Lift and Tire choices...I've been asking the wrong question!

The choice of tire size is perhaps the most agonizing question Tacoma owners of any generation confront. I bought my 2014 Tacoma two days before Thanksgiving and I have spent 2+ weeks looking into this topic, going through a lot of threads that focus mostly on whether 33’s fit these trucks.

For the most part the consensus is that 33’s on a 3” lifted Tacoma with the correct wheel offset will fit with some minor trimming for street use and with a CMC required for heavy off-road use. Of course YMMV but that is what I learnt from all my research. Another valuable source is Youtuber Tinkerer’s Adventure as he covers the topic very well and is highly educational. I’d say his videos are a must watch for those considering mods to their IFS as he explains everything from the engineering perspective (rather than the emotional one where manhood is measured in inches).


Like most new Tacoma owners I started with the original question asking whether 33’s will fit in my 2nd Gen Tacoma and how to get that done. After two weeks of searching I realized that the question I should be asking is “What is the right thing to do to enhance my Tacoma's appearance and performance?”.

The new question got me to assess what the purpose of the truck is and what I want to get from owning my Tacoma. Just what exactly are my objectives? After defining them it is a task of working backwards from them to achieve them. In my case my objectives are to build a “personalized” fun city driving truck (limited mild off-road excursions) without adding complexities, issues, performance losses, or risks due to the mods.

After much soul searching I settled on a mild lift with 1” block in the rear and 1.5”lift on the front (Eibach Stage 2) with 265/70R17 “P” rated tires on TRD Pro wheels with 4mm offset. That will take my rear from 36” to 37” and front form 34” to 35.5”, giving it a non-stock look with bigger, manly looking tires. That’s in line with the objectives.

The 1”R/1.5”F lift choice places me in the widely accepted, under 2” safe zone for lifts in the Tacomas. OEM UCAs and alignments should not be an issue and the IFS suspension should be A OK in terms of angles or need for differential drop kits. The accepted rule seems to be to stay under 2” and you will be just fine. Again, it aligns with the objectives to avoid complexities or issues.

The 265/70 tires (31.7”) come in “P” rated tires sizes, most coming in the 40 to 45 Lbs range. The stock Tires are 36 Lbs thus limiting the increase from 4 (11%) to 9 (25%) Lbs per corner depending on the brand. The larger 33” tires weigh as much as 60 Lbs. That’s an increase of 65% and all that added weight not only cuts into the limited payload capacity of these trucks but it is also un-sprung weight that hurts city performance and increases the stress on the drive train. Again, it aligns with the objective to avoid performance losses.

It is clear that the extra 1” of tire diameter comes at a very high price for the owner, truck, and wallet. The one reason to go for it is if that aligns with the objectives for the truck. In my case, I have no objectives that justify that choice.

Everyone in this forum faces this question as evidenced by the many threads on this topic. For me, it came down to the realization that I was asking the wrong question (will 33’s fit?) and should have focused instead on the objectives I expect to achieve: My personalized truck with great appearance, limited off-road capabilities with no surgery needs, loss in performance, or undue stress on IFS.

Now that my choice is finally made, it is time to pick the correct tire. I have whittled it down to manly looking tires like the MT Baja Boss or the Falkens. More to think about but I am in no hurry to get there this year and will time it with a tire sale to save some shekels.

I hope this thread helps others facing these "demons".

 

I, for one, am simultaneously flabbergasted and befuddled. How is it possible that a new member found his ass with both hands right out of the gate?

@tcBob this is my nomination for New Member of the Year.

 

Seconded

 

You're still overthinking this. I've had tires that weighed 38 lbs and I've had tires that weighed 53 lbs. The truck accelerated a bit slower with the 53 lb tires, but once moving fuel mileage was exactly the same because the tires were the same size.

IMO a 265/7017 or 265/75/16 is the ideal size (they are dimensionally the same diameter and width). That is as big as you can go with no modifications and no real downsides, yet they still look good if you want a mild lift.

If you drive a lot off-road or on unimproved roads a tougher E rated tire is a good idea. They may cost more but are less likely to be damaged beyond repair on rough roads. Can be cheaper in the long run. Acceleration will be a bit slower, but everything else being the same fuel mileage will be the same. If you don't need a tougher tire the lighter P series tire in that size will cost less and retain performance.

If you go to 33" or taller tires making them fit inside the fenders is only one obstacle to overcome. That is just the 1st domino to fall that will lead to needing other modifications and premature parts failure. IMO the costs to go bigger aren't worth the small gains.

 

Well, honored for sure.

My answer came once I figured out that the error in my ways trying to find an answer to the 33" question. Like everyone else I simply assumed that since I am going to spend money on a lift, wheels and tires that the "Big Lift/Big Tires" is where it's at. I mean, it is 100% reasonable to try to maximize the return for the planned expense, but as I found out the devil for 33" tires is in the details and there are lots of them.

In the end I am very comfortable with my approach to arrive at my choices and I look forward to sharing the final results early next year when I buy the tires. I already got the wheels and Eibach stage 2 lift during the cybersale and the last thing to do is to find the right tire to compliment the look I am after.

Tire weight is not a concern limited to just MPG or acceleration losses. The available payload will be reduced and the stress in the drive train will be substantially increased. Some say the drive comfort is also impacted but that is subjective.

Let's keep in mind Tacomas have a rather small payload. I did not expect this but to register in PA I went through a truck scale and with me and full tank of gas it came at 4800# leaving only 700# of free payload for my state registration of 5500# (GVWR on door). The choice of tires will eat into the available payload number so for me mounting a 42# tire means reducing my available payload to 675# while an "E" rated one at 56# would cut it down to 620#.

I concur and think the prudent thing is to evaluate the "actual need" to mount heavier "E" rated tires when lighter SL/XL alternatives are available in the same size. This can be an important data point for those sensitive to payload numbers like overland rigs that wish to remain "legal".

 

Great early post, you summed up the thought process I went through after reading hours and hours of forum posts, also watching Tinkerer's Adventure youtube channel. My 2014 AC TRD OR is lifted ~2" front/back (Fox 2.5's, Deaver U402s) and I've left it with stock (for the TRD Off Road, I believe) P265/70/R16's for my mostly on-road daily driver needs. Looks a teeny bit "leggy". There's no doubt that going up 1"-2" in tire diameter restores the visual proportions after a significant lift -- but not worth it (to me) considering the performance & MPG penalty.

 

OP that might be the most well thought out post I’ve ever read on here.

 

I've run E loads for ~5 years now and they have their ups and downs.

Pros:
-MUCH tougher. I basically never have to worry about a blowout on whatever terrain I drive on. I once nailed a piece of split firewood in the road at like 50mph, and no damage to the tire at all. I was more worried about my suspension.
- Stout sidewalls let me run a wider range of pressures to suit the terrain. I'll air the rears up to 40-45psi cold for a heavy tow, and i've aired them down to 15ish for rough rutted logging roads. No worries about the beads popping.
-More expensive upfront, but you get what you pay for. My last set of Grabbers lasted over 70k miles on and off road and still had good tread depth. Only changed em cause my shitty alignment wreaked havoc on them for too long and they wouldn't wear back to normal.

Cons:
-significantly heavier. As has been said, very little impact on overall MPG once they're moving, but you can feel that inertia on acceleration. I don't do much stop and go city driving but id reckon that would exaggerate that part a bit and maybe eat into MPG a little more, but nothing crazy
-Heavier to mount and rotate tires. Not a huge deal, but it's a factor worthy of mention
-Can be a bitch to balance. I went through a few shops before I finally found a guy that got the balance right and stopped the 60mph shimmy
-They do have a much firmer ride. It's not terrible at my usual 30psi inflation, I don't mind it at all. But definitely much firmer than C-loads and you feel the road a lot more. Everyone's different, so ride "quality" is subjective.

All depends on your needs. If you do most of your driving on well-maintained roads, C-loads are cushier, smoother, and lighter. If you venture off-road or deal with nasty winters leaving gigantic potholes and frost heaves everywhere, E-loads will pay for the price difference the first time they don't blow out on ya. YMMV

 

Like the OP, I also researched this same thing for countless hours. So much so, that I came to the conclusion that I'll just keep it stock. Perhaps it's perfect just the way it is..... lol

 

Nice post, OP. Welcome and thanks for not being a clown

Like the others have said, I’ve been running E rated 265/75/16 tires for a few years now. I have to agree that they are the perfect size for our trucks. I do also hear that about 255/85/16 but I’ve yet to try that size yet. I did dabble with 33” tires (mud terrains) and they were off the truck within a week and I switched back to 265’s.

 

Outstanding post. Critical thinking in action. Most guys want 33's because, cool. With no consideration of what it will mean in terms of problems and costs.
265/75/16 for the win IMHO.

 

Quick update…

I settled on the MT Baja Boss AT tire on 265/70/17 XL load rating at 44 pounds. The tire meets the initial objectives albeit at 44 pound it is 2 pound higher then my 42 pound goal of 6 pounds over stock 265/65.


Placed the order and got a 20% discount at simple tire. $971 total for 4 tires installed. Appointment scheduled for Dec 20th. I’m happy with that deal.

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement. I will post a pic when the new wheels and tires are installed.

The Eibach lift (1”R/1.5”F) will be done when warmer temps return unless I experience rubbing, then all bets are off and wrenching in the cold is in.

 

We are in complete alignment here. The tire’s Load Range selection is influenced by the objectives to be achieved. The wise thing to do is to outline them all while shopping to ensure the tire selection meets the trucks intended use.

You made a compelling case for LT tires over SL/XL ones to meet specific operating conditions involving off-road scenarios. My intended use is for city with limited off road and it would not benefit from LT tires enough to offset the associated costs.

The logical outcome for me is to stay with SL/XL rated tires.