Wheel offset check needed for 2014 LX570 (1 Viewer)

[kwelhand]

https://www.tirerack.com/wheels/Whe...s&autoModel=LX+570&autoYear=2014&autoModClar=

I'm about to order above Alpha Command 18x9 wheel w/ +25mm offset.
The price is good and I don't want any rubbing especially the UCA.
Did some research but I'm getting conflict advice...

Will it rub or any modification needed to fit with 285/65 or 285/70 Toyo Open Country AT (or the biggest tire I could fit)?
Don't want to use the spacer or BCM.
I like the wheel slightly pushing out of the fender for a more aggressive look.
Also, is the 18" wheel ok for moderate to semi-difficult offroad use or should I stick with 17" wheel?

Thanks in advance!


I want a similar look of this setup... not sure it's 17" or 18"

 

[tbisaacs]

I’m running a 295/70/18 (34.5x11.5) at 30mm offset and do not need a body mount chop

 

[kwelhand]

I’m running a 295/70/18 (34.5x11.5) at 30mm offset and do not need a body mount chop

Oh my… nice!
I think you did a sensor lift on your setup to clear the tire size, right?

Do you think +25mm offset doesn’t require a sensor lift or rubbing against the fender?

 

[tbisaacs]

I wouldn’t get hung up on sensor lift or not. The wheels move up and down and have to fit. You may clear at ride height and rub when you hit a speed bump. Sensor lift won’t fix that.

But you won’t have an issues. If there is any rubbing it would be against the plastic fender liner - easy to address if you have to.

 

[kwelhand]

I wouldn’t get hung up on sensor lift or not. The wheels move up and down and have to fit. You may clear at ride height and rub when you hit a speed bump. Sensor lift won’t fix that.

But you won’t have an issues. If there is any rubbing it would be against the plastic fender liner - easy to address if you have to.

Oh I see…
Thank you for your clarification!
I might have to order them… price seems very good.

 

[CharlieS]

This is open to some interpretation, can you clarify: "moderate to semi-difficult offroad use"

Having more rubber can make a pretty big difference when you air down.

This will be where your intended uses becomes important. Where you fall on the spectrum of difficulty and terrain will probably drive whether 17" or 18" are a better choice for you.

For a mostly street, mild offroading (up to say 3/5 difficulty, some lower end of 4/5 stuff), the 18" are awesome with the right tire.

FWIW, I'm moving to 17" rims on my LC hoping for a slight bit of advantage for more challenging trails.

 

[kwelhand]

This is open to some interpretation, can you clarify: "moderate to semi-difficult offroad use"

Having more rubber can make a pretty big difference when you air down.

This will be where your intended uses becomes important. Where you fall on the spectrum of difficulty and terrain will probably drive whether 17" or 18" are a better choice for you.

For a mostly street, mild offroading (up to say 3/5 difficulty, some lower end of 4/5 stuff), the 18" are awesome with the right tire.

FWIW, I'm moving to 17" rims on my LC hoping for a slight bit of advantage for more challenging trails.

We are traveling to Utah twice a year for 4/5 difficulty trails and mostly 3/5 difficulty trials in Georgia and surrounding states throughout the year.

 

[CharlieS]

For a single data point - I've gotten away with doing 4/5 rated trails that were steep, rocky, ledgy, muddy, and wet in primarily forested/mountainous terrain with 18" rims and aired down 33" BFG AT KO2s. There were a handful of times where I wished for more rubber, but it was never a limiting factor to my ability to get through an obstacle.

Driver skill was my biggest problem, distantly followed by ground clearance.

You'll be fine on 18"s.

 

[kwelhand]

For a single data point - I've gotten away with doing 4/5 rated trails that were steep, rocky, ledgy, muddy, and wet in primarily forested/mountainous terrain with 18" rims and aired down 33" BFG AT KO2s. There were a handful of times where I wished for more rubber, but it was never a limiting factor to my ability to get through an obstacle.

Driver skill was my biggest problem, distantly followed by ground clearance.

You'll be fine on 18"s.

Thank you! very helpful information.

 

[tbisaacs]

Would not optimize for 2 trips per year. 1/2" extra sidewall won't be the limiting factor to increasing trail difficulty. You'll have other issues first

 

[AnyMal]

The Method +35 17” wheels and Alpha +35 17” Delta wheel are all around 28 lbs, and are very very solid choice for 17s.

Very nice to see real wheel options for the 200s in good looking styles and multiple colors. Specially the Alpha wheels IMO look great.

Now if anyone finds a good looking +35 18” under 30lbs I may be willing to part with my (5) MR313s

 

[TeCKis300]

As a minor point, between the Method +35 17” wheels and Alpha +35 17” Delta wheels, one difference I see is that they are 9" vs 8.5" width respectively.

One parameter I'd try to optimize is going for the wider tire on a narrower rim. When airing down to lower pressures, bead retention can be a thing that comes into play. Poor mans bead lock strategy if you will.

To evaluate this, every tire has a spec rim width range that it's designed for. If I take following couple sizes for example, really want to be on the narrower end of that range to ensure solid retention.

LT285/65R18	8.5-10.0
LT295/70R18	7.5-8.5-10.0

 

[AnyMal]

As a minor point, between the Method +35 17” wheels and Alpha +35 17” Delta wheels, one difference I see is that they are 9" vs 8.5" width respectively.

One parameter I'd try to optimize is going for the wider tire on a narrower rim. When airing down to lower pressures, bead retention can be a thing that comes into play. Poor mans bead lock strategy if you will.

To evaluate this, every tire has a spec rim width range that it's designed for. If I take following couple sizes for example, really want to be on the narrower end of that range to ensure solid retention.

LT285/65R18	8.5-10.0
LT295/70R18	7.5-8.5-10.0

Yes indeed, unfortunately we have mixed units here… my 285 on an 8.5 is pinned back by what 1.5” each side?

You do want to keep it tame though with the bead seat discrepancy since when the dimensions get too wild you will have more noticeable bulge at contact patch that can snag more.

Funny you say that though I thought your fitment is the most “square” here lol.

Is someone thinking of going aftermarket and not oem ?

Btw which one is 17x9?

 

[TeCKis300]

Yes indeed, unfortunately we have mixed units here… my 285 on an 8.5 is pinned back by what 1.5” each side?

You do want to keep it tame though with the bead seat discrepancy since when the dimensions get too wild you will have more noticeable bulge at contact patch that can snag more.

Funny you say that though I thought your fitment is the most “square” here lol.

Is someone thinking of going aftermarket and not oem ?

Btw which one is 17x9?

Nawh, I'm sticking with the OEM wheels I have as they are likely more durable and stronger than anything in the aftermarket. It's a trade but I need the strength and stability of 20s for towing.

Not sure what you mean by pinned back?

If I'm not mistaken, the Method's are 9" width?

The square look of my setup may be a figment of the larger and flush style face of the stock wheels. I'm clear on the lower width requirement of my tires at 8.5":

35X12.50R20LT

8.5-10.0-11.0

 

[CharlieS]

You do want to keep it tame though with the bead seat discrepancy since when the dimensions get too wild you will have more noticeable bulge at contact patch that can snag more.

Say what? Snag more? More traction maybe.

 

[AnyMal]

Here is the Method offering for 200 platform as of, November?, by weight. I see 17x7.5 and 8" but no 17x9s.

By pinned back i mean how far the tire needs to curve back into the wheel bead. (your poor mans beadlock measurement on either side).
So my 8.5" width 313 is 215.9MM of wheel, assuming the bead lip is paired to the outermost face of the wheel itself.
Lets call it ≈215mm to account for a bit of material thickness, the 285mm tire is wider by 70. Thats 2.75" divided by two for how much extra tire widht there is on both sides. So that makes it 1.375" of inward "curvature" to seat into the wheel. This is not actual curvature since that takes into account the aspect dsitance arc but im not sure what else to call it.

I know you already know all of this, im just writing it out plainly for forum posterity.

Im right at Toyos fitment guideline for my 285/70/17s (7.5-8.5-9.5) but they dont bulge beyound my level of concern.
If i were on a 295 or 305 i would think twice to go to less than an 8" width wheel, they rec (8.0-9.0-10.0) for that 305 size on a 17.
Not that what youre saying is wrong, but it would make me concerned for snagging rock edges more easily at the weakest spot of the tire.

I see what you mean by the 20s, they are heavily faceted in the face and high offset it gives a square illusion (which i think looks good actually but not off road optimal).
Like i said before, your photos are what made me replace my A/T 3 (totally lame looking) Ps for the proper LT variant.


AAAAALLLL of that being said, im still looking at what tire would pair best with a hypothetical 18x9" wheel "upgrade" for my truck.
But then i am back above my AHC OEM wheel weight package, but not by much. A few negligible pounds shouldn't hurt (and may even help).

But then again there are almost zero 18x9 +35 wheels in 5x150.

That 17x7.5 314 can make for a very tight bead on someones 285s. Any takers?

 

[AnyMal]

I’m running a 295/70/18 (34.5x11.5) at 30mm offset and do not need a body mount chop

Remind me what wheel youre using? Spacers on Tundra OEM?

 

[tbisaacs]

Remind me what wheel youre using? Spacers on Tundra OEM?

Yep, 1.25" spacer on OEM Tundra TRD wheels

 

[AnyMal]

Yep, 1.25" spacer on OEM Tundra TRD wheels

Not sure it’s possible with your tire size but have you ever A/Bd your setup with spacer (+30) against the OE (+60?) without spacer for ride characteristics?

 

[TeCKis300]

Here is the Method offering for 200 platform as of, November?, by weight. I see 17x7.5 and 8" but no 17x9s.

By pinned back i mean how far the tire needs to curve back into the wheel bead. (your poor mans beadlock measurement on either side).
So my 8x5" width 313 is 215.9MM of wheel, assuming the bead lip is paired to the outermost face of the wheel itself.
Lets call it ≈215mm to account for a bit of material thickness, the 285mm tire is wider by 70. Thats 2.75" divided by two for how much extra tire widht there is on both sides. So that makes it 1.375" of inward "curvature" to seat into the wheel. This is not actual curvature since that takes into account the aspect dsitance arc but im not sure what else to call it.

I know you already know all of this, im just writing it out plainly for forum posterity.

Im right at Toyos fitment guideline for my 285/70/17s (7.5-8.5-9.5) but they dont bulge beyound my level of concern.
If i were on a 295 or 305 i would think twice to go to less than an 8" width wheel, they rec (8.0-9.0-10.0) for that 305 size on a 17.
Not that what youre saying is wrong, but it would make me concerned for snagging rock edges more easily at the weakest spot of the tire.

I see what you mean by the 20s, they are heavily faceted in the face and high offset it gives a square illusion (which i think looks good actually but not off road optimal).
Like i said before, your photos are what made me replace my A/T 3 (totally lame looking) Ps for the proper LT variant.


AAAAALLLL of that being said, im still looking at what tire would pair best with a hypothetical 18x9" wheel "upgrade" for my truck.
But then i am back above my AHC OEM wheel weight package, but not by much. A few negligible pounds shouldn't hurt (and may even help).

View attachment 2860873


But then again there are almost zero 18x9 +35 wheels in 5x150.

That 17x7.5 314 can make for a very tight bead on someones 285s. Any takers?

Good job doing your homework and you're on the right track. I'm bringing up things for the sake of discussion but in the end, it's all a compromise and it's up to the individual to choose their poison.

Couple notes:
- I'm often a stickler for weights. But not as much when it comes to wheels and tires. Yes, unsprung weight is not a great thing, but for an off-road vehicle, I wouldn't pinch pounds the way I would for a sports car. It's not the impact to MPG the way it's often presented on these boards, as it's probably a lesser factor to tire, tire design, compound, etc. Weight in the wheel generally means more structure and durability. As your going for a smaller wheel, it'll have the benefit of less rotational inertia. Tires also, more weight there can often mean more rubber, durability, performance. My wheel and tire package is probably almost 110lbs. Where it earns its keep is that when aired down, it works as an integral part of the suspension. Also AHC handles it well, with sport mode handing the big wheel and tire in the fast stuff better than I thought it could.

- A/T, R/T, and M/T tires particularly in LT and Floatation sizing don't have weak sidewall in the way H/T tire do. Of course some variants and model of tires do this better than others. I'm with @CharlieS that they work as a big part of the treadface when aired down. It's pretty amazing how they contort to sharp obstacles off-road and do their thing.