Which 255/85/16 is best for Expedition?

[e9999]

so, Rosco and others, one thing that keeps me from getting 255s is the fear that they are not as good in the sand as the 285 cuz skinnier. I would think it's undisputable that wider is better in sand. Yet, you don't seem to think the 255s suffer from that? Care to elaborate a bit?

 

[roscoFJ73]

so, Rosco and others, one thing that keeps me from getting 255s is the fear that they are not as good in the sand as the 285 cuz skinnier. I would think it's undisputable that wider is better in sand. Yet, you don't seem to think the 255s suffer from that? Care to elaborate a bit?

This has been tested a few times in oz.
As a tyre deflates ,it gets longer not wider.
The wider tyre will have slightly more flotation but its not noticeable as far as traction goes
I have 235x85x16 and they go anywhere my old 33x10.5x15 BFG A/T did without the onroad rolling resistance.
I think having the right tread is more imporrtant than anything else.
Having big lugs ,especially on the side of the tread,is a big no no in the sand.
You want to be rolling across the sand ,not churning it like a bucket shovel

I got stuck on a beach recently,on my own with the camper on the back,stupid I know.
I let the 235s down to 10psi and it walked up a steep shoreline like it had legs

Im talking about soft sand driving as that is what I mainly do.

 

[Mauricio]

There seems to be a consensus for "tall skinny" tires in the expedition portal forum site. In my mind, the quintessential example of "tall skinny" is the 235/85R16 size. Any thoughts on this size?

 

[JohnnyC]

235/85R16 is skinny...but...not as tall as 255/85r16

taller is better ....if you dont want to bang up the bottom as much off road

 

[Roryfj4062]

at vs mt

My 40 came with a set of bfg at's on it with plenty of tread. They were stock size. First time out with the truck i was pretty disappointed in thick mud (high clay content), as the at's turned into racing slicks. I promptly put my 33" bfg km1's on and have never looked back. I've put over 30,000km on them, never had a puncture. Half of those km were on my 62. Havn't wheeled that much in sand with them, but they work great in snow when aired down. I'm often the only one in the parking lot at a local backcountry entrance point without chains on when the snow is thick. Done quite a bit of crawling over rocks as well with no complaints.

 

[kotikofwar]

Picked up a set of 285/75/16 KM3s, yes they just came out this year... and yes they are a pretty cool tire so far no problems just 1K miles on them but they seem indestructible. I'm sure noise and mpg would have been much better with duractacs for example, after all cheaper, better in snow and about 15-18 pound lighter per tire!!! HOWEVER! if you are doing any moderate off road last thing I'd want is a blown out side wall....

 

[renago]

I drop in my experience .
SIZE , tall and skinny, is far better then wide .
Especially on sand , but also on corrugated roads .
In sand when you deflate , you get the most deformation in the length of the tire , and not in the width.
So,a 255-85-16 is much better then a 285 -75 -16.
Concerning thread design , my choice is mud , even on sand .
You must be more careful with the gas pedal ,put all over tire is more performance then the AT .
Better side wall , more robust construction.
The only specific sand tire is Michelin XS . With only 1 thread as side wall.
When you deflate it it truly flattens out .
But they are fragile on rocks .
Most important about size , is the ability of your truck to move big tires .
My 78 with a HDT diesel , is perfect with 265/75/16 .
But can run also with 255.
I loose 1/2 a gear in power .

Bye Renago

 

[projectcruiser]

We had 255/85-R16 BFGoodrich KM2s on our Troop carrier.

I loved the deep tread for puncture resistance, and they did well in Cape York mud as well as in the Simpson Desert.

I also found that they progressively became louder as the wore down.