235/85/16 The Skinny

Is the sidewall deformity dependent on load range? I air down from 55psi (road) to around 30-35psi (off-road and don't get much deformity with load range E

 

Yes it is. Higher load range has stiffer side walls since that (and air pressure) keep the wheel lifted off the tread. Tire shops should be shot for offering E to Tacoma drivers unless we ask for it. If you look at two E-Rated tires on the back axle and what that maximum load would be, it's like 250% (I have the actual math around here some where) higher than what the Tacoma can carry. So with E you get all of the load capacity that you are never going to be able to use and to get that load capacity, you sacrifice on road comfort, fuel economy (slinging a heavier tire around in circles as you drive) and off road performance.

The logic most people throw out at this time is "BUT MAH SIDE WALLS! MAH SIDE WALLS WON'T GET PUNCTURED!" Yeah, there is like a minimal chance that an E Rated tire will resist puncture over a lower rating but I've heard that people with stiffer less forgiving tires of the higher load rating get punctures about as much as lower ratings and definitely more de-beading because the lighter side wall was flexible around an obstacle but the stiffer one wouldn't budge so the bead gave way instead.

Some times less is more.

 

GTGallop is largely correct, although in Canada we might scold, rather than shoot, tire shops.
Having said that, if your travels include off-road adventures with pointy rocks, the other disadvantages of the "E" tires are worth it.

 

I don't think anyone here is buying E Load skinnies for the thicker sidewalls and extra protection. My experience reading these threads and other places is that people want the snow performance, the reduced rolling resistance, the narrow profile, etc.

It's that you can't buy a smaller radius skinny tire for the benefit of a skinny tire *without* getting the E load/10 ply.

I looked up and down for a decent 235/85 in a C and the only option was too aggressive and not well reviewed IIRC. I ended up staying at 245/75 because I didn't want the very stiff ride and extra weight on a light pickup.

 

I think you're missing the point entirely that 235/85R16 only come in E so it's not like anyone has a choice on the matter.

Also not sure why the rant over stiffer sidewall and more weight either. For instance the 235/85R16 Firestone Destination XT All Terrain (E load, of course) is the same weight as a 265/70R16 Toyo OpenCountry ATIII in SL load.

Also, the "harsh/stiff ride" myth is largely dependant on what tire pressure you run, what you haul, personal preferences etc.
Lastly, running an E load most definitely does not hinder off road performance. E load tires have been the standard load range for off roading tires for years and years.

 

I don't understand his point either tbh

 

I think you are entirely right. I never realized that size only came in E. Just did a quick search and the only non-E I found was some sort of straight ribbed Trailer Tire which honestly should have been an E-Rated tire.

 

Before I had the E rated tires I had two flats while off-roading in remote parts of Death Valley. Since I've had the E rated tires there have been no issues. I know two others who run these tires who have had similar observations. Are they heavy? Yes. Are they stiff? Yes. Would I go back to non-E rated tires? No.

We all have different expectations and experiences which help our own personal purchase decisions. If you don’t like E rated tires that's perfectly fine. YMMV

 

My sidewalls!!!!

I work in the bush, tried C rated tires, first job I'm on, 250km out of the bush on a spare because of a pungy stick through the sidewall.

Second job, 80km out of the bush to tire shop to exchange the C rated for E rated. They have me 90% of the cost of the C's towards the E's.

I will never run a C rated tire and I have never had an issue with E rated tires.

Six hours out in the northern BC bush by myself, I'm not skrewing around with weak tires.

 

biggest reason i wanted them was for ultimate hydroplane resistance. Rains very often where i live with lots of standing water.

didn’t really notice any perceptible ride quality difference between 265/70/16 c range.

 

Great look

 

Big X 2 here come on with pictures

 

Thank you for a great reply. Much info you just passed on thanks

 

Perfect

 

On my first set of 235's. Moved down from the standard 265/70's.

Me like.

Went with the Toyo AT3's which I'm still a little on the fence about. But my AT2's were an astounding tire on the 2nd gen I had.

 

Ignore that these are not 235/85R16.
But check out the tread design. I'm very curious how well these performed in ALL conditions.

(the White Scout Car hit inventory in '41, by '43 it had lost appeal due to many factors, including the open top design and "poor offroad performance". would imagine weight & size had more to do with that than tire traction.)