why 33s and not 32s?

[kpla51]

So im building my truck and can afford to do the 235/85r16s with out any modifications and i doubt 1 inch more of tire from stock will effect it enough for a re gear. If i want 33s ill have to buy a lift and would like to re gear so I'm looking at a lot more money just to run 33s. Is there that significant of a difference from 32s to 33s? I like the idea of the smaller diameter for mpg and less modding but don't want to waste the money when i can get 33s for the same price. should i save up the extra money? Any help would be appreciated.

I have a 2015 ac 4x4 2.7l with 4.10 gears.

 

[TEC3]

I am not sure it really makes that big of difference. I have run 33's on my Jeep that is 2.5l with 4.10 gears. I can still cruise on the hwy with them. I am currently running 31's but will be going back to 33's with out issue once I get the funds.

This may help. I don't believe it is Jeep specific, it should be at least in the ball park for Toyotas.

 

[Applejack]

I run 265/75/16's, pretty much a 32" tire, and they suite me just fine. I've had 285's (33's) and my 4runner doesn't like the added weight so much. There is no place that my 285's got me that my 265's can't. But that's just me.

 

[Wasatch]

I have ran both 255/85/16 and then 2 sets of 235/85/16's

255's are quite bigger, but if you don't require the clearance 235's are a great tire size for the 2.7 (I had an '07 2.7 RC).

235's do not require it, whereas 255's had me seriously considering a re-gear, but I decided to buy 235's instead.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[kpla51]

I'm just trying to be more wise this time around. I had 33s on my jeep and with 3:73s it was sluggish and I didn't like it. I spend most of my time on road but I do go off road often since I hunt and ride dirt bikes. I also did a lot of trails in my jeep and plan to do the same in my truck. This is my first expedition style build and I like the pizza cutter style tires. Just don't know if an inch bigger tire helps ground clearance to the point where I'd regret the 32s. Thanks for the replies guys.

 

[KJP]

I just put 265/70/17's on my Tacoma, and after driving it I won't go any bigger without a regear (its a 4.0, but the idea is the same when jumping more than one tire size). Take another route, do the 32's and save some money for skid plates and rock sliders.

 

[Adventurous]

I'll have to report back in a few weeks. I had 265/75R16s on my prior Tacoma with the 4.0 and I have a set of 255/85s sitting in the garage waiting to be put on. I'm curious to see the difference, if anything the 255s feel a few lbs lighter...

 

[plainjaneFJC]

32's are fine. I have a lift on my fjc, but my tires really only measure out to 32". Never been a problem for me. It will go everywhere I would want to take it.

 

[stolz]

32 is forever greater than noobs with 33s

 

[Mike368]

I ran 295/75r16 on my '98 2.7 extra cab. Ran all over the NW and Cali usually with 2-3 dirt bikes in it, driving on the highway gearing was fine. Gearing was also good in snow, dirt roads, mud, in sand it was fantastic. The only time I felt that it needed regeared would be rock crawling.

 

[Elk]

I have run both tire sizes on my 4.0 second gen. I have a set of BFG AT's in 265/70r16 and another in 285/70/17. My truck has an OME 3" lift and some other goodies. I find that acceleration lags a bit on the 285's, but not to the point of being alarming, merely noticeable. I realize that we are running a different engine and gearing.

With stock 245/65r16's my truck averaged 310 miles per tank (Cooper AT3's prior to lift, and a spectacular tire). With a roof top tent and bedrack, I could go 265 miles on 32's and 255 miles on 33's per tank.

Running 285's requires me to use FJ wheels and I still rub at full lock with Light Racing Upper arms. I have no rubbing issues at all on 265's.

The heavier 33 causes my suspension to feel a little more harsh on washboard surfaces (or let's be honest - speed bumps).

For real world applications, the 32 is my pick for a superior tire. The 33's look great but I wouldn't buy this width again. They were a worthwhile $100 Craigslist purchase, but I wouldn't waste $1000 at full retail for them.

 

[Mertens]

265/75r16 at 32's will be extremely similar to 255/85r16's

Both of those have nearly the same rotating mass. You will notice a slight difference in speedometer reading but in a drag race both sizes would yield similar results. However stepping up to 285's and increasing diameter and rotating mass would be a very noticeable increase.

My 2 cents, go with 265/75R16's. It's the most commonly found tire size no matter where you go. And for me to hit any obstacles bigger than what I can do in those, I think lockers would come before tires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paddy]

33's are better than 32's for the same reason 35's are better than 33's. In the muddy, rutted NW size matters. Rolling diameter matters. Ground clearance and tip over matters. So, while 27's can be quite capable, the best tire for my rig is the biggest one I care to make fit.

Anyone who has been around hillbillies wheeling learns this purdy quick.

Btw I had 33's on the 2.7 in my 2012 and it was pretty hard to drive with the 4.10's. I went to 4.88's and love it, but I'm stuck with 33's + now haha. My toyo 255/85-16 muddies are measuring 33.5" in real life. The 285/75 in same tire was around 32.75"

 

[Ryanmb21]

I roll 32s, I find them to be perfect.

 

[kpla51]

So the 235/85r16 should have about the same rotating mass as my stock tires since their skinnier? Stock I belive are 255/70/16s