Yes I meant the wide KM3., not the wide Baja.
"My KM3, was truly the best of both worlds."
Skinny 35's vs. 34's?
- Thread starter timjax
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Yes I meant the wide KM3., not the wide Baja.
"My KM3, was truly the best of both worlds."
No he did not test it. It was what he concluded
That seems a reasonable compromise and would probably work for most folks. I'm fortunate that I live in a large urban area that has lots of choices for tires, but it does make me consider that that isn't the case for everybody. As I mentioned in an earlier post, sometimes you have to go with what you have; in my case 16X8" stock Toyota wheels, so going too skinny isn't really a choice at the moment without investing in a new set of wheels. Nonetheless, I would dearly love to have a set of Nokian snow tires on a set of 17 x 6.5 or 7" wheels.
To each their own.
So this thread has balanced points of view for those that may not understand what they may be trading, as we so often chase "better", focused on certain use cases. Consider the performance traded in terms of cornering, braking, handling - aka safety margin for accident avoidance.
These qualities may not be called upon in daily use for those that prefer a milder pace, but surely is insurance we all would rather have more of in an emergency. I can assure you narrow tall tires that are great for overlanding, will trade margin in the ability to do an avoidance maneuver or just stopping. Tall profile tires tend to roll over onto the sidewalls with less stability and cornering traction. Then consider we're often lifting our vehicles and adding weight and gear.
New LC300’s come on 265 aspect tires. As does the new Sequoia. Lots of half ton pickups come on 245 and 265 aspect tires. I don’t believe, at all, that wide tires are needed on a 200 for anything on road. Hard cornering isn’t what the vehicle was made for, or what it’s good at.
As far as off road, I’m far less experienced than many on this forum as to wide vs skinny, although what I have read online points to skinny being better in most situations.
You are quite knowledgeable about our vehicles and I have learned from your posts on a variety of topics. But with regards to wide tires, it seems as if you are reaching for theoretical reasons why wide is better, versus admitting you just like wide tires.
Form over function and function over form are both valid decisions. I prefer the look of a 12.50” wide tire. That is personally more important to me than any performance gains of a pizza cutter in xyz conditions. But like, that’s just me.
Markuson
SILVER Star
-Narrower tires do better with certain conditions and needs.
-Wide tires do better with certain conditions and needs.
Key phrase: “Under certain conditions and needs.”
“The best” is meaningless without far more ficus on particular conditions and particular needs.
Notice I’m declaring no winner and no loser?
And why not?
Because…..as always…
-IT DEPENDS.
-Wide tires do better with certain conditions and needs.
Key phrase: “Under certain conditions and needs.”
“The best” is meaningless without far more ficus on particular conditions and particular needs.
Notice I’m declaring no winner and no loser?
And why not?
Because…..as always…
-IT DEPENDS.
Let's peel the onion on this. The new Toyota TNGF-A architecture that underpins this new generation has a weight intensive focus. The new LX600 has a curb weight of 5,665lbs, and you're correct that it runs 265s. Sequoias as a larger platforms weigh more, and also correct that they are often fitted with 265s. The heaviest Sequoia, the TRD Pro at 6,150lbs comes closer to the 200-series weights and gets fitted with 285s. LX570s are in the 6,000 - 6,300lb curb weights stock.
Modified 200-series are often pushing 6,500-7,000lbs+.
Weight, power, and the performance dynamics required dictate tire size. A larger tire will have the ability to generate more tractive force. For the same reason those arguing about elongated footprints giving more forward traction, width matters too for steering and braking.
I build my cars for all around competency. I happen to drive my cars hard too on and off road. Sideslip is fun when running fast fire roads and washes, but what's equally important is to have control. That's the only point I'm trying to relay as the 200-series is a great all around tool delivered from the factory. It's easy to modify, add weight, and forget to compensate for said weight. Or stacking the cards of weight, lift, tire sidewall, width, etc. so that everything then becomes biased towards a perceived enthusiast direction until a great balanced rig becomes a narrowly focused rig that is no longer as great in general use.
Everyone in desert racing went from BFG 39x13.5s to 40x12.5s and the improvements in all aspects of handling were dramatic. Tires lost 5lbs too. I have raced on both. Granted, we aren’t rock crawling (often) and we run 25-35 psi.. and we don’t keep tires for more than 150-250 miles 
. But it Seems the collective hive would/will show that tall /skinny wins the majority of the time. But not all. Seems to be the best option.. less rotating mass. More carcas deflection. More clearance. More efficient.. less.. cool?
. But it Seems the collective hive would/will show that tall /skinny wins the majority of the time. But not all. Seems to be the best option.. less rotating mass. More carcas deflection. More clearance. More efficient.. less.. cool?
I have a 2013 200 Series with 4.88's . I made a mistake with these gears and am hoping to mitigate that mistake with 35" tires and get back into the stock powerband. I'm wondering if this size 275/80r18 on steel wheels would work? I currently have 275/70r18 tires.
The only downside is this 275/80-18 is only available by one manufacturer. Another size to consider 285/75-18 34.83 inches with more tire options.
The only downside is this 275/80-18 is only available by one manufacturer. Another size to consider 285/75-18 34.83 inches with more tire options.
Last edited:
I ran the Kenda Klever AT 275/80r18 for around 20k miles. Solid tire traction and noise wise.
I found the 129 load E rating too stiff. The range of pressures that were acceptable for road use was really narrow, just a couple psi.
I have found the Kenda Klever RT in 35x10.5r17 (121 load D) to be just as quiet, a better off road tread, and much better on road due to the softer flex profile. Really really good tires.
And yes, I also have 4.88s and they run the 35s really well, the truck feels fast and agile. You’ll be happy with the change to 35s.
If you’re ever in WA state, I’ve still got the ATs in a stack in my backyard.
What wheels are you running? I have steelies and a larger tire is going to rub.
On the 18s I ran OEM 18s from the tundra (60 et) and used spacers to get to 35 et.
On the 17s I’m n Alphaequipt Echo (35 et).
There aren’t too many choices in narrow 18” 35s. The Klever AT is one of them.
Edit - could consider these
Falken Wildpeak A/T4W 35X11.5R18 C/6PLY
Aside from a bit more sidewall that was the main reason I moved to 17s, to get a few more tire choices.
Last edited:
