Page 1 of 1
Tyre Size on 105 Series
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:11 am
by me3@neuralfibre.com
If anyone has a similar car, I could do with your experience.
Std fitment on my car is a 275/70/16 - there are no LT tyres in this size
Current is 265/75/16 as this is a common LT size and very close to std
I would like to fit 285/75/16, however this is a larger tyre, throwing speedo and gearing out. It will likely also impact fuel economy.
Can anyone with this size on a diesel HZJ105 cruiser comment?
Thanx
Paul
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:30 am
by dieseldude
Mate,
I've got a 105 series diesel cruiser.
My tyres are 275/70/16 BFG All Terrains. I'd assume that they are LT construction...............
Cheers
Anthony.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:22 am
by dow50r
They all will be LT, the last 285's i ran were bridgestone m/t and they had a load carrying capacity of 1500kg each...(which means they must have a robust construction) The 285 is maybe going to put your spedo out 3 km/hr....hear is the math 1 inch bigger over 32 inch std size (1/32x100/1)=3.04% Now if your worried about the motors ability to pull the greater size, and economy...then your probably better off staying with a 265x75x16 (same diameter) most people go the larger tyre to get better offroad traction.
Andrew
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:32 am
by me3@neuralfibre.com
Actaully 6.5% larger, diameter is radius squared x 3.14.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:51 pm
by dieseldude
When I got my 275/70/16 BFG All Terrains (as mentioned above), I kept them the same size as stock as opposed to going to 285's. I figured that I'd only ever drive these on-road and on dirt so why sacrifice power?!
I've got a set of splits with some fairly serious rubber on them for off-road playing and for desert trips etc. These are 7.50r16 which actually stand a good 2 inches taller than the 275/70/16's side by side. Therefor, when fitted to the truck, they are only 1 inch larger............
It's all a trade off mate.
I don't know if we've helped you solve your problem at all - but there's some random info for you none the less.
Anthony
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:04 pm
by dow50r
me3@neuralfibre.com wrote:Actaully 6.5% larger, diameter is radius squared x 3.14.
Circumference= 3.14 x Diameter
so 3.14 x 32 = 100.48 inches per revolution
and 3.14x33= 103.63 inches per rev
I run 35's and they are 10% or 3.14x35=109.9
Re: Tyre Size on 105 Series
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:10 pm
by dow50r
me3@neuralfibre.com wrote:If anyone has a similar car, I could do with your experience.
Std fitment on my car is a 275/70/16 - there are no LT tyres in this size
Current is 265/75/16 as this is a common LT size and very close to std
I would like to fit 285/75/16, however this is a larger tyre, throwing speedo and gearing out. It will likely also impact fuel economy.
Can anyone with this size on a diesel HZJ105 cruiser comment?
Thanx
Paul
Paul, i shouldnt be commenting....but i will because i have ran all sorts of tyres... going bigger will reduce economy a little, all these sizes are light truck construction, you will also notice a small decrease in efficiency of the brakes with larger tyres, as stated earlier, traction is gained from running larger, for instance i could drive up my drive in the wet with 35's but go nowhere with 32's (just spin) the 265 75 is equal in diameter to a 275x70...and little if any difference in width.
Andrew
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:38 pm
by me3@neuralfibre.com
Ouch - my bad
Diameter, vs Area, Vs Sphere.
Sorry
Paul
dow50r wrote:me3@neuralfibre.com wrote:Actaully 6.5% larger, diameter is radius squared x 3.14.
Circumference= 3.14 x Diameter
so 3.14 x 32 = 100.48 inches per revolution
and 3.14x33= 103.63 inches per rev
I run 35's and they are 10% or 3.14x35=109.9