Tires - LT255/80 R17 vs LT285/70 R17 | Pros & Cons?

Would you like to share your expertise on skinny tires vs fat tires?

I've picked 2 popular tires and shared specs according to a famous tire shop. But the topic is not about Duratrac vs ST MAXX (even though I love one over the other.) Like to discuss about skinny tires vs fat tires. Would you share your knowledge on pros and cons?

 

Skinnies tend to require less trimming to fit. They are lighter, so you'll save a little on fuel.

Wider tires should feel a bit more stable on-road. But, I haven't experienced both, so I can only speak to what I've read. I can only say that my 4runner handles great (for a brick) on 285's. Also, the extra width helps with flotation. So, if you're playing in deep sand a lot, this can be an advantage.

 

Although there are a lot of references, I like Andrew St. Pierre White and his advice. He's been doing this stuff forever and has taken his 4WD all over the globe. I respect his opinions on pretty much everything.

 

"They are lighter" -
As per specs I got from the above example looks like on 15lbs saved from 5 tires.

"the extra width helps with flotation" -
One could argue that with 80 profile you can air down more than a 70 profile tire. But not sure what gives more area of flotation.

 

Sorry, that was a bad example. Not the video I thought it was. Let me see if I can find another he did...

Edit: Ah, here it is...

 

Andrew St. Pierre White was very passionate about skinny tires but its surprising now he is using fat 285s.

 

I noticed that, too. They seem to be the "in thing". I sure like them (although I'm still only running 265s).

 

Its not so easy to understand. Youtubers like Andrew St. Pierre White who do easy trails more of touring type of travels explains very nicely that skinny tires are better and then he now runs wider tires. Other Youtubers like 4WD Action / 4WD 24-7 or Ronny Dahl who do some serious offroading use wider tires. Not easy to make a decision at all.

As for you running 265s, I do like the look of 265s vs the 245 I got with my Limited was pathetic, utter ugly.. LoL.. (I hope Limited owners won't get angry as I make lot of fun with my Limited). I think I'd like to see something in the middle like a 265/80 R17. Just a thought.

 

Unsprung weight makes a big difference in performance, according to most people I talk to. Also, tire weight makes a huge difference in acceleration and fuel economy.

Also, 80% of 255 is 204 mm, while 70% of 285 is 199.5 mm. So, even though a 285/70 is lower profile than a 255/80, the actual amount of sidewall is very similar. Plus, being over an inch wider to begin with helps with flotation as well.

 

The contact patch of the 285 is a little bigger in all instances, i like it.

 

I've decided to compromise on my next set with a tall fat skinny 285/75/17.

 

Skinny, no, never. 285 or better.

 

That's definitely a nice size. In fact I looked at it too since there were Load C options in that size. But worried if I would need BMC to fit with 3in lift.

 

This article discusses expedition tires. There are three section to expand to read the whole article. The conclusion points to narrower, taller tires in almost all use cases, and OEM tires sizes are a pretty good compromise.
https://expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/tire-selection-for-expedition-travel.194617/

Here’s an interesting excerpt about the benefits of a narrower tire:
“Traction in soft surfaces: It is a common misconception that airing down a tire for off-road traction only makes the tire contact patch wider. That is not the case. In fact, only 20% of the increased contact comes from the width. 80% of the increased contact patch comes from the tread patch becoming longer. A tall, narrow tire allows for a very long contact patch when aired down. That, coupled with the minimal frontal resistance (area), negates much of the downside to narrow tires in flotation situations. The taller tire allows for a long contact patch and still maintains good ground clearance.”

And another:
“Traction on rocky trails: Another common misconception is that when airing down it is the increased amount of tire on the rock (more contact patch), that allows better traction. It is not the contact patch that creates better traction, but the tires ability to conform to the surface irregularities (deformation and mechanical keying). When an aired down tire comes in contact with a rock on the trail, the tires tread collapses under the vertical and horizontal forces, causing the tire to wrap the rock, as opposed to sitting on top of it. The wrapping effect provides greater shear resistance, and in turn better traction. (Technically: the shear load is distributed over multiple planes, not just a horizontal one).”

 

These things always seem to assume that the skinny tires are taller than the wider tire. A 255/80/17 is only .3" taller than a 285/70/17, while a 285/70/17 is over an inch wider than a 255.

I'm not trying to argue against tall skinnies, as plenty of folks have great luck with them. I'm just pointing out that in the case of the 2 most common tire sizes used on these 4runners, the "taller" tire is not actually significantly taller. So, when aired down, the contact patch on a 285 is probably still bigger.

That's not to say that a 255/80/17 isn't still a good option. I considered them myself, but unfortunately I ordered 9" wide wheels, which I feel are a bit wide for 255's. Even so, I'm quite happy with my taller (than stock), wider tires

 

Haha, yeah, all this theoretical discussion over a fraction of an inch. I wonder if any real world testing has been done to prove any of this.

 

Agreed! I hardly think you can go wrong either way, although I'm sure each route has advantages and disadvantages.

I suppose it's worth researching the pros and cons of each prior to purchasing.

 

I'm not sure that is a right statement to say, 255/80s are taller than 285/70. Looks like its depends on brand. For example according to my first example GY Duratrac 285/70/R17 is 33" tall vs Cooper ST Maxx 255/80/R17 is 32.8" tall.

 

Good point! This illustrates that it's definitely worth checking specifications before choosing a tire.

I also consider weight an important factor, which is leading me towards the Yokohama Geolander MT for my next set as they seem to come in a few LBS lighter than other tires of the same size. This could also be due to them coming in a pinch narrower than others as well, at least in the size I'm looking at.

But, strictly by the math a 255/80/17 is 9 mm taller (4.5mm taller sidewall) than a 285/70/17. Of course there are variations by manufacturer.

 

Sebastian Taylor
1 year ago
I thought you didn’t like wide tyres? Is 285 not too wide?


4xoverland
1 year ago
Yes. But there is nothing readily available. 255/85 would be ,my first choice, but very few tyre makers make them and then if I have a problem finding a replacement tyre in a remote area becomes a problem. Its a compromise and I have no choice.


Sebastian Taylor1 year ago
@4xoverland yes okay that makes sense.

 

What year is your 4Runner? I assume you're talking about a 255/85/16? If you have a 5th gen 16" wheels do not fit. Or, did you mean 255/80/17?

You are correct that there are limited choices with both of those options. And, if I'm not mistaken, most, if not all, options are LT tires.

 

It is a 2021 TRD ORP and it is on the boat from Japan as we speak. (New order) I appreciate your concern, but I know it is 17" wheels and I cannot go with 16" wheels. My response was to someone else saying that ASPW went to 285's instead of narrower tires, thus having changed his stance on narrow taller tires. It was copied and pasted. That was not the case, the limitation of available tires sizes in remote locations of the world is why he compromised with 285's. His preferred rim is 16's and thus his tire would have been 255/85/16. I lean towards more stock size tires or narrower and taller and small lifts for dependability. People sacrifice a lot of dependability to gain a small increase in clearance and looks. To each their own.

 

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, 255/85's are all the rage on Tacomaworld. Good clearance, and generally lighter than comparable 285's.

True.

Even here there are only a handful of tire options in that size. I wouldn't be surprised if some here went with 285's due to tire selection and availability as well.

I agree about smaller lifts. However, I'm really curious how I'm sacrificing dependability by running wider tires. Obviously, I'll probably wear out my ball joints and hub bearings faster than someone on stock tires. But, off-roading in general is going to put additional strain on those parts.

I went with the tire size I have for traction and flotation. Clearance was just part of my decision. And, yeah, I like how it looks. But, if there was no added function, I'd go right back to stock everything.

 

Last build, but I just think it is better to lighten the load to get to beaches like this in remote Baja.

 

That must have been fun!

Beautiful beach! I hope I can get out to California sometime.

I do agree that lighter is better if everything else is equal. Weight was a factor in my choosing the Yokohamas. Aside from that, I've had great luck with Yokohama in the past.

 

Facing South, it's but a right turn away

When you do. imo - Spare yourself from visiting anything South of Santa Barbara. Not saying there isn't beauty to be found down South, but it's hardly worth the effort(nightmare traffic) to access most of it. jm2c

 

If I come out there, I'm setting up a meet and greet. I would love to sit down and have a real conversation with some of you California guys! I've had some great times BS'ing with 4runner and Tacoma people in the Midwest. I think a meet-up would be the best part of the trip. Probably a few years out, but it's on my list.

 

Sounds like a plan. Just say when and I'd be happy to contribute in anyway possible.........

 

I definitely will! You, @nimby , @Agent_Outside , among others will be on the VIP list. I know there's a bunch of other cool California peeps in here.

 

Many