255/75 R17 who's running them?

Didn't see anything posted. So do you run the skinnies? If so, what brand? Any lift? Any issues on/off road, high speed cornering, rubbing? Thinking of going this route and looking for real world experience.

 

I don't have this tire size, but I was considering it for a while. When I was looking, I liked the Firestone Destination A/T in this size because they offered different sidewall options. Those tires seem to get good reviews as well. I wish the Destinations came in a 255/80. I would get those in a second, but ultimately I'm going with the P rated 285 Destinations.

 

I have some older BFG MTs in 255/75/17, they worked on my taco but are super loud and wear horribly. I’d like to find a same size AT, load c preferably.

 

In have 255/80/17 Ridge Grapplers and I love then.

 

How are they? Are they loud?

 

I really like them so far. I've had them on since October. They are wearing well, good traction, they aren't very loud. I replaced K02s with these and in general I'm happy. I was disappointed that while I was researching tires Falken did not make the Wildpeak AT3W in a 255/80/17. After buying the Ridge Grapplers I saw Falken released them in that size. I would have bought the Falkens but I have no regrets with these.

 

I have BFG MT KM in 255/75/17. I like them however they’re loud.

 

Well yeah, mud terrains are meant for mud, they will always be noisy on pavement

 

Pics anyone?

 

255/ 75r 17 Ko2’s

 

I should have 255/75 Yokohama geolandars on tomorrow afternoon if all goes to plan. I'll post some pictures.

 

Finally on. Love how it looks.

 

Not a super aggressive looking tire but I like them.

 

How's the ride on these? Low noise? I drive a lot of highway so looking for a good looking A/T tire like this but good highway manners. Does the taller/skinny tire impact MPG negatively? I have read comments both ways.

 

I'm going to vote skinny would help in mpg dept and be a better choice for long trips.
I think smaller contact patch, low wind facing surface, less weight all contribute in a positive way for better mpg even if its minor.
But I wonder the same weight on a smaller area would cause tine bit of tread wear? Not sure. Just thinking out loud. I could be wrong.

 

From what I understand, tall skinny contact patches don’t end up being any smaller. Basically, I’ve heard ot explained that what is lost in width, is gained in length of contact patch. gain length. Seems to make sense.

 

Im not much help yet. I have 2 miles on the tires so far! Tire shop right to home.

I'll drive it tonight 40-50 miles and I'll have a little better idea.

 

This is true....although not sure how true with these vs stock. They're like less than 1/2" taller.

But look a ag equipment. Super skinny tires are always super tall. Longer contact patch to get extra floatation. Wide tires are short to help with gearing and weight. "Fats vs "skinnies" is what we call them.

 

I could be very wrong but when I think of 285/70R17 vs 255/80R17 the 255/80 seem to have a smaller contact patch. Which I think it might give better driving feel, maybe give a mpg advantage, etc.. Again I could be wrong on my calculation.

 

LOL!!! Love the calculations haha!

Wouldn’t the weight on the a narrower tire mean greater pressure on it for the same given vehicle weight, thus compressing the tire and elongating the contact patch? I dont read math very good, so you might have already accounted for that in your proof.

 

Assuming the tire is air down max to the wheel level

The 285/70R17 can go only from ground to 7.85435 inches will have 276.8 sq/in of contact patch.
vs
255/80R17 can go from ground to 8.03152 (with extra 0.17717 side wall) will have 253.3 sq/in of contact patch.

Again I could have made a mistake in my math since its done just for fun in leisure time.
But without math since both are pretty close in diameter and close numbers for sidewall height (70% of 285 vs 80% of 255) but 285 is significantly wider than 255 I think 285s have a bigger area.

 

Makes sense to me. However, I wouldn’t take that comment as any sort of verification of your conclusions.

So maybe I’ll just nod, and put my finger on my chin in a pensive manner.

 

Of cause,100%. There could be something I missed and why many say otherwise.

 

Looks great. I'm shopping for my second set of 255/75R17s.

I'm curious if you compared the KO2s with Geolandars and Cooper AT3 4S, and the reason you picked the KO2s.

 

I had Cooper AT3’s on a previous 4 Runner. A bit noisy. Drove my brothers 4 runner with K02’s and was surprised at the ride and quiet, so I got them. Price was decent also. Never did check out the Geolanders.

 

Do you have stock suspension?

 

Stock height, stock suspension. NC forest service roads are about as Off-road as we get, along with Florida Mud / Sand camping.

 

Have you noticed any rubbing with the KO2's? Also, can you post a sideview pic?

 

Did you had Cooper AT3 4S or Cooper AT3 XLT?
I'm keeping my eye on Cooper AT3 4S for my mostly on road Limited. Love to see some experience of others with snow and ice performance, thread life how much miles, strong enough for forests roads (not rock crawling), etc..

 

I had Cooper AT3 4Ss on my previous 2016 TE (255/75R17). I also had them on my previous 2023 Tundra (275/60R20). Both were 1/2 inch taller than stock.

https://www.4runners.com/threads/wh...h-gen-4runner-today.2261/page-522#post-264494

https://www.4runners.com/threads/wh...h-gen-4runner-today.2261/page-718#post-386206


I liked them. But I'm also open to trying out the KO2 and Michelin LTX so I'm researching on these.