I am wondering why more people don't run them? It seems from what I've been reading, the X has a clearance issue with backspacing and tire width. I would think a 255/85/16 on a 7" wide rim with 5" BS would work well with this vehicle. What do you guys think?
Oh, and great forum by the way!
Shawn

And a bicycle tire would clear even better!



Of course, a skinny assed 255 would sink into mud much faster, and bury in the sand faster, etc...than a better/fatter sized tire with good flotation.

Its the flotation, and the better ON ROAD handling and braking, that the fatter tires provide, hence the compromise between mere height, and functionality.

They are not that skinny. I don't think people are mud bogging in the X anyway or doing a baja. I only ask be cause I was running them on my Cherokee and they worked very well on the rocks and Colorado snow. I would have to strongly dis-agree with the fat tire being better on the road. The skinnier tire weighs less (less rotating mass) and with a stiffer side wall, handles fine on the road. With the X being under powered, having clearance issues, and with the low cost of that size, I am just surprised to not see more over here. Many Land Rover guys use them for just that reason.
I think they work very well


Pic just for sizing...

The jeep is now sold, and an X will be replacing it soon.
Anyone running them on the X?
Shawn

cough cough, care to check out the picture in my profile?

OK, not everyone is mud bogging

I will not be mud bogging, takes too much time to clean! Besides, rocks are WAY more fun anyway

I'm not saying it's the tire for everyone, I'm just surprised to not see more of them.
Shawn

Not sure why you don't get better flotation with a fatter tire...or why you get stiffer sidewalls in an 85 series aspect ratio than a 70 or 75....maybe you're just special?



Everyone I know gets stiffer sidewall/sharper on road handling with lower aspect ratios...as in someone with 40 aspect ratio tires will have sharper handing than someone with 75 aspect ratio tires, etc.

The more rubber on the road, generally, the better the traction....I've tried skinny tires...they do not work as well.

Try a side by side comparison (We did, on our off road fleet for environmental sampling...) with both wide and skinny tires....on almost every terrain, the fat tire worked better, there were some (Smooth Rocks) where there wasn't much difference, but on broken rocks, the advantage went back to the fatties...and there were NONE where the skinny tire worked better, except in tight turns, where we could make tighter turns with the skinnier tires...but that was it.

That was on dirt, rocks, sand and mud. We didn't have snow at the time.

I have tried fatter tires



As far as handling, depends on what you are comparing. 75 to 85 no, 85 to some 33/12.5/15 yes. Again, I'm not saying it's the best tire, just could be an option.
Shawn

The X does look good with 285/75/16 though!

255/85/16 work great on the nextGen X.









I've had them on yotas before. 100% recommended (regardless what TJ says).

Now that's what I like to see! Nice rigs.
Shawn

haha I was just bustin your balls (courtesy, goodfellas). nice lookin XJ!

Well from what i can see... looks like a fat chick with skinny ankles, doesn't look right.

Now that's just funny....

Didn't say they don't work at all, I just said in side by side comparisons for the same diameter tire, the fatter ones worked BETTER.



I believe the question was why don't more people use them...that's what I was answering.

They are a really popular size like guys mentioned with the rover crowd and over on forums like expedition portal. I can't believe we don't have any 1st gen X guys running them either.

Interesting topic,

Just to add, why do dakar rally teams use 235/85R16's?? There are a lot of Nissan trucks competing with this tire size.

Nice lookin' rig.

Great to hear some folks offer a different take than the "usual suspects".

It should fit great...the new X's (OR) come with 265/75/16...like a 32x10.5/16...

the 235/85/16 is just a skinnier 32, more like a 32x9.5/16.

So - its smaller and skinnier than the stock tires...so it will easily fit, a no brainer.

Not much of an upgrade...as in its a step down from stock...but sure, it fits.



On the other hand...the load range for that size is typically pretty robust, traditionally the reason for using it on expeditions.

Originally posted by jjrasta:
255/85/16 work great on the nextGen X.







I am gonna go with these when my long trails are ready to go or my lift comes (next week!). i need to see what it looks like after the lift is on. Land Rover has used skinny tires for a long time. They wouldn't keep using them if they didn't work well? Right?

ps. that's a sweet ride.

They used to have really skinny tires on ALL car and trucks in the old days, due to manufacturing limitations of the time, and, wheel wells/clearances built in were small, as they ddn't need to be large.

Look at old pictures of trucks, etc...all had very skinny tires...and solid rubber for a while too, as the new fangled pneumatic tires were not up to snuff yet either...



So - Landrover no longer uses skinny tires as above...as the fatter tires worked better.

Now, to clarify...a 255 is like a 10.5" section width, which traditionally used to be a fat tire (31x10.5's were fat tires back in the day...)

So a 255 is not skinny like the old bicycle tires they used to use...its just that its the same, or skinnier as a stock tire, so its not really un upgrade in flotation or lateral traction...except for the larger diameter, which does help....

So its just a question of why that section width instead of one that works better....rather than it not working.

Cut it out, man. 255's will work just fine. I've seen thinner tires than that run all kinds of trails....

I'm still waiting to see the evidence of why everything on your rig works so much better than everybody else's.....

You are arguing that a skinny tire has better flotation jeff?



And I've been very clear about my tires being a compromise...and that there's better onroad, and better offroad choices, etc...so I don't get where the personnal part comes into play.

There's a difference between discussing choices, and agreeing with them.

I have NO problem with people running stuff I don't think is the best choice...but, this is a FORUM for DISCUSSING this type of thing.

Its not like people read it and are paralyzed if I disagree...they can do what they want to.

I'm just offering food for thought...which included pointing out that I am not saying the tire won't work, just that IMHO, a wider section width than stock, or at least the same as stock, might work better than a skinnier one.

They can put bicycle tires on their trucks...that's fine with me...but I will mention the flotation thing, as others are reading this, and may not realize the trade off.

:p

Tire are the only thing giving your vehicle contact with the road, rocks, sand, mud whatever. It seems pretty intuitive that the bigger the contact patch the better the traction you will have. You can gain contact by going with a larger diameter, a wider cross section or both.

True that less rotational mass will equal more power to the ground, but only to the point that you don't lose traction. You can change gearing or upgrade a motor to add power, but only increasing the contact patch will help this power get to the trail.

While I can understand someone not wanting to body lift or trim as nessissary to run 305/75/16s, I think 255/85/16s would gain you nothing over say a 265/75/16 which can be run with removal of the mud flaps.

If there are reasons to run a thinner tire when something wider would fit I just haven't seen it discussed in this thread yet.

Even a 285/75/16, which is essentially a 33x11.5...is a better choice, as it requires little to no trimming or turn radius loss, and has the same diameter...with a wider section width.

I assume Jeff is running 255/85/16's of course, as he obviously feels they are better than the other choices he had when picking tires.

TJ: I love this pic. I should get a 1927 ford-T. I love those skinny tires. Do you think those wheels will fit a 2nd gen-X? I'm sure it would run great.

Seriously, no need to get all over the subject. Skinny, fat, tall side wall, bigger wheels, etc. all have pros and cons. I's just talking for my experience and my taste. I went form 33x12.5x15 to 33x10.1x16 (255/85) on my old LandCruiser and loved it (BFG MT's both). They cut better into mud, a bit quietter on the highway, better city handling (according to me). I'm not saying they are for everyone, just saying there's a lot of good things going for it.

Even the Germans like 255/85/16

Look how pretty they look on a Tacoma.

This has been debated for ages btw...the fatties float and the skinnies sink down and bite thing for example is as old as Model T's.

The part that the skinnies go for is the higher contact pressure to sink down to reach a hard traction surface...such as on a road with something over it, like snow.

This has on road advantages when you can actually penetrate to the road surface, and get a bite on it.

Off road, that rarely happens, as there is typically just more mud under the mud, etc.

In deep snow, digging down just buries you to the frame faster.

So - If you are a rally driver on a road course...a skinnier tire might help you bite...and would be an advantage.

If you had to cross deep snow, you'd want to stay on top...and not sink in.

If you have to cross deep mud, you'd want to stay on top, and not sink in.

On broad rocks, you'd be hard pressed to tell which tires you had, as almost any tire gives adequate grip there...on broken rocks, the skinny treads fall into cracks more easily, and are less stable off camber/side hilling...and, on road...skinnier tires have less lateral acceleration, and longer braking distances.

So - 255/85/16's work of course, as do 255/65/16 stock tires, etc...

I just personnally have seen that a wider tread does better in more situations...that does not mean someone else won't be happy with something else of course.

The kicker for me was when we compared performance for our off road trucks, as we considered thinner tires as a potential cost saving measure...if the performance was comparable/good enough, we planned to go that route.

Our need was environmental sampling, requiring going into the boonies, and setting up remote sampling stations for air, water, or taking samples back to the lab, etc.

The work involved many hwy miles, followed by off roading, followed by more hwy, etc.

Some of the rigs were set up with well purging pumps or other heavy equipment, some were carrying lighter gear.

The terrain was generally a combination of dirt roads and any amount of rocks/mud or sand....all over the east coast and as west as the opposite end of PA or so.

We had several different rigs running regularly, and as most were purchased in groups, they were very similar in equipment, or identical.

We used a pair of 4runners and a pair of wranglers to compare tires...as the tires were the only difference.

We often went out in pairs for safety, and to spread the equipment loads...especally for the wranglers, which could get almost anywhere, but couldn't carry much.

What we found was that the fat tires rigs were simply more capable...on or off road....and the skinny tired members of the pairs were getting stuck more...and needing to be winched out more...or even just left behind when a long slog was ahead, etc....as it was more trouble to drag them along than to simply come back and get their gear.

That's not an opinion...that's an experience.



If where you go, it doesn't matter, then you can of course be happy with any other combo...

...and the wranglers and 4runners are not the be all and end all of off road examples...

We also ran Zuks and Mitsu's and Chevy, Ford, Dodge and a few others...but they were not compared for tire section width performance...

But, the comparison with the Wranglers and 4Runners was enough to convince me.



BTW - A Samuri with fat tires is freekin unstoppable on most terrain....light as hell, hard to bog down.

The biggest reason for not going wider is because you don't have clearance for one.

A 255/85 is taller than a 265/75, but not much thinner (10mm!). I think it's a great compromise and I've seen guys with 33x9.5's out in the woods and doin' great.

Yeah, 285s are nice. Also tougher to fit.

I'm running 35's now. I will post pics as soon as she gets outta the shop!

Jeff, sounds good!



How come you can't fit 285's though?

I was looking at this old post of yours regarding 255/85R16 tires. In my research this is the tire I am going to run (i have an '07 4WD S Xterra). I am have installed a 1.5" Calmini Shackles and a 2.5" Rancho quick lift coil shock. Did you do any lifts to get those 33s under your rig ?

thanks

Also running this size tire!

255/85/16 fit with no (or very minor) rubbing in the 2nd gen Xs. With what you are running you will fit them perfectly. They are becoming more and more popular in gen2Xs (to TJ's horror).

Here's a couple of pics borrowed from the othe xterra forum