![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| 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: Jupiter, Florida
Posts: 739
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 |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
Advertisement |
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Solihull Society, CO and High Desert Rovers, NM Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,224
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: 5,329
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: 2,000
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.
__________________
"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." http://snhlr.org/ 91 Range Rover Classic 90 RRC Parts truck 94 Saab gas mileage beater
|
|
|
|
| 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 09:58 AM |