Terra Grappler 265/75-16 or 285/75-16?

[new2mud]

Seems that most here on this board will go with the wider tire...I am assuming for better off-road performance. However, with some reports that going 285 has decreased gas mileage (by as much as 50 miles per tank?!), and not expecting serious rock-crawling duty, I'm wondering why not 265...

Has anybody here gone with the 265/75-16? Should one expect faster wear rate on the tires since there is less surface area to support the vehicle's mass compared to the 285? Not wanting to get into a theoretical debate here--anybody have experience with either in terms of fuel economy differences from the stock LTX?

 

[bhmmapping]

most people are going with the 285 over the 265 for the extra height, not the width. Either will probably get worse gas mileage than the stock tires since they are LT instead of P.

 

[Blackdog]

I moved up to 285 terra grapplers a little over a month ago. I have noticed a drop in mileage per tank, But........I have also noticed roughly 3 mph slow down on the speedo as compared to the GPS machine. I wonder if the miles per tank are really falling off that bad, or if the mileage is just not clocking accurately because of the difference in tne speedo calibration. Just a thought.



BTW I LOVE the Nitto TG's

 

[ZPDFJ]

But are the stock size not 275s? The diff is so minimal get the 285 sheesh, this is no tacoma were talkin bout here...

 

[Old#7]

Stock is 275/70 which makes it about 31's 285's are a 285/75 which makes a big difference, about 33's. Theoretically not a huge difference but for most of us, going from 31's to 33's is a big difference. All of the different metric sizes are confusing, because its not just the first number but the first and second that determine the actual tire size. A 255/85 is a 33" tire and a 305/70 is a 33" tire and a 285/75 is a 33" tire but they are all different widths going from 10" to 12".

 

[Dan2722]

I have the 265's and have noticed no change from the 275's in terms of mileage. The 265's are only about .5" taller and .5" narrower than the 275's so they are basically stock size.

If you are not rock crawling and or do not need/want the extra height go with the 265's and save some gas.

I will be going up to the 285's with my next set of tires but that is only because I have found myself in a few situations this year where I wanted the extra clearance. Thank God for Hanna sliders!

 

[new2mud]

I have the 265's and have noticed no change from the 275's in terms of mileage. The 265's are only about .5" taller and .5" narrower than the 275's so they are basically stock size.

If you are not rock crawling and or do not need/want the extra height go with the 265's and save some gas.

I will be going up to the 285's with my next set of tires but that is only because I have found myself in a few situations this year where I wanted the extra clearance. Thank God for Hanna sliders!

Interesting--so I guess the LT vs. P-metric difference alone isn't what's causing the mileage differences, but that the overall diameter is the culprit.

Anyone else running 265?

 

[new2mud]

I moved up to 285 terra grapplers a little over a month ago. I have noticed a drop in mileage per tank, But........I have also noticed roughly 3 mph slow down on the speedo as compared to the GPS machine. I wonder if the miles per tank are really falling off that bad, or if the mileage is just not clocking accurately because of the difference in tne speedo calibration. Just a thought.



BTW I LOVE the Nitto TG's

I hadn't thought of that...that could easily account for 5-10% error.

I'm wondering if that's a significant part of what the mud member's wife was actually seeing in her "50 miles per tank drop" in fuel economy. (can't remember who it was)

 

[TroutBear]

We've had 265 Geolander AT's on a '94 for 30K+. Like 'em. Considered the 285 thing since the vehicle doesn't have a lift and will only get an OME stock lift upgrade near term, but opted for the 265's instead. As I look at replacement, the thought's back again - 255/85, 265 or 285 - I'd like to go 255/85 but not w/o driving one so equiped first - so I'm leaning to another set of 265's and adding a rear locker.

 

[PACNW96]

.....so what did you end up going with. 285's or 265's?

 

[cruiserruf]

i run 265 BFG MTs. no difference in my opinion

 

[Brentbba]

I moved up to 285 terra grapplers a little over a month ago. I have noticed a drop in mileage per tank, But........I have also noticed roughly 3 mph slow down on the speedo as compared to the GPS machine. I wonder if the miles per tank are really falling off that bad, or if the mileage is just not clocking accurately because of the difference in tne speedo calibration. Just a thought.



BTW I LOVE the Nitto TG's

Bing, Bing, Bing - we have a winner.

The 285's are a larger diameter so your speedo and mileage will be off. Check out the miata tire size calculator to see exactly how much. It's around 4% IIRC. Lots of threads on this. A few ways to correct it. The easiest is a speedo correction gear available from Cdan, Christo and others. It trued up my speedo to exactly what my GPS reads. There's also the speedo correction box that allows you to program in different tire sizes if you run street vs off road sizes, etc. The correction gear is in the $40 range and the correction box just under $200 (all from ancient memory).

 

[ed97fzj80]

I went from stock 275/70s to 285/75s. Having had them for a year now, I'm expecting my next set will be 265/75s. Mine is a daily driver that sees less than ten days of off-pavement enjoyment a year, and while I'm working on that, for now the off-road benefits aren't outweighing the on-road detriments.

 

[PACNW96]

I went from stock 275/70s to 285/75s. Having had them for a year now, I'm expecting my next set will be 265/75s. Mine is a daily driver that sees less than ten days of off-pavement enjoyment a year, and while I'm working on that, for now the off-road benefits aren't outweighing the on-road detriments.

Your post is helpful...thanks. My rig is mostly used for winter highway driving across Washington mountain passes and about the same amount of off road driving you do.

I am really torn between 265's and 285's...

 

[Rookie2]

I just got the 265 terra grapplers a couple of months ago. I can't comment on the 265 versus 285 since I've never had 285's on. I went from stock size to the 265's. I can tell they are a bit taller (keep in mind the 275's were pretty bald, so I probably gained an 1" to 1 1/4") and narrower by just looking at them. With the narrower tire, I do notice it's a bit squirlier on the highway. And versus the stock tire (which had no hum), these do have a noticeable hum. I have noticed no change in mileage.

I like the look, but honestly for what I do I probably did not need an all terrain, probably would look at an all seaon next time. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with the tire, and did I say they look good . Hope this helps.


Rookie2

 

[Cj80cruiser]

Stock is 275/70 which makes it about 31's 285's are a 285/75 which makes a big difference, about 33's. Theoretically not a huge difference but for most of us, going from 31's to 33's is a big difference. All of the different metric sizes are confusing, because its not just the first number but the first and second that determine the actual tire size. A 255/85 is a 33" tire and a 305/70 is a 33" tire and a 285/75 is a 33" tire but they are all different widths going from 10" to 12".

The rim size also comes into play. A 285/75r16 is equal to a 285/70r17

Seems that most here on this board will go with the wider tire...I am assuming for better off-road performance. However, with some reports that going 285 has decreased gas mileage (by as much as 50 miles per tank?!), and not expecting serious rock-crawling duty, I'm wondering why not 265...

Has anybody here gone with the 265/75-16? Should one expect faster wear rate on the tires since there is less surface area to support the vehicle's mass compared to the 285? Not wanting to get into a theoretical debate here--anybody have experience with either in terms of fuel economy differences from the stock LTX?

I went from 275/70r16 to 285/75r16 and can hardly tell a difference in fill ups when gas is at a relatively constant price around $3.12/gal. I put about $25 in and go to the same places and gas mileage is close to the same. I have a routine driving schedule. I'm in the process of figuring my real miles per gallon this week.
Update on real MPG is 12.79194 on 285/75r16

 

[new2mud]

Thanks for all the great comments. I will be going with the 265s.

 

[Brian Macgyver]

You may do well with your choice. But think first...
I went from 275 stockers to 315 Nitto's. My real mileage didn't change much. 315 is a 35" tire and fills the fenderwell nicely with a 3" lift without rubbing on stock bumpstops. I see stock trucks with the same tire often.
My gas mileage, according to the odometer went down. But when I correct the real miles traveled for the larger tires, I get the same mileage in standard mode. In Power mode, which I use most of the time to help make up for the larger tires, I have a loss of mileage. It is small enough that I don't notice unless I am counting every tenth of a mile at every fill-up.
I.E. The difference in speedo and odo readings with the 315's is about 14%. The change in fuel mileage according to the odo is close to the same. So the real change in fuel mileage was close to zero!

 

[Brian Macgyver]

P.S.
I should have noted that the engine works harder on highway climbs with the larger tires, and mileage suffers noticeably. But, on down hills, mileage has improved with the taller tire, for a net minimal real effect. When I drive down to Phoenix, I use less gas than I did before. But the return trip uses more than before, and I get home with the same amount left as I did with the stock tires.

 

[BrotherRob]

I went from stock to 315s Nittos years ago and never regretted it. After doing the math, the gas milage difference is minimal. Personally, for a mall cruiser I would prolly go with 285s. Bottom line is; buy the ones you want milage won't be much different.