265 75 16

I wonder if the larger sidewalls on your 34's allow more flex. Bigger you go, less you notice the 10 ply? I don't know.

I'm still curious on those 255 70 16. I'm going to call the shop tomorrow and see if there's a return policy. I don't see one, but worth asking. I'm happy with these if they won't take them back. But I'd be even happier with stock.

I'm considering, if they'll take them back, just getting BFG KO2s. They offer D in 265 70. That feels like a pretty good compromise. Unfortunately going with the Wildpeaks feels like no matter what I've got to compromise. Either SL in my true size, XL in 1/2" smaller all around (255 70), or overkill E rating in a big tire that rubs a little and is surely robbing power and mpg.

 

Unless wildpeaks are your favorite, go with another tire if you hate the rubbing

 

who knows, but when I got them mounted they were around the 40psi mark. Chalk test says I need to be near 33-35 for full contact patch.

 

I should try the chalk test.

The rubbing is just kind of the almost-last straw. Not terrible in isolation. I allowed the process to get out of my control from the start and I should have stepped back and done more research. I could have lived with any one of these on their own, or if I knew '10 ply oversize is what I want and I'm willing to deal with some rubbing to have what I want'. But that's not true. I wanted stock size in at least C rating. That's basically it. But I didn't have that fully thought through when I went in the store. I've never had to...I've always been able to just buy what I need.

I knew I'd need new tires before winter, and because lately I've been spending money I don't have and will really soon need to turn off the tap, kind of on a whim I decided to swing by the tire shop while I was out & about. Figured do it now before I realize how in debt I am and decide I can't justify it. Thought I wanted 10 ply. 10 ply not available in stock size. Guys recommended 245 75. Ok. Went home and did some research...no. Called the shop, said I don't want shorter skinnier tires, and in the end I don't need 10 ply, but I'd like 6 ply. 6 ply not available in stock size, but hey 265 75 is just an inch bigger, hardly noticeable. Ok. Two days after installation I notice they're 10 ply...

I go back & forth that evening but decide 'you know, they're fine and I have friends with Tacomas who swear by 10 ply around here and my truck's heavier than theirs.' So I decide I'm good with them.

But then the rubbing...Everything in isolation, I don't care. A little bigger, cool, they look good. 10 ply? Whatever, that much stronger. But big, 10 ply, and rubbing...it adds up.

I'll admit I'm not optimistic about them taking the tires back. Discount tire has a policy that might take a used tire back, according to their website. Costco has possibly the best return policy out there and they won't take them back if they've been off road. I got them from a regional chain, smaller even than Les Schwab. I'm going to ask, but I'm not hopeful.

 

You posted a pic of em yet?

Form>function.

 

The tires?



Are you saying the tires I have are balanced the wrong direction on the form vs function spectrum? Too far towards form? I could agree. I think they're highly functional, but I don't require the function. I was thinking about this on a drive today. Lots of ranchers around here, lots of ranch trucks. These are trucks that haul heavy weight, they drive off road (off any actual road, through sagebrush and fields), up crazy, rocky two track roads. You'll never see oversize tires. You'll always see 10 ply (part of why tire shop was so eager to sell me 10 ply. It's what everyone here gets). Oversize I didn't need, but is fine. Looking at the truck you wouldn't even guess I have oversize tires unless you really, really know your first gens. Same with 10 ply. Not necessary, but fine.


I have to say there's little chance they'll take them back. I'll ask, but the internet doesn't make it seem likely. I'll be happy to get my mind off this, regardless of the outcome. I find these tires acceptable. to the LR E discussion I found. E range are thicker, thus get hotter at low psi, reducing their weight capacity, at low psi, to lower than a P-rated tire. I'm absolutely no expert but I wonder if the chalk test doesn't give good info when you've got a truck that isn't really heavy enough for a LR E tire...To get even wear you need to air them down to the point that their load capacity is so low that you aren't getting the benefit of the 10 ply. Where a heavy truck would still press them down evenly at higher psi. I could be full of it though.

 

I was just saying they look good, so maybe you just need a strut spacer until they wear in a bit.

i'm surprised an inch made enough difference. I drove around on some have worn 33's (but on 20's that poked out a bit more) they'd rub at full lock, but i just didnt steer to full lock. Took em off because they rubbed the stock UCA & i thought they were ugly.

 

Gotcha. Yeah not a ton of clearance at the steering knuckle either. Chains will be an issue and like you I'll need to really make sure not to go to full lock if I ever run chains! I've been in situations where chains were called for, but never actually used them, and mostly agree that if I need chains to get down a road, maybe I shouldn't go down that road. But then hunting season comes along and my mindset changes

When I search 265 75 16 for our trucks, 99% of the forum comments say 'they fit with no rubbing'. Not sure, especially when I have the TRD package, why these rub. Maybe a different brand in the same size wouldn't.

Well lesson learned. Unfortunately it'll likely be with me for years and many miles. But even after my evening of 'crap I had decided I didn't want 10 ply and I'm just now, after driving 100 miles, realizing these are 10 ply!', I decided I'm ok with it, and could move on. If necessary, I think the same will be true still.

I like things to be just how I want them. But I regularly see Tundras and domestic full size trucks with 3+" lifts, truly oversize tires, hauling 30' trailers at 85mph. So...perspective.

 

Just trim the inside corner a bit?

 

I really hope I'm not researching and pricing out 'leveling kits' next! No. But if that's essentially what a strut spacer is, I see how it would benefit me.

 

Of the frame?

 

No, whichever tire is rubbing.

 

At least with my truck with the half worn 265/75-16 tires (D load) mounted on my stock rims, tire chains would never ever fit on the front. The tire tread is just too darn close to the spindle (knuckle). Which isn't a big deal if you don't drive areas that have snow, or if you prefer to use chains on the rear tires (instead of the front on your 4x4). I used to have a set of General Grabber APT tires 215/85-16 E load on my tundra, but a tree branch tore a 2" hole through the sidewall on one of the tires. I liked the tire size for all the offroading work that i do (not rock crawling).

And yes, some of the packages (such as the TRD) came with the 265/70-16 tires. The ironic thing is that the optional 245/70-16 tires shod on a more basic truck will smoke the trd in acceleration and towing. I feel as though Toyota should have dropped the R&P down to a 4.10 ratio with any of their trucks that came with the 265/70-16 tires.

 

Alright, we can put this thing to bed. Went into the tire shop and they took pity on me. I thought I found that BFG made stock size in D range, but that was old, outdated info. They only make 265 70 in E. Going back & forth with the manager, it seems Falken are my best option. She had Hankooks but while she didn't say anything bad about them, she wasn't really saying anything good. She didn't like Coopers. That's her opinion and I'm sure this forum is full of contrary opinions. As far as what they carry and what she recommended for my use, it's Falken, Hankook, or BFG.

Yesterday I did a lot of tire size comparing, and what I found, like I mentioned before, was that 255 70 was only a half inch shorter and more narrow than stock, and Falken offers them in XL. I'd prefer at least C, but she said Falken uses a better rubber compound and you can get away with less ply with them. So...255 70 XLs are on their way. She traded me straight across, I just need to pay for mounting. The new tires are ~$40 less per tire. I think, all in all, that's a great deal. I probably put 200 highway and 20 dirt road miles on them.

I'm sure I'll notice a huge difference in handling overall. And the tire size compare website shows a pretty negligible speedometer difference for these, too. These will be a few pounds lighter each, .5" shorter, .4" more narrow, way more sidewall flex. Will probably feel a lot closer to the cheap highway terrain tires that came on the truck when I bought it than they will to the current tires.

Still a compromise. It's amazing to me that there are so few load range options in 265 70 in some of the most popular tire brands. Basically either SL or E. So I have XL and slightly smaller than stock, but still bigger than the non-TRD stock size of 245 60. So yes, still a compromise, but I feel a lot better about this compromise than the original compromise of too sturdy, heavy, slightly oversize, rubbing.

Load, weight, size difference. Almost 10 pounds lighter per tire than what I currently have! One thing that gives me confidence is seeing that the XL in 16" wheel actually has a higher load capacity than my C rated 31x10.50 15 Wildpeaks, which I've been towing with and hammering down dirt roads in my Tacoma for years. Of course the Tundra is heavier so maybe it's a wash. But if the XL in 16" is comparable to the C range in 15" wheels, I'm happy. I am taking a hit on tread depth and overall sturdiness, but hopefully they're plenty strong.