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 ?
So I think the Michelin Defender is the perfect all-terrain tire... (For most of us) (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter chriscosta416
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Have you tried reaching out to them directly?
Contact Michelin's Tire Concierge | Michelin
Contact Michelin with our complimentary tire concierge. Try it now and find the right tire for your needs, plus locate Michelin authorized dealers near you.
www.michelinman.com
Others have, but personally, that wouldn't my choice.
Increasing tire diameter brings a larger and longer contact patch which buys additional footprint, floatation, and generally increased traction all around.
A larger diameter but narrower tire trades a contact patch to not necessarily be larger, but longer and narrower. This biases traction in the longitudinal direction, in trade for less lateral traction.
My preference would be to keep at least factory width when increasing diameter, to gain performance everywhere, rather than trade cornering traction for forward traction.
275/65 vs 285/60: both are available in a non-LT rating, so lighter and 33psi. The 275/65 will be 0.6” taller and 0.4” thinner. You are unlikely to notice any performance difference between the sizes. Theoretically the 275/65 may give slightly better mpg but probably not enough to notice. To my eyes the slightly taller 275/65 looks better. Surprisingly, the speedometer will be more accurate with 275/65 than with the stock size 285/60 (the stock size causes the speedometer to read fast).
LT285/65 vs LT275/70: this really comes down to personal preference. Both are only available in LT with Michelin Defender, for better or worse depending on your uses. The 275/70r18 is the tallest tire that readily fits a stock truck without rubbing.
For me, 285/60/18 comes in XL rating.....that is key here....39 lbs tire weight with XL rating!! Can't get much better than that! Icing on cake.
Now, if you want more clearance, then i understand going for something taller.
(I LOVE my 285/60/18 Defenders.......so smooth, great ride, good mileage, quiet....and stock performance without any loss that can happen by going bigger.)
Same reason I got the 275/65s
MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 2 275/65R18 116T XL BSW
First, I do LOVE the Michelin Defender. Been riding on LTX M/S on my 100 since 2006. Two sets of them went 110k+ miles per set. My question is why are you excited about the XL rating? Is it for load? Tire Rack does show the 285/60-18 in XL just now, and capacity is 3086 lbs. But the 275/65-18 is available in Load Range E (3415 lbs) and XL (2756 lbs), so the E is much higher capacity.
bloc
SILVER Star
Higher capacity that you’ll give up fuel efficiency and ride quality to attain, when that capacity isn’t needed. The XL tire will easily handle the load and towing requirements of our vehicles.. so why deal with the sacrifices?
Having you been running the p-metrics or LTs on those high mileage sets? 110k out of a set of tires is amazing even by Defender standards!
Thanks everyone for the explanations and details. Given my usage I may avoid LT as I've heard they ride a little rougher. I *think* that means that I'm limited to either a 285/60R18 or 275/65/R18, although I'm still not sure how to read the Michelin website to tell the difference between LT and non-LT tires. Also, AFAICT, Michelin isn't making a Defender LTX M/S2 in the 285/60 (yet?), so if I stay with that I think I'm limited to the older Defender LTX M/S (not that that bothers me that much).
bloc
SILVER Star
If the size on the spec sheet says LT285xxx etc it’s LT, if it just lists the size or says P285xxx then it’s either P metric or ISO metric.
More info:
About Tire Sizing Systems - Yokohama Canada
Discover tire sizing systems: a standardized method to indicate tire specifications such as width, aspect ratio, and diameter for informed choices.
tire.yokohama.ca
Thanks @bloc . I'm probably just looking in the wrong place when I'm looking at the Michelin website. I do see that on other sites like Discount Tires, etc.If the size on the spec sheet says LT285xxx etc it’s LT, if it just lists the size or says P285xxx then it’s either P metric or ISO metric.
More info:
About Tire Sizing Systems - Yokohama Canada
Discover tire sizing systems: a standardized method to indicate tire specifications such as width, aspect ratio, and diameter for informed choices.
bloc
SILVER Star
I just had a look and yes it’s not clear. I often do my tire research on tirerack.com.. that would be my next step.
Your 275/65/18 Load E......what is the tire weight? Mid-50s lbs? Compare that to 285/60/18 XL...39 lbs.
According to Michelin rep, the XL is a little stronger than P-metric esp the sidewall. It is obviously weaker (carries less weight) than Load Range D/E. But it is also much lighter in weight, which benefits performance, handling, and MPGs.
So it is kinda like best of both worlds...stronger than P-metric without the weight penalty.
Pskhaat
Tourer
Opinionated but educated reply inbound:
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.Of course there is a logical limit, but the aspect ratio 275/XXrWhatever in my humble opinion is a scale out of 100 of "tire goodness". Above 80% is quite good, 70-80% is decent and considering how wet automobile engineers' underwear get at forcing larger diameter tires nowadays, is acceptable for many new rigs. Anything below 70% (sorry folks, just true) is just a street tire with compromises; sacrificing functionality for marketing fashion.
So I would always prioritize A) the highest aspect ratio tire I can get, on B) the smallest OE wheels I can fit, to C) get to the tallest reasonable and functional tire diameter the vehicle shall support.
Personally, I can't decide between a 295/70 and a 275/70. Do I go with the easy button of the 275 or deal with the minor headache of the 295... Currently running 275/65 but have a 3" lift(bought that way) so they look small.
bloc
SILVER Star
Opinionated but educated reply inbound:
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
Of course there is a logical limit, but the aspect ratio 275/XXrWhatever in my humble opinion is a scale out of 100 of "tire goodness". Above 80% is quite good, 70-80% is decent and considering how wet automobile engineers' underwear get at forcing larger diameter tires nowadays, is acceptable for many new rigs. Anything below 70% (sorry folks, just true) is just a street tire with compromises; sacrificing functionality for marketing fashion.
So I would always prioritize A) the highest aspect ratio tire I can get, on B) the smallest OE wheels I can fit, to C) get to the tallest reasonable and functional tire diameter the vehicle shall support.
Applying formula 1 logic to SUV tire application seems.. illogical. Pretty sure they’d argue strongly against skinny anything.
My stock sized 285/60R18s work really, really well, even off road (for what they are). And have as much sidewall as a narrower tire with a higher aspect ratio.
Keep in mind many of us spend a lot of time on-highway, so performance there is also important.
Pskhaat
Tourer
We know that big aspect works off-road, but how about on street and roads, that is my counter. An F1 tire with 13" wheels that are over 70% aspect.
High aspect tires on WRC:
It is about the ratio of the sidewall to the width that matters, though. The dynamics and ergonomics of the tire under load and use.
The point is that lower aspect ratio tires are not designed to be better for speed, or handling, or stability, or enter any marketing speak. Performance driving in nearly all situations favors higher apect tires, commercial trucking even. The fashion of anything less is just that. And that's TOTALLY COOL, but arguments should not be made it is for any performance or compromise attributes.
Hence my unpopular and opinionated statements earlier.
If you follow F1 at all, you'll know that they had gone to larger 18" wheels. The 13" legacy rule was in part to slow down the cars by limiting brake size. I wouldn't consider 305mm and 405mm cross sections to be narrow?
You've got it backwards. It's overall diameter and width that are the primary variables that then drives sidewall, depending on application. Aspect ratio does not dictate width.
To be fair, 2026 F1 is considering going down in wheel size again along with narrower tires as a way to get the series to focus on overall weight and efficiency. They are tackling whether the change, and reduction to mechanical grip, i.e. performance, is a trade they want. But it would be a forcing function for the teams to bring down weight to maintain the same performance, and also brings the series inline with where consumer vehicles are going - better aero, efficiency, weight.
Last edited:
Pskhaat
Tourer
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?
