So I think the Michelin Defender is the perfect all-terrain tire... (For most of us) (20 Viewers)

[bloc]

In formula 1 the tire sidewall is also a much larger percentage of total suspension/tire compliance than for us.

I’m not missing your point.. my daily driver will be going down in wheel size from OEM 20” to 19” specifically to get more performance and better ride quality at the same time. I’d go down to 18s but brake clearance is tighter than I’d like.

But there is a practical limit on sidewall height for vehicles that spend much time off road hauling family and other valuable things around.

In the list of reasons Toyota with all their engineering and design ability chose 275 or 255 on tundras over 285s on cruisers, off-road performance most likely wasn’t one of them. We know which of the two platforms had that performance as a significant driving factor.

 

[Pskhaat]

In the list of reasons Toyota with all their engineering and design ability chose 275 or 255 on tundras over 285s on cruisers, off-road performance most likely wasn’t one of them. We know which of the two platforms had that performance as a significant driving factor.

I'm not missing your point either, I promise. Why Toyota chose 275 and 285 is maybe a bit of aesthetic. For years the 80 and 100s had different widths depending on the market. I actually think 275 is a good proper width for a Cruiser. For me it isn't about questioning the actual width, rather the engineering design choice to go more than 16" and forcing a low aspect tire.

 

[bloc]

For me it isn't about questioning the actual width, rather the engineering design choice to go more than 16" and forcing a low aspect tire.

Brake diameter that would be effective at modern speeds on a 6000lb vehicle, I’m pretty sure.

Even the less-big brakes on 2008-15 are noticeably less effective than those on 16+.

Also it likely has to do with emergency handling dynamics. Wasn’t sidewall height a factor in the emergency maneuver tire issues of ford explorers so long ago?

 

[Pskhaat]

Brake diameter that would be effective at modern speeds on a 6000lb vehicle, I’m pretty sure.

Actually, 16" should be fine for a Cruiser and heat dissipation. Mercedes 3500 Sprinter at 10k gvwr and 7500 lbs tow rating has factory 16" wheels and brakes still

Wasn’t sidewall height a factor in the emergency maneuver tire issues of ford explorers so long ago?

I don't know. I thought it was the low OE tire pressure rating for the heavier vehicle that Ford rated to improve ride.

 

[TeCKis300]

Correct, 18" in 2021 (IIRC). That said for YEARS 13" was rule. It is also said that 18" was pressed more by aesthetics. But as for the brake thing, since at least 2009 KERS and MGUK (regenerative braking) so braking (which inboard brakes are not allowed) is significantly increased over the years not just through classical heat transfer braking. I guess my point is larger sidewalls cannot be argued as non-performant.



Not sure what you are implying here. Both width and sidewall height are distinct design metrics....maybe I missed something?

I don't disagree with your point on sidewall. There is a balance to be had there too as too much, especially with an overly narrow tire can impact handling dynamics, stability, and steering sharpness. Things that matter even for a big truck. To your point, so does having enough sidewall for compliance.

I was responding to your earlier point below on skinnier is better. That is categorically not true and it should generally be aligned to weight.

My point has always been that as we modify, lift, and add weight to the vehicle, there is going to be some pretty big impact if we then further decrease width from stock. Where I am in agreement to you is to increase aspect ratio, and contact patch. By increasing overall tire diameter. And width.

Skinnier is better. Full Stop. Better handling, better air spring, better off-highway. Even Formula 1 engg will argue tall sidewalls are better on the pavement too Skinnier ⟹ higher aspect ratio.

Actually, 16" should be fine for a Cruiser and heat dissipation. Mercedes 3500 Sprinter at 10k gvwr and 7500 lbs tow rating has factory 16" wheels and brakes still



I don't know. I thought it was the low OE tire pressure rating for the heavier vehicle that Ford rated to improve ride.

As someone that runs 35s and tows 8k lbs with a combined weight over 15k lbs, 16" wheel limitation on brakes would be laughably not safe. The earlier generations were not as big, strong, or heavy, with lower capacities. I've faded the stock brakes on the 200-series, even as they are pretty good fixed caliper setups. The '16+ brake upsize is definitely better.

 

[Pskhaat]

I
I was responding to your earlier point below on skinnier is better. That is categorically not true and it should generally be aligned to weight.

There is not a tire made and on the market today that would overdue it under our Cruisers (without going overboard and doing body cuttings). The max we'll find is an 85% which is in a distinctly sweet spot for overland and off-highway travel.

I run 255 width on my 100 and could not be happier (just as a bullet point).

80 series came from factory in many regions with 215s! For a 6500lbs gvwr vehicle.

Where I am in agreement to you is to increase aspect ratio, and contact patch. By increasing overall tire diameter. And width.

Contact patch is of course MOST impacted by taller ratios, not by wider ratios.

As someone that runs 35s and tows 8k lbs with a combined weight over 15k lbs, 16" wheel limitation on brakes would be laughably not safe.

In a Cruiser I agree. As a GMI grad, I believe whole heartedly 16 is sufficient IN THERMODYNAMICS THEORY. Why does Toyota's engineering necessitate such larger brake systems even with augmented pressurization I cannot say.

 

[drmwvr]

Picked up a set for my wife’s ‘19 and drove Houston to

Vail and back over the last week and really enjoyed their performance over the stock Dunlops. I have KO2s on my ‘10 which we usually take and I really couldn’t tell any difference between the two in snow and icy conditions.

 

[brian az]

Just saw this older comment. Can someone explain to me the tradeoff between 285/60 and 275/65 (or 285/65 and 275/70)? What does the narrower tire get you? @Pskhaat ?

I’ve read dozens of tire threads on MUD and learned that the #1 feature of skinnier tires is that . . . you get to read a lot of strong opinions by people claiming to know a lot.

 

[Madtiger]

It is interesting that LC200 stock is 285 width. While LC300 and new Sequoia runs 265 series stock tires. Not sure why…maybe for fuel economy? But interesting nonetheless.

 

[brian az]

It is interesting that LC200 stock is 285 width. While LC300 and new Sequoia runs 265 series stock tires. Not sure why…maybe for fuel economy? But interesting nonetheless.

There were some markets where the 200 series came with 245 width tires! Yes those markets had different engines and were used in different environments, but still

 

[gaijin]

... new Sequoia runs 265 series stock tires.

Also worthy of note is the Sequoia TRD Pro model comes stock with 285/65R18 Falken® * WILDPEAK all-terrain tires.

 

[JohnPW]

Also worthy of note is the Sequoia TRD Pro model comes stock with 285/65R18 Falken® * WILDPEAK all-terrain tires.

Which I believe is for looks. Instabro crowd loves the look of fat tires, regardless of whether they are adding functional benefit or not. Same with Ford Raptor & Bronco, etc. The off road spec trucks will have wide AT tires, usually in a P or iso-metric rating (which may defeat the purpose of a giant AT tire, other than looks at the mall). The “standard” or street oriented versions will have narrower spec tires in most cases, including the Sequoia. And on-road cornering and handling is what is claimed to be improved with a wider tire, yet Sequoia and LC300 come on 265 aspect tires. I don’t buy that there’s a practical benefit to wider on road.

 

[JohnPW]

Additional random data point on wide vs skinny on 200 and 300 series LC’s:

Armoured Toyota Land Cruiser 300 SUV | Tested & Certified

Armoured Toyota Land Cruiser 300 from a one of the world’s leading manufacturers (Forbes 200 Listed). Independently tested and approved to the highest standards for protection and drivability.

www.mahindraarmored.com

This company build armored bulletproof LC’s for civilian use in the UAE and Jordan. Armored body, ballistic glass, armored fuel tank, etc. They suggest either run flats or a variety of LT-E rated AT tires, and their suggested size is either 275/65r18 or 275/70r18. I can’t find a spec on what these armored LC’s weigh but I assume it’s significantly above stock. These are sold in desert climates with the need for significant armor.

No real direct bearing on what someone wants on their truck, other than to say a heavier truck doesn’t require a tire wider than 275/70r18.

 

[bloc]

Additional random data point on wide vs skinny on 200 and 300 series LC’s:

Armoured Toyota Land Cruiser 300 SUV | Tested & Certified

Armoured Toyota Land Cruiser 300 from a one of the world’s leading manufacturers (Forbes 200 Listed). Independently tested and approved to the highest standards for protection and drivability.

www.mahindraarmored.com

This company build armored bulletproof LC’s for civilian use in the UAE and Jordan. Armored body, ballistic glass, armored fuel tank, etc. They suggest either run flats or a variety of LT-E rated AT tires, and their suggested size is either 275/65r18 or 275/70r18. I can’t find a spec on what these armored LC’s weigh but I assume it’s significantly above stock. These are sold in desert climates with the need for significant armor.

No real direct bearing on what someone wants on their truck, other than to say a heavier truck doesn’t require a tire wider than 275/70r18.

Do these see the same speeds as us here in the US? Average pavement conditions? Accept that they will give up a lot in the way of vehicle dynamics because other things are important (like avoiding perforations)

Also there are probably other considerations like tire clearance, availability of run flats or a given size at all in certain countries, steel wheel dimensions, etc.

Once again, I believe a large factor in the 285 stock spec has to do with on-road driving, of which most of us do a whole lot, despite what we may wish.

Either way this has gotten way off topic. My 285/60R18 defenders look boring but perform so well that I consider the search for a good tire for my 200 over with.

 

[Zack1978]

Vredestein Pinza AT

Had these about a week now.....No complaints. Big ride improvement over OEM Bridgestone Dueler.

View attachment 3470491
Here's some technical detail w/Tire Rack and Vredestein rep:

Do you have any updates on this tire? It seems very highly rated on Tire Rack.

 

[yonah]

FWIW, I put the new Defenders on my '16 RAV4 hybrid that we use for daily commuting. I've racked up almost 20k miles on the tires and they're holding up well, lots of highway miles to include a cross country trip. Excellent in the rain and on uneven pavement. No complaints. They are silent compared to the off-brand tires that were on the car when I bought it.

 

[MeWantLC]

Currently with BFGs T/A KO2 LT285/65/18 Load E on stock 18"s black professionally coated with spidertrax spacers. Debating to get Icon Vector 5's on 17" and obviously ditch the spacers. I am approaching tire time; not sure if spend the $$$ on the new wheels or just stay with 18's stock, I like them anyway. The Icon Vector 5 look amazing and even thinking bronze over my silver LC200 chariot would look great (opinions welcome here)! I am also thinking if bump up the size a tiny bit with 285/75/17. I want to keep the 285 size as I would rather keep the width as stock. Lifted on Dobinsons, so 285/75/17 (or 285/70/18) should work w/o an issue. I have decided to give a try to the Michellin's, and went to Michelin website, and also to Discount Tire.

1. For the M/S, I don't see sizes higher than this for 17": MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 265/70R17 115T ORWL. And this is the highest 285 for 18"s:MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 285/60R18 120H XL BSW.

2. For the M/S, I see MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 2 285/70R17 126S BSW as the max for 285/17. And this for 18"s: MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 2 285/65R18 125S BSW.

So.... It looks like if I want to give a try to the Michelin Defenders, it is the **M/S 2**, and max on 285 to keep width as stock, is either the same final size on 285/70/17 or 285/65/18 (same size I currently have with BFG's). No extra tiny bump on size, and going 17" route will only give me more tire wall, but don' allow me to go a big higher either; which probably will lead me to keep the 18"s and not do extra spend on the 17"s.

Did I miss something M/S vs M/S 2? Did I miss something on the max tire size for Michelin defernders on 285? I am ok keeping the current 32.6" size I have and not the extra bit bump to 33.7" , but want to make sure I did not miss something related to Defenders sizes. Looks like keeping at load E is the way to go for those "off-road" days. And, since I am used to the BFG's E, Defenders should be providing a softer ride anyways, even on E, for what I have read.

I have always run BFG's with one Nitto Ridge Grapplers set on a stock LC200 but sold it even before breaking in the tires, so never actually go to enjoy them as much as I wanted it. Before reading this thread, I was going to either go BFG's again, or go Ridge Grapplers. But it appears that the Defenders are great in many respects, specially on wet pavement, which happens bad here in Houston Metro Area. I have had other brands in other trucks, but I think for Land Cruisers, the BFG's or Grapplers are the best options for my use.

THANK YOU !

 

[Sandroad]

Currently with BFGs T/A KO2 LT285/65/18 Load E on stock 18"s black professionally coated with spidertrax spacers. Debating to get Icon Vector 5's on 17" and obviously ditch the spacers. I am approaching tire time; not sure if spend the $$$ on the new wheels or just stay with 18's stock, I like them anyway. The Icon Vector 5 look amazing and even thinking bronze over my silver LC200 chariot would look great (opinions welcome here)! I am also thinking if bump up the size a tiny bit with 285/75/17. I want to keep the 285 size as I would rather keep the width as stock. Lifted on Dobinsons, so 285/75/17 (or 285/70/18) should work w/o an issue. I have decided to give a try to the Michellin's, and went to Michelin website, and also to Discount Tire.

1. For the M/S, I don't see sizes higher than this for 17": MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 265/70R17 115T ORWL. And this is the highest 285 for 18"s:MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 285/60R18 120H XL BSW.

2. For the M/S, I see MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 2 285/70R17 126S BSW as the max for 285/17. And this for 18"s: MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 2 285/65R18 125S BSW.

So.... It looks like if I want to give a try to the Michelin Defenders, it is the **M/S 2**, and max on 285 to keep width as stock, is either the same final size on 285/70/17 or 285/65/18 (same size I currently have with BFG's). No extra tiny bump on size, and going 17" route will only give me more tire wall, but don' allow me to go a big higher either; which probably will lead me to keep the 18"s and not do extra spend on the 17"s.

Did I miss something M/S vs M/S 2? Did I miss something on the max tire size for Michelin defernders on 285? I am ok keeping the current 32.6" size I have and not the extra bit bump to 33.7" , but want to make sure I did not miss something related to Defenders sizes. Looks like keeping at load E is the way to go for those "off-road" days. And, since I am used to the BFG's E, Defenders should be providing a softer ride anyways, even on E, for what I have read.

I have always run BFG's with one Nitto Ridge Grapplers set on a stock LC200 but sold it even before breaking in the tires, so never actually go to enjoy them as much as I wanted it. Before reading this thread, I was going to either go BFG's again, or go Ridge Grapplers. But it appears that the Defenders are great in many respects, specially on wet pavement, which happens bad here in Houston Metro Area. I have had other brands in other trucks, but I think for Land Cruisers, the BFG's or Grapplers are the best options for my use.

THANK YOU !

Hmmmm……check out sizes for both on the Tire Rack. They have larger sizes than what you list, if that’s what you want.

 

[MeWantLC]

Hmmmm……check out sizes for both on the Tire Rack. They have larger sizes than what you list, if that’s what you want.

Thank you. That's weird, I went directly to Michelin web. I will !

 

[Ratchey]

Thank you. That's weird, I went directly to Michelin web. I will !

Michelin only shows about half to two thirds of the final sizes they will have for the MS2.