They will be +30 offset for a D2Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRanger
Printable View
They will be +30 offset for a D2Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRanger
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJT
-25 is for D1
Quote:
Originally Posted by splinter
the difference is negligible at best. I took mine off before I put the 75mm flares on and its basically the width of the plastic, so about 1.5mm
I estimate you will bother with changing between road tires and MT's about 4 times before you get over it....
Unless theyre a bias ply tire, just run them full time
I wish I had seen this post I had just gone thought all this myself just a week earlyer and could have saved to some time.
I in the end whent with the Micky T BAJA MTZ 285x75 on the dymanic 16x8 from Les Richmond, so the tire is that bit wider but only just (on the right angle) can be seen to sick out, and dont rub anywhere but the sill finish at front when turn which i just removed for sliders but a small trim with the grinder would fix
D1 isn't -25 from the factory, thats LandCruiser offset, but that offset is commonly enough fitted to D1's with flares.Quote:
Originally Posted by boofdtl
On another note, with all of this talk about the aftermarket Disco2 rims having an offset of +30, that is also in comparison to the OEM rims which are +57, so those wheels centreline will be sitting wider than factory by 17mm per side.
From what I've seen and what I've tested, a 2" lift usually but not always works just with 265/75-16 on OEM rims (+57) but does not work without rubbing the body with 285/75-16 on OEM rims (+57). The 285/75-16 is mathematically 10mm wider to the outside (and also inside) of a 265, where the +30 rims will place a 265/75-16 tyre 17mm further to the outside of a 265/75-16 on OEM rims - so, you might get rubbing on the inner body work, but the reduction in tyre size may also prevent it. I hope your testing is positive news.
Also, somebody commented on the 8" rim being about 200mm wide, please note that this is the internal bead measurement on the rim, not the outside width.
I've been giving OEM alloy wheels a hammering for a lot of years and they are strong. I have not dented or broken any. But, I would highly recommend the OEM rims because they have the best bead retaining rings in them that I've ever seen, and these are normally 1000x better (maybe even more!) than any that I have seen on aftermarket rims. The only tyre I've seen pulled of a Disco2 or P38 rim has been the BFG AT tyre, nothing else.
Hi all. A short report on the off road test of the new tyre/rim combo up Walhalla way last weekend. Experienced plenty of full lock opportunities but probably never fully extended/compressed the suspension fully on all four corners so I cannot state it was a comprehensive test. Nonetheless no rubbing or fouling observed. I'll update again after future trips.
For what it is worth, I run 265/75/16 mtz's on factory 7" rims. I have standard suspension which has sagged at the front and I only get some minor rubbing on full lock because I haven't adjusted the stops yet. I have been off road flexed out etc and no rubbing. I also agree with slunnie in that I run 10psi in the sand and have never rolled a tyre yet....drive accordingly of course. The factory rims are pretty damn good. If you want a wider stance, use factory with adaptors, note I said adaptors and not spacers. The adaptors are the ones that have the centre spigot mount as well, not spacers that just go under the studs. Yes I know they are illegal in oz, but they are used in Europe and have good reputations from those that have them. Zu rims are probably the next best option although they are pricey, but you get an extremely strong quality rim for that money.
Just another point, 265/75's are not legal on a d2 as they are a 32" tyre and factory is a 29" tyre. That is 3" difference or 75 mm. The max the govt allows without examination is 50 mm. Please correct me if I am wrong?
Cheers all
Kev
Just further, those rims at +30 are also illegal as the standard offset is +57, so that is a difference of 27, the max is 25mm. Yep, only 2mm out but technically....
The Zu rims are +38 I think, so are a tried and tested offset.
I think we all stretch the limits as to what we can legally do though, and it's only a problem if you get caught:D, or is it?
Cheers again.:D
Kev
You are correct. Been talking to my local tyre person regarding buying Bridgestone D694 LT tyres, he tells me legally I can go 15 mm above the size stated on the drivers door transfer, anything above that makes insurance null & void. He looked up on the computer , 265 is too much for my 1999 D2. BobQuote:
Originally Posted by bigkevg
[QUOTE=bigkevg;1759747]
Just another point, 265/75's are not legal on a d2 as they are a 32" tyre and factory is a 29" tyre. That is 3" difference or 75 mm. The max the govt allows without examination is 50 mm. Please correct me if I am wrong?
It appears that way Kev. It is interesting to note that there is however a potential contradiction in the Vic regs. Here it is:
One clause in the regs allows you to increase overall tyre diameter by a max of 50mm. If you compare a D2 OEM wheel with a 265/75 16, you have a difference in the overall diameter of the wheel of 65.78mm. It appears clear that this would be illegal under this clause.
There is however another clause in the regs relating to raising 4WD ride heights that allows a different interpretation. They allow an increase in ride height of a 4Wd by maximum 75mm. 50mm of that lift can be suspension lift, thereby allowing 25mm for lift owing to tyre size increase. Ride height is measured at a fixed point of the vehicle chassis or body work. A common reference point is the top of a wheel arch of an unladen vehicle. If you take a 265/75 r16 wheel and tire combo and put it on a vehicle with a 50mm suspension lift, the overall ride height, as measured at the wheel arch does not equal 50mm+(65.78mm/2). Thats because the distance from the centre of the wheel to the outside of the tire is less at the point where the tyre contacts the ground. In other words, vehicle weight compresses the tire, reducing the distance between the top of the wheel arch and the ground to less than it would be if the vehicle tire were not bearing weight. So whilst on paper a 256/75 r16 would increase the ride height by 32.89mm, once you actually put it on the vehicle and allow vehicle weight to compress the tire, the lift is substantially less.
I am not saying this argument would hold water if tested in a court of law but it appears to exist nonetheless. :( Is anyone aware of this alternate interpretation?