Anyone NOT recommend 265-75 tires?

got 265/75/R16s right now. really wanting to jump to 285/75/R16..i average 18-20 mpg as well. 60-70% hwy driving. i shouldve just got 285s to begin with

 

My Tacoma came from the factory with 265/75/r16's, albeit the dreaded Rugged Fails....When I bought it, those had been replaced with Yokohama Geolanders of the same size. On several mileage checks, I would get between 20 and 22mpg. When I went to the 265/75/r16 GoodYear Duratracs (lr C) at first the mileage dropped to about 16. Then I discovered they needed (at least) 38 psi instead of the 30 or so I tried first. With 38 psi, I get 19+, and on a couple occasions, I did 20.5mpg.

They don't rub, no matter what I try to do to make them. They get good mileage. The truck doesn't seem underpowered like bigger tires would have done. A couple days after I got 'em, I was lamenting NOT buying 285's. Now I'm very happy with the fact I got the 265's. The difference in size amounts to a 1/2" less ground clearance over 285's. Not enough to make a significant difference. All the positives FAR outweigh any alleged negatives.

Long story short, If I was buying tires again today, knowing what I now know, I'd buy 265/75/r16's AGAIN!

 

I'm still averaging over 18 mpg with 255/85/16 load E tires, but I seem to be one of the exceptions.

 

My 265-70-17 BFG AT KO2's still rub on my non-TRD with 2.5" pucks and blocks. Otherwise all good.

 

What do you have a 6, or a 4, and what tires?

 

2012 v6 Access cab lifted 2.5" with Toyo M55s siped for winter driving - a fair bit of weight in it, too.

 

Load C Duratracs here. No regrets. MPGs went down slightly but SPGs (smiles per gallon) went up.

Love how it looks with the Duratracs.

 

King of the one liners!

 

I had bfg a/t on my wrangler, so thought it would be no big deal on my Tacoma... Average mileage went from 22 to 16 overnight and never recovered. Luckily I drive very little, but if I did drive more, is probably regret it.

 

^^ ragret. Let's get it right

Thanks for all the posts guys. I'm not worried about mileage. I'm worried about acceleration/sluggish off the line issues. And gear hunting.

 

I could tell very little difference on mine, just doesn't spin the tires with the 265's like "I" did on the 245's when taking off. I'm not a putter that's worried about mpg's, the only real way I can tell any difference is going up hills with a steep incline it shifts down quicker now but I"m not loosing anymore speed to speak of its just pulling a little harder, or higher rpm's than before, but mine is a automatic too. I couldn't tell you on a manual trans if you would notice it or not, but with a automatic not hardly at all. And no sluggishness at all, and my tires aren't slicks ether just got them about three weeks ago.

 

Stay with stock tire sizes for optimimum performance. I think the Japanese engineers know a little more than most of the good folks on here...no offence intended.

 

I like those tires, got the same ones

 

A set of 265/75/16's with 40,000 miles on them are going to be almost exactly the same size as the factory 265/70/16's or 245/75/16's that came from the factory when new. There just ain't that much difference in anything. the difference in performance is about equal to driving alone, vs with 1 passenger in the vehicle. Considering my truck is rated to tow 6500 lbs I don't think a 1" taller tire is gonna hurt anything. I'm running the Cooper A/T'3's like pictured above. Very pleased and fuel mileage is exactly the same.

The only negative is that tire chains won't go on the front, and they are close on the rear. If you want to run chains a lot stay with 245/75/16's. Even the 265/70/16's are too wide to run chains on the front.

 

Bruh I got chains on 285s

 

One more thing I forgot to mention, I was dreading the added road noise, going up to a more aggressive tire, on my Tacoma! I still haven't gotten over how much I was expecting the road noise to go up with the New Coppers, I can just barely tell any difference at all, had off road tires my whole life, and these are the quietest I've ever had. Just for what it's worth.

 

Comparing the 265/75R16 to stock 245/75R16 or 265/70R16, you are looking at an increase of only HALF INCH in radius. Frankly, there is no significant difference to be found from that small of a change.

Also with respect to those referring to changes in fuel consumption, the fuel consumption change caused by tire *weight* difference will be predominantly in CITY driving, not highway. Basically, you're looking at a difference in the tire's inertia, which means the amount of energy it takes to cause the tire itself to spin up to speed. It really isn't that much of an energy difference. The biggest differences in fuel consumption caused by tires are with respect to tread pattern (more aggressive "blocky" tires will increase drag), width (wider tire increases drag), and diameter (greater diameter requires more torque to turn).

 

I'm mostly in agreement with your statements, but, there is one area where I'm seeing things from just a little bit different perspective. That's with "city vs Highway mileage". When I changed from 265/75/r16 Yokohama Geolanders to 265/75/r16 Goodyear Duratracs, my city mileage stayed pretty much flat. On the other hand, highway mileage got murdered. From 21 to 15 or less. I ended up playing with tire pressures and got most of that back. I ran 33psi in the Geolanders, and finally arrived at 38psi as being the best for the Duratracs. In BOTH cases, the pressures resulted in the best wear pattern as well as the best mileage. I'm averaging over 19 now, and have managed to get back to 20+ on occasion. (Did one all hwy trip with almost 24mpg on the Duratracs) The determining factor was tire pressure. The Duratracs are a FAR more aggressive tread than the Geolanders. It is possible to compensate for various changes in tires...... not always an across the board absolute.....but often worth a try.

Again, not disputing what you say so much as offering an alternative to what isn't always a hard and fast rule of thumb.

 

Your observations are actually *entirely* consistent with what I said, which is that the weight of the tire has its impact at low speeds. Though I'm not sure *which* geolanders (but I will assume NOT the H/T's) or duratracks you had specifically, they're all (for that size) within 4 pounds of each other centered around 50. So we can call the weight the same, which implies that city driving will have little impact.

Effects of drag (aerodynamics) will impact you at *high* speeds, which is also what you observed when the duratracks caused increased highway fuel consumption.

Here is another thought; what would have happened to mileage if you cranked up the Yoko's to 38 PSI? Higher pressure fairly consistently will result in a reduction in fuel consumption. Not necessarily to the same extent from one tire to the next, but certainly something. I.e., the reason why RAIL transport is so efficient, the hard metal wheels and rails don't deform (much), so it takes very little power (relative to the load, of course) to cause a train to roll on a flat. I.e., freight trains run around 1-3 horsepower per ton depending on the maximum grade they will be required to ascend. Try doing that with rubber tires!

 

Did the same, I average between 14 - 17 L/100Km (not feeling like converting to american at the moment) I was around 12 or 13 - 15 (better milage) before. I might try Load C tires next, but wouldn't change the size.