Are all tires E-rated these days?

Yes, I'm posting a wheel/tire thread, sorry. :)

It's time for new tires on my 4Runner and I've been looking into options. Currently I'm running 265/75R16 Maxxis Bighorns which have worked pretty well but are now very loud. The nice thing about these tires is that they are almost a true 32" tall and they are fairly light at 48 lbs.

For my next set of tires I'd like to go with a less aggressive tread pattern that still works well offroad and in the snow, something like a BFG KO2. This truck does see quite a bit of trail usage so being able to air down and have the tires flex is important, and I'd like to keep the weight down to help with mpg. The problem I've run into is that almost all 265/75R16s these days are E-rated and stiffer and heavier than I need. For example the KO2 in this size is almost 54lbs, 10%+ more than my Bighorns. My bigger concern is that the truck is not heavy enough for E-rated tires which will result in a rough ride and loss of compliance when aired down. I know paddlenbike ran into a similar issue last time he looked at tires.

So... I've started considering moving to a 17" rim since it opens up more tire size possibilities. I loose a little sidewall and the wheels are a little heavier, but I think it's a good trade off. I'd like to stay with an 8" wide wheel with ~0mm offset to keep tire placement the same as my current FZJ80 wheels (21lbs each). The top contender is the FN f(x) Pros which seem to be well made, are 24lbs, and cost $700+ shipping for four. Then the question gets to be tire size, and there are a lot of options. I have a 5spd with 4.10 gears, so I can't go much taller than 32".

BFG KO2
- 255/75R17 C ~32" 45.5lbs
- 265/70R17 C 31.6"x8.8" 46lbs

Cooper Discoverer S/T
- LT265/70R17 C 31.65"x8.39" 47lbs
- LT275/70R17 C 32.2"x8.82" 50lbs

I'm leaning towards the KO2s in a 255/75R17 which are a true 32" and are an expedition portal approved width. Since this is the stock size for Jeep Rubicons there are a lot of options on the market.

What do you guys think? Should I keep the FZJ80 rims and go with a KO2 in 34x10.5? :) I know there are already a ton of tire threads, but the market has changed and I wanted to throw some ideas out there. Any input is appreciated.

Here's a picture showing the truck with the current wheel/tire setup.

http://www.blankwhitepage.com/galler...4/IMG_5799.jpg

- Matt

The new General Grabber X3 is a more aggressive tread pattern than I was looking for, but they do have a 265/75R16 in load range C which is 31.6" and 49.2lbs. So not everybody has abandoned load range C's in a 16" diameter size.

- Matt

For all the reasons you mentioned I stepped away from my favorite all-time tire (BFG AT KOs) and moved to a 17" wheel and 275/70R17 Cooper Discoverer STs in load range C. Here's what I've noticed compared the load range D BFG's I had:
-ride is noticeably better
-tire flex is better when airing down
-cornering is a little worse (related to above...softer sidewall on a load range C)

It's clear the load range has a big impact on the way these trucks ride.

I will speculate that the more compliant sidewall that gives me the better ride and better tire flex (and slightly worse handling) would also have a detrimental effect on rolling resistance and therefore gas mileage. It's hard to do a direct comparison because with the move to the Coopers I went to a 17" rim and a wider, taller tire, but I lost more MPG than any combination of modifications I have ever made to the truck, including lifts, roof racks and supercharger. I used to consistently get 21 MPG on the highway and now it's around 19.5. The truck performs great in any conditions, but I'm curious how a narrower tire might affect (or not affect) fuel economy. Hint Hint. The wider tire does look great though.

Matt, like you and Paddlenbike I'm in the same boat. I'm kind of in the market for new tires and currently run the 265/75/16 BFG AT's, in load range E. Knock on wood, I've had zero problems with them and I believe the are near 60,000 miles if not over. I love these tires and honestly have noticed no difference from the Revo 2's that the BFG's replaced (in terms of ride quality, sidewall flex, mileage, etc).

As you know, I too have the 5 speed and I'm able to get 20+ mpg on the highway even while loaded. If I try I can get 22+. As far as I can remember my mileage didn't change when I went from the Revo's (265/70, range C) to the BFG's (265/75, range E). Since I know I'll be needing tires and there is always the desire to go bigger I bought some 17" 4th gen rims. My first choice of tire is the BFG AT in 275/70/17. Tire rack shows these tires as being 55 pounds and the 265/75's I currently run at 53 pounds.


These are the new rims. I bought them off of CL and they were in perfect condition. I scuffed and gouged them up a little removing the tires but that's my own fault. I stripped the finish, which was a major PITA, because the plan was to paint them. I went with Dupli Color wheel coating, 2 coats of white then 2 coats of graphite, covered with gloss. So far they are in the attic awaiting tires which I'll probably end up getting soon. I'd like to eek out a few more miles from the existing ones as they are still plugging along. When they're ready to retire these will be ready to go.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/388/31...24d8e37d_c.jpg


My current tires have had a long life and I really like them. The load range E doesn't bother me but it was something that came up when I bought them. I believe I had a post here and on Expo but honestly after owning them whatever it was that concerned me flew right out the window.

Matt, I believe you took this picture. Load Range E airs down and sidewall flexes just fine. In this case I prefer the thicker sidewall.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/646/32...1f2d389a_z.jpg

Mike, Ken, thanks for the responses. You seem to have opposite opinions on load range E tires, so you should battle it out and let me know who wins. :cool:

Weight is a major contributor to mpg loss, here are various weights of KO2s and Discoverer S/Ts.

BFG All-Terrain T/A KO2
265/75R16 E 31.6"x8.5" 53lbs
255/75R17 C 32.0" 45.5lbs
265/70R17 C 31.6"x8.8" 46lbs
275/70R17 E 32.2"x9" 55lbs
285/70R17 E 32.7"x9.2" 58lbs

Cooper Discoverer S/T
LT265/75R16 E 31.8"x8.11" 48lbs
LT265/70R17 C 31.65"x8.39" 47lbs
LT275/70R17 C 32.2"x8.82" 50lbs

Of course the important number is the total weight of the rim and tire.

16" FZJ80 + 265/75 Bighorn = 21lb + 48lb = 69lb (current setup)
16" FZJ80 + 265/75 KO2 = 21lb + 53.6lb = 74.6lb
17" FN FX Pro + 255/75 KO2 = 24lb + 45.5lb = 69.5lb
17" FN Fx Pro + LT275/70R17 S/T = 24lb + 50lbs = 74lb

I like the look of a wide M/T tire, but I've had those on two trucks already and it's not optimal for my use. If I want a good combination of on and offroad traction and mpg I think the 255/75R17s might be the best bet. They are relatively light weight, a full 32" tall, C rated, and since they are narrow and a less aggressive tread they should help with mpg. The 275/70R17s like Ken has are also a good option. They are 1/4" taller, 1" wider, but 5lbs heavier per corner.

A taller tire like a 33" would be better offroad, but wouldn't work well with my 4.10 gears and manual transmission, and would get worse mpg.

Moving to a 17" is also an issue. I looked at all the factory Toyota rims and couldn't find one that worked for me. One thing I really like about the FZJ80 rims is their 8" width and their 0mm offspacing which increases the track width. As far as I can tell all of the Toyota 17" wheels are 7.5" and would require spacers to get the same track width, and I'd like to avoid spacers if possible.

So... I really should just buy something and stop thinking about this, but what's the fun of that?

- Matt

Oh, and I'm amazed at the mpg Mike can get with his KOs. I can barely get 20mpg on the freeway, and I suspect it is because of the aggressive tread pattern on the Bighorns. The only other differences between our trucks is that mine is slightly taller and my ARB bumper has hoops while his TJM does not, though admittedly the hoops could make a big difference in aerodynamics.

- Matt

In my experience speed makes the biggest difference in mpg's. I'm no speed demon, none of us are in a NA 3rd gen, but I stick around the speed limit. I'll push it here and there but in mild traffic I'll hang low just as much. My Grandparents used to live in Bakersfield and while the driving is flat there tends to be a lot of lane jockeying in the 300 mile trip. The speed limit is 65-70 for the trip and I find at 65 I get the best mileage and get to stay in cruise control longer than if I was traveling faster.

My load range E findings are as I've experienced. My last truck, full size Chevy PU, had 285's in E and the 4runner with the KOs. I'm sure the load range E's are heavier than the C or D but all I've ever known are that tire in E and I've had great mileage and wear. To me the ride is the ride. It's definitely not a car ride but I'm also in a lifted vehicle with stiffer springs and shocks. I've driven other 4runners and other vehicles with many different tires and I don't feel my setup is at any disadvantage. I like the KO's and they seem to put up with me so I've stuck with them.

I saw no difference between my D and E rated BFGs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slomatt

So... I really should just buy something and stop thinking about this, but what's the fun of that?

---

The term "over thinking" has come up a lot at work lately, but I can relate.

This thread reminds me that I'm behind on my gas receipts and therefore behind on my excel sheet keeping track of mpg. I have gone through quite a few tanks of gas since getting my KO2's so this would be an opportune time to get updated and see how they compare to the same size Duratracs I had.

When Mike installs his new wheels and tires, I'll borrow his old ones and report back, but I'm completely certain my ride quality improved and handling worsened when I moved to the lower load range tire. I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other, it is what it is.

The backspacing is 4-5/8" on the 4runner 5-spokes and 4-7/8" on the Tundra/Sequoia wheels, but they are 1/2" wider, so the Tundra wheels will still sit 1/4" further out than the stockers. Not sure how that compares to the LC wheels, but thought I would point that out.

Here are the specifications of the three different wheels.

Stock 5-spokes - 7" wide, 4.625" backspacing, 16mm offset
Tundra - 7.5" wide, 4.875" backspacing, 16mm offset
FZJ80 - 8" wide, 4.5" backspacing, 0mm offset

As you mentioned the Tundra wheels are 1/4" closer to the suspension and stick out 1/4" further towards the fender since they are 1/2" wider than the stock wheels (same offset).

Compared to stock the FZJ80 wheels are about 1/8" farther from the suspension and stick out about 1 1/8" further towards the fender. I chose them because they clear the shock better and result in a 2" wider track width. The downside is that the have a slight effect on the scrub radius, but I haven't noticed this being an issue.

Compared to the Tundra wheels the FZJ80 wheels are about 3/8" farther from the suspension and stick out about 7/8" further towards the fender. So they are similar to a Tundra wheel with a 1" spacer.

The Toyota TRD Pro Rims are 17x7 with 4mm offset, so they stick out 12mm more than stock, which is a bit more than the Tundra wheels.

I'm looking at the FN f(x) Pro wheels because they are 17x8 with 0mm offset, which is the same as the FZJ80 wheels I'm running. These allow for a wider track without requiring wheel spacers.

- Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slomatt

Compared to the Tundra wheels the FZJ80 wheels are about 3/8" farther from the suspension and stick out about 7/8" further towards the fender. So they are similar to a Tundra wheel with a 1" spacer.


- Matt

---

I'm running a 3/4" spacer with my Tundra wheels and the width seems perfect with the oversized flares...so I think you're on the right track with the FN wheels.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-5...0/DSC_0547.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-H...0/DSC05770.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paddlenbike

I'm running a 3/4" spacer with my Tundra wheels and the width seems perfect with the oversized flares...so I think you're on the right track with the FN wheels.

---

I agree, I've been very happy with the "stance" from my FZJ80 rims, which have exactly the same width and offset as the FN wheels.

http://www.blankwhitepage.com/galler...5/IMG_7248.jpg

http://www.blankwhitepage.com/galler...2/IMG_6654.jpg

http://www.blankwhitepage.com/galler...2/IMG_6663.jpg

http://www.blankwhitepage.com/galler...9/IMG_5732.jpg

- Matt

Matt, not sure if you got your tires yet or if this help you, but here's my mileage throughout the years using one of the tire sizes you're looking at.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-.../i-3hfz2Pp.jpg

The average mpg for the duratracs was 17.3 mpg with a std dev of 0.84 while the average for the KO2's, so far, is 16.9 mpg with a std dev of 1.13. The extreme low data points are from camping trips pulling a trailer up to the mountains. The mileage calculation is mathematically corrected for the increase tire diameter from stock.

Personally, I don't think there's enough compelling evidence to worry about mileage based on tires. Based on the noise in the data, there's so much more that influences mileage than that.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the details on your mpg tracking.

Given similar tread patterns I agree that the +/- 10% differences in weight between a C and a E range probably has minimal effect on mileage.

That said, the extra ~5lb per side does contribute to additional rotational inertia which effects acceleration and braking. The stiffer carcass also might not flex as well offroad. I haven't yet bought new tires, but ideally I'd find a good option in a 265/75R16 so I can keep my existing rims.

- Matt

Great graph Steve, thanks for sharing. I don't keep very good fuel records but it's nice to see someone is.

Well, my diligence in keeping up with the receipts is waning because the last time I updated it was May of last year. I had quite a stack of receipts up until a few days ago.

Matt, for what it's worth, I don't think you should get E rated tires. I think they'll be too stiff. Also note that before I had the duratracs, I had the stock size passenger tires which I assume were much lighter than the bigger duratracs.

Fun fact: I've spent $14,600 on gas in the past 10 years of ownership. In contrast, I've spent $7300 on gas for the corolla, although that's only for past 7 years.

I have E rated 265/75/16 BFG ATs, and they've been fantastic. 64k on them so far, and they've got a bit more tread left. I'll be buying another set when it's time. Best mileage I've ever recorded was 23 going westbound on Hwy 2 through Montana. No AC on with the cruise set around 60.

I thought I'd update this post on my tire choice. I got the 275/70/17 BFG's and they are great. I only have about a tank and a half on them but they perform much like the 265/75/16's they replaced. The old BFG's got just shy, 500 miles, of 60,000 miles and still had a 4-5 months of tread on them but they were worn and had a lot of rock rash and dry cracking in between the lugs.

At first notice the new tires are much softer than the old tires. My first spin around the block felt like I was driving a car. The new tires felt like slippers compared to the old tires. I'm chalking this up to the old BFG's being very hard because of their wear and age, at least 7 years. Overall I'm very happy with the new size and larger rims.


Old vs. new.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/412/32...96456107_b.jpg


https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/642/32...f57ab9dc_b.jpg

Looks good Mike, I'm interested in hearing if they effect your mpg one direction or the other. Also, I hadn't seen the light bar you built into your bumper, nice work!

Quote:

---

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/642/32...f57ab9dc_b.jpg

---

Looks awesome. Not an SUV out there that looks better than the 3G.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slomatt

Looks good Mike, I'm interested in hearing if they effect your mpg one direction or the other. Also, I hadn't seen the light bar you built into your bumper, nice work!

---

Perhaps I'll start keeping some stats. What I really need to do is knock the dents out of my fuel tank to regain some of the mileage I lost years ago, then hopefully the up size will just be a wash.

The light bar was an addition after some tweakers made a subtraction. I added the build onto the bumper rebuild post.
http://www.ultimateyota.com/showthre...l=1#post115754

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4x4mike

Perhaps I'll start keeping some stats. What I really need to do is knock the dents out of my fuel tank to regain some of the mileage I lost years ago, then hopefully the up size will just be a wash.

---

That sounds familiar. I kick myself every time I drive the 2nd gen for not knocking those dents out when I had my tank out years ago. I can't let my truck go down too much less than half way or I start running out of gas.

Sounds like we should have a gas tank repair party.

http://www.blankwhitepage.com/galler...d/IMG_2826.jpg

- Matt

Been there, done that. A 2x3 and a large hammer did the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seanz0rz

Been there, done that. A 2x3 and a large hammer did the trick.

---

Did you just pull the panel under the seat, then pull the pump, and knock the dent out from the inside? I keep meaning to get around to that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slomatt

Did you just pull the panel under the seat, then pull the pump, and knock the dent out from the inside? I keep meaning to get around to that. :)

---

You probably could. I pounded mine out when the tank was out for the upgraded fuel pump. Luckily the pump is located in such a spot as to provide us perfect access to the place we most often dent our tanks.

I am not entirely sure you can get the pump assy out through that door. I removed mine from the truck to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seanz0rz

I am not entirely sure you can get the pump assy out through that door.

---

That's nothing a sawzall won't fix, although I'm not sure that's Matt's style.

Mike,

Looks Great, much more aggressive stance. Has that I need to run a state border to border off road kind of look.

So have you decided to keep it or are those just to bolster the sale price?

It will probably be around for awhile. I drove and didn't like the 4th gens and the 470's didn't get me much room. I really considered both and found one of each that I thought of buying but stepped away. With these new tires I'll be good for another 60,000 miles on the 3rd gen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slomatt

Did you just pull the panel under the seat, then pull the pump, and knock the dent out from the inside? I keep meaning to get around to that. :)

---

On the 3rd gens and up, they only make the access panel under the seat large enough to disconnect the electrical connectors from the pump assembly. You unfortunately have to drop the tank to get the pump out.

I remember my first tank got to the point where it was holding just about 12 gallons....

BFG AT is oftentimes compared with Toyo tires open country AT. Which is better? I think both aren't E-rated. Anybody here who can give feedback on these brands?