Why are OEM tires so bad? (1 Viewer)

[W4632018]

Why does Toyota mount such weak and road orientated tires on their flagship off road vehicle?

Is it because we are in the USA, and they expect our driving conditions to be better than the third world countries these cars also go to? Did LC200’s come with better rubber in those places? Why don’t they fit LT tires stock, which would seemingly be a better fit for the rugged nature of the car? And why 31” tires?

 

[ToothDr]

It’s not because we’re in the USA. That’s why we don’t get the 70 series. Dunlop Bridgestone and Michelin are all OEM for Toyota depending on the vehicle. Dunlop has been OEM on cruisers since the FJ 40. I did get Michelins from the factory on my 1994 80 series new. I’m guessing UAE Saudi and Australia all got Dunlops on the high spec 200 series. All we got here in the states was the top spec 200.

 

[manofthewoods]

Why does Toyota mount such weak and road orientated tires on their flagship off road vehicle?

Is it because we are in the USA, and they expect our driving conditions to be better than the third world countries these cars also go to? Did LC200’s come with better rubber in those places? Why don’t they fit LT tires stock, which would seemingly be a better fit for the rugged nature of the car? And why 31” tires?

I'll get flamed, but...
A) toyota knows that the bulk of owners aren't even going on gravel roads, a nice compliant tire is what soccer moms want for trips to the mall
B) the stock tires are surprisingly capable (for what they are), got me through 3 high Sierra blizzards passing people like they were in park.
We MUDDERs aren't "normal" (bless our hearts)!!!

 

[stonepa]

Basically, they need to have a tire round enough to roll it out of the plant, on to the ship, and cost as little at scale as possible, and that looks cool enough to get you to buy the vehicle. Every single OEM does the same, from Kia to Rolls Royce.

 

[Sandroad]

The Dunlop Grandtrek AT23 that came on my LC new are by far the most expensive tires in OEM size at the Tire Rack. They are $484 each, more than $150 over the next highest price tire.

The new GX550 Overtrail is coming with Toyo tires and from pics I’ve seen it looks the LC250 is also.

 

[bloc]

Why does Toyota mount such weak and road orientated tires on their flagship off road vehicle?

Is it because we are in the USA, and they expect our driving conditions to be better than the third world countries these cars also go to? Did LC200’s come with better rubber in those places? Why don’t they fit LT tires stock, which would seemingly be a better fit for the rugged nature of the car? And why 31” tires?

Because that's what the vast majority of people that will actually buy a LandCruiser or LX, new, in the United States, want.

But specifically, ride quality, fuel efficiency, NVH (all of which LT tires suck at), and most importantly, all of these sacrifices would be made for no upside, given how most Americans use these vehicles.

 

[Madtiger]

Basically, they need to have a tire round enough to roll it out of the plant, on to the ship, and cost as little at scale as possible, and that looks cool enough to get you to buy the vehicle. Every single OEM does the same, from Kia to Rolls Royce.

Actually the OEM tires are VERY expensive….

OEM tires have to meet traction of a road car AND quietness AND meet fuel economy requirements.

 

[stonepa]

Actually the OEM tires are VERY expensive….

Not for the OEMs. They are expensive to buy in the replacement tire world because there is an inefficient supply chain to the secondary distributors.

 

[04UZJ100]

Ran Dunlop AT23s for 200k miles. (4 sets) on my 100. People love to hate on them but they are great road tires.

 

[stonepa]

Ran Dunlop AT23s for 200k miles. (4 sets) on my 100. People love to hate on them but they are great road tires.

One thing to remember - whatever they put on the vehicle at the factory is the absolute cheapest version of the tire, even if something is named the same at a tire dealer, it is very rarely the same tire.

 

[Markuson]

One major factor is they are stuck dealing with the EPA, and so they set them up to eek as much mpg out as they can because they’re trying to deal with increasingly impossible regulation demands …and of course high mpg tires are almost never going to fit the off-road bill.

 

[W4632018]

One major factor is they are stuck dealing with the EPA, and so they set them up to eek as much mpg out as they can because they’re trying to deal with increasingly impossible regulation demands …and of course high mpg tires are almost never going to fit the off-road bill.

Any idea why they choose 31” tires?

 

[Madtiger]

Any idea why they choose 31” tires?

My guess. Efficiency. Less stress on powertrain…aka durability which is the hallmark of LC.

And in 2008, there was no push for big donuts like it had been the past 5 years.

 

[Markuson]

Any idea why they choose 31” tires?

Smaller, lighter tires are always going to take less energy to spin faster and less energy to slow down. All of that effects to mpg ratings. Once the truck is yours, the EPA doesn’t know that you put 75 pond 35” tires and 1500 ponds of armor and wind resistance. But what Toyota stick on it counts against their EPA constraints.

I’m sure Toyota is VERY aware people will stick bigger, heavier, knobbier, louder, worse MPG tires on for many legitimate reason, and they don’t ming a bit…since your add-ons don’t count against them with the EPA (or international equivalent regulators)

 

[05ls430518]

It's all about that $$$

 

[Markuson]

It's all about that $$$

No. Its all about government demands for ever-increasing MPG constraints…meaning they pit on highly efficient tires. Believe me…if the EPS didn’t regulate and peater them, Toyota would GLADLY add mark-up prices for bigger, heavier tires. Instead, they let dealers do that, because the RPA doesn’t pester dealers. Just manufacturers.

 

[bloc]

And, most new 200 buyers didn’t care about 33s or indestructible sidewalls.

They did care about noise, ride quality, safety, and yes, mileage.

Jeeps and broncos have the same regulatory constraints but are sold on an image of off-road performance.. I’d bet the majority of people willing and able to buy a new Landcruiser don’t have any clue how good it is off-road.. they just want something reliable and comfortable to haul the kids around.

 

[stonepa]

One major factor is they are stuck dealing with the EPA, and so they set them up to eek as much mpg out as they can because they’re trying to deal with increasingly impossible regulation demands …and of course high mpg tires are almost never going to fit the off-road bill.

Not really. They do this for every car in the world, whether sold in the US or not. The EPA isn’t the boogeyman. Corporate profits are.

 

[Markuson]

Not really. They do this for every car in the world, whether sold in the US or not. The EPA isn’t the boogeyman. Corporate profits are.

Look for yourself:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43546970/new-strict-epa-mpg-rules-for-2027-2032-vehicles/

I don’t claim there aren’t other factors, but the EPA is a huge problem in the US for manufacturers, and most western nations have gone similarly nuts with regulations.

Have you looked at the new demands for MPG lately?

 

[05ls430518]

No. Its all about government demands for ever-increasing MPG constraints…meaning they pit on highly efficient tires. Believe me…if the EPS didn’t regulate and peater them, Toyota would GLADLY add mark-up prices for bigger, heavier tires. Instead, they let dealers do that, because the RPA doesn’t pester dealers. Just manufacturers.

Dude 94 5spd civics where getting 35-40mpg back in the day it's not the epa. It's basic economics they need to make as much $ as possible from each vehicle. That's all there is to it if the epa was really thag involved it wouldn't of had a honking 5.7 that gets 15 mpg.