"C" load final tire decision?

I have been searching these threads long and hard for the past several months and it has gotten me close, but not to the end of my tire search.

I have a 2016 DCLB TRD OR and am getting a Toytec Boss lift and am in a pickle choosing the right tire for my needs. It will be my daily driver which is why I wanted to stick with a load range C tire but at the same time I will be taking this truck on expeditions and want to have a good AT tire as well. (beach, camping in remote locations, etc.).

BFG KO2's C load is 265/70/17 with a 31.6 diameter weighing in at 45.7 lbs.
BFG KO2's E load 275/70/17 with a 32.2 diameter weighing 55.4 lbs.

Kumho AT51 C load 275/70/17 with a 32.1 diameter weighing 46 lbs.

Toyo Open Country A/T II C load 265/75/16 with a 31.7 diameter weight ?

General Grabber AT2 C load 33/12.5/17 with a 32.8 diameter weighing 58.6 lbs.

Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac C load 265/70/17 with a 31.7 diameter weighing 44 lbs.

Cooper AT3 C load 275/70/17 with a 32.2 diameter weighing 47 lbs.

I understand that I will have to sacrifice some MPG no matter what, but what is the best of both worlds?

Does the difference between a C and E load make that much of a difference to not just go with the 275/70/17 E load KO2?

The Kumho AT51 C load has the right size for what I am looking for but 54.2 lbs. why not just go with the E load KO2?

I am slightly worries about getting a smaller tire in the C load range and having it look funky with the small lift?

Thanks everyone in advance, I appreciate all the help that I have got from all of you on this site!

 

E Load is not necessary for this truck..it will ride rougher and louder. More rotational mass = more of a hit to MPG. Load C is plenty and still looks the part. Will be easier on your truck and easier on your ass.

 

Thanks, but the C load Kumho weighs pretty much the same as some E load tires...does that weights effect the ride or is it the thicker/harder tire of the E load that makes the ride rough. Any suggestions from those possibilities for a C load tire?

 

I see the 275/70r17 kumho at51 C as 46lbs each on tirerack?

Falken a/t3w in 265/75r16 C are 44lbs.

 

I have tried both so I will try to help with your decision. BFG ko2 load E and Duratracs load C both 265/75 r16. The load E rode firmer and did cost me a little power loss and 2 miles per gallon. The load C no power loss and little to no difference in mpg's. Both tires looked great and perform equally as well. I liked the looks of the Ko2 a little better but I'm glad discount tire switched them out at no charge. For me, the Duratracs are the better choice for the Tacoma.

 

46 lbs sounds more accurate. Thanks for the catch.

 

E = stiffer ride

 

Thanks, leaning to the BFG KO2 in the 265/70/17 load C option but worried that it would look to small. The Kumho AT51 in 275/70/17 is .5 inches bigger in diameter but not sure on how it rates to the KO2.

 

BFG K02 E rated FTMFW.

 

How much loss in MPG?

 

Never driven it with out them so I couldn't tell you. I just know from past experience that they wear like iron, can take just about anything you can throw at them and that is what I have run on every vehicle I have had in the last 2 decades. The BFG Ko and ko2 e rated tires have served me well.

 

Love my C rated KO2's so far

 

Good Year Wrangler MT/R E-Rated work exceptionally well on this truck and it's no worse of a ride than the Good Year Wrangler Adventures that came on it, in terms of gas mileage (and they're only 10 pounds heavier each). It's definitely more noisy but I don't notice much more of a stiff ride (TRD OR).

I have them in 265/75/16.

 

Lies.

 

I run 285/70/17 KO2s Load Range E. My average MPG is between 17-18 if I drive it respectfully (I usually don't). They are great tires and so far are hardly wearing at all and I'm nearing 10k on them. That being said, I can feel everything on the road...every crack or bump or anything. Definitely a "rough" ride comparatively but not uncomfortable in my opinion. I would buy them again.

 

Goodyear Wranglers MTR some of the worst tires on wet pavement I've ever driven...might as well ride around on slicks. Great for what they're designed for....rock crawling

 

Another question, for all the "dump truck" ride comparisons of the E rated tires, was that with or without a suspension upgrade? Would that even matter?

 

I'm in my late 30s now. Have owned enough rigs (some with mods and others without) of various sizes and done lots of 4x4 driving on and off road. I've traversed some nasty stuff in nearly bald stock tires and been fine. Other times have been stuck or sliding with high end off road meats and in a lifted vehicle. I'm keeping my tacoma stock until the OEM rubbers wear out then will switch to stock size C rated ATs or duratracs.

 

LT275/70R17 comments:

Kumho LT275/70R17LRC (32.1x11). What is odd about this size is that it weighs in at 54.2, and their LT265/70R17 LRE weighs in at 54.0, so this tells me that that Kumho might be "overbuilding" the LT275/70R17 LRC, and defeating the purpose of getting an LRC tire for a Tacoma application in which the owners care about weight and fuel efficiency.

Cooper AT3 LT275/70R17LRC (32.2x11) is 52lbs and LT275/70R17LRE ((32.2x11) is 54lbs.

BFG ATKO2 LT275/70R17LRE (32.2x11) is 55lbs.

TOYO OCATII / FALKEN WILDPEAK A/T3W - Do not offer this size. Explanation below.

Clarification about weight on Toyo OCATII:
Toyo offers LRC only in LT265/75R16C as stated The OWL version is 48lbs, the BSW version is 45lbs.

Based on your initial post it seems Weight vs Overall Diameter is what you are contemplating, and 16" or 17" is not the concern. My suggestion, take it or leave it, is to stay with the 265 options that are on the market today because you will give up only a slight amount of OD for a big savings in weight vs the 275 options.

Also, what I find interesting is that the non-LT (ETRTO hard metric) and P-metric (T&RA) versions of these sizes versus the LRC (T&RA LT) versions need to carry more load (load index comparison below)

265/75R16 is 116, P265/75R16 is 114, LT265/75R16LRC is 112.
265/70R17 is 116, PT265/70R17 is 113, LT265/70R17LRC is 112.

So in theory the non-LT should be or P-metric versions of these tires should be constructed more durable than the LRC versions! From experience, that's not always what the manufacturer's do. They have design rules for LT tires and non-LT tires, the weight is a resulting attribute.

I'm attaching an XLS with 4 tabs for your viewing, sorting, and filtering pleasure.

 

Wow that is a lot of information. I am a little confused on what the LRC means. I am not partial to a 16 or 17 inch wheel, mainly I want to fit the biggest tire without giving up too much ride quality or MPG, understanding that I will somewhat.