Toyota Nation Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
My 06 TRD Off Road Access cab was pretty much all stock including the suspension. Wanted to up the tire size and most of the info out there says that 265/75/16 will fit. Here's my experience.

EDIT - mpg data (good news) and most recent update p2 post #17.

Went with Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo 2 tires. That process is documented elsewhere.
http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=353953

Long story, but I got an LT rated, 10 ply tire rather than the typical P rated. Stiffer ride. Might actually have a slightly deeper tread pattern, but I'm not sure about that.

EDIT:
Deeper tread rumor confirmed:
"LTs have 16/32" tread depth vs 12/32" for P-metrics" - thanks Splicer
I'm wonder if that means the diameter of the tire overall is larger as well?

EDIT:
Probably the same overall diameter:
"Bridgestone lists diameter of P and LT as 31.7" for each, but tread depth 12/32" vs 16/32", so I dunno.... there may be a slight difference in OD." - thanks again to Splicer

Here are some before and after pics:






First impressions. Love the look. The pics really don't do it justice. Wider stance, more aggressive look overall. Ride is stiffer - probably because they are LT tires, not due to size. I don't notice any noise at all. The ride height feels very slightly taller. MPG? Too soon to tell.

I had some rubbing right away. Usually with combined braking/hard turn/bump.

The mud flaps were polished in the area that was rubbing so I trimmed them.

Here you can see the shiny black spot on the flap just to the right of the "B"






Trimmed it:




Initially I was proud of myself. But soon I was hearing some rubbing again.

Here you can see another polished black spot - just to the right of the space b/n the B and the R:



So I trimmed that area:



When I put the flap back on I noticed the fender flare sticking through the hole:



I trimmed that area easily as well. It was plastic and was really easier to cut than the mud flap.

Today I didn't notice any rubbing at all. You can't tell very well from the pics - but the clearance is very tight. I was worried, but was pleased today when it seemed fine. I'll have to see how things go for a while.

FYI - the trimming was easy. I'm totally new to this. Some heavy snips are the right tool. I can't remember who gave me mine or why, but they worked great. So far I'm pleased. The look is what I was after, the trimming wasn't a problem. If I have to do more things might change.

Hopefully this helps someone else like me out there...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
I totally agree. The look without them is better. But I want to protect my paint. I did shorten them a fair bit front and back so they aren't so crazy long. The stock length is insane.

Plus - the flaps scratch the paint on the flares so unless you take them off when your truck is brand new you have big marks - at least I do.

I think even without my flaps I might have rubbed on my fender flare a little.

TL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
Right with you on protecting the paint. I have matte black fender flares and the damn flap still left a wear mark. Since my flares are matte black I'm not too worried about rocks and stuff. I also know my nfabs protect the bottom of my doors. Your truck looks nice if you were to take off the flaps I wouldn't worry too much........your steps would probably protect your paint very well.
 

·
My Other Truck
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
Thanks for the updates & info, follow-ups are appreciated but not everyone does 'em. Your new tires & wheels look great on your truck!

And since you asked, yes, your LTs have 16/32" tread depth vs 12/32" for P-metrics.
 

·
HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!
Joined
·
948 Posts
Yeah... those IS's are slick! I think they really set off the silver trucks. I agree, it seems like the tread is deeper on my new REVO's compared to what I remember it being on my older "P" set when I first got them. Then again, they did redesign the tire since then.

I can't wait until WeatherTech comes out with a shorter (hopefully) mud flap for us. I really hope it covers the same spot on the fender as the existing one so it doesn't show the wear marks like you mentioned.
 

·
Premium Member
Was a 05 Tacoma 4x4 DC LB
Joined
·
14,146 Posts
Hey tsl90, I think you should reconsider taking the mudflaps off. There have been a lot of people that had damage done to their trucks because of the broken front mudflaps smacking the paint from the wind at highway speeds. While yours aren't broken yet, the amount of trimming you did likely weakened them to the point where they will break easily. So leaving them on may cause more damage than any slight risk of damage from rocks being kicked up by the tires.

Something to think about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Looking good. I’m about to purchase some BFG Mud Terrain KM2 tires in that size. I have the same year, just double cab. Might run into some rubbing, but thanks to your write up I’ll know what to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I worry about the flaps coming off and banging things up too. I've weakened them a fair bit.

Unfortunately the marks on my fender flares are so bad I can't imagine leaving the flaps off unless I had the flares repainted. I've thought about having the flares done with line-x...

Actually I don't mind the flaps so much since I shortened them a few years ago. If I had to pick I'd lose my tube steps and keep the flaps. The tube steps protect the paint, but I like the small slider type (I don't know what they are called) that Dark Taco has on his truck better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Almost forgot - thanks for the positive feedback. I'm going to keep updating, but so far I'm happy.

No rubbing at all today...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
1 week, appx 200 miles.

Still think the ride is stiffer, but I'm noticing it less and less. No complaints about the ride on a day to day basis.

Since my last trim I've had one very small rub. Still holding my breath a little bit.

Getting positive comments on the look.

Overall still happy.

TL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
what kind of hit did you take in the mileage department?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
what kind of hit did you take in the mileage department?
Too soon to tell. I will update when my driving is more normal for me and I have a chance to go through most of a tank of gas. Give me another week or two.

TL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
No trimming...None......I wonder if its a difference in front shocks...as you can see I have a canadian SR5. One of the difference between cdn and us ruks is suspension....my is stock with the 4 leaf rear springs and the same bilstein shocks that TRD off road use. My truck may sit differently in the front..maybe a bit higher..maybe different shocks....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Mileage Update

I wanted to wait until I wasn't really thinking about how I was driving to look at the mileage. I've kept track over the last 2 fill-ups.

With my original tires I consistently got around 19mpg. Occasionally I'd squeak out a 20-21mpg tank but that was very rare.

The new results are as follows:
234.5mi / 12.762gal = 18.37mpg
225.3mi / 12.417gal = 18.14mpg

I was pretty happy with that. But as most of you are aware that's not quite accurate because the diameter of the new tires changes the actual miles traveled.

I used the two tire size calculators below to help with the numbers:
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php

265-65-16 revolutions per mile = 658.95
265-75-16 revolutions per mile = 637.23

Using that info I got this:

234.5mi / 12.762gal = 18.37mpg

234.5mi x 658.95 revolutions / mile = 154523.775 total revolutions
154523.775 total revolutions / 637.23 rev/mi = 242.49 actual miles

242.49mi / 12.762gal = 19mpg


225.3mi / 12.417gal = 18.14mpg

225.3mi x 658.95 revolutions / mile = 148461.435 total revolutions
148461.435 total revolutions / 637.23 rev/mi = 232.98 actual miles

232.98mi / 12.417gal = 18.76mpg

The easy way to get close is just to multiply the number of miles traveled on the odometer by 1.034, then divide by the number of gallons.

Bottom line is
242.49mi / 12.762gal = 19mpg
232.98mi / 12.417gal = 18.76mpg

I'm very happy with that. I'm convinced I'm not seeing any real significant change. I'm sure my mileage was a little better before based on the physics involved. But in real life it looks like for me it is negligible.

I'm still rubbing once or twice a week. I really think I'll end up leveling the front end, but it's not a big deal. I suspect the 10ply tires have a slightly larger diameter than the P rated ones. If that's true it means my mileage is even better than this because I suspect the numbers I have are for P rated tires.

The tires aren't noisy at all. I still like the look over the stock size. Overall I'm still happy.
 

·
My Other Truck
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
Nice update, good to see someone doing the math rather than just "X miles per tank = X mpg". :thumbsup:

Bridgestone lists diameter of P and LT as 31.7" for each, but tread depth 12/32" vs 16/32", so I dunno.... there may be a slight difference in OD. Also great to see no significant difference in your actual fuel mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Bridgestone lists diameter of P and LT as 31.7" for each, but tread depth 12/32" vs 16/32", so I dunno.... there may be a slight difference in OD. Also great to see no significant difference in your actual fuel mileage.
Well that settles that. If that's what Bridgestone says it's probably correct.

It is still hard for me to believe that the tread depth increase comes from starting with the tire diameter slightly smaller so that after adding the extra tread they come out to be the same overall outside diameter. But I don't know squat about manufacturing a tire so I guess it's possible. You'd think they'd start with the same basic parts and build the LT one up from there - making it slightly larger. If I'm thinking correctly the 4/32" difference in tread depth would be doubled when figuring the overall increase in diameter - so it would be 8/32 or 1/2". That would explain why I'm still rubbing when most people can get away with 265-75-16 without a trim.

Go figure...
 

·
My Other Truck
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
We have similar knowledge of tire building :D and your logic makes sense to me -- that's how I imagined they might do it.
But who knows....

As to your math, however, I get 8/32" = 1/4". ;)
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top