265 or 285 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rickoz

(too expensive for your average bloke to buy)

---

Actually, its freely available on their website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c7..._vehicles2.pdf

"The maximum tyre width for a car or car derivative must not be more than 1.3 times the vehicle manufacturer’s widest optional tyre.
However, for an off-road passenger vehicle fitted with front and rear beam axles, the maximum tyre width must not be more than 1.5 times the vehicle manufacturer’s widest optional tyre"

Your tyre placard should state the approved tyres for the vehicle upon which to base the 1.5 times on.

Another good reason for the next generation of Defenders to keep a live beam axle is so us Qlders can have the wider tyres, or adopt the NCOP. Who knows which will come first ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzu110

Actually, its freely available on their website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c7..._vehicles2.pdf

"The maximum tyre width for a car or car derivative must not be more than 1.3 times the vehicle manufacturer’s widest optional tyre.
However, for an off-road passenger vehicle fitted with front and rear beam axles, the maximum tyre width must not be more than 1.5 times the vehicle manufacturer’s widest optional tyre"

Your tyre placard should state the approved tyres for the vehicle upon which to base the 1.5 times on.

Another good reason for the next generation of Defenders to keep a live beam axle is so us Qlders can have the wider tyres, or adopt the NCOP. Who knows which will come first ?

---

:thumbsup: Thanks isuzu110 :BigThumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzu110

However, for an off-road passenger vehicle fitted with front and rear beam axles, the maximum tyre width must not be more than 1.5 times the vehicle manufacturer’s widest optional tyre

---

thats 352.5mm. would look like a Jeep Wrangler :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cols110

The change when I first fitted my 265/75 BFG ATs after removing the original 235/75 GBs was amazing, it did everything better both on & off road, the next set of boots were 285/75 BFT ATs, in the sand the 285s we certainly an improvement over the 265s but onroad it was a backwards step. It handled notably worse with more tyre flex & the steering was less direct, turning circle also worse due to needing to decrease the steering stops to stop the tyres scrubbing on the front radius arms at full lock. Tyres are also quite a bit heavier than the 265s, but overall for the driving I do in the desert it is been worth the effort of fitting the 285s over the 265s, if my off road driving was not mainly desert I would go back to the 265s so I could stick to BFG ATs. If I was going to fit a set of MTs I would seriously consider the 255s.

---

What width are your wheels?

If too narrow for 285's it would explain the issues you had and less back-spacing is required to overcome tyre scrub on radius arms.

I'm running the new Wrangler MTRs in 265/75/16 on the standard Puma mags.

I really rate these tyres - great onroad and off, and wearing really well to. Only thing they haven't been on yet is sand.

Planning on moving to KM2s in 255/85 next but might just stick with MTRs in this size.

The 265s have been a great size, but I'd like a bit more room under the difs.

I have 255/85 Km2 but i think that they look a bit skinny.

i know that a defa stands out in a crowd but IT may aswell look like it could drive over a Pootrol:wasntme:

Bugger about defa rims only being 7" or i would have run 285

285 might be ok on the sand but that is all. they are crap on road and on dirt roads. they make it hard to miss sticks and rocks and potholes. they are heavy on your steering and hard on your bearings too, let alone the poor old tie-rods. they chuck mud everywhere which is fine if you like that sort of mess and more spray on the hwy when wet.
then there is the much heavier fuel bill you will have from the minute you put them onto your 4x4.
i drove some for a yr on a Nissan and that taught me never to buy them for anything!
i would stay with 255 if i was you. save the $ for fuel - going places:).

I had 33/12.5/15's on the county and they were great everywhere.

I am not worried about wheel bearings either, I am using county hubs and they have wider bearing spacing than defender :).

I think it is coming down to preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grounded

285 might be ok on the sand but that is all. they are crap on road and on dirt roads. they make it hard to miss sticks and rocks and potholes. they are heavy on your steering and hard on your bearings too, let alone the poor old tie-rods. they chuck mud everywhere which is fine if you like that sort of mess and more spray on the hwy when wet.
then there is the much heavier fuel bill you will have from the minute you put them onto your 4x4.
i drove some for a yr on a Nissan and that taught me never to buy them for anything!
i would stay with 255 if i was you. save the $ for fuel - going places:).

---

You must have baught some crap 285s if you think 285s are worse on road then 255s. Interesting you say it makes it hard to miss potholes etc that 30mm of extra tread must make alot of difference when trying to avoid things..... as for the heavier fuel bill, my 255s vs 285s i have noticed 0 difference in fuel useage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rickoz

Basic answer to this Q is 30% wider, :)
but to get correct answer go to a reputable Tyre Retailer they should have a Manual that gets Published every 12 months with the correct information
(too expensive for your average bloke to buy).
I'll annoy some poor bugger soon :D

---

Ok, i annoyed some Tyre Retailers today :D
Here n QLD the Widest Legal Tyre is 265/75R16 (for Defender)
This may change next year 2012:confused:might come in-line with the other states so i'm told

The STD offset is +33 : again, so i'm told