The SKINNY on skinny tires

Well it is kinda freaky how this all worked itself out because they are reminiscent of the Copper Ray 10s I had on the Inferno when it was totaled.

When that happened, due to the extenuating circumstances I never imagined I'd be back so soon, and now I'm back in better shape (regarding the truck) than ever.

I know it was the luck of the draw but you most certainly had something to do with that!

 

Thank you my friend

 

Ok so after reading all of this my interest is peaked
My 2008 access cab is getting 3rd gen OR take offs real soon
Putting on 4Runner 17x7 wheels
So if I went skinny what would be a good size to fill the wheel well, I don’t mind minor trimming if I have to
Thanks

 

255/80/17

 

OR take offs are 16 not 17 though.

 

Not really most of the models I've looked at have no significant difference from "C" to "E" with exception of the K02 [and they dont offer a 255/80 E to compare to]

ridge grappler [according to nitto website]
285/70R17 E 57.89lbs
285/70R17 C 57.89lbs
255/80R17 E 54.96lbs

wildpeak at3w [according to falken website]
285/70R17 E 58.9lbs
285/70R17 C 62.8lbs [not sure how the C is heavier but this is on the website]
255/80R17 E 52.5lbs

k02 [according to bfg website]
285/70R17 E 57.87lbs
285/70R17 C 51.37lbs
255/80R17 E not offered

 

I’m looking at getting the Method 701’s in 17x8.5 with 4.75” of backspacing. Would I have issues with 255/75/17 cooper ST Maxx’s on stock suspension 2018 TRD OR?

 

Apples to apples you’re correct. However you forgot the part where I said “SL”. But my statement was more of a generalization that you can easily find a lighter 285 tire than a 255 tire. 285/70 Firestone AT2 is only 42 lbs. An E rated Firestone XT in the same size is only 50 lbs. Since most people do what they can to avoid E rated tires, the SL offerings can’t be ignored.

Im not arguing 285 vs 255 by any means. But we’re kidding ourselves if we think you don’t have to make some pretty good sacrifices in tire selection to go with a 255.

 

Yeah thats why i decided, i think, im off the 255 train and just gonna get 265/75 duratracs for 45lb each

 

A: I would NEVER put SLs on a truck that was going on anything more interesting than a gravel driveway

B: the only lighter 285 is the K02 in C [taking into effect "A"]

C: yeah....skinnie tire selction sux. I wish more brands would jump onto the 33x10.5 train

 

A. That’s your personal preference and wasn’t part of my original statement.

B. You even quoted when I said this the first time but might not have read it completely. An E rated 285/70/17 Firestone XT weighs 50 lbs. So does a Toyo AT2 E for that matter. There are a handful of others at the 50 lb mark. So......really my statement about SL and C beating the weight of a 255/80 wasn’t even necessary. Lots of the E rated tires are lighter too.

C. Agreed. Those new Kenda RTs look like an attractive option. Especially since they are rumored to be right around the 50 lb mark. I’m surprised more people aren’t running them.

 

A> yeah. for sure.
B> yeah, those are tires I would never consider but yeah
C> I've been considering those but cant seem to find reliable weight numbers anywhere. I've heard all over from like 50-60 lbs

 

Tires shmires

 

More pictures of your rig please!

 

What I did –


Just read all 146 pages of this thread - Pictures matter in a thread like this – unfortunately there aren’t enough to justify 146 pages of content - After reading all 146 pages I am no closer to deciding between - 305, 285, 275, or the 255 routes.


I read this entire thread hoping to shape my perspective or to develop an opinion on whether or not there is a pro and con to the skinny tire situation – beyond conjecture.



What I want to know –


What’s the performance difference? – especially as it pertains to fuel economy in the daily driver realm or on Tarmac or Paved roads.


If there is no substantial 'keep' or improvement of MPG’s on Tarmac from the skinny’s – then what’s the point? This whole discussion is about yielding a compromised result because a skinny 33 fits with significantly less mods that a fat 33.


Is the consensus that going from a stock (approximate) 30 diameter tire to a skinny 33 yields little to no change in MPG? While if you were to go to a comparatively wide 33 diameter there is a steeper decline in full economy?


A 285 and a 255 is after all – only 1.18” – in total tire width what do you get for forgoing the aesthetical value of that 1” vs. a performance improvement – or do you even get an improvement where most of us spend 99% of our driving mileage, on pavement.


It makes sense that a SKINNY tire has less rolling resistance – (whether that be fully inflated or deflated), when compared to the same diameter; but wider counterpart, but what does this narrower tire yield by way of functional value or improvements?

My reason for asking the question is to clarify – not to offend – I am thinking that perhaps someone out there can attests to both ideas with firsthand comparative anecdotes.

I digress – will those who have run both 285’s and 255’s on the same vehicle platform attest to their experience…????

All others offer a very limited perspective - While, the comparative approach begins to come close to something empirical – albeit a remarkably small sample it at least is the appropriate comparison.


What my Perspective is – I want to be compelled to try skinnys and I want to be impressed with a difference that is compelling - I remain unconvinced and skeptical...


My background is limited with Toyota's (I’ve owned (1) FJ-Cruiser) prior to buying my 3rd Generation Tacoma – but I am no stranger to Modified rigs – this ought to be simple – pick some tires and be done – but it isn’t. I switched to a Tacoma for something more agile on the trails and less cumbersome as a daily. My Tacoma is specifically built for trail-based overlanding and camping with primary function requirements being daily driving.


My 2019 Tacoma is Running –

- Old Man Emu 3”

- with 887’s

- Dakar Leaf Springs

- wheels are 17x8.5 -12 Relation Race Wheel Hybrid bead-lock

- tires are 265/65/17 Nitto Terra Grappler G2’s (that came on my truck)



What my Perspective is – From an aesthetic point of view (I think), 285’s look better than 255’s.


So, what matters – on tarmac, asphalt, concrete, wider = equals better traction. If you need proof: INDY….

So – does wide mean better off road – in some circumstances it certainly seems like there is no option. I’ve driven TJ’s on everything from 32” to 44” – I can say confidently that irrespective to tire manufacturer the bigger the diameter the easier the wheeling gets and once you go over a 35” good luck getting a tire narrower than 12.5” wide. (for the cheap seats my favorite all time off-road tire was 35x15.5x15 Super Swamper SX Bias Ply…. On slick-rock, silt, sand, and Mud) these were on a 2007 JK (2-door).

However, whether this performs better in all off-road conditions remains too been seen – and there are too many variables for anything close to empirical to test this idea – I can also matter of factly say that the aforementioned Super Swamper SX Bias Ply was my least favorite ON-ROAD tire ever. SO FML!!!

 

Honestly. If you’re that interested just buy them and try them out. I’m about to put my 4the set of tires on my truck and it only has 14k miles. If you don’t pay some ridiculous full retail price you can usually recover most of what you paid if your tires are above 90% tread. I think sometimes we research a decision to death and the results will never meet your expectations. Sometimes it’s just worth it to try something out and move on if you don’t like it.

 

You have a good looking truck.

You have quite a few questions and concerns listed in your post above. Some are "aesthetic" and some are performance based, but given some of your latter statements, I think you are trying to peruse the performance route.
MY experience:
I just came from 3 years of 265\75 \16's on stock OR wheels. I didn't really notice any significant impact on mpgs, power or performance with the 265's. I had no issues whatsoever off road and I thought my truck "looked good" with that combo.
I recently moved up to 255/80/17's (Nitto Ridge Grapplers) on 4Runner TRD wheels.
There is a SIGNIFICANT difference (IMO).
There's a noticeable decrease in acceleration and usable power. Is it terrible... no, but I do prefer the "feeling" of my previous 265's. My mgs have decreased, but not by too much (16-18 mpg at the moment). I have some rubbing now when off road, whereas with the 265's I never had any issues at all.
That said, I really do like the way my truck looks with the 33's. Off road I personally haven't encountered anything the 255's can do that the 265's couldn't.
Currently, it's still a toss up if I should have kept the 265's vs the skinny 33's.

Cheers

 

Thank you!

You are correct - performance based along the lines of both daily and off-road.

I appreciate the clarification this is exactly the feedback I was looking for.

MANY THANKS!!!!

 

Anybody got any pics of the KM3 255/85/16 mounted?

 

Here is my take on why I went skinny with 4R pro wheels. I wanted 33's and I wasn't going to have any "poke" to flip mud and shit all over my new truck. Going through a puddle doesn't flip shit all over my windshield. I guess some people like their truck to look dirty for the gram or whatever. However I don't feel like washing mine every other day.