255/85 R16 Owners Experience

If you are happy with the performance do not regear. The 6pd has an edge over the auto as it has more gears and a numerically higher final drive. You won't stall in 4Low.

 

Since we are in the topic of re-gearing, I have an automatic, my trucks heavy. On hills the trams temps climb pretty high ( grand cooler helped but still not good for the torque converter). Also on the highway at 100km/h I am running about 2000 rpm. Really the hills and shit are killing me. Almost have to keep her in 4th. I have heard 4.56 would be good since the ideal gear is 4.10 but really it's not much of a difference from stock.

Also may move up a size later down the road, rather do it once than have to do it twice. So then it comes down to 4.56 or 4.88?

Future tire would still be a skinny tire but taller. Any help, links would be helpful. The 35's thread is just so cluttered that I can't find a solid answer.

 

I would do 4.56 gears. I would not do 4.88 unless going to 35" or larger tires.

 

How are the 4.56 with a larger tire? Max I would run (way down the road) would be a skinny 35/36 ( can get skinny military tires that are brand new for a decent price in my neck of the woods) like I said don't want to have to redo things down the road but I also don't want to have to replace my transmission because I smoked it not regearing.

I have tried calculating this online but would like some feedback from those that have re geared or have more knowledge on it than me. I feel my rpms would be 100-300 rpms higher at 60mph (100km/h)

 

Guys, I posted a dedicated thread for the questions below but didn't really get much traction. I was hoping some of you may chime in. I'm on 17's but still relevant to 16's. Any help is appreciated.

Seriously looking at these for my next set, but I have a few questions.

1. Have any of you stuffed a 255/80/17 in the stock spare location?
2. I have OME/887 front with tsb rear and 1" block for my lift. Will a 255/80/17 on the stock spare wheel mount on the front without clearance issues, or will I need a wheel with more backspacing. Running iShock UCA's.
3. VS a 285/70/17, do you feel the power suck with these? How about comparison for MPG's? Better or about the same?
4. How does on road traction compare to 265's or 285's? Is there any noticeable decrease in handling, especially wet traction? It seems these are advantages to the 255 for offroading (depending on what you are doing), but do you give anything up for daily driving?

I like the idea of getting the height of the 285 without what I really feel are a lot of negatives. Sure, they look good, but for everything else I prefer my old 265/70/17's. These seem to be an option to get the height I want, but I'm not 100% clear on if they will make me as happy as my 265/70's did.

 

To fit a 33" spare in the stock location, use a 4lb. sledge to make the tabs flat and it will fit perfectly. I got pics in my build thread...

Edit: added pic.

 

I feel my 255's don't look as skinny as some I have seen around here. Just a little shy of the 265's.
Also I hope everything in the bold helps ya out.

 

@tacoma16, thanks for the answers. Very helpful answers on everything else. You really think I'll feel more loss of power with these than my 285/70/17's? If so that is a big turnoff for me.

 

It is a larger diameter, so it will consume more torque, however, tire weight is a larger factor. Going from load range SL (std or passenger) to load range E can add 20lbs per tire and will need 3-4 mpg for same driving style that will feel like power loss.

 

My 285's are E as well. Need to dig around on the specs of mine vs the ST Maxx for comparison.

 

can u get 285's in p rating? i thought c rated would be about as low as you can get em. the reason i opted for the maxxis bighorns over the st maxx was i could get it in d rated and the internet said that was like 4-5 lbs lighter per tire. i assume that a d rated 255 would be lighter than a c rated 285 and i would also guess that an e rated 255 would be about the same as a c rated 285, but thats just a guess

 

P rating is a speed rating, not a load rating. The speed rating is the ability of a tire to dissipate the heat generated if run at that 'rated' speed continuously under maximum load.

 

I thought P was pasenger car and the C,D,E were all LT or light truck

 

Tire weight doesn't effect mpg that much. It more effects stopping and accelerating. Stopping more then anything.

 

Can't see you having more of a power loss with 255 than 285. The skinnier tire is less rolling resistance. Since the 285 and 255 are roughly the same height that doesn't really count, as both tires are about the same. So width is really the factor.

From my 265 to 255 I felt a little power loss. However that could have been the armour as well lol. All in all my mpgs are still in the 17 range.

Hope that helps. I think I may have thought you had 265s when I read your initial post which is why I keep referring to them lol. Sorry for any confusion.

 

Anyone tried ordering 255/85/16 BFG KM2's lately? I found a good deal online through 4 wheel parts but they're saying they are backordered and have no ETA on them. Thought I'd see if anyone else was experiencing this

 

I run two sets of tires. 265/75/16 load index 109 (winter rated), and 255/85/16 load range D (119) M+S. It most certainly does. I've been doing the same commute for years, mostly highway, constant speed, year round, varying loads. Empirical data beats textbook theory every day of the week.

 

I went from 65lb tire/wheel to 85 tire/wheel combo. It's true that it's harder to accelerate and decelerate. It's also 80 lbs of extra unsprung weight! It has a negative effect on the the vehicles handling, yet at the same time, it helps absorb high frequency road vibrations, at least in theory.

 

OZ, There is no "P" Load Range, it only goes to N, which is 24 ply.
The only "P" on a tire is the prefix on the size, such as P185/65/14 to separate it from trailer tires.
LT prefix is Light Truck, ST is specialty trailer, and T prefix means temporary.
The only P rating is a speed rating.