4Runner with 295/7017 tires

I have a 2wd 4Runner running a 3inch lift with 33s and no rubbing. Is anyone running 34s and rubbing? Also curious about mpg. Thanks!

 

34's are for wimps. Getcha some 40's!

 

The loco strikes again. Good one!

 

How are ‘U’ turns?

 

Your AI sucks.
Grok:


lol.

My actual rig on 34s:

 

Touche', sir...

 

lol. I’m actually upset that Groks viper cut looks way better than my actual viper cut lmfao.

OP this shenanigans aside 34s fit with relative ease. I’m running 285/75/17 (skinny 34s) but 295/70/17 (33.5”) will also fit. Plenty of rigs on this forum using them.

You’ll likely need a body mount chop and some minor trimming to the front bumper. Keep in mind offset has a rig role to play here. Negative offset = way more trimming.

Expect <18 mpg. Expect the rig to be slower. Being RWD I honestly wouldn’t recommend going bigger than 33. Only reason to go bigger would be off-road capability.

If this thread dies, there are plenty of other discussing it.

Use google to find them.
Site:4Runners.com/ 295/70/17

 

I ran 295/70/17 Nitto Ridge Grappler E and it did take work to get them to fit with zero rubbing. For my 4Runner, I had them mounted to 17x9 -38 wheels, which gave a ton of inboard clearance. My guess is -10 would suffice for the wider 295 tire. I have a high clearance bumper, so I'm not sure how much fender trimming would be required, and I also have BMC which is likely necessary for full articulation. Additionally, the tires would hit the painted fender flares on hard bottom-outs, but that was mostly fixed with a better bump stop. MPG was around 15-17.

 

I'm running the same size now and imo they're the perfect size tire that blends better ground clearance, wheel well clearance, daily road performance, and off-road performance.

 

If a 285/70/17 fits perfectly with zero rubbing I would assume a 285/75/17 would as well as they are just taller right?

 

Taller, yes, but could be subject to contacting the body mount or fenders, depending on how much clearance you had with the 285/70. If you previously cleared with a half inch to go, for example, then the 285/75 would likely contact in that same spot since it's about .5" closer now (if you consider the overall 1" taller height). You'd also have to consider how much clearance you had at full tuck because the taller tire could now potentially hit the top or rear of the inner fender on hard bottom-outs. The latter is fixable with better bump stops.

 

That rules out me out lol! That sucks the extra ground clearance would have been great!

 

My group calls them baby 35's lol.
A 285/75/17 from most brands is a true 34" tire.
Most 35's are only 34.4-34.6" tall.

So the sidewall height difference is almost negligible. But, a 35x12.5 will be significantly wider so you'll have a larger contact patch. Better flotation in sand and snow.

An aggressive body mount chop can clear 34s or 35s all day.



I've posted about this size multiple times in other threads. Honestly it's a bit slept on. Super common size. Less rolling resistance, a little lighter, a little easier to fit than a thick 35. Makes more sense than a 295/70/17 if you're specifically looking for ground clearance.

I've been rocking these 285/75/17 Falkens on stock gears for a couple years and the rig doesn't seem to care. Still, I'm going to regear for the crawl ratio and move to a 35 that is more capable in the mud and rocks (eyeing the baja boss AT)

 

I would be all over them if it wasn't for the damn BMC! Being in AZ with mostly rock the ground clearance means so much more to me than having a thicker tire for sure. Ah maybe one of these days I will stop being a punk and just do the BMC but I need to learn a bit more about them haha. I deff love the look you have with the 34s! sometimes I think the 33s look a bit small on my 4R