Opinions / pros / cons on tire sizes...

[MissouriLC]

I searched through all the tire threads, and I was hoping to hear some opinions on tire sizes--particularly tall 'n' skinnies. My 80 currently has the Yokohama M/T G003s, 265/75-16. While I have no doubt these are great off-road tires, they are a poor compromise for on-road use. As I've been daily-ing the 80 for the last two weeks because my 100 got totalled, the noise and vibration of the Yoks is driving me crazy!

I like the 265/75-16 tire size, and ran that on my 100 as well. But, I am also intrigued by the pizza cutter look. On the stock wheels, this means a 255/85-16. I only see about 4 tires in that size, and the two that aren't mud tires are the Falken ATW4 and Cooper STMaxx.

If I stick with the 265/75-16, I would probably get the Toyo ATIIIs, which we have on our Sequoia.

What are your opinions/experiences between the two sizes? I really like the way the 255s looks, and I like the idea of a narrow, true 33", but it seems to be a bastard size now. Does it offer any driving/performance benefits over the 265s?

I guess the third option is 16X7 steelies with a 235/85, which has more options for tires than the 255/85.

 

[greentruck]

I have run the BFG 255/75 R16 KMs in various versions for years. Not sure about performance pluses specific vs the 265. However, ghe general conclusions are that the 255/75 is best suited to take advantage of tire pressure variation, ie the tread lengthening gained by lowering tire pressure is optimal with this particular size/aspect ratio. It makes them into the Swiss Army knife of tires by varying your TPI.

 

[CrabCake]

I don't have an opinion on the size, but I just put the Falken ATW4's on my 5th gen 4Runner and really happy with them. I run the Falken M/T's on my 80 in 315x75x16's...they are a bit noisy, but I just drove it 2500 miles to Cruise Moab from the east coast and the ride & noise were not that much of a nuisance.

 

[thatcabledude]

My 80 currently has the Yokohama M/T G003s, 265/75-16. While I have no doubt these are great off-road tires, they are a poor compromise for on-road use. As I've been daily-ing the 80 for the last two weeks because my 100 got totalled, the noise and vibration of the Yoks is driving me crazy!

I’m curious how many miles on them and did you keep them rotated? Mine were great for almost 60k miles (37s) I quit rotating them and they started getting chopped up and bumpy at low speeds. They’re just under 70k on them now.

 

[DrDuc]

I don't have an opinion on the size, but I just put the Falken ATW4's on my 5th gen 4Runner and really happy with them. I run the Falken M/T's on my 80 in 315x75x16's...they are a bit noisy, but I just drove it 2500 miles to Cruise Moab from the east coast and the ride & noise were not that much of a nuisance.

I run the Falken 255/85-16s on my Pro4-X Xterra and 315-75-16 Toyo Open Countries (I forget the model number. They are the newest all terrain model) on my FZJ80. I run stock gearing in the Nissan but 4:88s in the Land Cruiser. The Falkens are a bit noisier, but I don’t find them bothersome. Others may disagree, but I think it’s worth it to re-gear your axles (or your transfer case) if you decide to go with 315s.

 

[cts]

With a small tire size like 265/75-16, there's no reason to go with an aggressive off-road tread. The size is optimized for the pavement, so better to go with a more pavement-oriented tread. If you're wanting more off-road capability AND less tire noise, 33" ATs would be a great choice. I prefer a wider tire (the wider track adds stability, rim protection, and traction) but a 255x85x16 will work well. When I was on 33's I used a 255x85x16 for my spare to save a little space and weight, even thought the other 4 tires were 295x75x16s. You can visualize the size difference in this picture - the narrower spare tire is on the top.

 

[greentruck]

It’s not a performance thing, per se, but more of a style aspect;. The proportions of the skinnies make the truck look taller.

 

[80t0ylc]

I searched through all the tire threads, and I was hoping to hear some opinions on tire sizes--particularly tall 'n' skinnies.

What are your opinions/experiences between the two sizes? I really like the way the 255s looks, and I like the idea of a narrow, true 33", but it seems to be a bastard size now. Does it offer any driving/performance benefits over the 265s?

I guess the third option is 16X7 steelies with a 235/85, which has more options for tires than the 255/85.

No benefit for on road performance. Probably a negative that the taller size robs power if you stay with the stock gears. The taller size is slightly better off-road for clearance. I have the 0ME 2.5 inch lift and with the stock size it looked a little odd. Going to the 255/85s seemed to fill out the tire wells a little better and I got slightly better on road mpg - nothing to scream or shout about.

I think, if we’re honest, we would admit that there is very little, if any, gain to 80 series on road performance by increasing the tire size in either width or height. Most of the performance gain is off road or in “looks” for mall crawlers, if you’re into that… Lol

 

[JWNissan]

For the cost, I wouldn't bother with a regear until you get into 37s. Maybe 35s. I'm on 37s with stock gears which is fine but I wouldn't recommend to those who can afford a regear. A regear for 33s is not needed. With 35s it's debateable. If you have deep pockets then always regear. lol

 

[mehbohdi]

I have had the Cooper STMaxx (255/85-16) for a few years now probably 10,000 miles. Other than a little noise I like them.

 

[TheBussman]

Think about load ratings too. 265/75/16 is available in standard load, light weight tires, better for acceleration, less noise and more comfort but more easily cut on sharp rocks and shallower tread depth. Not sure how your going to be using the truck. some of the other sizes LT rating only. That 255 on a stock wheel might debead easily if your thinking about trying to run low low pressures.

 

[MissouriLC]

I’m curious how many miles on them and did you keep them rotated? Mine were great for almost 60k miles (37s) I quit rotating them and they started getting chopped up and bumpy at low speeds. They’re just under 70k on them now.

I bought this truck from my brother-in-law, and he had them put on last summer. I'll have to check his receipt from Discount Tire to confirm the mileage, but I think they have about 5,000 miles (or less) on them.

I haven't rotated them yet. Between the engine failure/replacement, I've only put about 1,300 miles on the truck since I got it back in November, 2025. They seems to be wearing fine. My compliant is more that they are overkill for a daily, and they are quite noisy on the road (although I understand they are one of the quieter M/Ts out there!)

 

[MissouriLC]

I have had the Cooper STMaxx (255/85-16) for a few years now probably 10,000 miles. Other than a little noise I like them.

View attachment 4130174

That looks great!

 

[MissouriLC]

Think about load ratings too. 265/75/16 is available in standard load, light weight tires, better for acceleration, less noise and more comfort but more easily cut on sharp rocks and shallower tread depth. Not sure how your going to be using the truck. some of the other sizes LT rating only. That 255 on a stock wheel might debead easily if your thinking about trying to run low low pressures.

Yup. On my 100-series, I started with the Toyo Open County C/Ts, in C-load rating, 285/75-16. Great tire, but they cupped. Part of that was my fault, in that I didn't rotate them as often as I should have. They got really noisy and rumbly after about 45,000 miles, although based on tread depth I could have gotten at least 70,000 out of them.

Then I switched to the Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015, in P-Metric load rating, 265/75-16. For my use and the split between on-road and off-road that I drive, those were perfect. Quiet, plenty capable for my off-roading, excellent wet traction, excellent snow traction. Got 70,000 miles on them, and I was planning to replace them when the 100-series was totaled last month. Unfortunately, Yokohama has discontinued this tire.

For my use, I think any LT tire is overkill. I mean, I like the idea of it, but in practice, it is more than I need. We've run the Toyo Open Country A/T II and now A/T III on my wife's Sequoia, in P-metric load rating, and those have also been excellent.

 

[TheBussman]

Yup. On my 100-series, I started with the Toyo Open County C/Ts, in C-load rating, 285/75-16. Great tire, but they cupped. Part of that was my fault, in that I didn't rotate them as often as I should have. They got really noisy and rumbly after about 45,000 miles, although based on tread depth I could have gotten at least 70,000 out of them.

Then I switched to the Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015, in P-Metric load rating, 265/75-16. For my use and the split between on-road and off-road that I drive, those were perfect. Quiet, plenty capable for my off-roading, excellent wet traction, excellent snow traction. Got 70,000 miles on them, and I was planning to replace them when the 100-series was totaled last month. Unfortunately, Yokohama has discontinued this tire.

For my use, I think any LT tire is overkill. I mean, I like the idea of it, but in practice, it is more than I need. We've run the Toyo Open Country A/T II and now A/T III on my wife's Sequoia, in P-metric load rating, and those have also been excellent.

Yea everybody likes deep tread depth but the downside is more cupping even with a good alignment. I usually recommending SL tires to most customers.

 

[MissouriLC]

Yea everybody likes deep tread depth but the downside is more cupping even with a good alignment. I usually recommending SL tires to most customers.

Yeah, SL is what is meant to say... not P-metric.