New owner of a 2019 magnetic grey with terra interior LC. It will be my daily driver, road tripper, and the most off-roading it will do it beaches and light trails. That said, I want to make it look less...boring. I found some evo corse dakarzero wheels but they are 17x8. What tire and tire size would you recommend for mostly on road use? Want to maintain minimal road noise. Otherwise maybe wrap some of the excessive chrome to reduce its effect and then maybe a better roof rack. Slippery slope I know...Thanks.
New member and tire question..
- Thread starter nhs15
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Sac Cerevisiae
Reid
Check out the pinned section: 200 Series Tire and Wheel Size Database. There are currently 19 pages of information to go through. In short, if you don't want any rubbing go for a 33" tire in sizes 285/65R18 or 275/70R17. You can go with a bit more sidewall on those but you'll have some minor issues.
I put on 285/65/18 K02s and love them. Not loud, ride well, makes the LC much more appealing and the wife likes them as well.
In general, 33's are considered the best all-around size. Tall enough to be beneficial, but not so big as to require extensive mitigation to prevent rubbing, minor impact on gearing, medium impact on weight.
Also, in general, a tall/skinny will perform better when airing down. This is because the contact patch grows in length, not width. A narrow tire will grow longer than a wide tire at the same vehicle weight and tire pressure. So you'll have better tread deformation around objects. I deploy at around 8,000 lbs and run a 275 in width (10mm narrower than stock!). As Americans, we are conditioned to evaluate based on visual appearance and mistakenly believe wider is always better. Not so if you're airing down properly on trail. Narrower will also give you better fuel econ in town and be a bit easier on the rig. Wider does look better on Insta and at the mall though...
IMO, KO2 and ST Maxx are two great choices for solid all-terrains. I personally run an E rated tire for sidewall resistance to punctures, but the Es do ride a bit more firm and weigh more than the same size in a C.
Evaluate your needs and choose the best option. There is no 'perfect' tire for everything.
Also, in general, a tall/skinny will perform better when airing down. This is because the contact patch grows in length, not width. A narrow tire will grow longer than a wide tire at the same vehicle weight and tire pressure. So you'll have better tread deformation around objects. I deploy at around 8,000 lbs and run a 275 in width (10mm narrower than stock!). As Americans, we are conditioned to evaluate based on visual appearance and mistakenly believe wider is always better. Not so if you're airing down properly on trail. Narrower will also give you better fuel econ in town and be a bit easier on the rig. Wider does look better on Insta and at the mall though...
IMO, KO2 and ST Maxx are two great choices for solid all-terrains. I personally run an E rated tire for sidewall resistance to punctures, but the Es do ride a bit more firm and weigh more than the same size in a C.
Evaluate your needs and choose the best option. There is no 'perfect' tire for everything.
@nhs15, if you haven’t already ordered your Dakar Zero wheels hit up Mainline Overland soon. They just got a shipment in and depending on what color you’re looking at they might already be sold out. I ordered mine eleven weeks ago and they just shipped from Mainline to me this week.
- Thread starter
- #7
Ok thanks. Turns out they have one set of 17x8 in bronze available. Looks like K02 285/70 is the unanimous decision. Wish I could test them out somehow first as I'm planning on a New England road trip next month.
Most people have good luck running 285/70/17’s. It’s also the size Toyota recommends when running the Rock Warrior Wheels. Some people have gotten away with 285/75/17’s with some rubbing.
Like you I’m looking at the 285/70/17’s, not only because I know they will fit but because I can get them in load range C for lighter weight and a better ride.
Like you I’m looking at the 285/70/17’s, not only because I know they will fit but because I can get them in load range C for lighter weight and a better ride.
In general, 33's are considered the best all-around size. Tall enough to be beneficial, but not so big as to require extensive mitigation to prevent rubbing, minor impact on gearing, medium impact on weight.
Also, in general, a tall/skinny will perform better when airing down. This is because the contact patch grows in length, not width. A narrow tire will grow longer than a wide tire at the same vehicle weight and tire pressure. So you'll have better tread deformation around objects. I deploy at around 8,000 lbs and run a 275 in width (10mm narrower than stock!). As Americans, we are conditioned to evaluate based on visual appearance and mistakenly believe wider is always better. Not so if you're airing down properly on trail. Narrower will also give you better fuel econ in town and be a bit easier on the rig. Wider does look better on Insta and at the mall though...
IMO, KO2 and ST Maxx are two great choices for solid all-terrains. I personally run an E rated tire for sidewall resistance to punctures, but the Es do ride a bit more firm and weigh more than the same size in a C.
Evaluate your needs and choose the best option. There is no 'perfect' tire for everything.
Agreed with your comments in general.
Yet it's important in my view that a tire should also be better for where I use my vehicle 99% of the time. A narrower and taller tire, combined with AT tread pattern and compounds, will greatly impact on-road performance - and not for the better.
If one values safe and stable handling and solid braking performance, I would think twice about going narrower.
I'd invite you to drive my truck. The 275/70R18 ST Maxx are very well planted be it dry, wet, mud, or snow. Not even a slight concern. Keep in mind the fully inflated contact patch hasn't changed, it's just a different shape. PSI is PSI. As you stated, tread pattern, block size, tread depth, and rubber compound have way more effect than a slightly narrower tire. In theory, the narrower tire has lost a bit of mechanical keying on cornering, but this is offset by a slightly better contact patch for accel/braking. If I were to do it again, I'd have no hesitation at all of going with the 275s (though I do miss the brilliant offroad performance of 35s!). And it should go without saying, that any lifted/modified truck is going to be subpar when it comes to F1 lap times.
Not sure where you're going with the "PSI is PSI" comment, so I looked up some RCTIP's for various sizes on a LC200:
Your LT275/70R18 ST Maxx tires have a RCTIP of 41psi F/R
The LT285/70R17 tires under discussion have a RCTIP of 40psi F/R
You're not really saying that a narrower tire at a higher Recommended Cold Tire Inflation Pressure has the same contact patch as a wider tire at a lower RCTIP, are you?
If so, can you explain?
TIA
No pics... phhhh
I'd invite you to drive my truck. The 275/70R18 ST Maxx are very well planted be it dry, wet, mud, or snow. Not even a slight concern. Keep in mind the fully inflated contact patch hasn't changed, it's just a different shape. PSI is PSI. As you stated, tread pattern, block size, tread depth, and rubber compound have way more effect than a slightly narrower tire. In theory, the narrower tire has lost a bit of mechanical keying on cornering, but this is offset by a slightly better contact patch for accel/braking. If I were to do it again, I'd have no hesitation at all of going with the 275s (though I do miss the brilliant offroad performance of 35s!). And it should go without saying, that any lifted/modified truck is going to be subpar when it comes to F1 lap times.
It's all relative. I'm not saying the car is going to slide off the road and be a menace to society. It is a 200-series after all and will drive nicer with more composure and stability with any tire than just about any other off-road capable 4x4. Just that when measured objectively next to a stock cruiser, it surely won't put up the same numbers. That's a reasonable trade for those focused on off-road performance. And one can always change their driving style to suit.
As an aggressive driver that enjoys sports cars, I personally don't like that trade. I want it all. My 305/55/20 measure the same height as a 275/70R18 at 33.2". It will have a reasonably long contact patch for off-road traction. In the rare occasion, a narrower tire may have that extra edge. In other situations, the overall longer and wider may have the edge. On-road, there's going to be no comparison in cornering and braking traction.
Many want to focus on off-road traction and performance. Gladly trading for smaller wheels, narrower tires, and mud-terrain. It's all good and more power to you. We build our cars to suit our own tastes.
The area of the contact patch should be the same whether wide or narrow. At 40 PSIG, there needs to be the same square inches to support the load at that pressure. So there should be no loss of contact with the ground on a skinny tire. PSI against the ground is PSI against the ground. I realize this a generalized statement as sidewall flex, type and count of center plies, etc has an effect too. But same brand, same load rating, the contact patches should be very close in total area. Skinny would just be longer. The normal force would result in the same static friction, however mechanical keying on the wider would give some additional cornering force while a narrow would give some additional traction/braking force.
I do completely respect @TeCKis300 's point regarding safety margin in real-world driving. I think this is something that often gets overlooked in enthusiast forums where it's all about performance. If we were talking about a 235/85R17 on the 200 this would be a consideration, but a 275 or 265 wouldn't concern me.
From a real-world perspective, I will say that the 275/70R18s on my 200 do better aired down than the 295/70R18s that I had on my 100. Both vehicles were about the same weight and had the same brand/model of tire. This is especially true on snow where the 200 will go until high-centered where the 100 would often spin before then. I don't seem to get much ATRAC activation on snow with the 200 aired down so I don't think it's a function of electronics. The 295's were awesome in that they gave an extra inch of clearance which allowed rolling over obstacles that I now tend to work more at with line placement. As you can tell, I miss the absolute performance of the 35s. But going back to @TeCKis300's point about primary usage, for the the vehicle, I'm very happy with the 'skinny' 33s.
Thanks for the clarification
Last edited:
You're free to explain the different version...
The if a tire has 2000 lbs load at 40 PSIG it would need to distribute this force across roughly 50 sq inches of contact. Agreeably, the rigidity of the tire carcass comes into play, but we're talking apples:apples (same brand/model/load rating) and with small variation in sizes. Are you saying that a 275/70 at the same pressure would not have a slightly longer patch than a 285/70. And do you agree that a longer patch is better for longitudinal traction? (Not trying to be argumentative, truly interested if this is in error).
My 'skinny' 275/70R18 ST Maxx.
Last edited:
You're free to explain the different version...
Are you saying that a 275/70 at the same pressure would not have a slightly longer patch than a 285/70. And do you agree that a longer patch is better for longitudinal traction? (Not trying to be argumentative, truly interested if this is in error).
You're mixing a very few small nuggets of truth in with many boulders of pseudo-science, false assumption and statements that are just simply made up.
You are correct that when a tire is aired down for offroad use, the contact patch will - initially - grow longer before it grows wider.
That's about the extent of your truths.
There is absolutely no basis in fact for your assertion that, "...if a tire has 2000 lbs load at 40 PSIG it would need to distribute this force across roughly 50 sq inches of contact." That may be true for one very specific tire size under a very specific load, but it may also never be a practical example of a real world case.
Your assertions strongly imply that for a given vehicle - Vehicle A - if it has a Recommended Cold Tire Inflation Pressure (i.e. RCTIP) of 40psi for a specific tire (let's say LT285/70R17 tires on a LC200), then it "should have" the same RCTIP for all other tire sizes - thus explaining your statement, "At 40 PSIG, there needs to be the same square inches to support the load at that pressure." If that were true, then life would certainly be a lot easier. Wide tires, skinny tires, 32" tires, 37" tires, 17" tires, 22" tires - all the same RCTIP. This is obviously not the case in the real world. There is a whole science around the engineering of tire design and manufacture to achieve safe, industry standard Load Limits at different pressures for different tires on different vehicles.
I cannot help but think that you are somehow misunderstanding the term "PSIG" which means Pounds Per Square Inch Gauge with some term you have made up for yourself which means Pounds Per Square Inch Ground - thus bringing your concept of "contact patch" into your equation. This is just fantasy and has no place in the discussion of RCTIP for any given application.
There is nothing wrong with choosing a tire for your specific application based on your personal performance preferences. If you want a skinnier, longer tire patch - for whatever reason - then you should determine what a specific tire, at a specific RCTIP, will present you in terms of contact patch shape and size. There is no simple, blanket, all-encompassing "rule of thumb" like you have stated.
Anything further on this is totally up to you. I have already spent too much time on this and, somehow, already believe it has fallen on deaf ears which will, no doubt, hunger for further engagement (which won't happen).
HTH
Geeze, angry much? Didn't realize that this was trigger subject. Sheesh! I guess what I was looking for was an intellectual discussion where things could be challenged, debated, and explained, but apparently I've stepped on toes and now that's not in the cards. Bummer. Would honestly love to truly learn the science behind the arguments.
I am still confused as how a given load would not need to distribute itself across an area equal to the load divided by the unit force (i.e. 2000 lbs / 40 PSIG = 50 sq in? (again, really not trying to being argumentative, I'm just one of those who needs to understand the math before I can fully subscribe to an idea... this whole topic I find really interesting). I get that if you're altering RCTIP that this would change.
I'm pretty old school in that I still use the 'chalk test' as the starting point for my own 'RCTIP'. I then adjust for feel and load. Typically I'm 41 front / 44 rear with a roughly 3,500F/4,500R lbs weight distribution. I know that probably seems like a stick and a rock, but it's worked for me thus far. Whether or not the science is valid, I am pretty anal about checking pressures and do so at least every few weeks.
FWIW, my background is in project management for a mechanical contractor, so I'm well versed in gauge vs. absolute pressure. PSIG is just an industry habit.
Somewhere between high heel and snowshoe contact patch, and wagon wheel and drag slick friction, lies the answer.
I chose tall and skinny. Another might choose wide and short, or medium and medium. At 7000lb and 7 feet high I doubt the g pad scores differ much. The very very last thing I’ll be doing in my lx is driving aggressively and four wheel drifting through corners at triple the posted.
Lt tires which ‘wear like steel’ probably aren’t the best for any kind of performance, but they go most everywhere and don’t flat much. Which is really what we’re after.
I did measure contact patch on my 32s and will do so soon on the 35s. Won’t be too much different I suspect. But the 1.5” clearance difference I hope keeps me less stuck and creates less drag and damage incidents.
I chose tall and skinny. Another might choose wide and short, or medium and medium. At 7000lb and 7 feet high I doubt the g pad scores differ much. The very very last thing I’ll be doing in my lx is driving aggressively and four wheel drifting through corners at triple the posted.
Lt tires which ‘wear like steel’ probably aren’t the best for any kind of performance, but they go most everywhere and don’t flat much. Which is really what we’re after.
I did measure contact patch on my 32s and will do so soon on the 35s. Won’t be too much different I suspect. But the 1.5” clearance difference I hope keeps me less stuck and creates less drag and damage incidents.