265/75/17 - this size should happen.

265/75/17

It ain’t happened yet, but it should. Would be the ultimate unicorn size for Tacomas and 4Runners IMHO. About as tall as a 285/70/17, but without the rubbing on turning and MPG losses. Not as skinny as a 255/80/17 either.

C’mon man……make it happen someone…..

 

10mm isn't a big enough difference to lose sleep over. I like the 255/80r17s.

 

I have been saying this all along. If anyone who can do it would be Nitto or Toyo. I mean Toyo offers a 34x10.50 which is a sweet ire size but a whopping 55 pounds. I just wish for a 275/70 in a SL but a C rating would do.

 

The thing about tire sizes, for whatever reason, is that small differences seem to equate to huge differences in the actual size, or at least appearance of the tire.

I went from 265/70/17 to 275/70/17, and the difference was significant.

 

What was so significant about it?

 

It's both wider and taller. Of course.

 

I'm with ya OP. I'd be happy with more options in a 275/70 as well

 

Same make/model of tire? Similar load rating?

 

The difference in that 275/70/17 are significantly larger in appearance, to me, beyond what is stated as just 10mm wider than 265/70/17. They are a bigger tire, for sure, but you don’t need callipers to know it.

I guess that is my point. These small differences in specified measurements actually make a huge difference in overall appearance, to me at least.

 

No doubt there's a difference in height...
Tread width can vary as much as 1" amongst different makes/models of tires with the same section width.

 

Toyota uses the smallest, lightest tire they can to achieve best mpg. Unfortunately, Off Road & Pro models should have upsized & more agressive tires like other manufacturers do. Not that stupid Kevlar "Highway" tire they put on it. Useless in the mud, sand & snow.

Duratracs for the win!

 

I went from BFG k02 and o BFG k02 so the difference was within similar brand and model. I went from C-rated 265/70/17 to E-rated 275/70/17, but I believe the tread depth is the same.

 

This works out to 33x10.5R17, which exists and costs only $220 ea.:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Kenda-Kl...oad-E-10-Ply-RT-Rugged-Terrain-Tire/131983178
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Goodyear-Wrangler-MT-R-with-Kevlar-33-10-50R17-118-Q-Tire/334522233

 

How much difference did you notice between the C and E rated KO2's?

 

As mentioned I also went up a size, so it wasn’t just the ply rating that changed. The e-rated ko2 are heavy. Overall, I like the feel of the truck driving on them, but the braking action with the heavier tire definitely requires more application of brake pedal to slow the truck down. I think that was the biggest change I noticed. I took a bit of a hit in MPGs as well, but I wouldn’t go back.

 

Tread width...
There's only a 0.2" difference in tread width between the two, despite the 0.4" difference in section width.

 

No I mean tread depth. Some tires have different tread depths when going from C-Rated to E-rated, SL to LT and so on.

 

A lot of people swear by c's and SL's, but tread depth is a big consideration for me. I want 16/32nd" or more if I'm going all terrain.

 

I meant tread width though.
I thought you might have misread my post about it.

 

Between 255/80, 265/70, 285/70 or 285/75 you have some options