Second Generation Nissan Xterra Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
on line
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What are the pro's and con's of each? The 285's measure a bit smaller at 32.8" than do the 255's at 33.1" but 3/10 of an inch is fairly insignificant. I wonder about the width of the contact patch and the differences it would make for on and off road handling, gas consumption, and tread life. Which tire size would be better suited for dry rocky trails (where I spend most of my off road time), mud, wet forrest trails, sand, rock crawling, snow, ect??? Any other pro's and con's?
 

·
on line
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
you just listed about every type of terrain to wheel in. Unfortunately there is not one single tire that will do best in ALL of those conditions. First of all, tire size will not be as important as type. For mud, rocks, snow, mud terrain tires work very well. In sand an all terrain tire will work better. Now, size will also be a factor depending on environment. In mud, snow...you want to dig down and get traction, so a thinner tire will be great (255/85). In sandy conditions you want to kinda float on top of the sand, so a wider tire will be better (285/75).

I have 255/85 and i've wheeled with people with wider tires, honestly, in everything but sandy conditions there was really not much of a difference in the ability of the truck to make it through the terrain. In sand, my thinner tires just don't do well (that's loose sand, packed sand it's fine).

the ultimate decision is up to you, but you'll have to weight what you wheel in most and what type and size tire you feel you'll benefit most from.

oh, and gas comsumption will suck with either of those sizes.
 

·
on line
Joined
·
896 Posts
I think another point is that in the 255 size there aren't a lot of all-terrain tires in that size, most will be mud terrain, but 285's you'll have more of a selection in all-terrain and mud tires
 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yup, I was really trying to stimulate some discussion for general information. Personally I'd probably go with another set of all terrain tires because I spend a lot of time on the pavement, but I think a lot of folks in our X's have to make this decision when they are ready to step up to ~33's so it would be nice to have some of experienced user's thoughts about our 2 main choices in a thread.
 

·
on line
Joined
·
735 Posts
the skinny tires are probably lighter and perhaps the brakes will work better with less mass spinning. A lot of terrain in the southwest (where the mud/snow isn't bottomless) respond well to tires that dig down to hard pack.
 

·
on line
Joined
·
259 Posts
mike100 said:
the skinny tires are probably lighter and perhaps the brakes will work better with less mass spinning. A lot of terrain in the southwest (where the mud/snow isn't bottomless) respond well to tires that dig down to hard pack.
Not necessarily, tire weight is more dependent on number of plys, load range, etc. than the tire size itself.

I am a big fan of 255/85's (even though I bought 265/75 AT KO's for communing reasons).

I actually like this one.

 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
I went from a 285/75R16 Bridgestone Dueler Revo all season to a 255/85R16 Interco TrXus mud terrain. The tread and rubber compound made a much bigger difference than the size. The diameters were almost identical, as were the weights, but the TrXus are narrower. I now get better traction off-road, but crappy gas mileage on (at least around town).
 

·
on line
Joined
·
807 Posts
I love me some skinny tires!
 

·
on line
Joined
·
2,248 Posts
Cruiser said:
What are the pro's and con's of each? The 285's measure a bit smaller at 32.8" than do the 255's at 33.1" but 3/10 of an inch is fairly insignificant.
Keep in mind that those measurements are going to vary between manufacturer. A lot of 285/75s measure a true 33.0 in diameter. Also I've seen some 255/85s that measure 33.3 or bigger...
 

·
on line
Joined
·
564 Posts
Here's a very thorough article concerning the advantages of a narrower tire.


Rob
 

·
on line
Joined
·
807 Posts
buxwheat said:
How about the 255 85 16 Cooper Discoverer S/T? Anybody tried these yet?
I researched those before I bought my Maxxis Bighorns. The S/T's have a ridiculously low speed rating, I forget what it is, but it was certainly too low for me to feel comfortable with on a daily driver.
 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,792 Posts
While people are mentioning tires, let me just put in a good word for Pro Comp's new Xtreme MTs. My friend and I both have them on our Xs in the 285 size and they are fantastic. Very good road manners, quieter than the BFG MT; excellent off road, surprisingly good in soft sand. Look great. The 285s weigh a reasonable 58 lbs, Load Range D. They're modeled on the comparable Toyos, but at 68 lbs for the 285s the Toyos are too heavy for our truck, IMO.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
656 Posts
stevet47 said:
The S/T's have a ridiculously low speed rating, I forget what it is, but it was certainly too low for me to feel comfortable with on a daily driver.
What is the speed rating of the S/T's? Is it 'N'? BFG's KM's are Q and I found a Dunlop Radial Rover RVXT that is R rated. Also, the Coopers are available as 255/85 only as an LT, but the 265/75 do not carry that designation and are S rated, I think. Someone jump in and let me know if this is correct and why the LT version would have such a low speed rating.

I think I'm going to take the Coopers off my list if they are N rated. Now I need to know if anyone has had experience with the Dunlops.
 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,864 Posts
:clown: The ARMY, got all the way thru WW11 and KOREA with skinny 8/10 ply MT's--

--But, I ain't in the ARMY !!!

-- :geek: :geek: --JIMBO
 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
buxwheat said:
stevet47 said:
I think I'm going to take the Coopers off my list if they are N rated. Now I need to know if anyone has had experience with the Dunlops.
Since no one else has commented about the Radial Rover RVXTs, I thought I would. I did not have them on an X, but did have a set on a GMC Canyon for a couple of years. To me they are kind of pushing it as an "AT" tire. They were great on the road and on gravel back roads, but were not so great for traction on trails, in mud, or on ice/snow. Not a very aggressive tread. So I guess it depends on what you are primarily looking for in terms of function, but I won't buy a set again. Just my $0.02.
 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
JIMBO said:
:clown: The ARMY, got all the way thru WW11 and KOREA with skinny 8/10 ply MT's--

--But, I ain't in the ARMY !!!

-- :geek: :geek: --JIMBO
WHAT!!??? World War Eleven!!!! when were the other 8?? :bounce: :cyclopsani:
 

·
on line
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
JIMBO said:
:clown: The ARMY, got all the way thru WW11 and KOREA with skinny 8/10 ply MT's--

--But, I ain't in the ARMY !!!

-- :geek: :geek: --JIMBO
WHAT!!??? World War Eleven!!!! when were the other 8?? :bounce: :cyclopsani:
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top