Second Generation Nissan Xterra Forums banner
21 - 23 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
2014 Metallic Blue X
Joined
·
52 Posts
I'm running Motegi MR150s @ 21.5lbs per rim and Nitto Trail Grappler G2s P rated with the following specs: Size 285/70R17 116T, Load [email protected], and Weigh 45.26lbs per tire. Overall I'm not too much heavier than the stock rim/tire set up and still get 20+mpg on the highway and 15+ in town as long as my wife doesn't drive too much. This combo held up well to a few days of wheeling in Colorado over the Labor Day weekend last year including Poughkeepsie Gulch @ street pressure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lowcountry idn

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,333 Posts
Yup, 17s are more and more popular on newer vehicles... ESPECIALLY compared to 16s.
But mainly, 285/70r17 is the stock size on Rubicons... so you start to see lots of offerings in that specific size.
That's also why you start to see some in that size, but less than E rated. The only hiccup is that so many people don't mind the added E (or feel its a benefit to them), that tire companies don't have a huge draw to make a tire that's lower duty, in the same size that a larger truck wouldn't be able use.

I wonder if the tire mfg's actually have some legal liability concerns about making large truck sized tires in ratings that arent sufficient for the vehicles that may be using them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
This discussion got me thinking and I looked up some numbers. If I had to do it all over again, and had a bigger budget, I probably would go to 17" rims to give me more options than E-rated LT tires. The 285/75R16 E's I have on my stock OR rims are stiff, heavy, and my mileage did decrease. But they are extremely beefy and have handled everything I've thrown at them. BUT a C load rating is more in line with what the Xterras weigh and does result in substantial unsprung weight savings, potentially. And the cost is only slightly higher it seems going from 16 to 17 rims nowadays. For comparison using BFGoodrich KO2s at load C, versus E vs stock Rugged Trails, numbers rounded from what I've seen listed on this site, or manufacturers sites:

Stock OR 16 x 7 wheels w/ OEM Rugged Trails total weight = 66 lbs (265/75/R16 P)
Stock OR 16 x 7 wheels w/33" KO2s in Load Range E = 85 lbs
Stock steel wheels 16 x 7 w/ OEM Rugged Trails total weight = 89 lbs
Stock Steel wheels 16 x 7 w/33" KO2s in Load Range E = 101 lbs (285/75/R16 E)
NISMO 17" x 7.5 wheels w/33" KO2s in Load Range C = 74.8 lbs (285/70/R17 C)
NISMO 17" x 7.5 wheels w/33" KO2s in Load Range E = 82 lbs (285/70/R17 E)

The MSRP cost difference between 33" KO2s in 16 vs 17" rims when I looked it up was only $251 vs $267 each, in load E and C, respectively. For E and E, it's $251 vs $278. But then you have to buy 4-5 wheels on top of that.

You can also shave off a few pounds of weight going with NISMO or other alloy wheels. Going from a P-rated OEM tire/wheel combo to a 17" LT-C rated tire/wheel combo might only increase the weight by 9-10 lbs. And "officially" 285s usually require 7.5" rim width, versus 7" that the stock wheels have but we run anyways. And it's pretty obvious why running steel wheels and heavy, bigger LT tires kills gas mileage and noticably impacts the ride--you can easily exceed 100 pounds on each corner unsprung weight.
 
21 - 23 of 23 Posts
Top