265/70/R16 vs 245/75/R16

Your thoughts are much appreciated.

I have a 2017 Toyota Tacoma, Double Cab, Short Bed, TRD Off-Road, that is equipped with the OEM Goodyear Wranglers in size 265/70/R16. I want a more aggressive tread - plus have owned these tires before - and am going to trade-in the OEM tires at a local tire shop for the BF Goodrich TA KO2. I might also add the reviews on the "Tire Rack" for the BF Goodrich Tires are very impressive! Anyway, I was going to keep the same OEM size of 265/70/R16; however, the tire dealer says that for this particular BF Goodrich tire, he would recommend the tire size of 245/75/R16 for better performance and handling?

Any thoughts and reasons for staying with the OEM tire size of 265/70/R16 or going with the 245/75/R16 would be appreciated? Thanks!

 

OEM tire size means your speedometer reads correctly and you get better gas mileage, but you probably already know that . I'd keep OEM if it were me.

 

p245/75/16 are slightly smaller, and lighter tire so maybe he thinks you will get improved MPGs from having a slightly lighter weight tire, if the truck is an offroad and its factory equipped with p265/70/16 I would replace with the same size

 

That is what I'm leaning towards. Going to make up my mind in a couple of days. The tire dealer is going to get in both sizes for me to look at. Thanks.

 

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/michelin-defenders.429242/#post-12333218

 

Same diameter

 

^^^^^ That = sage advice

 

I've decided to stick with the originals in 265/70/R16. Thanks for your input!

 

I've been driving on the new BF Goodrich All-Terrain TA KO2 for several days including taking them off-road and very pleased. The size again is LT (10 ply) 265/70/R16 - Max PSI Cold 80. The dealer advised to put the PSI at 30 which is on the sticker on the door for the OEM Goodyear Wrangler C load. I decided the next day to call the BF Goodrich Co. for their recommendation on the tire pressure. The company representative said to put the cold PSI at 45 and when towing a trailer at PSI 47. Anyway the tires are quiet with excellent handling.

 

Those tire sizes are exactly the same height. The 245's will be about 1" narrower. I've had both and would suggest 265/75/16's if it isn't too late. They are the same width as factory and only 1" taller. Not enough to mess up performance, odometer readings, or fuel mileage. But I think they look better and usually cost less. It is a more common size.

 

Nichoff270: now that its been a month, how do you like the 265/70/r16 bfg ko2? Do you notice difference in fuel mileage,noise,odometer accuracy,ride comfort, power from the oem goodyear wranglers of same size? I am in a similar position now. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

 

Why did you go with a 10 ply in that tire?

 

I've got a 2004 RC 4X4 and I just ordered some 245/75R16 for it in the Cooper ATWs. My reasoning was that they are lighter, I don't do any hard core wheeling and the stock size in an ATW or especially something like a BFG KO2 is far heavier than I need. They are also "P" rated. I also figured that being one inch narrower they wouldn't be as bad hitting snow piles during the winter out on the interstate. We had a real nasty winter here last winter so that's why I went with the ATW. Not that any of our winters are mild. The RC Tacoma's are so light I just couldn't see getting an E rated tire especially since Michelin M/S 2's that are on it now have handled all of the off roading I've ever done so far and they are "P" rated.

 

Does anyone think saving a few pounds per tire is a good enough reason to go from 265/75r16s to 265/70r16s or 245/75r16s? I’m asking, specifically, from a parts wear standpoint, as it’s my understanding that turning more unsprung weight is rough on the components. I have just shed the nitto TG 285/75r16s the previous owner had on there for a set of practically new BFg AT K0 265/75r16s in an even swap and it solved a host of issues and now she just feels happier on the streets. But these tires are a whopping 53 lbs still, whereas stock is around thirty I understand.

The Cooper discoverer AT3 weighs in at 46 lbs for the 265/70r16 Es or 42 lbs for the 245/75r16 Cs. So I was thinking why not shed another 7-11 lbs.

It’s not worth it for the fuel economy and, sure, bigger (and BFg) generally looks more aggressive. But I’m asking from a “happy truck” perspective. That is, one whose part wear is relatively less.

Thanks

 

Tire size is ALWAYS a trade-off. Even the OEM tire size is a trade off. While it is safe to stick with OEM size, it does not mean that you'll always get better mileage or performance with that size.

Reducing tire weight while keeping the diameter the same will improve acceleration and braking while reducing wear on parts. Will it be noticeable? Perhaps. The way to reduce weight is to go to passenger tires, or to reduce width while increasing aspect ratio (245/75 vs 265/70). I believe running 16" wheels & tires result in less weight than 17" wheels and tires all other things being equal.

I'm on the edge of getting new tires and I will NOT be going with 265/70. I'll either go 235/85 for reduced width and increased height or 245/75 for reduced width and the same height. I'll most likely be going with LT tires as I want the sidewall strength and puncture resistance even though I know they will be heavier. Still noodling that around.

 

245/75/16 is smaller by .1 of and inch. fyi theres very few tires that come in 265/70/16. you have a lot more choices going 245/75/16

 

Well I just drove my first substantial trip, 375ish miles, after going from 285/75r16s to 265/75r16s, both in E rating, and I notice a big difference.

As I'd stated above, I've really been considering even smaller lighter tires, though I didn't want to go to P, due to the poor marks they get in the tread life department.

I was averaging 15.5-16 mpg with the bigger tires on highway trips and the truck was really working hard to go 65 mph on the climbs (this is a V6, mind you). Today I averaged 17-17.5 mpg with the "smaller" tires and she had a noticeably easier time climbing. Also of note was the superior braking performance. The old tires would just glide at high speeds while these actually have stopping power. And the acceleration feels much better too. The only area where I didn't feel an improvement was cornering. I think I'd need to drop the 2.5" lift for that to improve.

I'm still tossing around the idea of going smaller, though I'm now not so unhappy with where I'm at.

If I do, then, Like you, I'm tending more towards skinnier (245/75r16) vs wider (265/70r16). My only hesitation is the stability. With my less than stellar confidence around the turns as it is, will the skinnier tires make me feel even more like I'm gonna capsize?

 

I'm no expert but have some gleaned some "internet facts". Wide tires seem to be better for cornering, especially if they are low profile. In a tight turn, they keep more tread on the pavement. I don't know about you, but that is not how I drive my truck.

Skinny tires are usually a larger aspect ratio (75 to 85 vs 70) and will have more sidewall flex for more slop around corners. Their actual contact area with hard ground should be about the same, just a different shape. The wide tire will have a wide but short contact patch while a skinny tire will be a narrower and longer contact patch. Both tires will mostly lengthen their contact patch when you air down. I think wide tires have a benefit in sand due to their contact area lengthening as you sink. The naturally longer contact patch on the skinny tire will also lengthen as you sink but I think it increases at a slower rate due to curvature of the tire. That is my guess, I've not done any math or measurements on it.

On the pavement, the skinny tires present a smaller frontal area to wind so they should slide through the air just a bit easier. I would expect they'd also punch through snow a bit easier, like a cross-country ski. I hear they are less likely to follow pavement grooves and THAT is the main thing I'm looking for.

Now, in your case, I'd suggest that improved MPG was due to weight savings which put less strain on the engine and, more importantly, reduced diameter which put you at a slower actual speed giving less wind resistance. You went from a 32.8" tire to a 31.6" tire. At 65 mph there is about a 3 mph difference. When you thought you were driving 65 with the smaller tires you were actually going 2.6 mph slower. Compared to stock 265/70/16 at an indicated 65 mph, the 625/75s would have you going 67 mph and the 285/75s would be 70.

 

Yea noted on the rpm-speed vs actual speed. Still better though maybe 50% of what it looks like.

Another phenomenon I experienced a weekend ago was fish tailing like crazy going down a decline on a gravel road in Vermont. Light snow cover. Was going about 20-25 mph and the surface went from smooth to heavily rutted and, 4wd-engaged and low gear, it was side-to-side more than I cared for.

I’m assuming that the “ski” analogy would help in such a situation as well, since I think the physics behind it is that it’s basically now bounce-float-bounce-float vs bounce-grip-bounce-grip with the skinnies

Correct me if I’m wrong

Thanks