What do i gain with 35" over 33" tires?

[SmokingRocks]

It's not that I don't get where he's coming from, in a previous post I echoed much of what he was pointing toward. And in my first post mentioned that basically everyone should start off from stock and slowly work up. If you gain the skill set from having an unlocked rig on small tires that transfers and is expanded upon with larger tires.

I have no doubt in anyone's abilities here, just saying that if you haven't tasted the wine you don't know if it's good or not.

 

[jaymar]

What do 35s give you that 33s don't?

Well let's see--greater driveline component stress, slower acceleration, longer stopping distance, faster brake wear, worse mileage and higher cost. In return for which you get...(drum roll please)...one inch higher, and a teensy bit bigger footprint you can get by airing down anyway. And, okay, it does look cool. YMMV.

 

[DSRTRDR]

. . . . Anyone who says lockers are not necessary must just wheel in the desert. . . . .

which desert are you talking about ?

I wheel in the desert all the time, and use lockers on many of the trails I take

and what is this "just" you add there as if wheeling in the desert isn't real ?

 

[DSRTRDR]

hey now. I use lockers in the desert too. you must be someone who has never been to a desert...

/this\ X2

and the LX fits just fine in the garage on 315s and with the OEM roof rack

the garage happens to be in a desert town (in a regular house)

 

[ChaseTruck]

@greentruck
Most people who are looking at getting into a 35" MT are not rounding the bend to 70 years old. They are typically younger and interested in going farther and seeking out those situations which you are clearly avoiding. 35"s, lockers and a quality winch () will help get them through every day all day.

That ain't it, either. Here's a little story:

Moab, about 10 years ago, a nice sunny Saturday the beginning of October, we're running CliffHanger with a group of K5 Blazers, I'm tailgunner. As we're start the climb out of the creek bed right after the entrance, two CJ-7 Jeeps catch up to us. Both vehicles are nicely built, not overdone, but 35s MT tires. In each vehicle there's an elderly coupe, probably in their mid-sixties, very properly dressed - for a Saturday walk in the park... They watch the proceedings with interest (ahem, some of my acquaintances from back then tended to have a heavy right foot, which, together with bouncy leaf springs can make a good spectacle...) , I walk up to them and apologize that we've bottlenecked the trail for now, and they replied no worries, they're not in a hurry. And then one of the guys walks up to Claudia (she was along in the FJ40, locked f/r, by the way) and asks in a very concerned tone of voice: "Do you guys have lockers? You know, you need lockers!"

 

[Howard705]

The real debate here is WHAT % gain is there vs/tradeoffs/cost/etc in reliability/mobility/efficiency/diminishing returns. Overall you get MUCH more for your first 1k $$ in mods that last of your 10k$. Just like a rear locker alone gives you much more than 1/2 of F&R lockers. All the drivetrain/steering/brakes/etc compromised by too big is all $$ to get back to the same level as stock. Most trails are 95% passable by one setup but have just a few obstacles that require bigger/better OR winching. 80s can be built to be anything you want but are an expedition-type platform so that seems to be the best way to maximize it's best qualities while keeping it what it is with the broadest range if usefulness.

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

When guys say they dont need lockers it an excellent indication on what kind of wheeling they do.

This pre-ARB advertisement sums it up pretty well

 

[msapers]

I was running 33's on my 80 and they worked great anywhere I wanted to go. Recently, my dad bought an 80 with 35's and hated the extra height, so we swapped wheels and tires. My impression of the 35's? Well, they definitely look better on my lifted 80, no question. However, this truck is my daily driver and I have noticed a slight decrease in acceleration and braking. A couple of days of driving has made this unnoticeable. On the plus side, I've been getting about 2 mpg better on the highway according to my ultra gauge AS LONG AS THE ROAD IS ABSOLUTELY FLAT. as soon as the slightest grade presents itself, mpg goes down the toilet. I haven't had the chance to get them off road yet but honestly, I liked my truck better on 33's. I should also mention that I have a lift, rack, awnings and a roof top tent that live on the truck all the time and sidehills were weird with the 33's and will probably be even worse with the 35's. This has been my experience and mine alone. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself. For me, 33's will get me everywhere I personally want to go and 35's will get me more compliments at the mall. YMMV. By the way, if you're around L.A., you're welcome to take my truck for a spin to see what 35's feel like.

 

[canman]

which desert are you talking about ?

I wheel in the desert all the time, and use lockers on many of the trails I take

and what is this "just" you add there as if wheeling in the desert isn't real ?

Never meant to imply that. A dream of mine is to one day head on down to the southwest to do some wheeling.

 

[WyoOtto]

Small lift (2.5"), winch, armor, 33's and you can go 99+% of the places a rig on 37" tires can go. The trail might not be quite as comfy but going to and from the trail will be infinitely better. It's not that 35's or larger don't appeal to me but the cost of getting there properly is more than I can justify now. Someday, finances permitting, I will probably go up in size. This may also be perceived as 4wheeling blasphemy but I have yet to air down for a trail (cheap bastard) so my clearance is comparable or better to a rig aired down on 35's under the axle. I also subscribe to the skinny tire philosophy with regard to contact patch vs pressure and I have no problem running trails like Spring Creek in this configuration (except waiting for rigs in front of me who have peeled their 13" wide tired off of their rim). This isn't to say that a rig on 35 or 37 or a buggy on 40+ inch tires can't conquer the same terrain much more quickly but I'm not out there for speed. I'm out there to test my skills, my trucks capabilities and enjoy being out of the cesspool. At the end of the day it's all about how you plan to use you're truck.

 

[retrofive]

IMHE, I ran 33's for sometime, truck went every where I pointed it. Then jumped to 35's. The same trails and lines became much easier.

 

[greentruck]

When guys say they dont need lockers it an excellent indication on what kind of wheeling they do.
SNIP

Not trying to read too much into this, Phil, but -- what is it? -- 12% of 80s left the showroom floor with lockers. Most of us aren't original owners, so we didn't make those purchasing decisions. That number may reflect the fact that those who could afford a shiny new LandCruiser in the 90s tended to be folks who didn't intend to wheel them. And then there's the aftermarket, which has probably upped the percentage w/ lockers a bit. Let's call it a 20% installed base of lockers, just to be generous.

That leaves 4 out of 5 current owners pretty well satisfied with the capabilities of the vehicle with open diffs. Mine gets me where I want and need to go. Would I like lockers? To tell you the truth, I'd rather spend money on them than on bigger tires and all that goes with them. But I haven't needed them to enjoy my off-road experience. For me, lockers would be more like an insurance policy for old folks

smokingrocks,
It's not about what's better, except what's better for YOU. If you need 35s and lockers to enjoy your offroad experience, I'm not questioning that at all. All I'm saying it that for most people and most trails, neither is strictly necessary. Have I encountered trails where it would've helped to have 35s (or bigger) and lockers? Sure. In most cases, a well-chosen line worked. As I noted, the only trail I've ever wanted to get to the end of that's frustrated me is Holy Cross City. Am I going to spend the bucks it takes to drive right up it? No. Could I now do it in the 80? Since I have a winch, sure, probably could on 33s if I had all day and not a line of folks behind me. But I don't have the need to do that badly enough to bother with. If I'm close enough in the future, I'll likely take another stab at seeing how far I can get with the 80 on 33s without running cable, just for comparison purposes. But I'll feel no sense of loss or inadequacy over that.

Bottom line. Most people can bring their stock rig to Colorado and run most trails with no need to worry they're underquipped. If you want to find a trail that will show you the brick wall, you can do that, too. But it won't keep you from enjoying the splendor or getting to more damn fine wilderness camps than you'll ever need.

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

Not trying to read too much into this, Phil, but -- what is it? -- 12% of 80s left the showroom floor with lockers. Most of us aren't original owners, so we didn't make those purchasing decisions. That number may reflect the fact that those who could afford a shiny new LandCruiser in the 90s tended to be folks who didn't intend to wheel them. And then there's the aftermarket, which has probably upped the percentage w/ lockers a bit. Let's call it a 20% installed base of lockers, just to be generous.

That leaves 4 out of 5 current owners pretty well satisfied with the capabilities of the vehicle with open diffs. Mine gets me where I want and need to go. Would I like lockers? To tell you the truth, I'd rather spend money on them than on bigger tires and all that goes with them. But I haven't needed them to enjoy my off-road experience. For me, lockers would be more like an insurance policy for old folks

Basically there are trails that REQUIRE lockers no matter who the *Archer is. I have been fully locked since 1978 (way before it was cool thing) and would not have it any other way. I and my family have traveled solo a lot and thankfully in most cases it a security rather than need. Its not that Im a crappy driver in many cases its a safety issue to be equipped. If one is comfortable without locker and see no need I say great but for one to say they can do the same with or without lockers is pure BS.


*Sometimes its the archer not the arrow

 

[WyoOtto]

I do need to concede that my previous statements are locker dependent and I am 3x locked and wouldn't have it any other way

 

[Dragos80]

I have been fully locked since 1978

What was your crime?

 

[greentruck]

SNIP If one is comfortable without locker and see no need I say great but for one to say they can do the same with or without lockers is pure BS.


*Sometimes its the archer not the arrow

Phil,
Being comfortable getting where I need to go without lockers is not saying that trails that require them can be done without them. In fact, that doesn't really make a lot of sense to argue about...something rather like pure BS.

My point was you really have to try to find trails that require lockers. The vast majority of "trails" in Colorado are either county or forest roads. Local conditions sometimes intermittently may require lockers to traverse them, but being without is otherwise a very rare impediment to getting through.

And keep in mind that I'm not accusing locker-equipped vehicle owners in general here when I note this...I can think of multiple examples of places that I've seen where people may have been relying on lockers to get through are actually OFF the trail. The damage they did is still visible in wetlands and alpine meadows decades later, because the forces that would erode the damage at altitude act so slowly. Do I say this because I'm hating on lockers? No, it's because some people are so desperate to test themselves and their equipment that they go looking for places to use them due to the general scarcity of need for them on most trails. I'm certain this is a minority of locker owners, too, but it's obvious some people just can't help themselves. Do they need lockers? Probably, because they are driving stupid, but not because the trail requires it. And they make the rest of us look bad and hand ammo to folks who want to close the trails we rely on.

 

[d0nkeyxpunch]

Just get 34s.

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

Phil,
Being comfortable getting where I need to go without lockers is not saying that trails that require them can be done without them. In fact, that doesn't really make a lot of sense to argue about...something rather like pure BS.

My point was you really have to try to find trails that require lockers. The vast majority of "trails" in Colorado are either county or forest roads. Local conditions sometimes intermittently may require lockers to traverse them, but being without is otherwise a very rare impediment to getting through.

And keep in mind that I'm not accusing locker-equipped vehicle owners in general here when I note this...I can think of multiple examples of places that I've seen where people may have been relying on lockers to get through are actually OFF the trail. The damage they did is still visible in wetlands and alpine meadows decades later, because the forces that would erode the damage at altitude act so slowly. Do I say this because I'm hating on lockers? No, it's because some people are so desperate to test themselves and their equipment that they go looking for places to use them due to the general scarcity of need for them on most trails. I'm certain this is a minority of locker owners, too, but it's obvious some people just can't help themselves. Do they need lockers? Probably, because they are driving stupid, but not because the trail requires it. And they make the rest of us look bad and hand ammo to folks who want to close the trails we rely on.

Mike, Not sure exactly what your point is but I will agree to put this hijack to rest. As long as EVERYBODY get home safely Im good with however one is equipped.

Next time in Co I'll look you up and you can school me on running the wall on Poughkeepsie Gulch unlocked wet <joke

 

[Douglas S]

I like my 34's.

 

[WyoOtto]

Yea, tire size really comes down to priorities and dollars. Personally my goal is to have as close to a do it all rig as possible. However, this requires a wholistic view of the system in which the driver and the equipment at his/her disposal are integral parts. I could write a dissertation on this subject but I'll bring it back to the OP's question. The only place I've consistently had any trouble with 33" tires is on large vertical shelfs. Usually, I can find a way to get the front end over but the back end becomes problematic. I've gone through 2 sets of rear LCAs (OEM and Slee) because of large shelfs (cliffhanger). I now have the metaltech LCAs and they function quite nicely as sliders. The point being that with a low break over angle and smaller tires against a large shelf, you are usually relegated to rock stacking or pulling the winch line out or accepting a pull from someone already up. I don't see anything wrong with those options. In fact, I like getting stuck and the process of finding a solution. The practice of self-reliance is the predominant reason I do this in the first place. An example of small (33") tires and the necessity of stacking rocks on a large shelf or in this case rearranging the rocks that others had already stacked: