33" Tires in 16".....NOT Load Range E

didnt realize he was building a race truck to DD. i still dont get your point. you cant believe everything you read on this forum.

 

I have no idea how a thread about tires has morphed into why I bought Kings...

I'd venture to say my statement applies to most people on this website, including you. I drive my truck daily, I work 4-5 days a week, and I own a home. Therefore, the majority of my driving is on road. I bought off-road shocks for the same reason everyone does...I enjoy wheeling in my free time (however limited that may be). I bought Kings because I value quality, both on road and off. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

 

He's obviously not building a race truck, but he's got some race truck-able shocks (sportsman class, maybe, lol)... My point, is that if you're not off-roading a lot, Fox, King, Icon, all those high end brands are completely pointless for anything other than window dressing.

 

Maybe there are others who don't see this the way that you do.

 

Incorrect. They ride better, they're rebuildable, they're more capable off road, the handle better on road..it's an upgrade across the board.

Would it also stick in your craw to know I have a 500HP supercharged 1965 Mustang Fastback that I don't drive 140mph everywhere I go? What a poser I must be....

 

I'm just dying to know your off-road/on-road balance. Would you say it's 1/10? 1/100? 1/1000? Please, do tell.

 

If you do a lot of off roading, you should never use less than 10 ply.

 

Not everyone does the same style of "off-roading."

 

No.

 

Well, I'd like to have to have best of both worlds. Such is the reason for my post. Not discussion about whether I need Kings.

I couldn't help but notice how you failed to provide an answer to my question. I'll assume it's probably about as frequent as I. Good talk.

 

Yeah, I think that does apply to a lot people, except I think a lot of people have a far smaller disposable income than perhaps you or I. I'd add that most people also severely underestimate what their stock trucks are truly capable of, and feel like they need to throw 3 grand in shocks at their trucks because they hit some dirt roads every couple of weekends, because they see so many other people do it. I'm willing to bet that a good portion of the people wouldn't notice if you swapped their high end shocks for some Monroes that were painted blue.

My only point here is that if you don't "need" E rated tires, then you likely also don't "need" King shocks. You wanted them for whatever reason. That's totally cool. I probably didn't "need" Kings on my dedicated trail truck, but I have them anyway.

 

There is no such thing as the best of both worlds.

"Jack of all trades, master of none."

 

This thread is a perfect example of why this place is crap.

 

Feel free to delete your membership at any time.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUilYTdAf5I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgfr-5ghvE

 

less ridicule?

 

Well guys it’s been real, but I’m out.
Hope you find what you’re looking for OP. Unsubbed.

 

I think the other thing to think about is why 33's? What's so special about that size that the people "need" it? (hint: everyone has them and so should I).

I've been running 265/75's (31.9") on my '04 since the day I bought it ~15 years ago (previous owner put them on).

I've been on countless trails with dudes on 33-35's. I rarely encounter a trail obstacle that my 32's (or even a well placed 31) can't get over. It's all about driver skill and line choice. 33's give you more ground clearance, however I've rarely dragged my belly.

I was actually kind of curious, so I grabbed a few figures on some tires here:

These are BFG KO2's:
A 285/70r17 C rated weighs 51 pounds
A 265/65r16 E rated weighs 50 pounds

So, if you're concerned about weight, don't get a 33. Period.

Not only is a 31" E rated tire lighter (but barely) than a comparable 33 C range, you also don't need to regear. If you don't regear when switching to 33's, you're going to take a hit on the MPGs just on the change in diameter alone, let alone the added weight.

One possibility would be a skinny 33, a 255/85r16. Those are generally lighter than a comparable fatty 33 (285's), but there aren't as many of them, and I'm not aware of one in a C range. They're all E's afaik. Even then, they're still heavier than a 265, just not by as much as a 285.

So to sum up: 33's are heavier, even if you go with a C rated one, they're taller and would require regearing, and 31's are prefectly capable off road. So, for a daily driver that you off road, IMO an E rated 31 all terrain is going to be the best compromise as far as minimizing MPG losses and maintaining good off road performance.

 

This isn't an airport, no need to announce your departures.

 

i do a lot of off roading in my tacoma. i've ran c rated and e rated. i'd much rather use C rated but i have e rated now.
10 ply, does that mean my tires are made with 10 plies of rubber?