![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | Home | Forum | Active Topics | Gallery | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
got mud?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: south florida
Posts: 1,021
Gallery:
0
|
I have to order new tires this week. So, after researching many different types of mud terrains, I have decided to go with Firestone's Destination M/Ts. The reviews say they wear great on road ( this is a must since my rover is a DD, however I do hit the trails nearly every weekend). Reviews and members of the forum also have stated that they perform better in mud then the BFG.
I currently run a 285/60/18 nitto grappler.. and I have wanted a pizza cutter for some time (ideally a 255/85. Firestone does not make this size) Since the mud gets so deep here in south Florida I like the height of the 285/75.. I have 779/762 OME springs and have already searched, people said 285s fit. I do barely any flexing so rubbing isn't an issue. What I want to know is what would be better for mud and trail. 235/85: skinny, supposedly better in mud because of its narrow width, BUT 32" 285/75: tall, added clearance could help me get through more of Florida's swampy terrain. Would the skinny but shorter tire be a good compromise for a much wider, One inch taller tire. or would the added height of the 285 be more beneficial. I read about Every thread that included "235/85", "285/75" and "255/85." Maybe I should flip a coin haha.. thanks in advance. p.s. This is on dweb as well, I was not sure if all you guys here check dweb. ----------------------- Here are some pictures of the 285/75, compliments of Expedition Roverland. Support & Sponsors
__________________
DII -- Pete 285/75 r16 Destination M/Ts |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
Advertisement |
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Solihull Society, CO and High Desert Rovers, NM Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,307
Gallery:
0
|
I've never run the 255/85 BFG M/T but some friends have. The ones that did not like them thought they were tippy way off camber and they have gone to and love the 285/75. They are both Colorado guys. A guy in Chicago where they play in fields of mud prefers the 255/85 because of less resistance to forward progress in the width. Could he really tell 30mm less width?? He always replied yes when it's times 4 tires. Who knows.
Rumors and hearsay is all I can provide. I used to be a narrow freak, but by the time I made the mental jump to run 35's, 12.5 was the only width 35" cam in a non specialty tire (i.e. Simex & Interco)
__________________
Todd Carpe Rangius Roverum |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Parker, Colorado
Posts: 6,069
Gallery:
0
|
Quote:
You might want to consider the weak points in your truck and what happens when they fail, you can't put lockers in to strengthen up the diffs. Mike |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
Rebuilding Rover
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NH
Posts: 2,850
Gallery:
0
|
If memory serves Thor is running 35's and has one bad ass RRC...
I would go with the 235/85 or split the difference and go for the 265/75 both 32ish tires and will be more than sufficent for your needs.
__________________
"If you can't stand behind our soliders, then by all means stand in front of them." unknown quote. "Only two defining forces ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom." (offending Austrailians since 2008) http://www.wheelinrovers.com/ 91 Range Rover Classic 90 RRC Parts truck 89 Jaguar XJ6
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
Advertisement |
|
![]() |
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Skinny or Wide ? | SCSL | Wheels and Tires | 39 | 12-07-2006 10:58 AM |