265 or 285 ?

[lambrover]

Well I am getting ready to put new tyres on my td5 130.

So what are peoples experiance with 285/75/16's, the tyre shop said it will knock the fuel economy around. He suggested 265/75/16's

I was wanting to go 285's to get that little bit more under the rear diff.

Any thoughts

[harro]

255/85/16 will give you the extra clearance without the width.
And straight on to a 7 inch rim;).

Only issue is bfg muds or coopers, no one else imports them:mad: AFAIK.

Cheers,
Paul.

[Naks]

So what are peoples experiance with 285/75/16's, the tyre shop said it will knock the fuel economy around. He suggested 265/75/16's


I had 285s on my previous 110 double cab, but I didn't like the feel. I switched to 265s and the truck went better.

Impact on fuel economy is marginal: remember, different sized tyres also change the odo reading.

[Allan]

255x85 BFG km2's on the Puma are fantastic. best move I ever made.

Allan

[slug_burner]

285 x 0.75 = 213.75
265 x 0.75 = 198.75
255 x 0.85 = 216.75
235 x 0.85 = 199.75

If you are after that extra height at the expense of a little fuel economy you will get that extra 1/2 inch under your diff with the 255s.

[klappers]

255s for the win

[lambrover]

thanks guys, I was speaking to Andrew at LRA and he reckons the 255 move in the side wall a bit to much as it is tall so handling is affected where has 285handle better.

[Lorryman100]

I have a set of 235/85x16 GG TR's, 265/75x16 BFG MT and 305/70x16 Mickey T's Baja ATZ for my Puma. The best tyre for handling is the 305, the handling on tarmac and sand is excellent. The 235's and 265's are a bit soft in the side walls for cornering where as the 305's excel and instil confidence. here is a handy tyre calculator to compare tyre sizes:

Tire size calculator (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)


HTH Brian.

[Psimpson7]

IMO on a Defender 255/85's are the best option.

As for moving in the sidewall, I've thrashed mine everywhere for years and can't say I ever noticed.

[ugu80]

255/85/16 will give you the extra clearance without the width.
And straight on to a 7 inch rim;).

Only issue is bfg muds or coopers, no one else imports them:mad: AFAIK.

Cheers,
Paul.

Maxxis have 255/85/16's, but only in 8 ply whereas the KM2 is 10 ply.

[Loubrey]

Brian,

The guys out here like running 42Psi, which is so hard that you have no sidewall flex when cornering.

In the UK I trialed with the 255/85/16 BFG (old pattern) and they were awesome. I prefer lower pressures for day to day driving and I'm with you that the wider tyres give a better ride under those conditions.

Lambrover,

Whatever size you go for, stay with the BFG's. I've recently done a bit of an add up out my fuel log books over the years and I've personally done over a million kilometers on BFG's. Saying that, my last blowout (touch wood!) was back in 1998 on a very spiky road out on the Skeleton Coast of Namibia. My thoughts would be that the 255/85/16 would be the best allround tyre for a 130 (unless you want to drive around in the low 30 Psi's which might give you sidewall flex as suggested)

The 255 just look the part. I've attached a picture from a trialing day in Wales a few years back. Both are wearing 255's with my 90 on OME alloys and the 110 on "modulars" with a nicer offset.

PS - For all you guys following the thread on "County's for beginners", the 90 in the picture is a 1998 Hard Top County (spot the stripe and "county" label on the back). The word "County" is not a model description of 110's sold in the early 1980's other than the "furniture" inside!

[Lorryman100]

42psi :eek:, wow that is hard. The 305's I run at 30 psi all round, the 235's are 30psi on the front and 35 psi on the rear, the 265's are 32 psi all round. Even when towing the caravan (Camper?) even then I only increase the rears on the 235's to 38 psi. The thoughts I'm having is that with the temps in OZ reaching the mid 40C then would the tyres not be running close to 50 psi once warm? we have lots of narrow windy roads here and the 305 still gives the better ride at the lower psi. Where as the 235's and 265's are a bit squirrelly even at higher pressures.

Slightly off topic here, but when I launch the boat off the beach the 305's are the only tyres I don't have to lower the psi on. The 235's and 265's need to be lowered down to around 15psi to cope with the soft sand in the dunes.

ps, the highest temp we have had in the Glasgow area this summer was 26c for one day! If me and the missus could scrape enough points together, a move to OZ would definitely be on the cards.:D


Brian.

[Psimpson7]

I run my 255's at 32psi allround on my 90.

[Loubrey]

I run my 255's at 32psi allround on my 90.

I do as well. I took part in a bit of a discussion a few days ago where the guys were of the opinion that under 38Psi the Defender has a tendecy to wander or wallow on steering.

You obviously know as well as I do that a 90 will bounce and be generally uncomfortable on hard tyres.

Cheers,

Lou

[ugu80]

ps, the highest temp we have had in the Glasgow area this summer was 26c for one day! If me and the missus could scrape enough points together, a move to OZ would definitely be on the cards.:DBrian.

Maybe you should run them at 20psi. That's the only way you'll warm the tread up to operating temp.

[Slunnie]

I've run both sizes and personally I prefer the 285/75's.

The 255/85's roll better with the narrow tread, but the 285's handle a lot better. the 255's having that tall narrow carcass do move around in the carcass a lot lot more and because of this you do need to run higher pressures to generate the stability in the tyre but the problem is inherently there and where you will also notice it is offroading when you're driving with a side angle, particularly if there is a rise in it. The 285 will run just about any old pressure and still maintain that stability through the tyre. The 285's look more proportional and my opinion is that they give better traction but they do generally require an 8" rim - the only exception that I know of to this is the odd Mickey Thompson tyre. Aquaplaning isn't an issue with 4WD weights and speeds.

If you're comparing the 285/75 to the 265/75 then in reality the only real difference is the diameter. I think you'll find that generally the tyre runs the same tread pattern and mould width, but the additional width come from the increased bag in the tyre from the extra height. For offroading, my opinion is that the 285's perform better - not to do with the wide/narrow debate, but because the tread patterns are better. If you check the old MTR the 235 and narrower ran one tread design, the 265/285 the next tread design and the 305/315 another tread design. For touring, I'm not sure because the 255's roll better, but you cant soften them up too much for dirt roads before they start to move around.

[Sitec]

Hello! I've just gone down this road and have gone with the 285's. They look the part, and in standard format, the Td5 pulls them ok. Add the weight and you'll notice the difference. you will need a wider rim for the 285 tyre. As many have said before me, BFG's are the ONLY option. I am running the old pattern muddies but will switch back to the All Terains as they are better on the sand. If it works, there is a pic of my 130 on 285's! Give the nose 2 0r 3 inches of lift to... It suits the bigger tyres and levels the vehicle up!.. Re pic, tried to upload one but it tells me that it's already in another thread. Grrrrrr! Why are these sites never simple!!! If you can find it, check out thread 'Chasing photos of defenders with 265 75 16 KM2's' Mine and others are there! Good luck. Found the thread, and brought it back up to the top!

[cal415]

Just done a few days testing, 7.50x16s(XZLs) 255x85x16 Bighorns and 285x75x16 MTZ's, hands down the MTZs are better on road without a doubt, i noticed no real difference in performance between them and the 255s, in my opion its a great size for the defender.

[rar110]

Just done a few days testing, 7.50x16s(XZLs) 255x85x16 Bighorns and 285x75x16 MTZ's, hands down the MTZs are better on road without a doubt, i noticed no real difference in performance between them and the 255s, in my opion its a great size for the defender.

Any beach or bush driving with these three?

[lambrover]

Sitec, the 285 looks good. I will go that size. thanks

[cal415]

Any beach or bush driving with these three?
Not as yet, but this weekend i will give them a try, the 7.50x16s are on the d1 at the moment so i will give that a beach run and see how they perform, i have no doubt they will suck compared to the 255s, i will also try both the 255s and 285s on the defender on sand this weekend.

[JohnR]

Ordered Six 255/85R16 BF Goodrich KM2's today :) They get fitted Monday Yay!

Looking forward to trying these out :twisted:

Cheers,

[Allan]

Ordered Six 255/85R16 BF Goodrich KM2's today :) They get fitted Monday Yay!

Looking forward to trying these out :twisted:

Cheers,

Thay are fantastic, enjoy.

Allan

[Sitec]

No prob, glad to help. There's so much useful info on here eh!

[Rickoz]

Sorry for the "Thread Jack" Guys & Gals,

The current 2011 Defender Comes with 7.50 R16 Tyres,
or you can get it with the Wider 235/85 R16 Tyres.

Which Tyre gives you the correct / most accurate Speed or distance you've traveled?

&

I was at the Dept of Transport today (QLD), & asked -
How much Wider Tyre we can put on a car Legally
(thinking she would give me a % or something like that)
She could not find out the answer :eek: :(
Anyone know who to ask :confused:

Thanks Guys

[PAT303]

I have 235's on my puma and it reads within a k or two of spot on. Pat

[cal415]

I ran 7.50x16s and it was way off, i have ran 255x85s and 285x75s and its spot on with those.

[Allan]

My 255's are right on acording to the g.p.s.

Allan

[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.

[Rickoz]

Sorry for the "Thread Jack" Guys & Gals,
I was at the Dept of Transport today (QLD), & asked -
How much Wider Tyre we can put on a car Legally
(thinking she would give me a % or something like that)
She could not find out the answer :eek: :(
Anyone know who to ask :confused:
Thanks Guys
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

[isuzu110]

(too expensive for your average bloke to buy)

Actually, its freely available on their website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c792a0c9-92b1-43ee-933b-7bdd8b20842f/pdf_modification_motor_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 ?

[Rickoz]

Actually, its freely available on their website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c792a0c9-92b1-43ee-933b-7bdd8b20842f/pdf_modification_motor_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:

[grover7488]

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:

[Bush65]

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.

[n plus one]

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.

[grover7488]

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

[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:).

[lambrover]

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.

[cal415]

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.

[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

[isuzurover]

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

The tyre retailers you spoke to are idiots.

Defenders have beam axles front and rear, so you are permitted to fit 1.5* wider tyres than standard.

A 7.50x16 is 190.5 mm wide. A 235/85-16 is 235 mm wide.

1.5* those widths are 285 mm and 352 mm.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c792a0c9-92b1-43ee-933b-7bdd8b20842f/pdf_modification_motor_vehicles2.pdf
2nd last paragraph on page 19.

[Loubrey]

According to the specification manual the standard offset on a Defender is +30mm, so your man's info is close enough to the mark.

265/75/16 is the widest actual Land Rover approved size (OEM wider option) and they might have just gone by that.

As said in many other threads, fitting any tyre wider or taller than that specified by the manufacturer is considered sufficient grounds for voiding warranty. While your friendly local dealer might turn a blind eye to the wheel issue, LRA policy is unfortunately very clear. “Should you fit any tyre size that alter the rolling diameter or exceed the specified widths and sidewall heights, drive line warranty would be voided”.

I don’t in any way agree with it, but this was the information sent to me by the technical enquiry desk.

[grounded]

i have driven on top brand 285s several times on numerous beam axle 4wds and they are all crap on the road. it is called tram-tracking. it doesn't matter how good the wheel alignment is or how good the car is - they just pick up so much more roughness and uneveness that can easily be dodged with 255s.

285s are a waste of money:)

[isuzurover]

i have driven on top brand 285s several times on numerous beam axle 4wds and they are all crap on the road. it is called tram-tracking. it doesn't matter how good the wheel alignment is or how good the car is - they just pick up so much more roughness and uneveness that can easily be dodged with 255s.

285s are a waste of money:)

I disagree. IME 285s are as good or better on the road as 255s.

[cal415]

Tram tracking is something i havnt noticed at all with the 285s, this is usually felt with low profile tyres on big rims due to the lack of sidewall flex, i cant see how 285s would suffer from this. As for the 255s they seem a bit wallowy on road in my opinion and dont corner at speed as well, other then that theres not a great deal of difference. As for use on the beach i actually think the 255s are slightly better and i have done a heap of beach driving.

[Bush65]

The tyre retailers you spoke to are idiots.

Defenders have beam axles front and rear, so you are permitted to fit 1.5* wider tyres than standard.

A 7.50x16 is 190.5 mm wide. A 235/85-16 is 235 mm wide.

1.5* those widths are 285 mm and 352 mm.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c792a0c9-92b1-43ee-933b-7bdd8b20842f/pdf_modification_motor_vehicles2.pdf
2nd last paragraph on page 19.
Possibly the retailer also considered that the person who asked them wanted to retain the stock rims, which may be narrower than minimum for any wider tyres.

Personally I would prefer 8" rims with 285's.

[Bush65]

Tram tracking is something i havnt noticed at all with the 285s, this is usually felt with low profile tyres on big rims due to the lack of sidewall flex, i cant see how 285s would suffer from this. As for the 255s they seem a bit wallowy on road in my opinion and dont corner at speed as well, other then that theres not a great deal of difference. As for use on the beach i actually think the 255s are slightly better and i have done a heap of beach driving.
In sand some power is consumed just by the amount/mass of sand in the tyre tread that has to be moved each revolution.

So logically a 285 would waste more power than a 255, especially with mud terrain tyres - do you think this could be part of what you have found?

[cal415]

Most tyre makers specify 8in rims minimum for fitment of 285s, probobly why the tyre fitters said they couldnt fit 285s on a defender because of the standard rim widths.

John, Yes i think so, i think the reason the 285s struggle a little more is the power loss due to cutting forwards through a wider mass of sand, i think its a common misconception people make that wider tyres are better for use on sand thinking that airing down gives a wider foot print and there for better floatation on the sand, this maybe be true to some degree but its the track length increase when aired down that makes the real difference, wider tyres just need more power to turn and unless you have that power(such as my v8 turning 37x12.5s which is nearly unstopable on the beach) you should stick to narrower tyres. but that also goes both ways i've found, 7.50x16s are ok in sand but just a little to narrow and you get way to much wheel spin burying the tyres to quickly, after having driven many different cars with many different tyrse sizes on sand, i think when it comes to width, the 265x75s or 255x85s are probobly spot on for sand, but if you have big HP then increase in width is definetly worth while to stop you burying the narrow tyres to quickly.

[Rickoz]

Possibly the retailer also considered that the person who asked them wanted to retain the stock rims, which may be narrower than minimum for any wider tyres.
Personally I would prefer 8" rims with 285's.
No, we did discuss putting them on 8" Steel Rims.

[rar110]

I have 235/85 Silent Armors on wolf rims. My only complaint is having to air down for beach driving which accounts for most the off road use. In hindsight I probably would have gone for 265s on King wheels as this size is better for sand without airing down and easily available. Availability was the main reason I didnt go with 255s.

[Loubrey]

I have now finally decided on the 265/75/16 KM2's.:D

Walked into one of the larger tyre supply chains at lunch today and they had 20 in stock (note where I live...). I asked about both 255's and 285's and they had 2 in 255 and 1 in 285 and I'll have to wait at the very least 2 weeks for more. Travelling around where we live that sort of wait in the bigger towns is just not an option and a complete no go in the smaller ones.

Therefore availability and LRA's warranty policies has turned the tide on the decision between 255, 265 and 285's. Wheels are scheduled to arrive either Friday or Monday and the tyres have been reserved!

[lambrover]

I have now finally decided on the 265/75/16 KM2's.:D

Walked into one of the larger tyre supply chains at lunch today and they had 20 in stock (note where I live...). I asked about both 255's and 285's and they had 2 in 255 and 1 in 285 and I'll have to wait at the very least 2 weeks for more. Travelling around where we live that sort of wait in the bigger towns is just not an option and a complete no go in the smaller ones.

Therefore availability and LRA's warranty policies has turned the tide on the decision between 255, 265 and 285's. Wheels are scheduled to arrive either Friday or Monday and the tyres have been reserved!


Sounds like a wise decision mate, seeing as the availabiltity in your town.

I ended up with 285/75/16's mickey thompsons ATR's and I am happy with tha choose, as I have 3inch lift I need to fill the guards as well. But so far they are quiet and handle well. I extended the flares on the front and added flares to the rear to cover the tyres.

[cal415]

Wow it looks huge with that lift and tyre combo Lambrover! very cool.

The 265 is a very common size, i noticed that most places stock that size and almost all patterns are available in it, unlike the 255s, 285s are also alot more common then 255s part of the reason i am running them over the 255s.

[Allan]

Sounds like a wise decision mate, seeing as the availabiltity in your town.

I ended up with 285/75/16's mickey thompsons ATR's and I am happy with tha choose, as I have 3inch lift I need to fill the guards as well. But so far they are quiet and handle well. I extended the flares on the front and added flares to the rear to cover the tyres.

Looks tough.

Allan

[lambrover]

thanks for the positive comments guys. Well I had it out on the highway today and the road noise from the tyres is very low.

[Rickoz]

The 265 is a very common size, i noticed that most places stock that size and almost all patterns are available in it, unlike the 255s, 285s
Yep, i noticed that as well while annoying the Retailers too.

[grover7488]

I ended up with 285/75/16's mickey thompsons ATR's

are they 4 rib ATZ? ;)

BTW looks tough as 10 men :twisted:

[Loubrey]

As posted earlier, I ended up deciding on the 265/75/16’s based on all the factors discussed at length.

The wheels are ZU’s in satin black. I do enough “blacktop only” driving to have kept the 235/85/16 General Grabber’s on the OEM alloys and store them in the shed to wear on those long blacktop (850km Broome and 1450km Perth) trips.

I’ve posted a few pictures of "before, after and close up" shots in keeping with the rules...

[cal415]

How do you feel it handles on the 265s? much of an improvement from the 235s?

[Loubrey]

I've only been on the shell beach at Hearson Cove and its gravel access road, but I must say I’m loving it. On the road they have a lot of grip around the roundabouts and with 20mm extra offset per wheel and 30mm extra width per tyre, the 90 feels very sure footed.

I’m running them at 30Psi and while there’s a bit more noise of the tyres, I’m getting a lot less racket from stones in the wheel arches. Must be the bigger gaps in the tread pattern.

I’ve run KM’s before, but this is my first ever set of KM2’s and after the first weekend I must say I'm happy with spending the money.