Tall skinny research 255-85-16

[87warrior]

Most certainly not an MT. Not even close lol.

ST Maxx wears like a MT, weighs like a MT (has the same carcass as the STT Pro) and sounds like a MT after 30k miles, but it does not handle like a MT. I ran the ST Maxx (255/85R16) under the 100 for +40k miles and currently have a set under my Jeep TJ. It's a decent tire, but its certainly not an AT.

 

[David*BJ70]

Sad day (kind of … )

I contacted Cooper who told me ST Maxx 255/85 may be available but are nowhere to find in Canada.

I ended up that I bought a second set of 285/75. 304$ Canadian dollars. Not bad.

 

[tip]

ST Maxx wears like a MT, weighs like a MT (has the same carcass as the STT Pro) and sounds like a MT after 30k miles, but it does not handle like a MT. I ran the ST Maxx (255/85R16) under the 100 for +40k miles and currently have a set under my Jeep TJ. It's a decent tire, but its certainly not an AT.

Agreed. I've ran a few sets of ST/Maxx (not on my 100 yet) and definitely like them. Though, the last set I bought was in 2017 when they were much cheaper compared to similiar tires.

I ran the 255/85R16 on my 3rd gen 4Runner and it was perfect.

 

[bold2013]

I run the Dick Cepek Extreme Country in 255/85R16. They were the lightest tires I could find in that size (50#), which is what I was after. They're made by Cooper, E-rated but only two ply sidewalls, which saves weight. I was fine with the tradeoff because I know my terrain. They've lasted a long time and I plan to stick with them going forward.

View attachment 2539179

How are these tires on the highway?

 

[BEG]

How are these tires on the highway?

They're good. No tramlining and they balanced fine. They do get noisier as they wear, though.

 

[DalX470]

Anyone run K02 255/70 on a 100LX? (18wheels)...worried the tire is a bit too narrow for the rim width to be safe, but trying to avoid a E Load/rough ride tire. BFG rim width guidance is 6.5-8.5, but cutting it close as I believe the 18s are 8.

 

[planomateo]

Anyone run K02 255/70 on a 100LX? (18wheels)...worried the tire is a bit too narrow for the rim width to be safe, but trying to avoid a E Load/rough ride tire. BFG rim width guidance is 6.5-8.5, but cutting it close as I believe the 18s are 8.

Why even KO2's if you aren't going to get E. Slap some street tires on them.

 

[GTV]

Anyone run K02 255/70 on a 100LX? (18wheels)...worried the tire is a bit too narrow for the rim width to be safe, but trying to avoid a E Load/rough ride tire. BFG rim width guidance is 6.5-8.5, but cutting it close as I believe the 18s are 8.

If you aren't going off road they'll be fine.

 

[Nightbrew]

I have 255/85-16 Yoko MT as well as 265/75-16.

They are both 32.5” mounted on the truck with 7” wide wheels. The 254 are just under 9” wide and the 265 are just under 11” wide

I have read through this thread multiple times, and just now noticed this. It seems most here are mounting on the stock 8” wheel, so I don’t know how much difference that makes, but I’m surprised at the mounted heights being the same. I currently run 265/75r16 and would be very disappointed to “upgrade “ to 255/85 and get no height gain. Can anyone comment on their experience regarding this or provide your mounted height and tire brand? Thanks

 

[wngrog]

I have read through this thread multiple times, and just now noticed this. It seems most here are mounting on the stock 8” wheel, so I don’t know how much difference that makes, but I’m surprised at the mounted heights being the same. I currently run 265/75r16 and would be very disappointed to “upgrade “ to 255/85 and get no height gain. Can anyone comment on their experience regarding this or provide your mounted height and tire brand? Thanks

That should be 285/75-16. Sorry

 

[Nightbrew]

That should be 285/75-16. Sorry

No worries. But that does make a lot more sense. Thanks for the clarification

 

[GTV]

I have read through this thread multiple times, and just now noticed this. It seems most here are mounting on the stock 8” wheel, so I don’t know how much difference that makes, but I’m surprised at the mounted heights being the same. I currently run 265/75r16 and would be very disappointed to “upgrade “ to 255/85 and get no height gain. Can anyone comment on their experience regarding this or provide your mounted height and tire brand? Thanks

Mathematically a 285/75 is 32.8" tall and a 255/85 is 33.1" tall. Half of that would be your height gain, 0.15". Even if your current tires spec shorter than 32.8" and the 255's spec taller than 33.1" you will not get a noticeable gain in height.

If you want taller tires on 16" rims you're stuck with going wider as well, 315/75.

 

[wngrog]

Mathematically a 285/75 is 32.8" tall and a 255/85 is 33.1" tall. Half of that would be your height gain, 0.15". Even if your current tires spec shorter than 32.8" and the 255's spec taller than 33.1" you will not get a noticeable gain in height.

If you want taller tires on 16" rims you're stuck with going wider as well, 315/75.

Math many times does not add up with different brands as you know. One company may be an inch taller with same sidewall spec

 

[GTV]

Math many times does not add up with different brands as you know. One company may be an inch taller with same sidewall spec

An inch taller is a lot. I've never seen anything like that. And even if it was an inch, you'd still only gain 1/2" in ground clearance.

Best practice is to check tiresize.com and see what the manufacturer specs are and compare. Many do run a bit talller/shorter/narrower/wider than the math says.

A lot of people still don't understand that putting a tape measure up to your tire when mounted on the vehicle and sitting on the ground is the incorrect way to do it. I think that's where a lot of the discrepancies come from.

 

[wngrog]

An inch taller is a lot. I've never seen anything like that. And even if it was an inch, you'd still only gain 1/2" in ground clearance.

Best practice is to check tiresize.com and see what the manufacturer specs are and compare. Many do run a bit talller/shorter/narrower/wider than the math says.

A lot of people still don't understand that putting a tape measure up to your tire when mounted on the vehicle and sitting on the ground is the incorrect way to do it. I think that's where a lot of the discrepancies come from.

I know. I’ve documented it pretty good in the 33x10.50-15 thread.

I also have a full inch (mounted measured) between 235/85-16 KOs and Yokohama

 

[jLB]

I have read through this thread multiple times, and just now noticed this. It seems most here are mounting on the stock 8” wheel, so I don’t know how much difference that makes, but I’m surprised at the mounted heights being the same. I currently run 265/75r16 and would be very disappointed to “upgrade “ to 255/85 and get no height gain.

While I’ve looked at moving from 285/75R16 to 255/85R16, I can’t get past the MT only, “special order” status (not going to be in-stock in BFE), and cost premium. For a ~33” tire, 285/75R16, 285/70R17, or 275/70R18, seem to make the most sense for cost/availability, and 285/70R17 seems to stand head and shoulders above the others, if you want something other than load range “E”.

 

[mdcoa]

Look what you can get in Europe—these are 255/85/18s!!! Seen in a 100 in Paris yesterday

 

[Greenbean]

I’m liking those running board / trim items. Not a slider but they look clean!

Thanks for the pic!

 

[JohnnyUtah2]

@mdcoa Is that a typo? They say 255/85/16 on the sidewall.

 

[mdcoa]

@mdcoa Is that a typo? They say 255/85/16 on the sidewall.

Not a typo, but possibly a dumb mistake. I could swear they said 18, and I did a quick web search to confirm that size is available (which it was when oil searched from Europe two days ago but I’m not finding now searching from the US), but my photo is so bad I cannot tell if that’s a 16 or 18 at the end.
I might reach out to a 199 owner I know over there to see if he thinks I hallucinated this….