235/85 r16

HUH?

 

I thought that sounded crazy at first too but I believe what he is saying is the tire will have the same width/height ratios, not necessarily the same width and height. Though I don't think it will look the same since even though the ratio is the same 255 is wider and would therefore look meatier to me.

 

That's a surprisingly large drop in fuel economy. I've done a little digging around and I've concluded based on some studies i found of freight trucks that rolling resistance is the biggest factor between tires of the same size. Weight does play a factor, but but only during acceleration. Once you are at speed it will not make any difference. I found a pretty interesting calculator at a hypermiler website http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php

The stock tires are 245/75 dunlop grandtrek at20s which are supposed to be very efficient in terms of rolling resistance.. of course they blow at everything else. Anyway, my assumption is that aggressive mud tires would double the rolling resistance.

If that calculator is correct then doubling the rolling resistance will generate about a 15% drop in fuel economy at 60mph. Which is way more than I would have expected.

Also this article basically explains everything I just said but much better and also has pictures. I wish I found this article before i did all that research and wrote all the other shit in this post. Too late now.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/techarticles/wheels/129_1104_tires_and_fuel_economy/viewall.html

 

Ya I just mean it will look like a smaller version of a 255/85R16. A smaller 'tall and skinny'.

It will look a bit less meaty for being smaller, but it will not look disproportionately skinny as opposed to a 255/85. Just smaller.

Correct I do not mean it is the same width or height.

 

Would 235/85/16 fit on a stock first gen with no rubbing?