TIRES: P vs. LT, all-season vs. all-terrain

All,

Had a good response to a previous post that encouraged me to upgrade from my 245 series stock tires to the 265/75R16 on my 2012 access cab 4x4 4 cyl, to get a set of tires that look a little beefier.

At only 20K on my truck, my Dunlops are shot and dry-rotting significantly. I am now starting to look at what tires I want to get.

In the past, I would have just selected an LT, all-terrain tire with a decent tread pattern and good wear/user ratings. In the past, I used to have a 5-mile commute in central NJ, so a lot of the differences among tires didn't really matter to me.

Now I'm in central PA and have a 30-mile, one-way commute. I also do a lot of highway traveling to NJ. I'm much more conscious of fuel economy and road noise than I used to be. This has me leaning towards a P-series, all-season tire.

But central PA also gets some tough winters, a lot of snow, and my driveway is a steep hill. These were the reasons I always liked the all-terrain. They'd go through anything. Plus, who doesn't like that aggressive look?

Assuming I stay with the stock rims, the Dunlops weigh about 32 lbs. A P-series Michelin LTX M/S is 40 lbs, the LT series Michelin LTX M/S is 47 lbs, and the LT series Michelin LTX A/T is 49 lbs. I don't know that Michelin is the tire I want, but clearly a big difference in weights; anything bigger than a 245 is going to be heavier than the stock tires.

Help me choose. Which would you pick?

 

get the P metric

 

I got the P265/75-16 MS2s and the mileage difference is minuscule once you make the conversion for increased tire diameter.
I may try LT235/85-16 MS2s next. I like the tall look for both but I would be interested to see whether skinny offsets weight for better mileage.

2010 AC 4x4 4cyl 5spd.

 

I did the math. Is there much differance between the height of s 265/75 and a 235/85?

 

With your driving conditions, I would go with the P rated. If you are looking for a tire to run all year, then the all-terrain would be ideal because of your winters.

 

As Door Ding said, there will be variation in individual tire brands. In general, the diameter is very close. The big difference is in the width. The 235/ 85 looks taller than it is because it's so skinny - it looks very similar to the 255/85, until you put them side by side.

The 265/ 75 is one of the most common tire sizes currently. Because of this your selection of brands, styles, and load ratings will be great. The 235/ 85 is mostly a contractor/ work truck tire size. You will have little selection in style and will likely only find them in a load range E.

That said, I think both look great on our trucks and I wouldn't shy away from a load E tire if you offroad or haul. They are overkill, but the peace of mind is worth it to me.

 

Ran BFG AT's for years on my Tundra (265/70/17)...last time around I went with BFG Rugged Terrain (not the rugged trail oem crap tires)....was amazed at the difference. Much less harsh than the LT AT's and actually worked better in the snow than the AT's. For what you are doing a P metric would be a better choice (and you get better mileage etc wty's with the P metrics). And they are way cheaper....

 

I had a similar commute but also hunt in swamp land in southern AR and in NW Kansas. I just replaced these Hankook DynaPro ATM 265 75 R16's after 50,000 miles and they still have 5/32" of tread left. I've had a Gen 1 and now a Gen 2 Tacoma. I've ran BFG's, Cooper, and other high end tires. For the money and utility, they are hard to beat.. Here is what they look like after 50K miles..

 

I just put on Fierce Attitude 265 75 R16 since i no longer drive over 2 miles to work.. They'll still be lucky to get 30-40K miles and over $300 more.. They do look pretty mean though.