285 tyre's

[lowy]

Hi all ,
I know a lot on here have 255\85\16 tyres on their perentie's , But anyone have 285\75\16

Yes I agree standard aren't bad , But not for my application , I tend to doddle along around the lakes here in Tas , As soon as you break the crust ,If there is one , down to the diff you go . I find wider tyres a bit better in this sort of situation .

Anyway just thought someone out there would run them ?

[weeds]

I always thought a taller tyre gives you a better footprint than a wider tyre.

Although it seems most go wider as going taller buggers up ya gearing

[Landy Red]

I actually just whent back to taller (255/85/16) from wider. (285/75/16) I think performance wise they really are on par but to make 285s work well you will want some decent offset wheels- I'd say 0 or -25 and you will also want extended flares. Of which I have some for sale on gumtree in Tasmania. The 255s will work with less modifying, are easier on steering components and throw less mud alll over your car.

[lowy]

Maybe I should go to the 255/85/16 ...
another reason for the 285's tho .....If I read the Tasmanian rules correctly ( maybe not)

It said a 4x4 tyre could be 50% wider than the factory fitment and no bigger that 50mm in diameter than stock .

going by the tyre caculator , 255/85/16 are about 53 or 54 mm larger diameter than the stock 7.5r16 but 285/75/16 are about 47mm

[lowy]

I always thought a taller tyre gives you a better footprint than a wider tyre.

Although it seems most go wider as going taller buggers up ya gearing


I think your right , It's just that the 285/75/16 are close to the same height ? But still a fair bit wider


No power steering could be a worry tho

[Red90]

A 285 will allow you to run at a lower pressure than a 255. The lower pressure will give you a larger footprint and better floatation.

[debruiser]

I've run both sizes on my Puma 90 (yes I know that's a little different, but bear with me for a second!)

As a comparison between 255 to 285 sizes: just as a note - i have the 255s on deep dish HD rims and the 285 on 0 offset dynamic style rims
- 255 are probably mildly taller (I dont really notice the difference)
- 285 you can feel a noticable difference in power - as in a bunch less. (I have KM2's in both sizes)
- 255 are easier to turn the steering, and on a perentie where steering is already heavy I think 285's would be terrible.
- 255's give better fuel economy. it's not a lot but there is a difference.
- 285 LOOK great.
- 255 at the time I priced them were $80-100 more per tyre. (hence why I have a set of 285s.)
- 255 although don't look as angry etc - they look pretty stock, so I think you'd get away with the size difference before 285s that stick out!

Not the best pics but just for an idea - Pic 1 is 255s. Pic 2 is 285s. Pic 3 is 255's on the Perentie.

145859145858145860

[lowy]

I've run both sizes on my Puma 90 (yes I know that's a little different, but bear with me for a second!)

As a comparison between 255 to 285 sizes: just as a note - i have the 255s on deep dish HD rims and the 285 on 0 offset dynamic style rims
- 255 are probably mildly taller (I dont really notice the difference)
- 285 you can feel a noticable difference in power - as in a bunch less. (I have KM2's in both sizes)
- 255 are easier to turn the steering, and on a perentie where steering is already heavy I think 285's would be terrible.
- 255's give better fuel economy. it's not a lot but there is a difference.
- 285 LOOK great.
- 255 at the time I priced them were $80-100 more per tyre. (hence why I have a set of 285s.)
- 255 although don't look as angry etc - they look pretty stock, so I think you'd get away with the size difference before 285s that stick out!

Not the best pics but just for an idea - Pic 1 is 255s. Pic 2 is 285s. Pic 3 is 255's on the Perentie.

145859145858145860Thanks for the comparison , Any idea what offset the HD rims on the perentie are ?

I understand why the majority go for the 255 now
Thanks again .

[debruiser]

I think they might be ARN1534, off a really early 130. I had a quick google for you but I can't find a conclusive answer to the offset sorry.

I did find this:

Land Rover Wheel Specification (http://www.red90.ca/rovers/roverwheels.html)

and it suggests a 20.6mm offset. which compared to the 33mm of my D90 sounds about right....

[Landy Red]

They are just about positive 20

[mattmac]

never really understood why so many defender/110 owners choose to fit wider wheels/tyres when the stock standard 235/85 do the job fine both on/off road with better fuel mileage.

[debruiser]

never really understood why so many defender/110 owners choose to fit wider wheels/tyres when the stock standard 235/85 do the job fine both on/off road with better fuel mileage.

I agree somewhat, however I found 255/85 seemed to get just as good milage if not a bit better. That might be me... or maybe just my D90.

[Landy Red]

Someone said that they thought the 285s can run on lower pressures than a 255.. I'm interested in this idea why would that be the case? Due to the taller side walls? I've actually felt more comfortable running lower pressures in thinner tyres thinking that due to their 'thinness' they would be less likely to come off! Maybe I have just been lucky.

[rick130]

Someone said that they thought the 285s can run on lower pressures than a 255.. I'm interested in this idea why would that be the case? Due to the taller side walls? I've actually felt more comfortable running lower pressures in thinner tyres thinking that due to their 'thinness' they would be less likely to come off! Maybe I have just been lucky.All things considered, yes, the 285/75 should be able to run lower pressures.
BTW, sidewall height is damned near identical in both sizes.
A tyre is just a big air spring, the greater the volume (in theory) the lower the pressure needed for a given load.

This doesn't take into account case construction which can require quite different pressures even in the same size.
e.g. I needed to raise pressures by about 5psi on road when going from BFG MT's to Maxxis 762's in 255/85.
The Maxxis was more compliant in the sidewall and so needed more pressure to 'stand up' in highway use.