The SKINNY on skinny tires

It seems like the options for 255/85/16 are quite limited, especially if you want snow capable tires, and going to 17s is almost mandatory for good skinny tire selection.

 

Yup, and then if you want to step up to 17's you're screwed again when you realize that unless you're gonna run stock Toyota wheels you can't find aftermarket 17's narrower than 8.5"

 

Yeah the 4Runner 17ers make a lot more sense. Also all the aftermarket wheels have bizarre negative offsets, because apparently people buy Tacomas so they can immediately spend $5k making it wider than an F150 while deleting all their spare payload capacity with meme bumpers and perma-mounted fuel tanks.

 

Yeah, it's crazy to me. Maybe we're only now really uncovering the truth and getting it out there? Can we get a 17x7 or 17x7 somewhere in the +10 to -5 offset range? (that also doesn't weigh a ton)

I actually found a 17x7.5 +0 wheel recently but they're 34lbs each which is a deal breaker for me.
https://alphaequipt.com/products/foxtrot-17x7-5-6x139-0mm-offset

They're on closeout currently and I have a feeling it's because they're narrow and no one bought them. All their new offerings are wider.

 

I see a 33x9.50-17 C load MT option on their website - anyone try this yet?

 

part of why I run 32", 235/85/16 on stock rims and not taxing the gearing.

 

Good call, looks like A/T3Ws come in that size as well. Not sure how I missed it when I was looking at which sizes tires actually come in. How's the contact patch/squish? Which tire are you running?

Given the factory 265/70/R16s are ~30.5", it seems like 235/85/17s typically run around 31.7", granting only an inch of actual increase in size (but saving on width).

Edit: holy shit the AT3Ws in 235/85/R16 are nearly 50lbs? are they full of gold bullion?

 

Duratrac

 

Aren’t the TRD Pro Sema Wheels 17x7 with a +4 offset @ 25 pounds?

 

AT3W's are kinda heavy in general. I don't have that size on my list but here's how it compares to other popular sizes of that tires:



I ran some SL rated AT3W's for a while and really liked 'em. Although it seems the concensus is to run E rated for better puncture resistance. Kai's recent tire comparison actually has me wondering if SL/XL/C rated may actually perform better offroad due to their ability deform more easily. In his test he was getting barely any deflection until he was down in the 10psi range.

 

That sounds correct off the top of my head. But I don't like those wheels. There are plenty of narrower stock wheels but I don't like any of the stock wheels out there except the TRD "beadlock". I'd probably jump on some Rock Warriors if I could find some for a decent price but those also don't look all that great, IMO. Additionally, most stock wheels are pretty heavy.

Of course, leave it to me to be the pickiest person and always wanting some perfect combo that just doesn't exist.

 

I have a question that has likely been answered in the 301 pages, so I apologize in advance. I have the stock 17” 2022 TRD Sport wheels. Unsure of the offset. Can I fit the 255/80R17’s. I have the 265/70R17 Falken Wildpeaks and would likely stick with the same tire.

 

I’m fairly certain this is due to them needing to be 10 ply (load range E) to accommodate the “skinny-ness”…maybe?

 

Correct, that's what mine measure at (prior to taking some good gouges from rocks).

I think this is mainly because they're a common size for dually axles, so it's a necessity to maintain their hauling capability.

 

I have been trying to find good tires in good sizes that come non-E rated. I don't rock crawl, I think the whole E-rated puncture resistance advice maybe makes sense for a dedicated off-roader that gets trailered to ORVs but not my daily that sees pavement and forest service roads.

 

I like E-range for peace of mind, but have found I would probably rather just have C-Rated tires since they are the best of both worlds (in terms of weight to durability ratio)…they seem to be far less common than E-range though…..as one would expect.

 

You're paying a massive weight and stiffness penalty to get tires meant for Light-Duty trucks. With 4 E-tires, your tires are made for something like 12,000-15,000 lbs while the Tacoma at full gross weight is like maybe 7k? Meanwhile you have a full size spare and maybe even a puncture kit with compressor.

Meanwhile the tradeoff is an extra 10-15 lbs of unsprung weight per tire, lower efficiency, worse handling, rougher ride, worse flex at lower PSI, probably some other stuff I'm not thinking about. I'm open to someone smacking me with some hard facts but I've yet to find a good reason to run E-tires unless the truck is so modified its hardly a Tacoma anymore.

But it seems like a lot of sizes only come in E, so not much to do (C would be nice).

 

The 4Runner TRD Pro non-semas are +15 which is more palatable/useful for skinnies I think.

 

I'd love to hear some more opinions about this. Until recently I'd pretty much only read people talking shit on anything other than E rated and basically saying anything other than E rated is garbage. But, I think those people are often rock crawlers and I also wonder if a large portion of it is that tire tech has gotten super good but those opinions are based on years of experience with older tires that just weren't as durable as modern tires.

I did go on a trail once with my step dad and his jeep buddies and almost every one got a flat due to the sharp rocks. One guy even got two flats and had borrow a tire from someone else. But then another piece of anecdotal evidence is that I ran SL Wildpeaks over tons of fairly sharp rocks and they were fine. Obviously a lot more data is needed here to know for sure. But it may not matter much as there simply aren't many non-E options in the common tires we run on Tacomas.

 

It's just what I have to do to run pizza cutters. Wish there were another way.