Thread: 285/70 R16s on a puma 90?

Originally Posted by n plus one

Appreciate if you could give some follow up on what 255s you get and how you rate them - I've got the ****s with my KM2s...

Would you mind expanding on this?

About to get 255s for mine and choices, as you would already know, are few with only 3 makes without looking at individual imports.

Originally Posted by strangy

Would you mind expanding on this?

About to get 255s for mine and choices, as you would already know, are few with only 3 makes without looking at individual imports.

Tyres are find (offroad grip, wet roads, durability, etc) but can't get them to balance out for love or money - plenty of discussion re KM2 balancing issues on the US forums.

Originally Posted by Leroy_Riding

I am generaly not a big fan of momentum...

The official line is: "As slow as possible, as fast as necessary".

To explain further: Momentum is proportonal to available traction. If you've got loads of grip, you don't need momentum but if you have no grip, you're going to need momentum.

The example I use is: Think of a steep bitumen drive. In summer time, you have bucket loads of grip and you can crawl up at the slowest of speeds. However, cover that drive in ice and you're going to need a load of momentum to get up it.

Knowing how much momentum to use comes with practice.

M

Hello. I used to run 285 70 R16's on my 130, and they looked great... but, I used Compomotive Alloys which were an 8" rim from memory.. I also gave the rear a 40mm lift and the front a 75mm lift to make it 'look right'.. IMO, without the lift, they look silly.. There are those that'll tell u its illegal, and that the rims I used are not rated for a 130, but Im of the opinion that if it looks right and is not over the top then you'll be left alone.

The wide tyre v skinny tyre can be debated over & over.

It should be noted that any vehicle that is designed to travel over sand has wide tyres - it is as simple as that.

The same with snow.

Mud is different it depends if there is a hard base.
Hard base = skinny tyres.
Soft base wide tyres.

D4's with 285 60 18 tyres excel on sand.

chuck

you need to come to wa my defender with 235's is better in the sand because they have a longer foot print and I loose less power. 235 all the way

Originally Posted by chuck

It should be noted that any vehicle that is designed to travel over sand has wide tyres.

At the end of the day there's no arguing with this, however there's a limit to how wide you can practically fit to a Deefer and IME you're unlikely to go wide enough to get the flotation benefits of wide tyre (think Artic trucks). I remember a magazine article where they tried to get an Artic Hilux bogged on Stockton - couldn't do it, even when stopping and restarting kn the steepest dune faces they could find!

Its also worth noting that, abstracting from the strength of the tyre carcass, every tyre has the same foot print area for a given psi and load - that's just physics - the only question is the shape of the foot print, wide and short or narrow and long. For me a high profile 'skinny' (255/85) lets me go to a nice low pressure (say 10psi in the soft stuff, but lower still if necessary) and gives a big (but long and narrow) foot print that works well in the sand. Wouldn't be better than a set of smooth 42s at 5psi though!

Beefy

Love to come to WA & play in the sand with you.

I am not disagreeing with you as tyres on a 4x4 are always a compromise.

I had a D2 with 265 75 16 & I thought they were the ideal tyre for that car.

However that was remapped & an auto.

One of the reason I liked the wider tyre is that it helps keep you off the rock & mud walls we tend to have in Victoria.

Might only be 15 mm more width but that can make the difference between damage or no damage.

The 235 85's must be good as there is a lot of support for them on a Defender - how many stock 4wd's can you buy standard with 32" mud terrains