Predictions: Bigger Tires? (1 Viewer)

[elbarto]

We know so far that the "1958" will be getting 245/70R18 (~31.5" OD) and the "Land Cruiser" and GX550 OT getting 265/70R18 (~32.6")

Wondering what sizes people think they will end up putting on?
Of course right now were just speculating, but the big questions driving things are:

• "what fits without rubbing?"
• "how much trimming to get the larger sizes to fit?"
• "what fits in the stock spare location?"
• "how to correct speedometer?"

Looking at 34" tires (LT285/75R18) the cost is substantially more (looks to be ~$100 more per tire); 35" tires (LT295/70R18) are actually a bit less expensive than the 34's, but theres a good chance you will be getting rubbing issues with a tire this size without lift and/or trimming, and unlikely a spare will fit in the stock location. Theres a few other tire sizes in the 34-35" realm but i think the above will be the more common sizes.

On my current truck (Ram 2500 Power Wagon) i upgraded from the stock size 33's (LT285/70R17) to 35's (LT315/70R17). I think my truck likely has mcuh more clearance for bigger tires under the wheel wells and in the spare location and I still get *occasional* rub when turning in the front, and a full size spare fits but is a squeeze (hoist it deflated, smack it with a hammer into place, then reinflate)

I think LT265/70R18 will be a popular size since its "technically" the same size as stock, but in reality a bit taller and should be more durable being a LT tire vs standard load tire. Unlikely to cause any rubbing issues since its so close to stock size, and likely to still fit in the stock spare location. 33" diameter is still very capable...I dont think the juice will be worth the squeeze for larger sizes, personally. Plus the price per tire isn't too much more than standard-load version, substantially less per tire than the 34's and 35's

What do yall think?

 

[GTV]

Looking at 34" tires (LT285/75R18) the cost is substantially more (looks to be ~$100 more per tire); 35" tires (LT295/70R18) are actually a bit less expensive than the 34's, but

Small correction:
285/75R18's are 35"
285/70R18's are 34"
285/75R17's are 34"

The wheel wells do look big on the new 250. I'm betting the spare will be the biggest hurdle when trying to fit taller tires than factory though. Older SUV's had a lot more wasted space back there. I'd bet a 275/70R18 will be a bolt on (and it's a very common size) but beyond that is anyone's guess.

I think Toyota really dropped the ball with these puny factory tires compared to the Wrangler, Bronco, etc. A short rear overhang and rear mounted spare would have made the 250 competitive with those two.

 

[Jstawgn]

So many Tundra, Sequioa and 300 series run 37. It just how willing are you to start cutting.

Rear tire carrier are so much hassle with tailgate. That is the reason Wrangler and Bronco still use barn door. They look cool but can be a liability too. So many damaged tailgate when the spare tire landed during steep departure.

 

[TWILLY]

Tall skinnies. If the 1958 fits 17” rims, I’ll likely go with a 255/80, or, if the spare fits, perhaps the Kenda or Baja Boss 34/35 x 10. I don’t know if there are 18” rim versions of 33-35 x 10s, and I’m wary to go too tall without first understanding how well the hybrid system retains efficiency with taller tires. With so much torque it could do really well. I’m optimistic about those big wheel wells fitting tall skinny tires absent any modifications—for me, keeping it entirely stock otherwise would be ideal.

 

[elbarto]

Small correction:
285/75R18's are 35"
285/70R18's are 34"
285/75R17's are 34"

The wheel wells do look big on the new 250. I'm betting the spare will be the biggest hurdle when trying to fit taller tires than factory though. Older SUV's had a lot more wasted space back there. I'd bet a 275/70R18 will be a bolt on (and it's a very common size) but beyond that is anyone's guess.

I think Toyota really dropped the ball with these puny factory tires compared to the Wrangler, Bronco, etc. A short rear overhang and rear mounted spare would have made the 250 competitive with those two.

You’re right, 285/75R18 are 35”…not sure what size I was looking at that was 34”. 275/70 is fairly common but looks like more expensive that 265/70 for minimal benefit (For wildpeaks, it looks like $50+ more per tire for 1/2” diameter larger, vs 265/70)

 

[MountaineerLC]

If I ever own a 250, then 275/70r18 or 285/70r17 for sure depending on wheel size. I love the idea of 35's, but when you start looking at the very substantial jump in price over a 33, the performance hit, assuming they'll be one, and challenges in making them fit and carrying a spare, it's really not worth it, IMO.

 

[M1911]

I simply don’t understand this obsession with huge tires. I put 33” K02s on my 200. How many of you have actually changed 33” tires? Do you understand just how damn heavy they are and how much effort it takes to rotate 4 or 5 of them? Mounted my 33” K02s are something like 65 lbs.

And you want even BIGGER and HEAVIER tires? Why? Is there really someplace you need to go that you can’t get to with 33” tires?

34” or 35” tires? No thank you very much. They are a huge pain in the back and that is without even getting into the fact that 1) you’ll need to regear, 2) your acceleration will take a hit, 3) your braking distance will be much longer, 4) your fuel economy will decline, 5) your ride will be worse due to the increased unsprung weight, 6) you will need an aftermarket rear bumper because you can’t fit the spare underneath, 7) getting into the rear hatch will be a pain because you have to swing the spare out of the way each time. You want all of those negatives for what, exactly?

 

[TWILLY]

I simply don’t understand this obsession with huge tires. I put 33” K02s on my 200. How many of you have actually changed 33” tires? Do you understand just how damn heavy they are and how much effort it takes to rotate 4 or 5 of them? Mounted my 33” K02s are something like 65 lbs.

And you want even BIGGER and HEAVIER tires? Why? Is there really someplace you need to go that you can’t get to with 33” tires?

34” or 35” tires? No thank you very much. They are a huge pain in the back and that is without even getting into the fact that 1) you’ll need to regear, 2) your acceleration will take a hit, 3) your braking distance will be much longer, 4) your fuel economy will decline, 5) your ride will be worse due to the increased unsprung weight, 6) you will need an aftermarket rear bumper because you can’t fit the spare underneath, 7) getting into the rear hatch will be a pain because you have to swing the spare out of the way each time. You want all of those negatives for what, exactly?

All true.

 

[M1911]

Years back, I was at an LCDC in Breckenridge. We'd done Imogene Pass and I was in a parking lot in Ouray airing up my tires with my portable compressor when a fellow on a KTM dual-sport bike came over. He immediately asked me "are those 285/65/18 tires?" I thought that was an unusual question. My 200 had those slightly larger than stock tires plus rock sliders, but no other mods.

He went on to tell me that he had previously had a 200, put on a lift, bumpers, 34" tires, regeared, roof rack, etc., and by the time he'd finished doing all that he realized that he now hated driving it, and sold it. He said that he should have just stopped where I had -- 33" tires and rock sliders.

 

[Patassa]

I'm probably out to lunch here but feel like 33s is where dimishing returns really starts to kick in for a daily driver. Especially in the city.

 

[mkennedy009]

I want to put on skinnier tires in 32-33". They will perform as well as the fat boys in off road. I like the science behind performance and do not care how pretty or status gained by fatties.

 

[Corbet]

With an 80-series on 37’s in the stable I have no intention of trying to go beyond 285/70r18 personally. I’m mad at myself for forgetting to look at the spare location at Cruiserfest. That will definitely be my limiting factor. This is going to be my daily driver. Guessing I’ll land on 275/70r18 for all the reasons above.

 

[Patassa]

I simply don’t understand this obsession with huge tires. I put 33” K02s on my 200. How many of you have actually changed 33” tires? Do you understand just how damn heavy they are and how much effort it takes to rotate 4 or 5 of them? Mounted my 33” K02s are something like 65 lbs.

And you want even BIGGER and HEAVIER tires? Why? Is there really someplace you need to go that you can’t get to with 33” tires?

34” or 35” tires? No thank you very much. They are a huge pain in the back and that is without even getting into the fact that 1) you’ll need to regear, 2) your acceleration will take a hit, 3) your braking distance will be much longer, 4) your fuel economy will decline, 5) your ride will be worse due to the increased unsprung weight, 6) you will need an aftermarket rear bumper because you can’t fit the spare underneath, 7) getting into the rear hatch will be a pain because you have to swing the spare out of the way each time. You want all of those negatives for what, exactly?

To impress other dudes and for the grams, bruh.

 

[M1911]

To impress other dudes and for the grams, bruh.

Exactly.

 

[Phillyd2]

Larger tires do have a place but better suited for dedicated rigs that actually use and would benefit from them.

 

[Jetboy]

I want to put on skinnier tires in 32-33". They will perform as well as the fat boys in off road. I like the science behind performance and do not care how pretty or status gained by fatties.

This video is questionable in value. I don't think anyone would seriously debate that road bikes and fat bikes have similar footprints or performance characteristics. A few imprecise measurements with two tires close enough to have the difference lost in the noise of the measurements isn't a source I'd rely on.

Not arguing against a narrower tire. For an all-purpose touring vehicle that's primarily a daily driver I tend to like a narrower tire. They ride better, track better, and reduce rolling resistance. All things that make daily driving better. I tend to put narrower tires on my street driven vehicles myself because of this. I wish they'd make more options in the 33-35" height range at moderate widths from 265-285 that aren't E or F rated. I really don't need a 65lb tire rated for 4k lbs each on my 5klb suv. I'd rather see a C rated tire that's 5-10lbs less weight. I'd probably look for a light weight AT tire in a 35" height for an LC for me. Unfortunately that might mean 20" wheels. There's just not much in the 18" wheel size and a ton of options for 20" wheels.

 

[carboncycles]

OH man, the RaptorR folks will be so mad that you're trash talking the 37"s they're rolling.....and yes, most of them look wonderful in the Starbucks drive through (probably the closest to dirt they will ever see)

 

[M1911]

OH man, the RaptorR folks will be so mad that you're trash talking the 37"s they're rolling.....and yes, most of them look wonderful in the Starbucks drive through (probably the closest to dirt they will ever see)

I’m sure they see plenty of dirt when they park on the grass at little Tiffany’s soccer game.

 

[carboncycles]

I’m sure they see plenty of dirt when they park on the grass at little Tiffany’s soccer game.

Hey. I resemble the soccer comment. Except we park on astroturf.

 

[Patassa]

I’m sure they see plenty of dirt when they park on the grass at little Tiffany’s soccer game.

This. And when they jump a curb to park on the grass to show off their diff locks and off road prowess? "Parking lot was full, I had to"