Need help finding the right tires

I prefer for the falken for the reasons mentioned above : light, inexpensive, aggressive looking, great tread life, And rides well. They are tires that look better, some may perform better in extreme situations, this is one of the best bang for the buck tires in what's currently out there in a 265/75/16 tire. Both the Cooper in Goodyear Duratrac are also both bad ass tires with an excellent following here.

Falken $140
Goodyear Duratrac $184
Cooper St Max $234

This is per tire average online retail

 

Cool. Thanks. I thought I read somewhere that some e loads might to much for the 3rd gens? I'll have to consider these tires more seriously

 

they aren't for everyone. i like firm tires on all my vehicles and i like the ride and set things up mostly around the tires. i originally had toyo open country C tires and took them off and sold them a week after mounting them, they were like driving on bubble gum. it's a preference thing mostly unless you're driving through rocks and nails.

 

I prefer a SL or C tire but I have heard the same thing about the Toyo C rated tires - they are exceptionally soft.

 

I highly recommend the st Maxxs. I ran them in 265/75/16s with pro comp wheels on my previous xterra. Many consider 1st gen xterras to be underpowered and it wasn't bad with the combo.

I don't think it will be to bad a hit for a third gen to run those tires. I couldn't tell any difference on my 2nd gen.

Disclaimer: can't speak directly for a third gen. If you give it a little bit. A buddy of mine just bought a 17 OR I'm sure he'll be getting a set aoon

 

It's down to either Duratracs or ST Maxx for my 3rd gen. My TRD PRO wheels are showing tomorrow, so I have to decide. My hesitation with the Coopers are weight and snow performance. Many guys say "a little slower on take-off and uphills" with the Max. I really don't want to go any slower as this thing is anemic enough on our mountain roads around here....

 

The duratrac is a great tire, ive ran them for about 5-6 years on my trucks and also on my new tacoma. I got the c load which is deffinetly quieter than the e load. They are unparelled tires in snow. I have been very happy with them. And the noise was not much worse than my kbro2. Deffinetly a win in my mind. They also wear well and last years if you treat them right and rotate annually/semi annually.

 

honestly i never understand the complaint of tire weight, unless you're neurotic about every single mpg or something. i feel the truck rides and feels more stable with the E's stiffness and weight, and i have no weight related complaints. is it only mpg people are concerned with when complaining about tire weight?

 

No. Like I previously stated, living here in UT and driving mountain areas easily over 7k ft...I'm more interested in performance loss. I just pulled my RZR on a lightweight trailer to go turkey hunting last week for the first time and some of the mnt passes were a challenge for the Tacoma. If I was living in DFW....it wouldn't be an issue. Just questioning if a 10lb per tire weight difference relates to actual seat of the pants difference on these 3rd gens(?) Didn't have to think about this with my diesel...

 

this is what i thought, but unless you're upsizing I'd think performance loss is nearly undetectable. I'm a super sensitive driver and i got no actual performance loss, but i also kept the stock size 265/65 where most are upsizing to 265/70. but, yeah, with the NA motor it may be a bigger hit at altitude.

 

GET THE ROUND CIRCLEY ONES

 

Just dont get KO2's

 

I'm happy with the 245/75-16 general grabber at2's I put on my 17' dcsb OR. They're e load I think. I think the grabbers in that size are about 44 lbs, the ko2's in that size are about 49 lbs. The grabbers seem to ride fine to me, they're maybe not as strong as the ko2's but hopefully they'll hold up. With the truck maybe being a little under-powered I didn't want to go with too heavy of a tire. I've owned ko2's on other vehicles and they are great, but wanted to try something different.

 

Subjective opinion but yea the E-load is too much for the Tacoma based on my experience and also based on the load range /weight of the truck for a E-rated tire. A light truck like the Tacoma does not need such a heavy tire. It will certainly eat away at your fuel economy quickly.

 

Hmmm. While I wouldn't mind a little hit on MPG's, it is more I am worried of losing power. What tires are you running?

 

Stock but I have run duratracs, goodyear MTRs and KO2s on other midsized truck platforms including Gen 1 Tacoma and 2003 Ford Ranger. You can DEFINITELY tell when you throw an E tire on compared to a C. It is more sluggish off the line and it essentially feels like you're towing a small trailer all of the time. A lot of folks are regearing to run 285s because it really impacts how this third gen motor and trans behave.

 

you're not losing anything significant in terms of power, but most people who change tires complain of what looks like power loss, but it's not, it's a loss of mechanical advantage when going to a tire with a larger diameter. the motor will do more work for each rotation. if you keep your diameters the same then the few extra pounds on each tire won't be significant, rest assured. you'll feel it in the handling before the power. this is why i stayed with the stock diameter (265/65-17). when i mounted E tires. most go up to 265/70 or larger. that's almost an inch of added diameter just in that minor change.

 

Yeah, I don't want my Tacoma to be any more sluggish. Thanks. I'll stick with a c rated most likely

 

I hate that feeling of riding on beach balls, where you're taking a curve on the freeway and hit a good sized pothole it feels like the truck is about to bounce off the road.

 

hence my commitment to never again have SL or C tires on my truck. i hate that kind of handling.