Tire size on a stock suspension

As I’ve always used them in the past with good luck on my previous Taco’s, I’d like to get a set of BF Goodrich KO2’s on my 2017 4x4. I do tow a trailer and load up the truck pretty heavy as we collect rocks, etc., a lot from the desert, so E rated tires are preferred. We do moderate off-road, but not the stuff where I will be scraping the undersides with just stock suspension. I’m wondering if I should stick to 265/70/16’s Or can I go to some slightly higher profile tires on my stock suspension such as 265/75 (or higher)/16 E rated KO2’s without worrying about rubbing when I’m carrying some weight?

What sizes of these have you used with good results?

Thanks!

 

I thought stock was 265/70/16, did it change from 2nd to 3rd gens? A lot of people bump up to 265/75/16 without any trouble.

 

Go big. 255/80/16. I'd say go bigger like 255/85/16, but the loads you mentioned might cause a bit of rubbing!

 

I made a typo and edited above - 265/70/16 is stock, thanks. Can I go higher, as to 265/80/16s? If not, I will try 265/75/16’s as per your input, thanks!

 

if you leave everything completely stock then a 265 75 16 will fit with no rubbing.

If you change to a 17" wheel with 0 offset like I did you'll rub on the mud flaps in the front possibly. some haven't had an issue. I did with my duratracs.

There's a long thread on here how you can fit a 255 85 16 on stock off road suspension and tires but if you change anything you can't

 

I'm not hauling a trailer or a heavy load at this point. But about 2 hours ago I got these 33" BFG 255/85/R16's put on, and no rubbing so far. (stock suspension)

 

Thanks! I don’t want to sink money into other wheels, so your recommendation is helpful. If I do lift with AAL and other Bilsteins, I’d probably go just 1 inch or so- would there be any issue running the 265/75/16’s on that?

 

Nice! How much lift? And how much room do you have between the inside side of front tire and top of front shock arm while turning?

 

can't say for sure. likely fine though

The problem for me was the 0 offset brought my wheel further out vs stock wheel which I think is +20 Offset. So it rubbed on the mud flap at full lock pulling out of my driveway.

After lift it again rubbed but this time on the fender liner. That said I have total chaos UCAs which change the camber and bring the caster further back so it was even closer to the fender after lift and alignment. So just had to heat it up with a heat gun and move it a tiny bit. all good now.

I think if you just do bilsteins and those tires on stock wheels you're good. But when it comes to total chaos UCAs and the 0 offset I had rubbing.

 

Luckily, I live just a couple miles away from Headstrong Off-road, so in terms of doing any suspension mods, I have a pro in my neighborhood to ask about it. Sounds like you have a nice build, good suggestions, thanks!

 

Marie at @HeadStrong Off-Road was super helpful.
Since you're so close you should get all your stuff from them. They're great.
If I was in the US i would've got it from them as well. But it was easier for me to get it locally

 

Thanks! Stock suspension, no lift. Like Joe23 said, there is a 200+ page megathread on the 255/85/16:
https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/255-85-r16-owners-experience.155849/

Short version seems to be that they run just fine on stock suspension without rubbing, but with the possibility of mild rubbing during extreme off roading. Many folks in the thread took the measurements you asked for, but I have not. The caveat is that like I said, I'm not running my truck weighed down or towing at this point, so your mileage may vary. The 255/80/16 that coma toy mentioned might be a better bet for that.

 

Thanks you guys, such great info from members on TW. It looks like in my case, since I’m rarely on snow anymore, and since narrower tires would mean more potential issues with the sharp rocks on the desert trails I go on, and more sinking in the sand on those same roads, as nice the 85 profile seems, it would not be a good choice for me if I must go with 255’s for that profile. The 75’s may be the better choice (without lifting) for now, as I can use a wider tire with them, but I will also ask Headstrong what width I can go up to with a small lift too. Thanks!

 

Definitely not trying to sway you one way or another, as I haven't taken these out on dirt yet, and you have a far better idea of what works for you than I do. That said, I'd wanted to go with a taller 275 or 285 width tire until I did some reading up on the "pizza cutters", and now I'm sold on the benefits of a skinny tire for off-roading. I'll link an excellent article about the benefits of a skinny tire. It's not coincidence that overlanders and military vehicles from just about every country outside the US go with tall skinny (and the US military does too in some instances):

http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html

A short excerpt from the article:
"The Turtle Expedition who has literally traveled around the world used a 255/85 R16 (33.3 x 10) for many thousands of miles on their full size Ford. Land Rover uses narrow 7.0 R16 XCL tires in most of their Camel Trophy events. The Rain Forest Challenge and The Trophy challenge have all been won by the aggressive Simex Trekker tire (35x11.00). Tom Sheppard often uses the 7-7.5 R16 Michelin XZL and XCL for many of his expeditions. All very narrow tires in relationship to their height…"

 

Very good info! Thanks! The author’s point about narrow tires = higher contact pressure is precisely what I was concerned about on some of the trails I drive- I have more issues with tire punctures than traction as some of the trails include very sharp rocks offering more than enough traction (ancient lava flows, basalt and weathered hard limestone) and not to mention the benefits of better flotation with wider tires (those same roads have sand deposits and small dunes between the rocky outcrops) - with enough terrain variation that it would make you mad if you are relying on airing down! The author makes an excellent point as a Pro reason for narrow tires having increased traction on rocks, but didn’t point out the increased puncture potential as a Con for them also having higher contact pressure on sharp rocks and other objects. Adding to the fact of my and my wife’s habit of loading up the back with rocks (yup, we are a matched pair of rock hoarders), we have pushed the weight limit on some trips of the rear end out or truck, and must be prepared for punctures now and then (although I’ve never had an issue with KO’s ). So you are right, the best decision varies with each of our situations. Thanks again, that report is an interesting and informative read!

 

Hey- I meant how much lift did you gain with the 255/85/16 tires alone over stock? Thanks again for the help on my decision.

 

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I believe it is roughly a 1-1.5" increase in clearance, but I could be mistaken.

PS- I can understand your reasoning for wanting to go with the wider tires, given your uses. I honestly wish the BFG 255/85/16 came in an A/T instead of just the mud tire, I would have bought it. But my desire for that tire size outweighed my desire for an AT tire, so I went with the MT's. I hear people are getting around 50K miles on the MT's, which is doable.

 

Please take that article with a grain of salt. It’s been floating around for a while. There is some validity to it, however, it’s not that black and white. I bought into it as well (probably 10 years ago now). Tall/skinny tires on my Tacoma. I had high expectations. Better mpg, better traction, etc. What I found was, none of that was true. MPG did not change. I had a nice highway commute, so I could measure that with a good level of consistency. Lateral grip suffered with such narrow tread and sidewall wallow. Talk about pucker factor on off camber techy trails. Sold them and never looked back. 265 or wider is what I would recommend.

I also don’t get the “get the biggest tire that will fit” suggestions. He said he hardly scrapes with stock suspension. Why stray from that? What’s to benefit for going bigger? I only see penalties in gas efficiency, drive train load, and potentially handling. Stick with the stock size. The only reason to go up to 265/75/16 is more availability and cheaper price.

 

I'm not discounting your personal experience, and for all I know a year from now I'll be in complete agreement with you, after trying them out myself. But I do have to say there is a massive number of folks on this forum who are incredibly happy with that tire size. And there's definite evidence that skinny tires are more popular for off-roading outside the US...that can't be entirely without reason.

 

I wasn't saying tall/skinny won't work. There are just too many disadvantages (for me). There are definitely lots of trucks running skinnies outside of US. I'm sure a lot of that is cost, as the skinny tires tend to be cheaper (usually). When you see their beat up trucks with very Spartan interiors, it's not as if they're going out of their way to get skinny tires. It's what's available and at a much cheaper cost.