Wider tires?

Freightshaker said:

BTW I used an app called Tire Expert to do the size calculation. There's also this site as well: https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?

Click to expand...

You can also use a basic calculator

255/70r18 >> 255 mm width / 70% height ratio, rim 18"

Diameter = (2 * height in inches) + rim size

70% = 0.7 , height is in % of width and counted twice, width is 255 mm, 1" = 25.4 mm

Diameter inches = (255 * 2 * 0.70 / 25.4) + 18

Mubarakma said:

Thanks brother but would 305 fit in stock 20" wheels without rubbing
Regards

Click to expand...

I have run 33/12.5/20 on stock platinum/limited wheels. Now run 305/55/20. There is slight rubbing now because of the offset of my aftermarket wheels (+1).

limitedex said:

I have run 33/12.5/20 on stock platinum/limited wheels. Now run 305/55/20. There is slight rubbing now because of the offset of my aftermarket wheels (+1).

Click to expand...

Quick questions on your 3" lift. Did you need to modify anything like brake lines? Did the handling change much? Affect the shaft angles from pumpkins to wheels?
I'm considering this when it warms up. I also noticed that the kits are 3" front & 2" rears.

1955moose said:

Ever wonder why with the big wheel wells, most 4 wheel drive vehicles use skinny, tall off road tires? Its simple, the thinner tire will plow through sand, and soft snow better than a lower wider one. Has to with physics I guess. Maybe one of our resident geniuses can embellish why this is so. That's what I've been told over the years, hope I wasn't lied to!

Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

On sand, you want wide, soft tires to float on top of the sand. On mud or snow, you want skinny to get down through the slush and into contact with something hard. On just wet roads, its difficult to say. Lots of variables, and every car will be different.

Sand is an outlier when talking about traction. No matter what tire you have, on sand your traction is phenomenal. There, its all about the hole your tire makes in the sand which is quickly filled in with sand, in front of and behind the tire. Thats what gets you stuck. Your only direction of movement is vertical. Skinny tires on sand just dig in.

In all the other messes, you want to get down to something hard, and push on it with as much weight as you can, ergo, the skinny tire 'slices' through the muck and doesn't present a wide profile face when moving through it (it doesn't need to displace as much muck as a fat tire).

The physics comes down to applying power to the wheel without exceeding the friction of the tire on the surface.

TobyU said:

ery purest

Click to expand...

Freightshaker said:

Flexpedition posted earlier he has 305's no problems.

Click to expand...

Freightshaker said:

BTW I used an app called Tire Expert to do the size calculation. There's also this site as well: https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?

Click to expand...

limitedex said:

I have run 33/12.5/20 on stock platinum/limited wheels. Now run 305/55/20. There is slight rubbing now because of the offset of my aftermarket wheels (+1).

Click to expand...

Thank you all brothers
I will consider to put 305/50/20 on my Expedition 2010 Limited & post the picture here .
stock tire size is little narrow when compare to other SUV Tahoe/Denali etc .
Regards

Freightshaker said:

Quick questions on your 3" lift. Did you need to modify anything like brake lines? Did the handling change much? Affect the shaft angles from pumpkins to wheels?
I'm considering this when it warms up. I also noticed that the kits are 3" front & 2" rears.

Click to expand...

Nah up to 3" front and 2" rear is doable with strut tower (spacers or coilovers) only, nothing else needed

3" spacer fronts handles ok... Rancho level (1.25 f / 0.75r stated, more like 2 F / 1.25 R real) handles quite good

Tire size and the ability for a vehicle to move forward over certain ground conditions is basically a choice between wanting traction at the ground, or wanting to basically travel or float on top of said ground. Two different needs, two different tires. Skinny tires will put more PSI onto the ground since the contact patch is smaller. This increases friction/traction. My private coach has, relatively speaking, skinny tires and a lot of weight (40,000lbs) giving me much better traction on ice and shallow snow than a car. An example of a skinny tire for ice/shallow snow traction:




But, get into soft, deep mud, really deep snow, or sand and my bus is sunk stuck and done.
That’s where wider/larger tires come into play. In soft/deep conditions, you want to float and ride on top of the ground cover. So you want to reduce your PSI footprint as much as possible. Hence, tank tracks, snowmobile belt tracks, balloon tires etc.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Freightshaker said:

Quick questions on your 3" lift. Did you need to modify anything like brake lines? Did the handling change much? Affect the shaft angles from pumpkins to wheels?
I'm considering this when it warms up. I also noticed that the kits are 3" front & 2" rears.

Click to expand...

Modified nothing else.

I’m not sure about shaft angles etc, but there’s no additional NVH.

I used new load leveling ride height adjustment sensors on the rear instead of spacers. That’s how I accomplished 3” lift front and rear.

Muddy Bean said:

Tire size and the ability for a vehicle to move forward over certain ground conditions is basically a choice between wanting traction at the ground, or wanting to basically travel or float on top of said ground. Two different needs, two different tires. Skinny tires will put more PSI onto the ground since the contact patch is smaller. This increases friction/traction. My private coach has, relatively speaking, skinny tires and a lot of weight (40,000lbs) giving me much better traction on ice and shallow snow than a car. An example of a skinny tire for ice/shallow snow traction:




But, get into soft, deep mud, really deep snow, or sand and my bus is sunk stuck and done.
That’s where wider/larger tires come into play. In soft/deep conditions, you want to float and ride on top of the ground cover. So you want to reduce your PSI footprint as much as possible. Hence, tank tracks, snowmobile belt tracks, balloon tires etc.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

One and two do nothing for me BUT 3,4, and 5 make me MOIST!!!

Muddy Bean said:

Tire size and the ability for a vehicle to move forward over certain ground conditions is basically a choice between wanting traction at the ground, or wanting to basically travel or float on top of said ground. Two different needs, two different tires. Skinny tires will put more PSI onto the ground since the contact patch is smaller. This increases friction/traction. My private coach has, relatively speaking, skinny tires and a lot of weight (40,000lbs) giving me much better traction on ice and shallow snow than a car. An example of a skinny tire for ice/shallow snow traction:




But, get into soft, deep mud, really deep snow, or sand and my bus is sunk stuck and done.
That’s where wider/larger tires come into play. In soft/deep conditions, you want to float and ride on top of the ground cover. So you want to reduce your PSI footprint as much as possible. Hence, tank tracks, snowmobile belt tracks, balloon tires etc.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the last 2 are just showy grocery getter brodozers