scrub radius. I think a lot of people use the 1" extra tire diameter works out to about 10mm less offset based on the difference between the stock wheel and an RW + 33" tire which is factory approved. But if you do the math, adding 1" of tire diameter only moves the required offset by 3-4mm (depending on what you decide/measure is the SAI) where as the RW actually subtracts 10mm. By all that, you actually need to go to a 34" tire to get close to stock scrub radius on a RW wheel. If you went to a 35" wheel from a factory 285/60R18 (or 285/50R20), you only need 15mm less offset to maintain stock scrub radius. So going to +25 on a 33" tire is adding 30mm of positive scrub. All of this is regardless of whether the LX/LC are spec'd with positive scrub from the factory.

Ok for the fourth time, I'm recommending +35 not my suboptimal current +25. And that goes for anything under 34" and above OEM tire size while also considering some visual appeal. We are talking a lot now about suspension parameters so we can forget about that for the time being but i know everyone here still cares about the look.
For the sake of the argument let's assume we don't know the intended factory scrub (zero, or marginal +/_) and are just aiming to restore OE values.
I had already linked that calculator. It is a comparison tool that will suffice for these purposes since we can plug in OE and whatever else.

Very interesting you have the spec for the original RW tire offering? Ive been looking for that same bulletin on the TRD wheels OE TSB or whatever it was.
Can you share those? I had referenced them earlier and I want to use them as a reference point in this discussion.

Given all of the above, Im saying that going slightly more positive can be a good thing and not so bad as it's made out to be. Would love to get your opinion on that.
 
Sorry, I was only posting to add extra data points and used the +25mm for reference since it is one of the more common offsets for aftermarket wheel options. And also close to the effective offset of a OEM +60ET + 1.25" spacer which are probably the most common non OEM setups. Obviously, there isn't really anything to argue about as it pertains to what the factory scrub radius is. My main point was that if you want to maintain factory scrub radius, you really don't need to subtract much offset.

Here's a link to one of the guides. I think I've seen at least 2 versions, but they are pretty much the same.

 
Ok for the fourth time, I'm recommending +35 not my suboptimal current +25. And that goes for anything under 34" and above OEM tire size while also considering some visual appeal. We are talking a lot now about suspension parameters so we can forget about that for the time being but i know everyone here still cares about the look.
For the sake of the argument let's assume we don't know the intended factory scrub (zero, or marginal +/_) and are just aiming to restore OE values.
I had already linked that calculator. It is a comparison tool that will suffice for these purposes since we can plug in OE and whatever else.

Very interesting you have the spec for the original RW tire offering? Ive been looking for that same bulletin on the TRD wheels OE TSB or whatever it was.
Can you share those? I had referenced them earlier and I want to use them as a reference point in this discussion.

Given all of the above, Im saying that going slightly more positive can be a good thing and not so bad as it's made out to be. Would love to get your opinion on that.

I think most everyone of us wants the look you're describing and perhaps justify in our minds how it can't be bad because it looks so right. Don't get me wrong, I chase and aspire to that too. After all, we all grew up watching monster trucks (Grave Digger!!). Part of the question may be whether +35 is good enough? That wholly depends on the individual and their use case. I'll be the first to acknowledge that rock crawler setups may benefit from added track and poke for clearance and protection with even something like 0 offset. Along with the many Jeeps that cop that style. Though most of us also seek the 200-series as it's not a Jeep, but one of the finest 4x4s because of its broad capability and unmatched refinement (in a 4x4).

Many 200-series modders and owners probably drive gently and don't see the symptoms of compromised geometry. Or build it heavy, drive it like a truck, and don't expect anything more than trucklike behavior. The reality is that compromised offsets does have impacts, and some perceive it enough to have discussions like we're doing in this thread. It's the difference between a well developed OEM vehicle where they have total control, versus an aftermarket effort subject to cost/quality/available parts.

IMO optimally
32-33 should have 50mm offsets
33-34 40mm offset
34+ 30mm offsets

I've equally broken optimal, so striving for best compromise sometimes is all we can do.

Perhaps another way to get the stance and look you're going for. Not just from the side view. Beefier meats. 295 and wider fitments?
 
I went from 21” stock to 18” Toyota BBS and love it, ride is smoother and quieter.
 
Sorry, I was only posting to add extra data points and used the +25mm for reference since it is one of the more common offsets for aftermarket wheel options. And also close to the effective offset of a OEM +60ET + 1.25" spacer which are probably the most common non OEM setups. Obviously, there isn't really anything to argue about as it pertains to what the factory scrub radius is. My main point was that if you want to maintain factory scrub radius, you really don't need to subtract much offset.

Here's a link to one of the guides. I think I've seen at least 2 versions, but they are pretty much the same.


Thanks for the link, ive been looking for it but i don't know what they call these documents.
I want the TRD BBS one too and will dig through MUD (pun intended) since i know its here. I do think ive blocked the person who posts it the most though lol.

Yes indeed that is all correct, the offset adjustments are minimal. That is why my 21" package wheel is a +54 and the stock LC wheel i believe a +56. For a theoretical .3" lift in tire, they have pushed out 2mm from the hub on my LX.

However Toyota is being both too conservative, and inconsistent with their own fitments. Heres an example:
A 285/70r17 should equal a drop in offset of closer to 10mm if you are to follow the logic used by Toyota. Despite not knowing KPI, what scrub they are intending to create or anything else. Also not knowing that all of that makes those calculators meaningless. They are even more questionable if lifted. Which most members are.

PackageOffsetTireListed sizeSize IncreaseOffset decrease
LX 20" OE58285/50r2031.2"BASEBASE
LC 18" OE56285/60r1831.5".3"2
LX 21" OE54275/50r2131.8".6"4
RW 17" OE50285/70/1732.7"1.5"8
Hypothetical48285/70/1732.7"1.5"10

This is simple addition and subtraction. If you're arguments (anyone here) is that Toyota has some kind of magic formula well they don't. And before you go into tire compression these are comparative nominal sizes. It doesn't matter in this instance what they measure mounted.
I stand behind all of my statements. The factory OE is too conservative an offset to begin with. The RW are better suited to the Tundra for which they were designed with the wider track and whatever inclination it has. I think using them on an LC is suboptimal ALONG with a ton of other offsets for a 33" tire.
MY FAVORITE offset is +35 for a multitude of reasons but were it only about suspension and performance it would probably be closer to +40.

I think most everyone of us wants the look you're describing and perhaps justify in our minds how it can't be bad because it looks so right. Don't get me wrong, I chase and aspire to that too. After all, we all grew up watching monster trucks (Grave Digger!!). Part of the question may be whether +35 is good enough? That wholly depends on the individual and their use case. I'll be the first to acknowledge that rock crawler setups may benefit from added track and poke for clearance and protection with even something like 0 offset. Along with the many Jeeps that cop that style. Though most of us also seek the 200-series as it's not a Jeep, but one of the finest 4x4s because of its broad capability and unmatched refinement (in a 4x4).

Many 200-series modders and owners probably drive gently and don't see the symptoms of compromised geometry. Or build it heavy, drive it like a truck, and don't expect anything more than trucklike behavior. The reality is that compromised offsets does have impacts, and some perceive it enough to have discussions like we're doing in this thread. It's the difference between a well developed OEM vehicle where they have total control, versus an aftermarket effort subject to cost/quality/available parts.

IMO optimally
32-33 should have 50mm offsets
33-34 40mm offset
34+ 30mm offsets

I've equally broken optimal, so striving for best compromise sometimes is all we can do.

Perhaps another way to get the stance and look you're going for. Not just from the side view. Beefier meats. 295 and wider fitments?

If i can be very honest, your photo of the AT3 35's is what pissed me off enough to chase Toyo down to the very top about it.
I was already upset i couldn't find wheels that were OPTIMAL based on what the forum was teaching me worked for the 200, and i didn't know quiet enough yet to make my own choices either. I was one of the first to get the OC A/T3 and created a great but compromised 70LB per corner setup. I didn't know that going P would be such a bad choice in that size of a tire with the weight involved on our trucks. That was from listening to people who will not be named that dont have a clue what their talking about. That is also (erroneously chasing the weight savings) what led me to settle on the +25. Ive lurked here for 3-4 years now and only made an account when i felt like i wasn't a total idiot from back when i had my bone stock 100. I dont just blindly listen anymore and my knowledge is increasing daily.

Either way i took personal responsibility and just lived with it at 34-26 PSI riding stiff UNTIL i saw your pics.
I wondered why in the F does my tires did not look like that? As we both know now, the P variants are not the same.
Thats why my 285/70r17 weighs 46 lbs. Theres just no meat there for an 8" sidewall when you load 7,000 lbs on them.

After all the escalation and brilliant advice i was given on P/LT, PSI, AHC shocks fighting and being overwhelmed I was ready to make the change. Right around that time got to see @blocs A/T3 in C load, rode in his truck and there wasnt any of the stiff boogeyman the P rated folks try to avoid. You can also safely run the C loads at 38 without issue and they ride like butter. Bloc has shocks etc but still, I have AHC. So long story not so short Im getting the C loads fitted in an hour actually :).

If I was able to find a good wheel LESS than or equal to 30lbs anywhere at +35-+45 I would have had it mounted today. The offerings there are just ugly heavy garbage.
But what I will say is chasing factory offset is not optimal IMHO. The more i learn about both suspension and Toyotas decisions, the more it becomes apparent.
Just like you said, and being an engineer in im certain a large corporate and regulated field, (i believe aviation?) you should know better than anyone that its not your say. It's the sales and product managers that will say the steering is too heavy for grandma to put in a Toyota product. In the case of the LC if you think about it, the wheel offerings dont even let you size up because they are so conservative. Toyota KNOWS the LC ill be fitted out. Why would they give you a wheel that would crush your KDSS if you put on a tire for the terrain it was designed to traverse? They are practically forcing you to go aftermarket.

Also you didnt address my reply #28!
 
After all the escalation and brilliant advice i was given on P/LT, PSI, AHC shocks fighting and being overwhelmed I was ready to make the change. Right around that time got to see @blocs A/T3 in C load, rode in his truck and there wasnt any of the stiff boogeyman the P rated folks try to avoid. You can also safely run the C loads at 38 without issue and they ride like butter. Bloc has shocks etc but still, I have AHC. So long story not so short Im getting the C loads fitted in an hour actually :).

Don’t forget due to having aired up last at 12k feet my pressures were 10psi low for this altitude.. they did stiffen up noticeably when correct, with the most substantial change in ride being over sharp pavement features.

However yes they are now much better at resisting some of the side wall flex of my p-metric AT2s at their cold pressure. I still feel p-metric 285/70r17 on rock warrior is a good stock weight setup for a cruiser with stock dampers, as long as they are close to stock 33 psi pressure. I absolutely agree that the 27psi calculated from load charts is too little for safe handling. This is based on ~2 years and 40k miles on that setup. In my experience the stock cruiser dampers struggled to handle the greater Tire Spring Rate and mass of 42psi in LT285/65r18. It was very, very noticeable. AHC on a LX may be different. Now that I have much better suspension capable of complementing a heavier higher TSR tire I got c-load LTs snd am happy with them. But one of the theories presented that they wouldn’t impact mileage hasn’t worked out.. they definitely dinged fuel efficiency, even on the way up to Colorado for my last trip when they were at the correct pressure. The larger tread blocks creating more wind resistance may explain this, to say nothing of the more substantial construction increasing rolling resistance.
 
Don’t forget due to having aired up last at 12k feet my pressures were 10psi low for this altitude.. they did stiffen up noticeably when correct, with the most substantial change in ride being over sharp pavement features.

However yes they are now much better at resisting some of the side wall flex of my p-metric AT2s at their cold pressure. I still feel p-metric 285/70r17 on rock warrior is a good stock weight setup for a cruiser with stock dampers, as long as they are close to stock 33 psi pressure. I absolutely agree that the 27psi calculated from load charts is too little for safe handling. This is based on ~2 years and 40k miles on that setup. In my experience the stock cruiser dampers struggled to handle the greater Tire Spring Rate and mass of 42psi in LT285/65r18. It was very, very noticeable. AHC on a LX may be different. Now that I have much better suspension capable of complementing a heavier higher TSR tire I got c-load LTs snd am happy with them. But one of the theories presented that they wouldn’t impact mileage hasn’t worked out.. they definitely dinged fuel efficiency, even on the way up to Colorado for my last trip when they were at the correct pressure. The larger tread blocks creating more wind resistance may explain this, to say nothing of the more substantial construction increasing rolling resistance.

Just got the Cs on, and i may be around your area later.

Everything I thought confirmed. SLIGHTLY more harsh. Much more stable.
I know that MPG will suffer but from a rotational mass standpoint im at OEM weight (80lbs with 21"). Even my Ps at 46lbs (70 total) when run at 32PSI dinged economy and that setup was 10lbs lower than stock. Thats from how deformed they drove.
I MAY gain some efficiency back but im not expecting it. I know for a fact that i will if i were doing an interstate trip of freeway driving where I would air up to 42 and it wouldn't endanger my life at that pressure. (Hot would exceed cold max for the P rateds and that is too thin a margin of error for my liking).


Your right that AHC is different. Very different not even considering adjusting ride heights.
This has been the motivation ive had to do the leg work for the forum. We have adjustable damping rates, none of the information here ever addresses that.

I could write another essay about all of this but i agree with you, a 32-36 PSI P 33" on Rock Warriors will handle and perform very well.
They wont be comfortable though. Not like you would think. Not with 7,000 Lbs on it and when it gets up to 36-38 when hot. At that stage they are filled to almost 87%. Its not anything night and day versus a C load of the same tire at 38. (which you can safely run). They wont save you much fuel since the sidewall is so soft. And good luck off-road trying not to puncture it when its that full. If you air down off-road, then good luck with that 5" of sidewall laterally expanded that is not reinforced.

Im am CONFIDENT, that Ps in that size should NOT be run on a 200. And I love that you came to the same conclusion without having to rant about it like i am.

I can take the heat, and im more confident than ever about all of this. Now E loads... I dont want to piss the whole forum off. LOL
 
I think most everyone of us wants the look you're describing and perhaps justify in our minds how it can't be bad because it looks so right. Don't get me wrong, I chase and aspire to that too. After all, we all grew up watching monster trucks (Grave Digger!!). Part of the question may be whether +35 is good enough? That wholly depends on the individual and their use case. I'll be the first to acknowledge that rock crawler setups may benefit from added track and poke for clearance and protection with even something like 0 offset. Along with the many Jeeps that cop that style. Though most of us also seek the 200-series as it's not a Jeep, but one of the finest 4x4s because of its broad capability and unmatched refinement (in a 4x4).

Many 200-series modders and owners probably drive gently and don't see the symptoms of compromised geometry. Or build it heavy, drive it like a truck, and don't expect anything more than trucklike behavior. The reality is that compromised offsets does have impacts, and some perceive it enough to have discussions like we're doing in this thread. It's the difference between a well developed OEM vehicle where they have total control, versus an aftermarket effort subject to cost/quality/available parts.

IMO optimally
32-33 should have 50mm offsets
33-34 40mm offset
34+ 30mm offsets

I've equally broken optimal, so striving for best compromise sometimes is all we can do.

Perhaps another way to get the stance and look you're going for. Not just from the side view. Beefier meats. 295 and wider fitments?
So what you are saying is if running <34” then toyota OEM is your only option. I’m not aware of any aftermarket rim in 5x150 that has more then +40, > +35 is extremely limited.
 
I feel like we are all saying nearly the same thing, so not sure where this conversation is going. With the exception of whether the factory scrub radius is ideal or not. I don't know enough about automobile engineering to go against what Toyota decided. Especially in light of perceived compromises that they may have made not making much sense. Considering it's as easy as changing the wheel offset to adjust scrub radius, i can't imagine they wouldn't put it the most ideal spot for most driving situations.

I guess what this thread is really coming down to is the mistake in putting big P-rated tires on little wheels on a big truck. I'm not sure how many people were shooting for that, but good to get it out there that it's a bad idea.

In Toyota's "defense", they never spec'd a Rock Warrior with P-Rated tires (probably knowing that adding that much soft sidewall to a big vehicle would not be a good idea). The suggested tire to go along with the RW TRD Wheels was always a C-Rated LT tire.


Also the Evo Corse wheels fit the bill pretty well.

17x8 ET40 and 18x8.5 ET45 both offered in USA. Seems like the price is creeping up on this a bit though.
 
Last edited:
I could write another essay about all of this but i agree with you, a 32-36 PSI P 33" on Rock Warriors will handle and perform very well.
They wont be comfortable though. Not like you would think. Not with 7,000 Lbs on it and when it gets up to 36-38 when hot. At that stage they are filled to almost 87%. Its not anything night and day versus a C load of the same tire at 38. (which you can safely run). They wont save you much fuel since the sidewall is so soft. And good luck off-road trying not to puncture it when its that full. If you air down off-road, then good luck with that 5" of sidewall laterally expanded that is not reinforced.

Im am CONFIDENT, that Ps in that size should NOT be run on a 200. And I love that you came to the same conclusion without having to rant about it like i am.

Actually I think P285/70R17 on a rock warrior is a great setup on a 200 (or at least a LC where my experience lies), as long as the tire pressure is high enough. And I thought they rode great, better than stock actually. Same weight as stock, marginally taller sidewall than stock for bump absorption, but not so much sidewall that it wouldn't do what I wanted it to on-road. And occasionally I drive mine pretty hard. I wandered around colorado trails a lot with those tires, sometimes aired way down, sometimes not, and they did great. The only puncture I got was a destroyed sidwall from careless driving.. based on what the rock did to my slider I'm betting it would have destroyed an e-load LT as well. Also, got great mileage, because both the sidewall is soft as well as the tread. That thinner tread means it has less internal friction driving down the road, which is ultimately your fuel turning into heat in the tire... less heat than a LT tire, even c-load. That reduced friction and heat build up is the whole reason they require less pressure than a LT format to support the same load.

So I guess I'm not totally clear but I don't really see the same conclusion. Based on so many miles on p-metric AT2s, If I were still on stock shocks I'd be running the Toyo AT3 in P285/70R17 probably around 33psi cold, but my suspension upgrade made it possible to run the heavier, higher pressure tire without the drawbacks I had of a LT tire on stock shocks. And get the deeper tread and larger lugs for better off-road performance.
 
In Toyota's "defense", they never spec'd a Rock Warrior with P-Rated tires (probably knowing that adding that much soft sidewall to a big vehicle would not be a good idea). The suggested tire to go along with the RW TRD Wheels was always a C-Rated LT tire.

There aren't many p-metric 285/70R17 tires even now, and may not have been any when they released the rock warrior. So I'm not sure we can say it was a conscious decision to avoid it on toyota's part. Again they aren't building a raptor and unlikely to have a tire company develop a special load rating tire as ford did.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom