New Tires: 255/85/16 Bfg Mt

[Jasw]

255/85/16s make a good snow tire on a heavy vehicle. Most 255s are Load range D and carry ratings over 3000lb. I've ran 255s Cooper STs (studded) and siped BFGs on my 80 during the winter only. IMO, this size is a good snow tire for the road, but are too narrow for anything else and not great on the trail. I would think about adding some spacers to increase the track.

I currently run this size on my Duramax as a winter tire.

 

[80krazE]

Can these be run with stock suspension?

Yes! Although I have OME 2.5" heavy lift, it has been well documented that a 33" tire will fit w/out lift.

Can you tell me if there are any other tires that fit the bill that you considered? (skinny tall tires?)

Yes and no. I can tell you that yes, there are other similar tires in size (255/85), but no I did not consider them. In this size, I wanted BFG MT all the way.

Anyone notice any mpg changes with these vs. 285 vs. stock?

I have not noticed yet, but I am keeping a log and after a few more full tanks, I will be able to cross-check my data and make some conclusions.

IMO, this size is a good snow tire for the road, but are too narrow for anything else and not great on the trail. I would think about adding some spacers to increase the track.

First off, I would disagree and not based on my own opinions, but on real world examples and use. If you haven't yet checked out this article:

http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html

I suggest you do. It is full of detailed and accurate data. And of course, just look at real world applications of this tire around the world. This same tire (255/85/16) that you claim is not great on the trail, has made it in and out of the MOST brutal trails, i.e. Central American rainforest, South American rainforest, African outback and desert, Middle East desert, Australia, and the mountains of Asia, just to name a few "mild" trails that these tires aren't good on. Also, I have traveled to Tahiti, Thailand, India, and most recently Costa Rica, and have to say that EVERY Land Cruiser and Land Rover I have seen in those countries has been running a tall/skinny. And most were 255/85!
And yes, I have considered running spacers, but I am in no hurry to make up my mind.

 

[Nay]

First off, I would disagree and not based on my own opinions, but on real world examples and use. If you haven't yet checked out this article:

http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html

I suggest you do. It is full of detailed and accurate data. And of course, just look at real world applications of this tire around the world. This same tire (255/85/16) that you claim is not great on the trail, has made it in and out of the MOST brutal trails, i.e. Central American rainforest, South American rainforest, African outback and desert, Middle East desert, Australia, and the mountains of Asia, just to name a few "mild" trails that these tires aren't good on. Also, I have traveled to Tahiti, Thailand, India, and most recently Costa Rica, and have to say that EVERY Land Cruiser and Land Rover I have seen in those countries has been running a tall/skinny. And most were 255/85!
And yes, I have considered running spacers, but I am in no hurry to make up my mind.

There have been tons of debate about that article on this forum. The tire you choose depends on the wheeling you do - if you are a rock crawler, there are a lot of reasons that I am not going to debate here to go with a wider tire and I think the referenced article is fairly irrelevant. If you are doing expedition wheeling, you typically aren't in severe enough conditions for the contact patch argument to matter. The bigger question would be narrowness of trail and what you want for mud use if you encounter it.

I have run both and both have their advantages. From a stability perspective in hardcore wheeling, I would never go back to a narrow tire and I put a lot of rock under a set of 33x10.5 BFG's - a 12.5" wide tire is not "wide" at all on a rig as big as an 80.

In any case, you have what you want and that is a great alternative. Good luck with them.

 

[80krazE]

Let me say, that I do not propose that this is "the" superior tire or that this tire is "best" for all applications. I do believe that for my needs this is the "best" tire. I actually think it is a great choice for a lot of us.

There have been tons of debate about that article on this forum. The tire you choose depends on the wheeling you do - if you are a rock crawler, there are a lot of reasons that I am not going to debate here to go with a wider tire and I think the referenced article is fairly irrelevant. If you are doing expedition wheeling, you typically aren't in severe enough conditions for the contact patch argument to matter. The bigger question would be narrowness of trail and what you want for mud use if you encounter it.

I have run both and both have their advantages. From a stability perspective in hardcore wheeling, I would never go back to a narrow tire and I put a lot of rock under a set of 33x10.5 BFG's - a 12.5" wide tire is not "wide" at all on a rig as big as an 80.

In any case, you have what you want and that is a great alternative. Good luck with them.

Sometimes I get frustrated on this board w/ members posting replies and comments without reading the entire post!!!
If you will notice, I already stated that this tire is not "the best" for all applications and took that into consideration while purchasing and while forming my post. The issue of the tires use/applications was always at the fore-front of my mind. Even in the article, Scott makes it very clear that this is not a hardcore, rock-crawling tire. To say the article is "irrelevant" is ignorant because the article is not positioned to be a debate about wide vs. skinny tires and how they act in rocks. There should really be no debate. This is a great, general all-around tire. Decent on road, decent in mud, and decent in rocks. You're right, they are not the "best" rock crawlers.
But everyone please! Read through and understand positioning before attacking. And I say again, probably the most common tire size in Central/South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

 

[Buckums]

i like 'em!! i really like the skinny tires and they work great for the wash out rutted muddy roads that we have here in the arkansas delta where i do a lot of hunting and back road driving.

would it make sense to run a one inch or so wheel spacer if you keep the flairs just to push the tires out a bit?

 

[Nay]

Sometimes I get frustrated on this board w/ members posting replies and comments without reading the entire post!!!
If you will notice, I already stated that this tire is not "the best" for all applications and took that into consideration while purchasing and while forming my post. The issue of the tires use/applications was always at the fore-front of my mind. Even in the article, Scott makes it very clear that this is not a hardcore, rock-crawling tire. To say the article is "irrelevant" is ignorant because the article is not positioned to be a debate about wide vs. skinny tires and how they act in rocks. There should really be no debate. This is a great, general all-around tire. Decent on road, decent in mud, and decent in rocks. You're right, they are not the "best" rock crawlers.
But everyone please! Read through and understand positioning before attacking. And I say again, probably the most common tire size in Central/South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

I only said this because you referred to the article multiple times and people tend to take these things as gospel. Your posts seemed to me to have that tone as it was reiterated multiple times.

I understand people like skinny tires in places where you can actually expedition wheel. In the lower 48, it is extremely difficult to set out on a multi-day expedition that doesn't also involve rock crawling because a) it has to be in the West to have enough public land and b) the West is usually very rocky. In Africa, there are a ton of reasons to run narrow tires that aren't terribly applicable in say Colorado.

There is a reason that the US market is not sold on narrow tires. The article suggests to a large degree that we buy these "ballon tires" for the wrong reasons, but in my experience most of us buy them for the right reasons - a bit of tire width is typically to your advantage in Western US wheeling. The so called expedition look is very appealing in an expanding and overcrowding society, but it isn't well matched to the practical application of typical lower 48 wheeling that involves day trips with a group to run a trail where expedition built rig after expedition built rig takes the bypasses in order to avoid scratching the paint and getting a new passageway torn by

So while I don't intend to frustrate you or anybody else, this isn't Oz or Africa or South America, and this is a thread about tire width and the pros and cons of a given tire size. I happen to like narrow tires for a lot of reasons, but all of the paper logic falls apart for me on trails where it might really matter, and contrary to your advice I don't recommend spending much time with the narrow tire article. Instead spend time with local wheelers who have spent their hard earned coin trying every solution out there to gain a small advantage and see what they run and why and whether you think it works.

Nay

 

[Jasw]

First off, I would disagree and not based on my own opinions, but on real world examples and use. If you haven't yet checked out this article:

http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html

I suggest you do. It is full of detailed and accurate data. And of course, just look at real world applications of this tire around the world. This same tire (255/85/16) that you claim is not great on the trail, has made it in and out of the MOST brutal trails, i.e. Central American rainforest, South American rainforest, African outback and desert, Middle East desert, Australia, and the mountains of Asia, just to name a few "mild" trails that these tires aren't good on. Also, I have traveled to Tahiti, Thailand, India, and most recently Costa Rica, and have to say that EVERY Land Cruiser and Land Rover I have seen in those countries has been running a tall/skinny. And most were 255/85!
And yes, I have considered running spacers, but I am in no hurry to make up my mind.

Having run 255/85/16 on an FJ80, D90, and D110 my real world opinion is these just aren't wide enough for the trail. Contact pressure is too high and the tire digs, forward movement stops. Based on the article, these tires are too narrow for 9 plus inches of snow, sand, mud and I think we all agree rocks. Go run a trail with 255s and then 315s. I have, and base my trail opinions on my experience. As I said, I run 255s as a street tire because they are good on dirt roads and in a few inches of snow.

I felt 255s on a slightly lifted 80 made the truck feel less stable all around. Lifting the truck and reducing the track does not have a positve effect, thus my spacer suggestion.

I agree, these tires are used in harsh environments. Small, narrow tires help keep the drivetrain together when you're in the middle of nowhere. Narrow/tall tires are also fitted in these locations because they require less suspension mods. I'm impressed that most Land Rover / Land Cruiser owners you've seen have upgraded from standard equipment to 255s, but this doesn't mean anything. Most US owners who lift their 80s seem run 285s or 315s.

 

[FirstToy]

anyway, that's really cool you took time to post pics and info.
Tell us how it works out on the trail and all that. Looks great man

might be cool to try some spacers like Jasw said- bring the tires out a bit more, give your body & flares a bit more protection on tight stuff...

 

[cary]

I had those on my FJ55 and 60 and loved them. They last forever and were not that loud IMO. I can't remember if they were D or E rated but you could pump them up to 80psi. I will be putting them on my 80 when I wear out they current tires.

If you could inflate them to 80psi, they were an E load rated tire.

 

[clbuff]

I'd just install the 255's on my 80 an I'm very please, the truck it's very soft, I'd installed on OEM toyota 5,5 rims (very aussie look), I'd would like to know what presures do you use for on road and off road.

 

[7P's]

I'm not currently running 255's on my Cruiser but I don't really see a downside to them, as I ran the 255 BFG's on my Tundra. I siped the two middle rows for a little added traction and more cooling. In the rocky areas I got a little chunking on the outter lug row and the sidewalls got a few superficial cuts but they performed very well. I think the term "hardcore" has different meanings to different people. I had no problems - meaning I didn't need a strap or my winch to make it through trails such as Martinez Canyon in Arizona along with other trails in that area that I've forgot the names to or Golden Spike, Hell's revenge, metal masher and a few other trails around the Moab area. I aired down to 12#s for those trails and the only problems I encountered during the time I ran IFS and 255's were busted tire beads and CV's. There were a few other trails the 255's completed that needed a winch in a few spots but that was due to clearance problems or me taking a good line that turned out to be a "bad" line - not the fault of the 255's.

I've been in 2 to 3 foot of snow with the tires and I got stuck - again due to clearance issues and becoming high centered, as you can only push so much snow before your luck runs out.

I try very hard to stay clear of mud holes but again the tires seemed to perform well in marshy areas.

I've been stuck in a lot of places over the years and have had to work my butt off to get out but when I was using "skinny" tires I sure couldn't blame the tire for my misfortune - as Mother Nature has a way of showing us who's Boss in the wilds.

 

[Martin White]

I had 255-85-16 MT's on my truck and they were absolutely pathetic in snow and ice. They were stock tires but to say they sucked in snow is a big understatement. I have MT's now and they are just in a different league in snow and ice.

 

[7P's]

I had 255-85-16 MT's on my truck and they were absolutely pathetic in snow and ice. They were stock tires but to say they sucked in snow is a big understatement. I have MT's now and they are just in a different league in snow and ice.

Siping would have helped some but 300#s of sand in the rear of the box is the ticket. Airing down to 28#s might have helped a little also. I've found glare ice to be a big problem with any tire I've ever run but then again I've never run a dedicated snow & ice tire, which some advise is the way to go in the north country. I've also ran MTR's but the only difference I saw was their sidewalls didn't cut or scuff nearly as easily as did the BFG's and they were a tad noiser on pavement. I was never in more than a foot of snow with the MTRs while I had them on my Cruiser but driving the Cruiser in snow is a real pleasure as compared to a pickup. Driving style can also make a difference to some degree. Sounds like you had nothing but bad experiences with the tire during the winter months while I didn't have as many bad experiences but when I did experience problems it was because I pushed my luck a little and Mother Nature pushed back.

 

[stayalert]

I had 255-85-16 MT's on my truck and they were absolutely pathetic in snow and ice. They were stock tires but to say they sucked in snow is a big understatement. I have MT's now and they are just in a different league in snow and ice.

you HAD MT's and the sucked in snow......NOW you have MT's and they're in a different league.....it sounds like "in a different league" means they are better? or do the ones you have NOW suck in snow and ice ???

Please clarify...I am running on too little coffee perhaps...Rob M

 

[80krazE]

Guys-

Thanks for all the feedback/response!! I am still perfectly happy w/ my decision even though most of you have negative opinions. However, through this post all the negativity falls under one category, out of dozens of usages. And that one category, that all the negativity falls under, is rock-crawling. Well, I guess most of you are serious, full-time crawlers. Your rigs must spend +50% of the time in rocks based on all the 255 bashing. Bad in rocks "this", bad in rocks "that". I want them to be "okay" in rocks. There are highways and trails to get to the rocks. But again, all the feedback comes from you guys as if you are always in rocks. I am satisfied running different lines or needing a winch (some of you act as if doing so reflects your pride or manliness). I like to have fun in my 80, no matter what. If you would re-read my post, I was looking for an all-around tire that would be decent in any terrain. And I found it!! I enjoy driving my 80 everyday(DD) and am not scared to go to Katemcy, Moab, Colorado, WA & OR, or Central America. Thanks for the feedback, and I'll see ya on the road, in the trails, or at the rocks.

 

[Vitesse_6]

Guys-

Thanks for all the feedback/response!! I am still perfectly happy w/ my decision .

This is all that really matters.

I had some 255's MT's last winter and they did have a bit of trouble on ice but thats just it its a mud tire, They were free but used. I got a flat, Had to man up and buy my own tires and opted for the 285's
Thanks for your input, Alot of people seem to ask about the 255's
Good luck

 

[flintstone]

255s and braking

I'd like to hear if you noticed any differences in brake performance with the 255s. The tires are lighter than the larger sizes, which reduces rotating mass, thus helping the brakes. On the other hand, the MT tread pattern does not put as much rubber on the road as the AT style tread, so this might decrease braking effect.

Flintstone

 

[IBCRUSN]

Good show!!

Guys-

Thanks for all the feedback/response!! I am still perfectly happy w/ my decision even though most of you have negative opinions. However, through this post all the negativity falls under one category, out of dozens of usages. And that one category, that all the negativity falls under, is rock-crawling. Well, I guess most of you are serious, full-time crawlers. Your rigs must spend +50% of the time in rocks based on all the 255 bashing. Bad in rocks "this", bad in rocks "that". I want them to be "okay" in rocks. There are highways and trails to get to the rocks. But again, all the feedback comes from you guys as if you are always in rocks. I am satisfied running different lines or needing a winch (some of you act as if doing so reflects your pride or manliness). I like to have fun in my 80, no matter what. If you would re-read my post, I was looking for an all-around tire that would be decent in any terrain. And I found it!! I enjoy driving my 80 everyday(DD) and am not scared to go to Katemcy, Moab, Colorado, WA & OR, or Central America. Thanks for the feedback, and I'll see ya on the road, in the trails, or at the rocks.

I agree with you 100%. All too often I think I'm in the hardcore forum but then I wake up and remember this is for the 80 series (5000+ lbs of truck). Once my 285's wear out or I get tired of them I'll be going to the 255's for the street and light-med (rocks even) wheeling. See you off road!

 

[FZJ80_YV]

I have those tires in the genuine wheels without fender flares...

THE BEST TIRE AND SIZE IN EVERYTHING!

I don't live everytime in rocks, mud, snow or street... It's the best ALL TERRAIN... of the MUD TERRAIN's...

 

[Martin White]

I had a set of 255-85-16 BFG MT's on my HDJ81 for a short while. They were great off road, but BRUTAL in heavy rain on road and pathetic in snow. They were not siped, however, just stock. They are definitely a little harder to keep balanced as well.