Are 265 Tires hurting my overlanding experience?

[Kona Rig]

So, I currently have 265 70R Falken Wildpeaks on 17" Icon Alloys on my 4runner. From time to time I do have tire envy.... but my rig is my daily driver and so far my current tires have served me well. I have armor on the bottom of my vehicle and thankful that I do after some hard hits. Is going to a 285 and getting the body chop on the front going to help me all that much. I'm not a rock crawler kinda guy but I want my rig to take me out and back in one piece.

 

[Alanymarce]

Going from 265 to 285 will give you 14 mm more radius (hence height) if my numbers are correct. Every little helps, but if you have to modify the arches/etc., I'd go to 275 70R 17, which gives you 7 mm added clearance and take appropriate care to avoid rocks/stones/stumps.

 

[Kona Rig]

I have thought of that but I've been told that's an odd size and not all tire dealers sell it and requires special order. I'm thinking of potential flats that may warrant a trip to the tire dealer. Is the extra weight of running 285 significant in feel... get up and go.. or get up and go slowly.

 

[grubworm]

I do have tire envy....

i hear ya. i have 275s on a tundra with 20" rims. id rather a 17" rim and have more sidewall...but the 20s work OK and no need splitting hairs. i had to install a level kit to get the 275s to fit with minimal rub and they are a great tire on a larger platform than a 4 runner, so im sure 275s would be fine. i went to sedona with stock tires and bottomed out on easy jeep trails, so i went to the 275s and it did help a lot and required minimal mods.
i agree with @Alanymarce do the 275s and if that 7mm difference ends up being a deal, then go up to the 285s next time

 

[Kona Rig]

Thanks @Alanymarce and @grubworm for the input.. info to chew on!

 

[the_great_white]

If youre looking for ground pressure (the reason military tires were always so tall and skinny- Aberdeen Proving Grounds tests.) and if you're in mud that has a bottom (most of it does) more ground pressure will give you more bite and I'm sure they'll suck in the sand for the same reason.

 

[DevilDodge]

My 99 RAM has 245. My 03 RAM has 265. My 15 RAM has 275.

None of them have been hindered for overlanding

 

[KAIONE]

I changed to KO2’s, but kept the 265’s on my stock wheels and have no problems getting out off road. You gain 1” of height going to 285’s, so that’s your call; in my eyes 1” of clearance isn’t gonna open you up to a whole new world of “Overlanding”. If you see an obstacle that’s 4” in the middle of the road you’ll figure out how to get around it or over it. Same with rocky or other rough terrain; pick a line that suits you and give it a shot. If you can’t make it…..grab that shovel, until you can, lol! I’m 99% sure people have gone around the world with less. My $.02. I love rolling stock.

 

[walkabout_ca]

We're still on 265's (KO2) as well (5th gen 4Runner) and do up to mild rocky trails (washes etc), but not rock crawling. From what I understand not all 285's fit in the spare wheel compartment under the car, so you might need a tire carrier. Now that we added a low pro front bumper with winch our front has dropped a bit, and it does noticeably decrease ground clearance. We're still pretty happy with the capabilities, but a bit more clearance would be nice. A suspension lift is on the wish list...

 

[grubworm]

If you can’t make it…..grab that shovel, until you can

ok...the 285s are sounding pretty good

 

[Kona Rig]

Got the shovel! In the meantime I got to remember to not take the same lines as some of the Jeeps with huge tires.

 

[KAIONE]

If you can’t make it…..grab that shovel, until you can

ok...the 285s are sounding pretty good

Lol! That 1” ain’t gonna make that difference up either. Lol

 

[Kona Rig]

We're still on 265's (KO2) as well (5th gen 4Runner) and do up to mild rocky trails (washes etc), but not rock crawling. From what I understand not all 285's fit in the spare wheel compartment under the car, so you might need a tire carrier. Now that we added a low pro front bumper with winch our front has dropped a bit, and it does noticeably decrease ground clearance. We're still pretty happy with the capabilities, but a bit more clearance would be nice. A suspension lift is on the wish list...

The low pro definitely adds some
weight. Which one did you go with?

 

[walkabout_ca]

The low pro definitely adds some
weight. Which one did you go with?

The C4 (steel), not as bad as a full width steel bumper, but still. The (Warn) winch is not particularly light either.

 

[Kona Rig]

The low pro definitely adds some
weight. Which one did you go with?

The C4 (steel), not as bad as a full width steel bumper, but still. The (Warn) winch is not particularly light either.

View attachment 246413

Looks great!!! Nice choice!

 

[slomatt]

Just to note, 265 and 285 are the width of the tire, we'd need to know the aspect ratio (ex 70) to know the actual diameter.

For what it's worth, I've run 265/75R16s (32s) on my 4Runner for over 10 years and they have worked well on a variety of trails. And I've run the Rubicon in another truck on bald 32", it took a while but we made it through just fine. My Tacoma started with 265/70R17s and last year I upgraded to 255/85R17s which are over 33" tall and added quite a bit of ground clearance, but there's a definite hit to acceleration and fuel economy. That said, since they are fairly narrow I did not have to modify my cab mount and can still stuff the tires.

On your 4Runner a 33" is going to get you close to the point where you might want to consider regearing which is a fairly big expense. The larger and heavier tire also adds more strain on the driveline, especially the front diff and axles if you shock load them if the tire suddenly gets traction.

Ultimately, there are a lot of Jeeps out there on 37 and 40 inch tires and in comparison there's negligible difference between a 32 and a 33, especially when you consider the relatively minor gains in clearance under the axle.

- Matt

 

[tjZ06]

Just to note, 265 and 285 are the width of the tire, we'd need to know the aspect ratio (ex 70) to know the actual diameter.

^This! To be fully accurate we'd need to know the aspect ratio *and* the rim size to know the actual diameter. I find that within a very specific automotive community people use just the width of the tire to talk about overall size, because on their very specific vehicle everyone runs the same rim size and aspect ratio for a given width. For example, everyone with a 5th Gen 4Runner like the OP might run a very-specific aspect ratio and rim size for a 265 width tire and another very specific aspect ratio and rim size in 285 so they tend to use just the width to talk about them. However that doesn't translate to a forum like this where the vehicles are so varied.

I'm sure most everyone knows this, but in metric tire sizing the numbers are <width in mm>/<aspect ratio><construction - basically everything any of us buy will be R for Radial... but you can still find bias-ply Super Swampers and things like that><rim diameter>

For example, the tires on my WJ are a 315/75R16 which means they are 315mm wide, the sidewall is 75% as tall as the tread is wide (aka 315 x 0.75 = 236.25mm tall sidewall), it is a Radial tire, and it accommodates a 16" rim. You can get the overall height (roughly) by adding 2 x sidewall height to the rim height (so 236.25 x 472.5 + 16" in mm which is 406.4mm, = 878.9mm or 34.6"... width is simpler, it's just 315 converted to inches which is 12.4" so my tires are about a 34.6x12.4-16" in inches or "standard").

-TJ

 

[MazeVX]

Effective difference between 285/70r17 and 265/70r17 won't be much if even noticeable.
A different tire or tire type might make more noticeable difference than the size in this case, it's not worth doing any work for such a minor upgrade.

 

[tjZ06]

Effective difference between 285/70r17 and 265/70r17 won't be much if even noticeable.
A different tire or tire type might make more noticeable difference than the size in this case, it's not worth doing any work for such a minor upgrade.

100%. Especially because the other thing I forgot to mention is manufacturers are left to make their measurements on whatever rim width they choose, and whatever pressure. You could take the same 315/75R16 I have and put it on a 4" rim (it'd be tough, but you could do it) and I bet it'd sit darn near as tall as a 37" tire on the proper width rim, or stretch it onto a 14" rim (maybe not possible... but the "stance" guys pull off some crazy stuff) and it might be as short as a 33". Then there's tire pressure to play with. So really even when you provide aspect ratio and rim size to fully describe a tire size, it's hard to say what, if any effective difference there will be unless it's exxxactly the same tire brand and model (and even load range).

At the end of the day, if it were me, and I could run a 265/70R17 without body-mount hackery but a 285/70R17 required body-mount hacker I'd stick with the "265." Of course, I'm good at saying these things, terrible at following my own advice. Here's the fender work needed just to run my ~35"s on the WJ:

And my D'max is going to need some work on the rear wheel openings to get rid of the little bit of rubbing I have with the 37"s when fully articulating. So, do as I say... not as I do...

-TJ

 

[Kona Rig]

I still have tread on my WildPeaks.. I think I'll keep running my 265, but appreciate all the comments and advice.