Tire manufacturers discontinuing 16" sizes.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

lumbee1

lumbee1

Native American
10 Year
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Threads
80
Messages
4,857
Location
Holly Springs, NC
We all knew that tire sizes for 16" wheels were being phased out in favor of 17" wheels. While shopping for new tires, I found that Cooper (Mickey Thompson) have discontinued 315/75R16 sizes for some of the MT and AT offerings. In addition, Toyo is not offering the new RT Pro in 16" wheels and the RT Trail only has two 16" wheel tires available.

A quick search of tirerack shows 16 tires offered in 315/75R16 and 37 tires offered in 315/70R17.

While I would like to keep my OE 16" wheels, I may be forced to move to 17" wheels for more tire options.
 
Supply and demand. OEM sizes will likely always be produced, but everything else is always a tossup.

Molds wear out, so there is the retooling cost that needs to be justified for every size. Plus production runs need to be of sufficient volume to make sense when changing the pattern.
 
I noticed that you can't get the relatively new Michelin Defender LX MS/2 in 285/75R16-- but you can still (for now) get the original Michelin Defender LX MS tire in that size.

I like the factory 16 inch wheels. So this trend annoys me.
 
I just hate the idea that I'm going to have to spend more money when I need to replace my tires to buy another set of wheels because the "trend" is going to 17" wheels. I've not heard of any significant performance advantage that 17" has over 16", so IMHO there is some hidden force involved. Are we just the victims of a trend? The idea of molds wearing out at first seemed legitimate. But it can't be that hard to just replace with new 16" molds. I really have no desire to replace my 35's (315/75/16) with 37's considering the expense for all the suspension and clearance changes needed to do it correctly. I only mention this because I've heard that 17" wheel sizes match up better to the 37" tires. I also believe that 16" wheels with 37" tire sizes are rare or harder to find.
 
80t0ylc said:
I just hate the idea that I'm going to have to spend more money when I need to replace my tires to buy another set of wheels because the "trend" is going to 17" wheels. I've not heard of any significant performance advantage that 17" has over 16", so IMHO there is some hidden force involved. Are we just the victims of a trend? The idea of molds wearing out at first seemed legitimate. But it can't be that hard to just replace with new 16" molds. I really have no desire to replace my 35's (315/75/16) with 37's considering the expense for all the suspension and clearance changes needed to do it correctly. I only mention this because I've heard that 17" wheel sizes match up better to the 37" tires. I also believe that 16" wheels with 37" tire sizes are rare or harder to find.
Click to expand...
Improved handling for road use. The lower aspect ratio (75 to 70) means less sidewall shift which yields improved road handling. Manufacturers do not care about off-road performance, their decisions are based on the daily driver. This is also why many manufacturers specify P rated tires for SUVs (or their own rating), knowing the ride will be improved versus an LT tire.

The "correct" sidewall for a 37" tire is a 17" wheel. 39/40" tires should ideally be on an 18" wheel. 42" tires on a 20" (this is what I run). The idea is sidewall shift and handling at lower pressures. Lower your pressure, drop down a hill, make a hard right turn at the bottom....the left front tire takes the majority of the load, and low pressure combined with excessive sidewall means the tire is more likely to push sideways rather than steer in the intended direction. Too little sidewall (37 on a 20 for instance) impedes the desired long footprint with lower pressure, decreases the tires ability to absorb small rocks/edges, and increases the chances of rim damage.

If you are racing (ie: KOH or Baja), then you want additional sidewall for cushioning and to prevent rim damage due to high speed, rocks, and mid-level pressure. 40 on a 17 is the right balance between sidewall and size.

I run 315's on a 17 on my FZJ80 and have no complaints. I changed because I knew availability was going to adjust as manufacturers simply stopped selling vehicles with 16" wheels. 15's have been in this situation for some time.

I was in the foundry business 20 years ago, and a mold was $75,000. Bet a tire mold is $100-150k. Gotta sell a lot of one size to make that cost back. AND deal with hundreds of sizes.
 
If a person was going to switch from the factory 16's just for increased tire availability would it make sense to skip over 17's and switch directly to 18's?

It makes sense that if trends continue evidentially 17's will also be on their way out.

In my case I will probably stick to what I have for as long as possible. I imagine that there will be some good tire choices available in the 285/75R16 and 315/75R16 sizes that really interest me for a long time.
 
woody said:
Improved handling for road use. The lower aspect ratio (75 to 70) means less sidewall shift which yields improved road handling. Manufacturers do not care about off-road performance, their decisions are based on the daily driver. This is also why many manufacturers specify P rated tires for SUVs (or their own rating), knowing the ride will be improved versus an LT tire.

The "correct" sidewall for a 37" tire is a 17" wheel. 39/40" tires should ideally be on an 18" wheel. 42" tires on a 20" (this is what I run). The idea is sidewall shift and handling at lower pressures. Lower your pressure, drop down a hill, make a hard right turn at the bottom....the left front tire takes the majority of the load, and low pressure combined with excessive sidewall means the tire is more likely to push sideways rather than steer in the intended direction. Too little sidewall (37 on a 20 for instance) impedes the desired long footprint with lower pressure, decreases the tires ability to absorb small rocks/edges, and increases the chances of rim damage.

If you are racing (ie: KOH or Baja), then you want additional sidewall for cushioning and to prevent rim damage due to high speed, rocks, and mid-level pressure. 40 on a 17 is the right balance between sidewall and size.

I run 315's on a 17 on my FZJ80 and have no complaints. I changed because I knew availability was going to adjust as manufacturers simply stopped selling vehicles with 16" wheels. 15's have been in this situation for some time.

I was in the foundry business 20 years ago, and a mold was $75,000. Bet a tire mold is $100-150k. Gotta sell a lot of one size to make that cost back. AND deal with hundreds of sizes.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all this info, Woody! Can you have too much sidewall? I always thought that within reason, more sidewall gave you better flex. Limited flex on the road is important for safety, but off-road, more flex help’s performance, especially aired down. (Too much flex with highway use can cause overheated tires) That’s another reason why I felt that 17 inch versus 16 inch hurt your off-road performance and why I wanted to stay with 16 inch wheels. I don’t much care for premium highway performance with my 80 since I don’t drive it like a sports car.
 
80t0ylc said:
Can you have too much sidewall?
Click to expand...
Yes. The variables are endless, but yes.

My buggy is a terrible example, but I run 6-1/2# front and 6# rear. The buggy weighs 3850 pounds. My rear tire/wheel weighs 145# each. My fronts have water added to achieve my preferred 58.5% front bias. Front tire/wheel/water is 350# each. That is valve stem about 10:00....valve stem at 12:00 (top) puts that tire/wheel/water at 425# each. (Yes, I have scales....and too much nerd time on my hands). 42's on 20x8-1/2's and that gives me enough footprint for "vertical" climbs and keeps the sidewall stiff enough for steep drops that require steering out the bottom. A 42/17 would be terrible for control, since I'd need higher pressure to limit that sidewall shift which then translates to a smaller footprint and less traction.

More sidewall:
  • increased chance of sidewall tears due to obstacle pinches
  • less directional control as pressures decrease
  • maximum flotation for sand/snow traction
  • potentially wider footprint at lower pressure (further increasing sidewall exposure)
Less sidewall:
  • increased chance of sidewall pinch flats between the rim and rocks as pressure decreases
  • increased directional control due to less sidewall shift
  • longer footprint at low pressure with less width increase to help protect sidewall
Now throw in rim width, and you can further screw with all of that :) Personally, I think rims should be 2/3 of tire section width\ (or slightly less). On my buggy, the tires are 14.5 section width, so I should be running a 9.66 wheel...but because of the lower pressures and sidewall shift (and the bottomless cracks we have at Sand Mountain), we frequently get rim locked with a 9-1/2" to 10" wheel, so I run a narrower Battleborn Forged 20x8.5" beadlock wheel to prevent that.

With my FZJ80, the 12.5 section width should be on 8.33" wheels, and I think my Racelines are 8-1/2".

Tire pressure is dependent on a dozen variables too....terrain, load, speed, and the tire itself. No two sidewalls are the same, so the pressure that works best for a Cooper may not for a Toyo or a BFG or an all terrain versus mud terrain. And there is ZERO reason to run identical front/rear pressures, those should be based on load.

CAT scales are everywhere, and knowing your overall/front/rear weight is useful. I know my Sprinter is 7420 total, with 3540 front and 3880 rear. I need to weigh the 80 one of these days.
 
woody said:
Yes. The variables are endless, but yes.

My buggy is a terrible example, but I run 6-1/2# front and 6# rear. The buggy weighs 3850 pounds. My rear tire/wheel weighs 145# each. My fronts have water added to achieve my preferred 58.5% front bias. Front tire/wheel/water is 350# each. That is valve stem about 10:00....valve stem at 12:00 (top) puts that tire/wheel/water at 425# each. (Yes, I have scales....and too much nerd time on my hands). 42's on 20x8-1/2's and that gives me enough footprint for "vertical" climbs and keeps the sidewall stiff enough for steep drops that require steering out the bottom. A 42/17 would be terrible for control, since I'd need higher pressure to limit that sidewall shift which then translates to a smaller footprint and less traction.

More sidewall:
  • increased chance of sidewall tears due to obstacle pinches
  • less directional control as pressures decrease
  • maximum flotation for sand/snow traction
  • potentially wider footprint at lower pressure (further increasing sidewall exposure)
Less sidewall:
  • increased chance of sidewall pinch flats between the rim and rocks as pressure decreases
  • increased directional control due to less sidewall shift
  • longer footprint at low pressure with less width increase to help protect sidewall
Now throw in rim width, and you can further screw with all of that :) Personally, I think rims should be 2/3 of tire section width\ (or slightly less). On my buggy, the tires are 14.5 section width, so I should be running a 9.66 wheel...but because of the lower pressures and sidewall shift (and the bottomless cracks we have at Sand Mountain), we frequently get rim locked with a 9-1/2" to 10" wheel, so I run a narrower Battleborn Forged 20x8.5" beadlock wheel to prevent that.

With my FZJ80, the 12.5 section width should be on 8.33" wheels, and I think my Racelines are 8-1/2".

Tire pressure is dependent on a dozen variables too....terrain, load, speed, and the tire itself. No two sidewalls are the same, so the pressure that works best for a Cooper may not for a Toyo or a BFG or an all terrain versus mud terrain. And there is ZERO reason to run identical front/rear pressures, those should be based on load.

CAT scales are everywhere, and knowing your overall/front/rear weight is useful. I know my Sprinter is 7420 total, with 3540 front and 3880 rear. I need to weigh the 80 one of these days.
Click to expand...
Wow, thanks for the info! I weighed my 80 a few yrs back (overall/front/rear). I think after I installed the 24 gal aux tank and I was amazed at how close it was to 50/50. But the exact figures escapes me. Currently, I'm running 315/75/16 Maxxis Razrs on 8" white steel wagon wheels, so not near as high tech...:hillbilly: I'd not heard of adding water to achieve bias, I guess I need to get out more.:)
 
80t0ylc said:
I'd not heard of adding water to achieve bias, I guess I need to get out more.:)
Click to expand...
Water in the tires for ANYTHING that goes over 20mph is a terrible idea. FYI :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom