Tires 265 Vs. 285's - Page 3

**timespentsearching** · 10-19-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LNXGUY

As long as the overall wheel/tire diameter doesn't change from stock, you won't have to re-calibrate anything, regardless how wide the tire is....

You could run a 245/75-16 and a 305/75-16 and as long as the diameter is the same, you are good to go.

Rolling resistance is also higher with a wider tire, so you'll lose fuel economy, not gain it.... Simple physics.

305 is a taller tirer then 265.

**TYREBOYZ_DEMAXIN** · 10-19-2008, 12:44 PM

yes the 285's will hurt your fuel economy but for most only around 1MPG but if you want the best look the 285's are the ones you want..

the wider the tire the more rolling resistance which will knock fuel economy down even though they are the same height as the 245-75R16's,if you want the same height as the 285's with less width the 255-85R16 works great although it is kinda hard to find anymore..

when it's all said and done the 265's will save you fuel money and the 285's will give you the truck look.

**Duramaximos** · 10-19-2008, 01:28 PM

My personal favorite size is 265/70R18.
Yes it will require a new set of wheels but I believe this size offers the best look without compromising performance or fuel economy too much - in my opinion.

It will have less mass and rolling resistance than a 285, but it is still 2" taller than stock 245/75R16.

I'm beginning to believe most 285's won't fit due to incorrect off-set and excessive width, rather than height.
I have fit 265/70R18's under my truck without any trimming or lifting. +25 to 0 offset is most ideal. I'd bet the 265/70R19 would also fit without modifications. These fill out the wheel well nicely without being too wide.

My experience is with the classic B.S. so I'm not certain how this would translate to the NBS.

Good luck

Court · 10-19-2008, 02:40 PM

285's on 18x9's will rub on the new body style trucks. Its not bad, but its enough to be annoying, I learned this from experience. I ended up having to do a little trimming and modifications to my inner fenderwells.

LNXGUY · 10-20-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timespentsearching

305 is a taller tirer then 265.

A 305 is wider then a 265, that number doesn't indicate sidewall height at all.

Sidewall height is the second number in the equation...

Theoretically, a 305/75-16 tire on a 16inch rim should be the exact same diameter as a 265/75-16 on a 16inch rim.

I'm just arguing semantics, but you see where I am going with this?

And yeah, you'll burn more fuel trying to push/pull a 305 series tire down the road compared to the skinny 245 stockers

To bad good looks and rotational mass usually go together.

**Hook'em_Horns!** · 10-20-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LNXGUY

A 305 is wider then a 265, that number doesn't indicate sidewall height at all.

Sidewall height is the second number in the equation...

Theoretically, a 305/75-16 tire on a 16inch rim should be the exact same diameter as a 265/75-16 on a 16inch rim.

I'm just arguing semantics, but you see where I am going with this?

And yeah, you'll burn more fuel trying to push/pull a 305 series tire down the road compared to the skinny 245 stockers

To bad good looks and rotational mass usually go together.

Close, but not quite on track. Yes, the 305 is representative of width in millimeters while the 75 represents the aspect ratio to the width, in this case the height is 75% of the width, which would be 229mm tall. At the same time, the 265 with the same aspect ratio would only be 199mm in height. Therefore, thinking the height remains the same between the two tire sizes because some of the numbers are the same would be incorrect. Hope this helps.

Darryl89 · 10-20-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LNXGUY

A 305 is wider then a 265, that number doesn't indicate sidewall height at all.

Sidewall height is the second number in the equation...

Theoretically, a 305/75-16 tire on a 16inch rim should be the exact same diameter as a 265/75-16 on a 16inch rim.

I'm just arguing semantics, but you see where I am going with this?

And yeah, you'll burn more fuel trying to push/pull a 305 series tire down the road compared to the skinny 245 stockers

To bad good looks and rotational mass usually go together.

One thing you aren't taking into account here is that the second set of numbers (the 75 in your instance), indicates the height yes, but it is in a percentage. So if a tire is wider, then the percentage result is higher also..ie:

285/75R-16 is 285mm wide with a sidewall height that is 75% as tall as the width is, so on this tire the sidewall height is 213.75mm tall.
On a 305/75-16 tire, the sidewall height it 228.75mm tall. So yes, the wider tire is taller also...

**Hook'em_Horns!** · 10-20-2008, 11:27 AM

So, as an example...
305/65R-16 (198.25mm)
265/75R-16 (198.75mm)
235/85R-16 (199.75mm)
are relatively all the same in overall height while having different fuel/power robbing widths.

Darryl89 · 10-20-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hook'em_Horns!

So, as an example...
305/65R-16 (198.25mm)
265/75R-16 (198.75mm)
235/85R-16 (199.75mm)
are relatively all the same in overall height while having different fuel/power robbing widths.

Bingo...yep...

LNXGUY · 10-20-2008, 06:12 PM

Well guys, I gotta say thanks for the education

I had no idea the width and the sidewall height were in direction relation to each other. Shows how much I know

Totally offtopic, we just swapped the 285 Toyo M/T's on my dads truck for the winters. We've already seen a increase in MPG's... The Toyo's look awesome, but man do they ever eat into the mileage... We are thinking about 265 BFG A/T's for the next set, any other I should also look at?