Thinnest tire on 200 series (1 Viewer)

[studio19atx]

What is the thinnest tire size you have run on your 200 series?

OEM size is 285/60/18, I have seen people running 275/65/18, anyone run 255/70/18?

Tundra come with 255/70/18, those have higher GVWR, what’s the advantage of thinner tire over the 285s?

 

[gaijin]

What is the thinnest tire size you have run on your 200 series?

OEM size is 285/60/18, I have seen people running 275/65/18, anyone run 255/70/18?

Tundra come with 255/70/18, those have higher GVWR, what’s the advantage of thinner tire over the 285s?

The latest info I have for the Tundra is 2017, but the P255/70R18 112T tires came standard on the Tundra SR w/ steel wheels and the Tundra SR5 w/ steel wheels.

The Maximum Load Limit for the P255/70R18 112T tire is 2469 lbs @ 35psi. This is too low for use on the LC200 which requires Load Limit for P-Metric tires of 2513 lbs.

However, BFG does offer a KO2 in LT255/70R18 Load Range D (see here on TireRack: BFG KO2 LT255/70R18D) when inflated to a RCTIP 47psi does provide the required Load Limit for the LC200.

So... if the tire is LT255/70R18 then it could be used on a LC200, but P-Metric P255/70R18 and ISO-Metric 255/70R18 tires would not be suitable.

FYI

HTH

 

[studio19atx]

The latest info I have for the Tundra is 2017, but the P255/70R18 112T tires came standard on the Tundra SR w/ steel wheels and the Tundra SR5 w/ steel wheels.

The Maximum Load Limit for the P255/70R18 112T tire is 2469 lbs @ 35psi. This is too low for use on the LC200 which requires Load Limit for P-Metric tires of 2513 lbs.

However, BFG does offer a KO2 in LT255/70R18 Load Range D (see here on TireRack: BFG KO2 LT255/70R18D) when inflated to a RCTIP 47psi does provide the required Load Limit for the LC200.

So... if the tire is LT255/70R18 then it could be used on a LC200, but P-Metric P255/70R18 and ISO-Metric 255/70R18 tires would not be suitable.

FYI

HTH

Thank you so much, appreciate the detailed reply. I was thinking of switching to ISO-Metric Tundra tires for daily and highway use and switch to BFG 285/60/18 for off-road, but looks like the Tundra ISO-Metric are not possible.

 

[TeCKis300]

I guess I fail to see the merits of narrows. While there may be some arguable advantages, the reality is there are also significant compromises. The stock tire width walks that balance. Narrows will compromise cornering, handling, and braking capabilities. Important qualities particularly on a rig as heavy as the 200-series.

 

[JohnPW]

I guess I fail to see the merits of narrows. While there may be some arguable advantages, the reality is there are also significant compromises. The stock tire width walks that balance. Narrows will compromise cornering, handling, and braking capabilities. Important qualities particularly on a rig as heavy as the 200-series.

I’m not an expert on this topic at all. But I question whether narrow tires (with adequate load rating) would be a negative at all. Lots of large SUV’s (Suburban, Expedition, Tahoe) of similar weight, size and capacity come on more narrow tires than the 285/60r18 that the LC comes with. Virtually all half ton pickups come on significantly more narrow tires. I have not seen braking tests of different width tires on these vehicles, but (within reason) I doubt braking distance is impacted by tire width as much as it is from tire weight, diameter, or tread pattern. And no one is likely to be doing hairpin cornering in these large SUV’s.

Off road, I have read many reviews from off-road guys including off road racing teams that prefer tall but fairly narrow tires, for a longer contact patch but with higher pressure on the ground than a wider tire would deliver.

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert but I think many people fitting wide tires are doing so for looks, not performance.

 

[studio19atx]

I guess I fail to see the merits of narrows. While there may be some arguable advantages, the reality is there are also significant compromises. The stock tire width walks that balance. Narrows will compromise cornering, handling, and braking capabilities. Important qualities particularly on a rig as heavy as the 200-series.

My reasoning were similar to what @JohnPW mentioned in the post above. I am not an expert or have any scientific reasoning why narrower tire would have been a better choice, I have seen them in large SUVs and pickups, thought it would be a good experiment to try provided they were safe with the weight of 200 series.

My 200 has Tundra steel wheels so felt narrower tire might look more leaner and also felt may be having less unsprung weight might help with economy and handling.

Weight is an issue as 200 series weighs almost 700lbs more than Tundra.

 

[TeCKis300]

I’m not an expert on this topic at all. But I question whether narrow tires (with adequate load rating) would be a negative at all. Lots of large SUV’s (Suburban, Expedition, Tahoe) of similar weight, size and capacity come on more narrow tires than the 285/60r18 that the LC comes with. Virtually all half ton pickups come on significantly more narrow tires. I have not seen braking tests of different width tires on these vehicles, but (within reason) I doubt braking distance is impacted by tire width as much as it is from tire weight, diameter, or tread pattern. And no one is likely to be doing hairpin cornering in these large SUV’s.

Off road, I have read many reviews from off-road guys including off road racing teams that prefer tall but fairly narrow tires, for a longer contact patch but with higher pressure on the ground than a wider tire would deliver.

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert but I think many people fitting wide tires are doing so for looks, not performance.

It's arguable and it's your prerogative ultimately so take this with a grain of salt.

Ever drive one of those old large trucks or SUVs? They don't hold the road worth a .... They simply don't have the suspension geometry, steering, power, nor brakes to leverage more tire traction. Most 1/2 tons aren't the weight of our 6000lb cruiser either.

The 200-series does have the ability to leverage more tire. Even as it is a body on frame solid rear axle SUV.

I do drive hard and fast with mine on backroads and it's not something I'm willing to overly compromise for the slight edge off-road. IMO, there's ways to win win here. Which is why I choose to fit tall and wide tires (35x12.5s).

The age old narrow is better off-road is often misinterpreted. It's always better to have more tire/footprint overall. Meaning if one trades width, it's necessary to go up in diameter to gain that footprint back, shaped as a longer contact patch. Giving up width and keeping largely the same diameter, just gives up footprint and traction overall.

 

[bloc]

Those vehicles weren’t designed to do what ours will off road. And most race teams arguing for narrower tires with a longer contact patch are running significantly larger diameter.

The one place I see skinny tires working better is in ice & snow where reducing float and the ability to cut down through the soft stuff to the road surface underneath is an advantage. This has been the fast setup for snow rally stages for a very long time. Otherwise for something of our heft I’d want to keep most of the section width we have to prevent sinking in sand and soft ground. OR cut fenders and anything else in the way needed to fit 37s.. but that is much further than most of us are willing to go.

What size is common on cruisers in Africa? And if much narrower, how much of that is dictated by what is commonly available there?

 

[jbs11]

I have the Falken Wildpeaks in LT255 /80 R17. I don’t drive it like a sports car so no complaints about the handling on road. They are bit lighter than comparable wider tires, but I doubt it makes much difference. I got them mostly because I love the LT255/85R16 BFG KM2s on my 4Runner. But when shopping for the 200, the Falkens were on sale and the BFGs most definitely were not ($190 vs $275), so I figured I’d give them a try. They were great for 6 weeks of camping/offroading in AZ/UT/CO earlier in the fall.

Here’s an argument in favor of narrower/taller tires for offroad from Scott Brady.

 

[Lester did that]

Those vehicles weren’t designed to do what ours will off road. And most race teams arguing for narrower tires with a longer contact patch are running significantly larger diameter.

The one place I see skinny tires working better is in ice & snow where reducing float and the ability to cut down through the soft stuff to the road surface underneath is an advantage. This has been the fast setup for snow rally stages for a very long time. Otherwise for something of our heft I’d want to keep most of the section width we have to prevent sinking in sand and soft ground. OR cut fenders and anything else in the way needed to fit 37s.. but that is much further than most of us are willing to go.

What size is common on cruisers in Africa? And if much narrower, how much of that is dictated by what is commonly available there?

Depends where you are in Africa? For the most part in south africa and along the east you can find almost every common tire size. They might be used. Toyota rims are common. Might not find the exact match you are running so you might have to get 4 or 5 if your in a pinch.

Skinny tyres are amazing on ice and packed snow, mud and rocks. I am figuring out the set up for my use before the new year. More than capable of handling the vehicles weight. It looks so stupid on a 200 LC! But they work so I don't care about the look. The trick with skinny tall tyres is make sure the side walls are at least 12 ply. 14 ply is almost indestructible. These will be for off road only.

It is counter intuitive. And depends how you are using the ride. But take note. All of the professional drivers that encounter these specific conditions use tall skinny tyres. If your a driver for a mining company you have a set of tall skinny tyres in your set.

 

[TeCKis300]

I have the Falken Wildpeaks in LT255 /80 R17. I don’t drive it like a sports car so no complaints about the handling on road. They are bit lighter than comparable wider tires, but I doubt it makes much difference. I got them mostly because I love the LT255/85R16 BFG KM2s on my 4Runner. But when shopping for the 200, the Falkens were on sale and the BFGs most definitely were not ($190 vs $275), so I figured I’d give them a try. They were great for 6 weeks of camping/offroading in AZ/UT/CO earlier in the fall.

Here’s an argument in favor of narrower/taller tires for offroad from Scott Brady.

Thanks for sharing that reference from Brady. It's a good read and I agree with a lot that's said in there.

For context, it's probably worthwhile to note a few things. His analysis is performed on a 1st gen Taco. With stock weights just over 3000lbs. 142 hp. Obvious but worth stating that the 200-series is almost double those specs.

If I were to do a narrow, I would agree with your approach and it'd need to be at least 33". A 32" narrow as the OP is proposing is not gaining any advantages anywhere, except perhaps MPG.

To gain a traction advantage off-road, interpretation of a narrow is key. It's to fit a taller diameter narrow tire relative to what can be fit otherwise. Not to just go narrow in general. Like what @grinchy is doing here. To wit from the article:

The argument is further bolstered by the assumption that a taller tire can be fitted to the vehicle if it is narrower. For example, a Toyota Tacoma can fit a 33x10.5 with 2" of lift, but not a 33x12.5 with the same wheel off-set, suspension,

TL;DR A narrow 255 size tire relative to a Taco is one thing. I'd say a 285 is proportionately narrow to the 200 series. 275 at a minimum IMO because cornering a 6000lb+ beast should always matter for safety.

 

[Mago]

Skinny tires provide two main advantages: Less resistance rolling forward (amplified in sand/ice/etc.). Longer contact patch on loose surface (think tank tracks) when aired down.
Disadvantages: More sway in bends if not properly aired up, less braking performance.

 

[nwfl4runner]

I run the Goodyear MTRs 275/80r17s - it’s 10.8 wide and 34” tall on the LX. Closer to 35” off the truck. Ain’t setting land speed or slalom records. Just there to eat the mud. No stress about running a skinny

 

[40Man]

What is the thinnest tire size you have run on your 200 series?

OEM size is 285/60/18, I have seen people running 275/65/18, anyone run 255/70/18?

Tundra come with 255/70/18, those have higher GVWR, what’s the advantage of thinner tire over the 285s?

Skinny tires do better on light snow on roads (get down deeper to get to roadway).

I ran studded Cooper 255/70R18 for a winter (10.04" wide). They handled fine and were decent on ice. Like noted above, they technically fall slightly short of the weight rating for the Cruiser so keep that in mind. I didn't load it up, no armor or towing, so I didn't worry about it, and at most had one other passenger.

After I started adding underbody armor I switched to 275/65r18 (10.84" wide) Hakkas which have a 2760 lb max load. They have been amazing in winter. And a bit skinnier than the 11.22" stock wheels. They look a bit better with TRD Tundra wheels in the Cruiser wheel wells.

I run 285/70r17 (11.22" wide, same as stock) the rest of the year.

 

[grinchy]

I just don't think a 275 tire is all that skinny. A skinny for me is like a 175 or 195. A 275 in my youth would have been a fat drag tire. Current tire technology is really amazing.

I'll say that the sidewall is something I notice occasionally, but I don't slalom the LX570, so not a big deal for me. Ride compliance, particularly on a rutted and potholed road is excellent. Agree with @nwfl4runner comments.

I've got a mild AT pattern, but haven't had ANY traction issues. I'm sure there will be some this spring in the mud. . . .

 

[105X]

People commonly install balloon tires on LCs here. I’m not sure of the exact width, but I’d say they’re around 8 or 9 inches wide. I’ll ask a relative of mine about the width of his tires fairly soon.

 

[JohnPW]

Thanks for sharing that reference from Brady. It's a good read and I agree with a lot that's said in there.

For context, it's probably worthwhile to note a few things. His analysis is performed on a 1st gen Taco. With stock weights just over 3000lbs. 142 hp. Obvious but worth stating that the 200-series is almost double those specs.

If I were to do a narrow, I would agree with your approach and it'd need to be at least 33". A 32" narrow as the OP is proposing is not gaining any advantages anywhere, except perhaps MPG.

To gain a traction advantage off-road, interpretation of a narrow is key. It's to fit a taller diameter narrow tire relative to what can be fit otherwise. Not to just go narrow in general. Like what @grinchy is doing here. To wit from the article:


TL;DR A narrow 255 size tire relative to a Taco is one thing. I'd say a 285 is proportionately narrow to the 200 series. 275 at a minimum IMO because cornering a 6000lb+ beast should always matter for safety.

The referenced article hits on what I have read elsewhere, that in off road driving a narrow tire increases pressure to the ground (all else being equal). The extra pressure to the ground of a narrow tire increases traction on the loose, uneven surface off road. This is the exact opposite of on road traction, where the bonding of the tire to highly tactile asphalt increases with width, as increased surface of a wide tire adds traction. The benefit of narrow tires off road is not just fitting a larger diameter tire, it’s the increased pressure on the ground aids off road traction.

I can’t find the link but one author I read referenced research done by the military, pointing to single, more narrow tires improving off road traction versus dual tires or wide tires.

Some prefer wide on very loose sand or very deep, loose snow, but virtually every where else, the analysis I’ve read points to a narrow tire having higher traction in off road conditions. BTW, there’s a long thread on tall & skinny tires on the MUD “Wheel & Tire Tech” forum if anyone is interested.

 

[TeCKis300]

Some prefer wide on very loose sand or very deep, loose snow, but virtually every where else, the analysis I’ve read points to a narrow tire having higher traction in off road conditions. BTW, there’s a long thread on tall & skinny tires on the MUD “Wheel & Tire Tech” forum if anyone is interested.

I don't disagree. There will be specific situations that narrows may have an advantage. Yet our cruisers aren't tractors made for singular environments. Everywhere else, including on road where most of us spend an overwhelming majority of our time, narrows are not an advantage.

Going back to first principles, our cruisers are best because they are well rounded and able to do everything. Most of us go AT because we want broad competency. Off-road is a varied mix of environments. IMO, skinnies, particularly mild diameter skinnies are going to be a liability. Both the trip there on-road where they have paltry lateral grip and braking to avoid accidents, and stucks in deep silt/sand/mud where floatation is a real problem particularly to a heavy vehicle. Versus environments where skinnies may have an advantage - I've yet to see cruisers with any tire really have a problem in discretionary situations, and can be addressed with things like big diameters tires, momentum, lockers.

On narrow balloon tires - it's a focused tire. I haven't seen anyone in the US run those. A narrow AT or MTs will not float half as well with large lugs and voids that will help sink quicker on the way to getting stuck.

My preference is to have a tire that is 90% competent in 100% of the situations.

 

[Jurwin]

Overseas lowest trim (STD) model comes with 245/75R17 tires.

 

[Lester did that]

Thanks for sharing that reference from Brady. It's a good read and I agree with a lot that's said in there.

For context, it's probably worthwhile to note a few things. His analysis is performed on a 1st gen Taco. With stock weights just over 3000lbs. 142 hp. Obvious but worth stating that the 200-series is almost double those specs.

If I were to do a narrow, I would agree with your approach and it'd need to be at least 33". A 32" narrow as the OP is proposing is not gaining any advantages anywhere, except perhaps MPG.

To gain a traction advantage off-road, interpretation of a narrow is key. It's to fit a taller diameter narrow tire relative to what can be fit otherwise. Not to just go narrow in general. Like what @grinchy is doing here. To wit from the article:


TL;DR A narrow 255 size tire relative to a Taco is one thing. I'd say a 285 is proportionately narrow to the 200 series. 275 at a minimum IMO because cornering a 6000lb+ beast should always matter for safety.

The proper "tall skinny" will support the weight of a 200 LC no problems. Not saying go with the Disco style 7.00-7.50/16. Heck a 34" tyre with a 16" rim?! About 8.25" wide?! When you deflate that ratio the float is insane. Now this is not for towing a boat or RV. Not for driving on tarmac for hours. Not for sand. There is a lot that they not good for. Not DD tyres. Off road they excel.

32" will gain nothing. 33" at least. 14 ply sidewalls. The tyre debate gets old quick. It really depends on how you are using it. There is no perfect set up. If you are going off road in some ruts, rocks, mud ect a narrow taller tyre with a smaller steel rim is ideal.

I don't disagree. There will be specific situations that narrows may have an advantage. Yet our cruisers aren't tractors made for singular environments. Everywhere else, including on road where most of us spend an overwhelming majority of our time, narrows are not an advantage.

Going back to first principles, our cruisers are best because they are well rounded and able to do everything. Most of us go AT because we want broad competency. Off-road is a varied mix of environments. IMO, skinnies, particularly mild diameter skinnies are going to be a liability. Both the trip there on-road where they have paltry lateral grip and braking to avoid accidents, and stucks in deep silt/sand/mud where floatation is a real problem particularly to a heavy vehicle. Versus environments where skinnies may have an advantage - I've yet to see cruisers with any tire really have a problem in discretionary situations, and can be addressed with things like big diameters tires, momentum, lockers.

On narrow balloon tires - it's a focused tire. I haven't seen anyone in the US run those. A narrow AT or MTs will not float half as well with large lugs and voids that will help sink quicker on the way to getting stuck.

My preference is to have a tire that is 90% competent in 100% of the situations.

The tyre wheel size debate continues.

I am assuming that most people that DD the 200 do not keep the tall skinny set on the rig for daily use. It is a specific set for a specific use. I agree that most all modern cruisers in the states and the rest of the world spend most of the miles on paved roads. So a normal sized tyre plus minus in size is perfect for 90% of the time. Sometimes you prefer or need something else. It is a personal preference thing. Now I would absolutely argue against this set up for highway use, towing anything major ect over safety concerns.

They are not popular in the states. I tend to think it is just long term marketing and culture. First if you see a 200 cruiser with "cheap" ugly steel rims and plain looking tyres most will say ewwww. This guy has no money. Big thick alum powder coated rims with massive A/T tyres. Well that guy knows what he is doing. It is a beast. Manufactures know all this and it sells. So the only thing americans have scene for the past 20 years is massive tyres. The bigger the better. Sales are up. If it is the only practical option available you learn to work with it. The brain is wired that way. But if you look outside the box there is always a different option and sometimes it's better. Sometimes your just trying to reinvent the wheel.

They don't even sell tyres here that can be re-grooved.