285s and a small 2" lift is ideal for an all around setup, gets you some increased lift, some extra clearance with the tires, and some better looks as well. Its much cheaper to do, and much cheaper to drive. My suburban is sitting on 265s now on stock steel wheels. I am keeping the wheels but adding spacers to get them out of the fenders more, adding 285 bfg at's and putting the supreme 2.5" lift on. I will have the looks, functionality an capability I am wanting in my big family rig. Good Luck.
Suburban Opinions Please
- Thread starter Judoka
- Start date
justcuz
Explorer
Another thing to consider is if you keep the lift low, you can ditch the front sway bar which will increase articulation.
A set of gas charged shocks and low lift will allow you to hang the front sway bar in the garage.
My 285/75x16's are 32.8 inches tall installed on the vehicle. 255/85x16's are a nice option too. Look at the 2014 expo pictures and find Lances 3 door Suburban. He has a 2.5 to 3 " lift with 255/85 x16's.
A set of gas charged shocks and low lift will allow you to hang the front sway bar in the garage.
My 285/75x16's are 32.8 inches tall installed on the vehicle. 255/85x16's are a nice option too. Look at the 2014 expo pictures and find Lances 3 door Suburban. He has a 2.5 to 3 " lift with 255/85 x16's.
Erik N
Adventurer
Re the 285's. Yes, that is an option, I run those on my '96 Burb. The 285's make the truck feel like clown shoes, they are wide and hit every bump in the road. They work good for floatation in soft sand (why I run them) but that's about it IMO.
The 255's on my '88 are better for general wheeling IMO. Don't know how much sand you encounter, but for rocks etc the narrower tire is better.
There is a thread here somewhere that talks about aired down 255's being better in the fluff as they get a longer (as opposed to wider) footprint. I have not gone thru much sand in the '88 so I can't comment w/ experience.
The 255's on my '88 are better for general wheeling IMO. Don't know how much sand you encounter, but for rocks etc the narrower tire is better.
There is a thread here somewhere that talks about aired down 255's being better in the fluff as they get a longer (as opposed to wider) footprint. I have not gone thru much sand in the '88 so I can't comment w/ experience.
Attachments
justcuz
Explorer
I use them pretty much all around.
My 1993 has Yokohama Geolanders and my 2000 has Falken Rocky Mountain AT's.
Neither tire has a very aggressive tread, however in the past I have run MT's and a BFG style AT tread and I did find there road manners more likely to follow rain grooves etc.
My 1973 is being redone and will go from 12.00x16.5's to something more civilized. Probably 255/85x16's on some forged Alcoa F-350 wheels.
My 1993 has Yokohama Geolanders and my 2000 has Falken Rocky Mountain AT's.
Neither tire has a very aggressive tread, however in the past I have run MT's and a BFG style AT tread and I did find there road manners more likely to follow rain grooves etc.
My 1973 is being redone and will go from 12.00x16.5's to something more civilized. Probably 255/85x16's on some forged Alcoa F-350 wheels.
chilliwak
Expedition Leader
Here is a look at my front springs from BDS. They have a 2 inch lift over stock and have way better flex due to the fact that they are not the flat 0 arch rate of stock springs...
Dual front shock set-up is Bilstein 5100s installed on the stock mounts with a lengthened bolt....
Rear springs are high arc 6 inch lift with Bilstein 5150s installed with a Helwig anti sway bar for my huge canopy...
Seen here with the extended linkage for the sway bar. I have no blocks in the rear....
Dual front shock set-up is Bilstein 5100s installed on the stock mounts with a lengthened bolt....
Rear springs are high arc 6 inch lift with Bilstein 5150s installed with a Helwig anti sway bar for my huge canopy...
Seen here with the extended linkage for the sway bar. I have no blocks in the rear....