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

[greentruck]

Most locked 80's on 35's are good on 4 rated trails <link At that point what becomes the most limiting factory on 4rated and above trail?
Lift
Tires
Traction device
Stereo
Cup holder
Given this is a 'What do i gain with 35" over 33" tires' thread Im thinking its not tires.

I think the limiting factor is brain.

I've driven some AZ trails, but not enough to kake a comparison to Colorado. Plucking one of my guidebooks down, they have CO trails broken down with Independence as most difficult, followed by the aforementioned Blanca, and the one I've cited several times, Holy Cross City.

They note body damage as a factor, just as the system you've cited does. I'm down with that, because that's what turns me back, definitely what did it on Holy Cross -- twice, once in a 55 and once in a Rodeo, both virtually new vehicles. There are another 72 CO trails listed below those in difficultly. I can't say how accurate all the ratings are, but I've been on many and say they hold up well with my experience.

So if your brain is OK with bending stuff - maybe - then you go on. If like mine, it's usually not so inclined, then you turn back. Holy Cross is the only one that's happened on and that on nothing bigger than 31s. I'm sure my judgment on this is as subjective as anyone else's, but I have a pretty fair idea of how bad things need to be before I call it quits.

 

[greentruck]

I think,, feel,, whatever, maybe a little different than actual experience?

A build for a handful of trails in Colorado, what once a decade or so, is pretty easy? Others may want more versatility than that? If 31" worked so well for you, why did you step up to 33"? Stock sized tires would have worked fine?

I think me answer to Phil covers the experience issue pretty well. That I haven't been back in a few years is regrettable (life and a second career in grad school have a way of doing that, but I finally graduate next week). But it used to be a nearly annual pilgrimage for a couple of decades. I remember taking that stock 55 there in 77 and being very concerned about not having bigger tires (31s would've been nice, as 33s were considered HUGE back then) and lacking a winch. Partly it was the hype in offroad mags (they exist to sell stuff you "need" and some of it you do), as this was very pre-internet, and partly my own fears of the unknown. Simply getting there and driving it taught me that the best gear is nice to have (truck eventually got 31s and a 8274), but that paying attention to your driving can take you a long ways beyond what you thought possible.

Why 33s? The truck is designed for them, they fit without modification, and there may even be a MPG bonus, as seems to be the case surprisingly enough. Go bigger than 33s and you lose something for every gain. It may be a worthwhile tradeoff, only you can decide that, but it's not all peaches and cream. There are negatives, as well as advantages. People may very well decide they need 35s. Then again, it could be like those kids who show up insisting they NEED an 80 series with lockers or it's just not going to be a suitable truck. They've been stuck once or twice and think having the killer app is the solution to that. Probably not, they'll just get stuck worse...Then again, there's folks that aren't having fun until they're waist deep in rocks. Not my cup of tea, but yep, you may need lockers.

 

[greentruck]

Not at all I understand and appreciate your opinion, I truely do. But when seeming half of the post in a thread about 35's are novel sized post from the same member (who has never had 35's) reiterating the same points over and over again it gets old.

Perhaps it's just me. So I'll shut up now.

I think it's been an interesting discussion with plenty of food for thought added by all. And it was a thread about 35s AND 33s. I understand how many feel 35s are a natural progression upon owning an 80. But I think that a viable alternative is to stick with 33s unless you KNOW you need something bigger. It's an argument that you see much less of here in general. Yes, you give up a little vs 35s, but you may never notice the difference unless you're in the extreme sports end of the spectrum. If you go with 35s, you will definitely notice the difference one place, in your wallet. So these shouldn't be casual decisions. They are ones which a good discussion can't decide for you, but which can inform one's thinking on the matter.

 

[Qball]

I think it's been an interesting discussion with plenty of food for thought added by all. And it was a thread about 35s AND 33s. I understand how many feel 35s are a natural progression upon owning an 80. But I think that a viable alternative is to stick with 33s unless you KNOW you need something bigger. It's an argument that you see much less of here in general. Yes, you give up a little vs 35s, but you may never notice the difference unless you're in the extreme sports end of the spectrum. If you go with 35s, you will definitely notice the difference one place, in your wallet. So these shouldn't be casual decisions. They are ones which a good discussion can't decide for you, but which can inform one's thinking on the matter.

Coming from someone switched from 33 to 35 the economical side of argument isn't all that valid. The 80 is the only vehicle I know that can slap on 35 with basically NO modification. You need to make sure your powers train, axles and brakes are in good working no mater what tire size. I get better mpg on highways on 35, my buddy just got 4 35s toyo for 1000, I paid 950 for my 33s.

So I really don't see the savings for going 33, if you want to save money then stay stock everything!

 

[jvazquez53]

I switched to 35 and the trucks seems to run better, I have used 35 KM2s and 315 KO2s. Like both.

 

[jvazquez53]

Remember, bigger tires, gear ratio goes down, vehicle behavior changes...

 

[greentruck]

Coming from someone switched from 33 to 35 the economical side of argument isn't all that valid. The 80 is the only vehicle I know that can slap on 35 with basically NO modification. You need to make sure your powers train, axles and brakes are in good working no mater what tire size. I get better mpg on highways on 35, my buddy just got 4 35s toyo for 1000, I paid 950 for my 33s.

So I really don't see the savings for going 33, if you want to save money then stay stock everything!

Qball,
That's just what I was wanting to add as I try not to burn dinner....

There's two wyas that people do 35s on the 80. There's "mount and rub" and there's "just lift it already." True enough, people do seem to get away with mounting 35s and saying done. But there's always some rubbing. And if you're going to the San Juans, there will be more rubbing if there's any at all elsewhere. Here's where I'll plead inexperience, because to me it sounds like a much better idea to go with a mild lift to run 35s. That's where I think there's a bit of advantage that's more concrete than just choosing a good line. The body is farther away from those hungry rocks.

So that choice is one that I think is important. If you mount and rub, you're really only taking advantage of part of what could be gained on 35s. To me, not enough to bother and I hate the idea of rubbing $1,000+ of rubber. So you really need to think of including the lift when figured cost of running 35s vs 33s. Then you're back to the tippy factor increasing again, reminding us there really is no free lunch here.

Then there's the spare. 33 fits underneath, barely, and is not really in a good position , even when tucked by one of the various methods people have documented. I worry about that a little, but it seemed to work OK on the 55, although with a better tuck because it only was running 28s on that first trip (I later went to a long range tank, which pushed the spare out anyway.) If you go 35, that spare needs to go someplace else and that will cost you, too.

You're absolutely right, though, staying stock everything is possible on 33s. Anything bigger and you can't, plus the risk of breaking stuff also goes up substantially (which of course is ultimately governed by how hard you press the skinny pedal.)

 

[Tools R Us]

... comparison to Colorado. ...

We wheel with a group from Colombia, they came up for the last Colorado trip. Prefer to drive, but shipping their rigs is cost prohibitive, so rent-a-wheeler is the plan. A rent-a-wheeler with a flat on Governor's basin/Imogen.

Rent-a-wheeler exploring some mining stuff around Silverton.

Rent-a-wheerler on Black Bear Pass.

Corkscrew.

Could dig up more, they were on, Engineer, Ophir, California, Hurricane, etc. IIRC, the only trail there were none was Poughkeepsie. All of the Cruisers have 35" of 37", so in Mud logic, those rigs are just as capable, they went the same places?

 

[Tools R Us]

The same thing works in Moab.

The rent-a-wheeler coming out of Elephant hill, the day started in Blanding, so over the mountain, the Causeway, Ruin Park, Beef Basin, Bobby's Hole...

Lockhart Basin.

Hells Revenge.

Fins and Things.

White Rim.

There is photographic proof, big tires, lockers, armor, total waste of time. Just get a rent-a-wheeler, likely cheaper and someone else can worry about the maintenance!

 

[Dragos80]

I always wanted to ask those who have gone with larger diameter tires. I know the speedometer will indicate a lower speed than the true speed you drive at with larger tires.
Does that mean there will be fewer miles registered on the odometer?

 

[Dragos80]

@Tools R Us
Did you really mean to post those pictures in this thread?

 

[Tools R Us]

Coming from someone switched from 33 to 35 the economical side of argument isn't all that valid. The 80 is the only vehicle I know that can slap on 35 with basically NO modification. You need to make sure your powers train, axles and brakes are in good working no mater what tire size. I get better mpg on highways on 35, my buddy just got 4 35s toyo for 1000, I paid 950 for my 33s.

So I really don't see the savings for going 33, if you want to save money then stay stock everything!

Yep, 315's should have come from the factory. What were they thinking,,, oh right, soccer moms!

 

[Tools R Us]

... But there's always some rubbing. ...

I go by the old wheeling rule of thumb, if the tires aren't rubbin, they are too damn small.

But, it's trivial to fix on 315's, not much more work for 37".

 

[Qball]

Yep, 315's should have come from the factory. What were they thinking,,, oh right, soccer moms!

Yup! The 80 is designed to be able to run bigger tires and have clearance for lots of mud. No the 80 is NOT designed for soccer moms, the 100 is. The 80 is a global work horse with some lips sticks on in the US. This is why they never sold that well until the 100 series.

 

[Qball]

I always wanted to ask those who have gone with larger diameter tires. I know the speedometer will indicate a lower speed than the true speed you drive at with larger tires.
Does that mean there will be fewer miles registered on the odometer?

Yes, with 35s the instruments will register 10-11% less speed and miles. 33s will be 5% less on both speed and odometer.

This is why when calculating for MPG you need to adjust accordingly. I get ~13mpg after adjustment, before roof rack and front bumper I was between 14-15mpg on 35s.

 

[Qball]

I go by the old wheeling rule of thumb, if the tires aren't rubbin, they are too damn small.

But, it's trivial to fix on 315's, not much more work for 37".

With 35s and NO bump stop spacer I only rub a tiny bit up front which is so little I decided not to to lose my suspension travel for that little bit of paint on the fender. So when it comes to 35s and stock suspension the rub is minimum of any!

Also when it comes to break stuff things don't stop breaking until 37s and even that requires very specific condition and user error to break Birfield. Remember is the is a landcruiser not a jeep.

This just reminded me that this past Saturday I saw a jeep with 38s and stock everything, I was waiting for something to break but fortunately it was a very mild trail. And as I was working on my honda minvan I realized that the minivan's lug nuts are bigger than the jeep's. It comes with 22mm lug nuts vs jeeps 19mm. Doh!

 

[Dragos80]

Right. Because I keep reading people get better fuel economy with bigger tires, but I think there is a human error in those numbers, because they don't have the correct number of miles registered. I believe in reality they drive fewer miles than the odometer indicates.

 

[Qball]

Right. Because I keep reading people get better fuel economy with bigger tires, but I think there is a human error in those numbers, because they don't have the correct number of miles registered. I believe in reality they drive fewer miles than the odometer indicates.

It is true, for every mile registered on the odometer I actually went 1.1 miles. I verified this via GPS! So yes on flatter areas and highway I get better MPG because the RPM is also 10-11% slower. At 65 miles my RPM is just above 2000 compared to 22000 when I had stock tires.

 

[ChaseTruck]

As to my priorities, ...

Get the 315s, and never look back.

Does lack of experience make one incapable of offering a useful opinion about 35s? it might...if it made things more difficult. I'd have no way to judge or compare to "more difficult." Since we all agree it would be easier, I don't think easy is going to stymie me at all. There's nothing mystical about easier.
...
As I also observed earlier, my technique doesn't tolerate abusing the equipment or wheelspin. In fact, to be successful in running trails on smaller tires, you need to avoid that sort of careless driving entirely. Having the auto worries me on that score -- a lot more than tire size or lack of lockers. Which points out once again, this argument really isn't about a single number settling things. It also depends on many other factors, only a few of which involve equipment.

I'm thinking you might want to give it a rest here.

By your own admission, you haven't had a good notion of what it feels like to drive an obstacle with lockers - never mind bigger tires. Now it becomes clear you haven't had the experience of what it means to drive an automatic transmission in an obstacle - namely with the right foot on the gas to control available engine torque, and at the same time with the left foot on the brake to control forward progress. Newsflash - lockers and left-foot-brake will control wheelspin. Very effectively, I should add. Don't tell me that wastes brake pads - it'll only reinforce the notion that you have no direct experience. Some of us have that experience and expertise. You're free to discount that expertise in favor of your own experience. But I'm not sure doing that will support the notions you brought forward.

As for your beloved alpine meadows, I've seen first-hand a situation (photo-documented on this very message board, by the way...) where there was destruction of a pristine alpine meadow (in Utah, so it might not count for you...) by vehicles with inconsiderate or irresponsible drivers. They got stuck precisely because they didn't have traction aids (nevermind that one particular guy was too stupid to know in the first place... and his 7 kids didn't learn anything from daddy on that day...). I bet you $5 (or $12.. sorry, insider joke...) that I could have driven my locked truck across the very same spot without ever spinning a single tire. Neither myself, nor the rest of my gang on that day, did drive the meadow; we (ahem, our resident Canadians in the gang...) got the offending tree out of the way on the road. All of us were locked front and rear; none of us did drive in to ruin the soft soil of the meadow in the middle of that high-altitude valley.

And I'd also like to abuse you of the notion that running 31s will make you superior in picking lines. If there's a line for 31s in a rock garden, by all means, take it. That'll work great - until there simply are no lines for your 31s. Those of us on 37s or 35s also pick lines very carefully, because we've got places to go, things to see (and photograph, in my case), and the best line through an obstacle is the one that wastes the least amount of time - i.e. the most efficient one. That line also happens to be the one that leaves the least amount of impact on the trail - and that's also why we're picking that line.

Tools was kind enough earlier to show you a situation where that GC on street tires got hung up in a creek bed/wash. The same hang-up on a rocky hillclimb can turn very quickly into a really bad situation - get hung up due to insufficient ground clearance, stop momentum of the vehicle, truck gets pitched a few degrees off the preferred line, and next thing you know the truck is half sideways on a hill. Good luck getting out of that with your 31s. Well, you say you're not going there. But someone else might, based on your input given on this board. You might want to think about that.

I encourage everyone to 'run what you brung'. Just be prepared to turn around when you didn't bring enough. Don't rely on the Landcruiser mystique to get you through safely, no matter what the flatlander says.

 

[Summiteer]

Right. Because I keep reading people get better fuel economy with bigger tires, but I think there is a human error in those numbers, because they don't have the correct number of miles registered. I believe in reality they drive fewer miles than the odometer indicates.

I believe it's the other way around... If my odometer says I've gone 100 miles, I've actually gone 111.

My mpg decreased when I went with a larger tire. I was getting 16-17 pretty consistently with 33's but now get 14-15 with 35's.