Wide tires or pizza cutter tires? (1 Viewer)

[FerrisBueller]

This question seems to come up in every 200 thread, with people giving valid points on each side, and no clear winning answer in the end.

If you feel so inclined, vote in the poll before watching the video.

Definitely check this out. Fantastic video and data. Broke several preconceived notions I had.

 

[doru]

Interesting to view the "other" tire considerations he used in choosing a tire.

 

[chriscosta416]

Sure it works but to be honest it varies on vehicle and wheel. IMO I would stick with the mfg width maybe increase width or height +-5

Tooo many folks in SoCal run super fat tires and never hit the trails.

 

[UPR LC]

Very well done comparison. I agree with him, hard to go skinny due to looks. Only way I would go skinny is if I could get a taller tire to fit on the same vehicle compared to a wider tire. Ground clearance trumps width for a lot of situations.

BFG needed to be a new tire to compare properly. It was a used tire that likely spent considerable time aired down and sidewalls were "broken-in" prior to tests, compared to the MTs.

 

[FerrisBueller]

Presumably you'll get more total miles out of wider tires since there's so much more material to wear down. That by itself would keep me on wide tires. If I spent more time off roading or in snowy areas, then maybe I'd feel compelled to go with skinnies (or switch to 2 sets of tires).

I wonder if the weight difference causes any meaningful difference in mpg. Probably not, since the major loss of mpg on AT tires is from the aggressive tread -> friction.

 

[bloc]

IMO his methods are mostly solid except he needed to put the 315 on a wider rim to make the sidewall geometry a constant.

 

[Supra Turbo]

It's all in how you use them and what works best for *your* needs...

 

[bj70bc]

there definitely is more to offroad tire performance than just deforming over obstacles, but its good to see that aspect of how to better choose tires, and make them bend over things
ive have noticed the 'below 8psi' advantage in several different driving conditions with beadlocks for sure
interesring to see that you can approximate some of that with regular rims and skinny tires at safer pressures to still keep your tires on the rim

 

[staggrlee]

I ran several sets of KM2 255/85 16s on my 100. Room for chains up front, allows you to pick lines you can't with ~300 aspect ratio tires, cut deep into muddy tracks, good performance on rocks, but horrible in sand with a 6k lb. truck.

 

[Madtiger]

BFG needed to be a new tire to compare properly. It was a used tire that likely spent considerable time aired down and sidewalls were "broken-in" prior to tests, compared to the MTs.

Or it could be that BFG is generally expensive for a reason…good R&D budget/design/materials behind its flagship products compared to other brands.

We have seen other tire products that come out with their guns blaring (e.g Joe Bacal endorsement, discounted price, etc)…only later to find their major shortcomings (e.g poor road performance, noisy, weak sauce sidewall, cheap materials).

 

[Roody]

Absolutely loved this video, especially as I ponder my next set of tires.

 

[Trukk]

Didn't watch the video. I went with 285's, as they are about as wide as you can go with stock offsets, and not have to make any major mods to the suspension geometry. I try to keep my rig as "stock" as possible for reliability reasons. While I'd love to have some true 35x12.50's; I don't want to make the mods to be able to support that; especially with the IFS.

 

[rscoleman]

I voted wide as I like the stock LC 18" rim and what I consider a wide tire. I like tire to match rim and I like the rim to be 18" or less. I can't stand the LX with 20" rims. I really like the 17" look on LC but can't justify the money just to go to 17" over 18". I Like more tire than rim. I like tire and rim to fit the wheel well and stay inside the wheel well. Over wide or overly tall or huge rims do nothing for me. I am boring.

 

[FerrisBueller]

Interesting that the LC 250 and GX550 are going with skinnies compared to what the 200 series wears, starting at 245mm width (LC) and going up to 265 (GX), compared to our 285. The LC 250 is meant to be a somewhat smaller vehicle, so I guess the tire difference might be expected, but those tires still looked quite skinny in the LC 250 reveal videos.

LC 250 base (1958): 245/70r18
LC 250 (LC & FE): 265/70r18
GX550 Overtrail: 265/70r18

 

[Umbrarian]

I run a 285, so I guess I needed medium in the poll.

 

[chriscosta416]

Interesting that the LC 250 and GX550 are going with skinnies compared to what the 200 series wears, starting at 245mm width (LC) and going up to 265 (GX), compared to our 285. The LC 250 is meant to be a somewhat smaller vehicle, so I guess the tire difference might be expected, but those tires still looked quite skinny in the LC 250 reveal videos.

LC 250 base (1958): 245/70r18
LC 250 (LC & FE): 265/70r18
GX550 Overtrail: 265/70r18

I assume for fuel economy, less rolling resistance and also both just being smaller. the 4runner has the same 265 width I believe as well.

 

[TeCKis300]

Interesting that the LC 250 and GX550 are going with skinnies compared to what the 200 series wears, starting at 245mm width (LC) and going up to 265 (GX), compared to our 285. The LC 250 is meant to be a somewhat smaller vehicle, so I guess the tire difference might be expected, but those tires still looked quite skinny in the LC 250 reveal videos.

LC 250 base (1958): 245/70r18
LC 250 (LC & FE): 265/70r18
GX550 Overtrail: 265/70r18

IMO, those are commensurate to the platform. TIre size is largely dictated by size, weight and power of the platform. The 250-series is still a smaller lighter weight platform with less power than the 200-series. So relative to itself, is not a skinny.

I've already said this before. Taking into consideration what is spec'd stock for the 200-series, and what is spec'd for high performance vehicles from other platforms like the Raptor R, Bronco R, TRX, etc - full fats deliver more general performance for heavier vehicles, especially those that have the power to create dynamics that can leverage fatties.

There may be specific use cases where skinnies have an advantage and for owners to tailor that way. In terms of broad performance, there's no secret "advantage" to be had and videos like this are misleading.

 

[Itsky]

I like skinnies.

 

[Fisher23]

Depends on what you use those tires for. The video has some very specific tests with specific tires.

Glammis is a good sand example.

 

[JohnPW]

IMO, those are commensurate to the platform. TIre size is largely dictated by size, weight and power of the platform. The 250-series is still a smaller lighter weight platform with less power than the 200-series. So relative to itself, is not a skinny.

I've already said this before. Taking into consideration what is spec'd stock for the 200-series, and what is spec'd for high performance vehicles from other platforms like the Raptor R, Bronco R, TRX, etc - full fats deliver more general performance for heavier vehicles, especially those that have the power to create dynamics that can leverage fatties.

There may be specific use cases where skinnies have an advantage and for owners to tailor that way. In terms of broad performance, there's no secret "advantage" to be had and videos like this are misleading.

Just playing devil’s advocate, the LX600, LC300, and Sequoia all come on 265 aspect tires. They weigh almost as much as the LC200 and have more power and torque. The TRD Pro Sequoia does have 285/65r18 Wildpeaks (P rated)…but that could be for looks versus performance.

I get that no test is perfect but every off road related test I see favors skinnies. I would like to see the test that favors wide tires. I found the results showing contact patch being the same area between skinny and fat, with the skinnies being longer, to be surprising.