To balance these 255/85 Toyos we used the static method that I prefer for big tires, but had never used on these forged aluminum 16×7-inch F350 wheels. Living up to their reputation, the high-quality Toyo M/Ts balanced well with relatively little weight. In addition, the Centramatic tire/wheel balancers I’ve run on this old Ford for several years insure the assemblies remain perfectly balanced with every revolution of the wheels.
Cleaning the mating surface and checking the trueness & balance of the old, but excellent Alcoa-made Ford wheels.One of the wheels has a little bend in the rim (approx. center of photo), though it still balances well. We used it for the Remington Mud Brute spare.
I didn’t need a spare Toyo as I had one remaining LT255/85R16 tire in my shop. It was a new Remington Mud Brute I found on closeout a couple years ago at a local tire shop for a mere $40.
Toyo M/T LT255/85R16E
It had been years since a set of Toyo M/Ts rolled under the F350, and they saw few miles, so I didn’t remember if they exhibited their common pull-to-the-right on my Ford. If pulling was present on the F350, I was willing to either live with or adjust for it, depending on the severity and my overall satisfaction with the Toyos. Unfortunately caster and camber are not easily adjusted on these old straight-axle trucks, and doing so involves installing an aftermarket ball joint.
MountingSpin balancing
It’s been years since Pull Dog hasn’t had to wear hand-me-down shoes.Triple checking the clearance for static balance tape-weights near the center of the wheel
Pulling but not drooling
The Toyo M/Ts did pull to the right, though it was not nearly as objectionable as on my newer IFS Toyotas. This was partially due to the lighter, highly-boosted power steering, as well as the much sloppier feel of the old recirculating ball gearbox. Since I often steer the manual transmission F350 with my left hand atop the wheel, which easily countered the right pull, I decided to wait and see about making mechanical adjustments.
Balanced and rolling very smoothly down the highway with relatively little noise, there were no surprises regarding the road manners of the Toyos. A couple days later the tire pressures were increase for heavy hauling, the truck bed and travel trailer were loaded, and the whole outfit headed toward the backcountry for a week of camping, deer hunting, and serious tire testing. The results were surprising!
This is how I like my tires and wheels to fit, with very little if any protruding beyond the fender.
My friend Sean needed tires soon but didn’t want to spend the money to purchase my Dick Cepek F-C II treads I’d offered, until he suddenly needed tires now. A freeway road-hazard punctured one of his old and very worn Toyo A/T 265/75R16E treads. His wife Shelly was driving their 2002 F350 crew-cab, 7.3L Power Stroke, pulling their loaded 36-foot triple-axle toy-hauler with all the family on-board…at 70 miles-per-hour. Obviously in-synch with the rig, ten seconds prior to the impending blowout, Shelly commented, “Wow, this wind is really bad…” as she felt the instability of the low psi tire on the right rear of the pickup.
LT265/75R16E Toyo A/T with a washer in the tread. All tires are relatively fragile, and the tread is tougher than the sidewalls.
The puncture lead to a loss of air, an overheated tire, and ultimately a blow out. We should all take note that Shelly was piloting a large diesel pickup and pulling a huge fifth-wheel trailer when she had the blowout…yet the Ford didn’t roll-over? She just calmly guided the outfit over to the right shoulder. Nothing else happened. Why? Certainly it was because of Newton’s first law of motion (paraphrased): an object will stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. The force of a simple blowout was not enough to roll the Ford F350, nor most Ford Explorers, however if the driver inputs excessive amounts of steering and/or braking, or there are other forces involved…maybe.
A classic tread separation blowout and an example of why under-inflation and/or overloaded tires are so dangerous. This can be the result.
Sean changed his mind and decided he’d buy my Dick Cepek F-C II treads, I had a used set of BFG A/T tires to trade-in, and with $200 more from my billfold and I was able to buy a new set of Toyo M/Ts in 255/85R16E for the old F350, immediately before a deer hunting trip.
Toyo M/T 255/85R16E took the place of the much loved Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R16D treads. Was this a good decision?
Over that past several weeks I’ve found myself seriously considering a new set of 255/85R16 tires for my old F350 (Pull Dog), which was recently put back in-service after an embarrassingly long hiatus. Maxxis Bighorns or Toyo M/Ts are the only treads I’ve been considering, both readily available from Les Schwab Tires where I do much business.
Toyo M/T & Maxxis Bighorn LT255/85R16
The reason for the 255/85 tire shopping is not because I need tires; the Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R16 currently mounted on the Ford have plenty of tread remaining. In fact the fronts are essentially new, two years old but with less than 1,000 miles on them, and the spare and rears have 17/32” of tread, literally tens of thousands of miles ahead if I continued to drive on them (new 285/75R16 F-C II come with 20/32”!).
20/32″ of tread depth on a new Dick Cepek F-C II
As much as I love the F-C II tread pattern, the 285s are squeezed on the OE 7-inch wide wheels, and technically 285s shouldn’t be on a wheels less than 7.5-inches wide. It’s not the worst match ever and lots of people do this, but it’s not ideal, particularly when airing down. When running low pressures (20-ish) with this combination on such a heavy truck off-highway, the rim abnormally squeezes and folds the sidewall of the tire under the rim, worse on the front, making the sidewall and shoulder of the tire abnormally vulnerable. The larger sidewall budge is even more of a concern with normal-duty tires like the F-C II which has reasonably rugged sidewall tread, but not the massive sidewall lugs we’ve come to expect on modern, aggressive mud-terrain tires. Regardless of the tire or sidewall design it’s ideal to drive on the tread, not the sidewalls, as all sidewalls are inherently vulnerable, even those with lugs and tread.
I’ve considered new 16×8-inch wheels, 17×8-inch wheels (good for the 17-inch future and some 17” tires I already have on another rig) but I’m not certain having a different set of wheels for the old Ford is a good plan. The original 16×7-inch forged aluminum wheels made by Alcoa are very strong, very light, and are about perfect for this truck except for running a wider, 285 tire. Before repairing Pull Dog’s major coolant leak recently, I sold two sets of used 255s last year (LT255/85R16 Tire Delivery Part 1), including one set of serviceable Maxxis Bighorns that were on the F350. Since my fleet inventory contains plenty of 285 treads in the 16 and 17 inch flavors, 8-inch wide wheels make lots of sense for the F350 even though I don’t like tires & wheels that extend beyond the fenders.
LT285/75R16E Toyo M/T on the OE 7″ F350 wheel at 15 psi, shoved into a hillside
Of course buying new 16×8 wheels would fit the current F-C II 285s perfectly, and would also happily accept 255s in the future. However, wider wheels—even with the same positive backspacing as the OE wheels if I could find any I like—will not be as tucked and tight to the body, and will stick out on the front axle. After studying the offset and backspacing on several sets of wheels, it looks like the best case would be 8-inch wide wheels with zero offset. These would push the tires & wheels 3/4-inch outboard compared to the stock, positive offset 7-inch wheels. Of course there are other advantages to running a 255/85 over a 285 tire, including potentially better fuel economy, better tracking on/off-highway, they typically cost and weigh less, etc.
Will the best 255/85R16 please roll-up and kiss me
Maxxis Bighorns are still a load-range D tire, which I prefer for the ride on a firmly-sprung 1-ton truck. There are pros and cons to running different load ranges, for more on this see this post: Dick Cepek and Mickey Thompson Change Load Range D For E.
The Toyo M/T is a load-range E, a stiff load-range E (not all are created equal), with thick 3-ply sidewalls and a 7-ply tread. Toyos have a well deserved reputation as a very rugged tire both on-highway and off. Toyo M/Ts are also relatively expensive, but in the moderate 255/85R16 size they can be found for under $300 each, not bad these days for a top quality heavy-duty light-truck tire. Maxxis Bighorns are less expensive, but not nearly as enticing as they were a few years ago when they could be purchased for a mere $150 each, but all tires are notably more expensive than just a few years ago.
If new Toyo M/T treads didn’t cost $1,200 my old F350 would be sportin’ a new set of 255/85s right now…I’d like to have them before a rapidly approaching hunting trip. To help push myself over-the-edge I offered a few friends my set of five Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R16D tires, which would take a big bite out of a Toyo M/T bill. One guy wants them but he doesn’t have cash. Money talks and…
255/85R16E Toyo M/T & Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R176D
And after all this, I’m not completely convinced I should make the swap even if I can sell my F-C IIs. The F-C IIs have plenty of capacity (3,305# per tire @ 65 psi) ride much better (softer) than Toyo M/Ts when unloaded and at moderate speeds off-highway, are already mounted & balanced, track well on the Ford, have tons of tread remaining, and are flexible (good traction). The only cons are that the F-C II are not as rugged and they’re squeezed on narrow rims.
New Treads, Alignment, and Wear
If I mount new Toyos on Pull Dog will I need an alignment? If not needed I probably should have the alignment checked, it’s been years… I suggest getting the alignment whenever one mounts new or different tires, it’s foolish to jeopardize new, expensive tread with sloppy front-end maintenance. While I’m a very enthusiastic fan of the Dick Cepek F-C II tread design, I’ve been running them on my lighter 4Runner and second generation Tundra, and it would be nice to see how they perform for me on a heavier truck with low gears, a manual transmission, and serious diesel torque. Will they last as long? Compared to the Toyo M/T tires, I have no doubt the F-C II will wear much longer, and their winter traction will be superior. The only areas where the F-C II can’t compete with the Toyo M/T is ruggedness and serious slop traction, and I’m not sure I need those features 99 percent of the time, though they would be nice while traveling in the backcountry. Oh yeah, and the perfect fit of a 255/85 on the OE 7-inch wheels on a 1996 F350.
A 255/85 fits and works perfectly on the old Ford F350
One thing is for sure, when it comes to putting down my credit card for a new set of tries for the 1996 F350 I’ve moved the Toyo M/T to the top, thus it’s my (current) favorite LT255/85R16 for this truck. There, I said it.
I was asked about my favorite 255/85R16 tire these days. Favorite? Just one? Singular? This was a tough assignment for me. All my buddies know it’s impossible for me to have only one set of truck tires in my shop. It depends on the application, but what’s my final answer?
For most of us price is at least somewhat of a consideration, if not a major factor, when choosing tires. I’ll give cost some consideration, though I prefer to buy the rubber I want, and think of the relative value over 40,000 miles or more. Sometimes a little faster rate of wear is a fair tradeoff for performance.
Maxxis Bravo MA-761 and Toyo M55 in 255/85R16
Mostly Muds
While I wish there were more all-terrain or commercial traction treads in the 255/85 size there are only a couple. The Toyo M55 is one commercial traction tire that comes to mind, and the load-range D, 3-ply sidewall Maxxis Bravo MA-761 is a the only stout, low-void tire in this size. The rest are essentially mud-terrain tires.
Regional availability varies and I suggest considering this before a purchase. With few exceptions, most stores will need to order a set of 255/85 tires. In my part of The West, 255/85R16 Toyo M/T, M55, and Maxxis Bighorns can be found at many Les Schwab Tires stores, and if not in stock, will arrive a few days after an order is placed. I’d be willing to bet cash that few (if any) local tire stores stock the BFG Mud-Terrain. However the online tire giant, Tire Rack, has a warehouse nearby, and a short drive any business day would put a set of 255/85 KM2s in my pickup.
LT255/85R16E BFG KM2 treads on a 2006 4Runner
Toyo M/T
If you’re looking for very heavy-duty construction (and heavy), smooth running on pavement, and a reputation for balancing well, the Toyo M/T is a top choice. Tread wear can be very good, or lousy depending on the rig and the driver. Their tendency to pull, often right, on (my) Toyota 4WDs and many Dodge trucks has made me reconsider my praise for Toyos in recent years where I used to swear by them. Their cost is a little scary too, though the 255/85 size is small enough to be affordable; all tires have become more expensive.
When the stoutest tire is not needed, I don’t like the extremely low pressures needed to make the Toyo M/T ride nice and flex the way I prefer off-pavement. At normal pressures on-highway ride is also firm, this is the price that must be paid for extreme-duty construction, the 3-ply sidewalls, and 7-ply tread. Some dislike the appearance of the Toyo M/T, but I think it’s a sharp looking tire. Noise is moderate for a mud terrain tire.
The previous BFG KM Mud-Terrain and the Toyo M/T in 255/85R16.
BFGoodrich KM2
With enough saddle time above a set of 255/85R16s and 285/75R16s to know how they perform off-highway, the BFG KM2 has impressed me as a load-range E, 3-ply sidewall tire that flexes well when the air pressure is dropped. BFG claims this in their advertising and it’s true. So while I’m not a BFG fan, this flexibility has my respect because I like flexible tires that are tough enough.
BFG also deserves credit for their commitment to the 255/85R16 size, as they made it for many years in the previous Mud Terrain design, for years now in the KM2 pattern, and offer essentially the same 17-inch tire, a 255/80R17. I’ve not had any failures with BFGs, but they’ve also never been my favorite tires, so I never put more than a few thousand miles on a set.
Most seem to be satisfied with how KM2s perform and last, but for years I’ve heard reports of inconsistent balance with BFGs. I experienced this myself with a set of 255/85 KMs (not KM2), which were only slightly worn and started to require more lead to balance after a few thousand miles. BFGoodrich deserves credit for taking chances when designing the KM2 which is a nice, different looking tire that has plenty of sidewall tread. A good price for a set of 255/85 KM2s should be much less than Toyo M/Ts.
Maxxis Bighorn load-range D and BFGoodrich KM2 load-range E LT255/85R16 tires.
Maxxis Bighorn MT-762
When Les Schwab Tires started selling the Bighorn a few years ago, including the 255/85R16 size (blackwalls too!), I was quick to buy a set. At the time they did full-time duty on my built 4Runner and were an exceptional value, about $150 per tire. On many occasions I was thoroughly impressed by the grip the Bighorns delivered. Part of their traction advantage comes from the relatively soft, flexible tread compound, which also results in pretty fast wear. Bighorns are also a little loud, not howling ‘swamper’ loud, but a typical mud tire hum, a bit more to listen to than either the Toyo M/T and KM2, particularly as they wear. As I mature, I’m less tolerant of everyday tire noise, and actually prefer something quieter than all three of my examples here. If you’re not averse to a little mud tire noise, the Bighorns are a great tire. They are still a load-range D 255/85, only a 2-ply sidewall design, though I’ve yet to rip one open. I’d like to see Maxxis update their design and add thicker tread material on the upper sidewalls.
My first set of Bighorns made me a fan of Maxxis light-truck tires, when they balanced with very little weight. This spurred me to purchased a set of Bravo all-terrains, which also required little weight to balance and were great on the road. My second set of 255/85 Bighorns also balanced well, but never saw much use before being traded. A third set of Bighorns, used 285/75R17s, that I acquired for testing a few months ago also balanced very well even though they had some uneven wear. A little noisy and fast wearing they may be, but they are still a decent value if you don’t have to pay full retail, and even better if you’re able to use them mostly off-highway.
Some of the great load-range (LR) D enthusiast tires are going to be improved to load-range E designs. This is only an improvement if one needs the higher load rating, and can be a negative if you don’t (see Wheels, Tires, and Sidewalls from Jan. 2012). I understand manufacturers’ position, if they make all or most of their heavy-duty light-truck (LT) tires load-range E, the tire can be used for stoutest pickups down to the smaller, lighter rigs. I argue that these stiffer, less flexible tires are not ideal for many lighter 4WDs which are typically daily-drivers that rarely haul or tow maximum loads, and would benefit from the better ride and off-pavement traction that more flexible tires offer. There are many applications where a load-range D or C (remember those) are the best choice. I view the reduction and possible elimination of the LR D tire choices similarly to the needless super-sizing of everything in the USA.
Bed full of load-range D, 255/85R16 tires.
I also see similarities to the slow death of the LT255/85R16 size. There is still a small market for this fantastic 33×10-inch tire, and many 255/85 tires that were all LR D five years ago, have become LR E designs. In support of this 255/85R16 change, I do think most trucks running this size are heavy-duty, full-sized pickups that are used as such, and the added capacity and reduced flex is a positive. Unfortunately narrower tires don’t appeal to the masses (strike 1), few new trucks are made with 16-inch wheels (strike 2), and the perfect 17-inch 255/85 replacement, the 255/80R17, is available in one tire (strike three), the BFGoodrich KM2 mud-terrain.
Dick Cepek Mud Country LT285/75R16D, with 3-ply sidewalls.
The Sea Change In Load-Range Continues
Recently I noticed that two of my current favorite mud tires, the Dick Cepek Mud Country and the Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ, are losing their load-range D rating in favor of the LR E in a couple popular sizes.
The Mud Country in 285/75R16 and the MTZ in 285/70R17 are switching to a load-range E rating. Both of these tires/sizes were load-range D, with 3-ply sidewalls, a perfect combination for many enthusiast applications. I currently own a set of each of these treads and love the 3-ply sidewalls combined with a load-range D casing. The new LR E offerings will surely offer less sidewall and/or tread flex (bad off-highway, good for tonnage) and be firmer riding during lightly loaded daily use. How stiff is the question, as not all LR E tires are created equal. Some are pretty flexible like the BFG KM2, while others like the new Cooper S/T MAXX and Toyo M/T are quite stiff.
The LT285/70R17 Mickey Thompson MTZ: Stout 3-ply sidewalls, serious sidebiter lugs, and load-range D construction all in one package. I’ll miss this combination when my current set needs replacing.
If you think I’m some kind of tire nut who likes fetish tires (well…) there has been and likely still is plenty of market and demand for good, load-range D tires. The currently popular, practical, and useful 285/70R17 size has several load-range D offerings. A search on www.trierack.com recently listed twenty-eight 285/70R17 tires; 14 of which were LR D treads, 7 were LR E, and 7 were P-rated tires. These LR D designs were not duds, and included some of the best or most popular off-highway enthusiast tires currently offered, including: Dick Cepek F-C II, BFGoodrich KM2 and All-Terrain, Goodyear MT/R with Kevlar, and Goodyear DuraTrac. For years BFG has offered their ever-popular All-Terrain in both load-range D and E flavors in both the 16-inch and 17-inch 285 mm sizes. I respect BFG for seeing and filling this need, and not forcing everyone who wants a 285 to run a load-range E tire. There is a difference.
Does this mean that I will no longer buy certain niche tires once they’re not available in LR D? Probably not. While I prefer a LR D tire for most of my uses, my primary criteria for light-truck tires is that I like the tread and overall characteristics, they balance well, and the chassis I put them on likes the tire. All of these are equally important, any missing ingredient can make a tire undesirable for the specific application—a deal breaker. After these metrics I prefer and will take a load-range D if I can get it, but will accept a load-range E if it’s not overly stiff.
RoadTraveler, enjoying the tire wear to get there.
Will The Most Efficient Tires Please Drive Forward
It’s often stated that narrower, lighter, less aggressive tires are more efficient and will yield better fuel economy, but how much better? To properly compare apples and pears one must take care to reduce the variables that are always present during real-world tests. In this case I used the same vehicle, same gas pump, during similar weather conditions and time of day, calculated the odometer error, and used the same section of freeway. The GPS-confirmed road speed was 64-MPH and was maintained by cruise control. The tires were inflated to 35-PSI in all but the last test with the Dick Cepek F-C II treads where I goofed and only used 32-PSI. The F-C II tires performed so well I doubt they could have provided better economy with an extra 3-PSI.
Cooper S/T 255/85R16D on Toyota 4Runner, @ 15 PSI.
If you think the fuel economy numbers listed below are too high you are partly correct, the tests involved almost zero city driving. The variables of in-town driving are not repeatable and won’t yield consistent data. What these tests do show is the fuel economy potential of this vehicle and establishes a baseline against which other tests can be measured. For each test the modified 2006 4.7L V8 4Runner was fueled and then driven a few blocks to the same freeway onramp, onward to a specific exit, and then the route was reversed and terminated at the same gas pump where the engine was promptly turned off.
Dean SXT Mud Terrain & Cooper S/T, both 255/85R16. Two of the narrowest 255/85 tires made.
All the tires used were close to the same diameter, about 33-inches, and they were all mounted on Toyota FJ Cruiser TRD 16 x 7.5-inch aluminum wheels. Because of the slight differences I tire height, one corrected odometer reading of 56.76-miles was used for all the tests. Listed below with the figures are the weights of each tire/wheel combination.
Results:
Cooper S/T LT255/85R16D: 75-lb 3.027-gal. = 18.75 MPG
TreadWright Guard Dog LT285/75R16E: 87-lb 3.331-gal. = 17.04 MPG
Dick Cepek F-C II LT285/75R16D: 83-lb 3.121-gal. = 18.18 MPG
Maxxis Bighorn 255/85R16D, TreadWright Guard Dog 285/75R16E, Cooper S/T 255/85R16D
Commentary
I was a little surprised that the very narrow and light Coopers consumed more fuel than the heavier, more aggressive Maxxis Bighorns. Though when filling-up after the Cooper test the gas-pump didn’t stop normally and a little gas spit from the filler, possibly contributing to the lower reading. Longer distance tests would likely be more accurate, but this type of testing is very time consuming and expensive.
It was expected that the heavier, wider TreadWright Guard Dogs with their aggressive lug tread would use more fuel. The Cepek F-C II tires impressed me by splitting the difference and topping eighteen MPG!
Cooper S/T 255/85R16D, Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R16D
Surely tread design, width, and weight all make a difference. My theory is that width and tread design have a larger impact on fuel economy than tire weight, at least when there is only a few pounds difference. There is five pounds separating the Maxxis Bighorn 255/85R16 and TreadWright 285/75R16, but I don’t think those additional few pounds account for the 1.77 mile-per-gallon difference. There is a seven pound difference between the Maxxis Bighorns and Cooper S/Ts, but the results for these two 255s were so close you could call it a tie.
For several years I’ve been a fan of what are often called aggressive all-terrain tires. Labels and classifications can be difficult, sometimes neither descriptive nor adequate as there is much crossover, gray-area, and blurred lines with tread designs. These tires are not as open as a mud tire, but offer much more void than the typical all-terrain or all-season tire. Current examples include Mickey Thompson ATZ 4-rib, Dick Cepek F-C II, Cooper S/T Maxx, Goodyear DuraTrac, Dean SXT Mud Terrain/Cooper S/T, and the Toyo M55. These treads are also called traction or commercial traction designs.
Limited Terrain SUV Tires
When marketing types decided that utility vehicle was no longer an adequate description for 4WD utility wagons, the Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) appeared, surged, then dominated the light-truck utility market. Lighter-duty all-terrain tires that offered less void and less traction became popular on the increasingly soft SUVs over the past two decades. It’s understandable that SUV tires became so road-biased, as invariably that’s where many log all their miles in their SUV trucks, but many of these conservative “all-terrain” treads would be more accurately described as all-season tires.
Michelin Cross Terrain SUV tire, properly labeled an all-season highway tire.
Despite the 4WD SUV becoming the modern on-highway station wagon for much of the U.S. if not most of North America, there are still those that want their 4WD wagons to be body-on-frame truck designs, shod with better, higher void traction tires. These folks include hunters, sportsmen, off-highway adventurers, people who live or work in rural areas, and those who travel in serve climates. For a variety of reasons a mud terrain tire may not be preferred (less MPG, longevity, and less traction on wet roads, with more noise) but a low void all-season tire labeled and masquerading as an all-terrain often doesn’t do the job either.
More void is desirable to absorb debris and let it escape. The wetter the material the more void you might want, and open, lug designs are typically louder, though modern tire design has reduced the noise penalty for some traction tires.
Toyo M55 & Multi-Mile TXR LT255/85R16D
What Size
I’ve never been a fan of needlessly wide tires, but wide tires have dominated the enthusiast 4×4 truck aftermarket for several years. Fat tires work well for some applications, but have many limitations for common usage, particularly on-pavement, where even the most active off-highway explorers travel thousands of miles each year. A slight correction seems to have occurred, where not every enthusiast 4×4 tire needs to be over 12-inches wide; 285 mm wide tires have caught on.
While I’m currently using and have accepted 285s, in my mind they are still a bit wide, roughly 11.5-inches depending on the tire—narrower tires track straighter and offer better MPG. Drivers are at least aware of fuel economy because of the cost of fuel, though I don’t see many people driving for fuel economy, bad habits are prevalent and it seems we’re often in a hurry.
The days of much narrower 33-inch enthusiasts tires like the LT255/85R16 are disappearing fast. Thankfully, if you don’t want such a tall tire, there are many 235–265 mm wide treads in the 31–32-inch range that can deliver better fuel economy.
Great traction tires: LT255/85R16D Cooper S/T & LT285/75R16D Dick Cepek F-C II
Eighteen Inch 33s
Not knowing much about 18-inch tires or wheels, but owning a set of take-off eighteens, I studied the options and was pleasantly surprised to discover the LT275/70R18 size. This size is just slightly narrower than the common 285 mm treads in either a 16, 17, or 18-inch, but with a reasonable aspect ratio of 70 percent. Most 275/70R18s are 33.3-inches tall, very similar to the tall 255/85R16 size that I’ve loved for fifteen years.
Eighteen-inch wheels are two inches taller overall, so tire sidewalls are a full inch shorter at the bottom (the part we feel and drive on). Historically 255/85R16s were flexible and pleasant riding load-range D designs, though load-range E is becoming more common in a 255/85, but 275/70R18s are almost all load-range E rated. Not all load-range D or E tires are created equal, some are stiffer than others, but shorter load-range E sidewalls on a 275/70R18 are going to be stiffer in almost every application. Again, stiff sidewalls can be a positive or a negative, depending on your needs and preferences, refer to this Wheels, Tires, and Sidewalls article for more on this subject.
