tire gurus
#1
tire gurus
i have been trying understand the difference in tire sizing from say a 265/60/20 and a 33x11.5 20
at what point do you move to the actual move to US inch measurement
looking for a new set of tires. saw a pic of a defender running the 33x11.5x 20. it looks similar to a 265/60/20 and the tire manufacture has both sizes
no matter what it looks like i will need a decent size lift to fit them and a conservative offset
any help would be appreciated
at what point do you move to the actual move to US inch measurement
looking for a new set of tires. saw a pic of a defender running the 33x11.5x 20. it looks similar to a 265/60/20 and the tire manufacture has both sizes
no matter what it looks like i will need a decent size lift to fit them and a conservative offset
any help would be appreciated
#2
I would recommend playing around with a tire calculator such as: tiresize.com/calculator/. There are many others out there if this one isn't your jam. Start with the OEM size of 255/60-R20 (32"x10", 6" sidewall) and go from there. When you get one you like, do a search for it against the No Lift - No Rub pinned thread and see if others have problems with it. With the size you are listing, you will get a 1/2" more diameter and .2" more width (in each direction but the in-bound is the concern). Not sure if others have had issues with it, but I hear that the width has challenged more sizes than the diameter so you may be on the wide side. But nothing that a 25/30mm spacer shouldn't handle (if you don't mind those, there are plenty of threads re: pros/cons). I'm no tire expert, but I would expect the 33 x 11.5 would be significantly larger than the 265/60-R20. Likely 1/2" more diameter and 1/2" more total width.
FWIW - @rirealtor fit the 265/60-R20 with no rub, no mods on BFG K02s. PM him w/ Q's.
FWIW - @rirealtor fit the 265/60-R20 with no rub, no mods on BFG K02s. PM him w/ Q's.
#3
thanks for the response.
although concerned about fitment i was more asking the general question of when tire sizing switches to different classification
it’s really confusing
although concerned about fitment i was more asking the general question of when tire sizing switches to different classification
it’s really confusing
I would recommend playing around with a tire calculator such as: tiresize.com/calculator/. There are many others out there if this one isn't your jam. Start with the OEM size of 255/60-R20 (32"x10", 6" sidewall) and go from there. When you get one you like, do a search for it against the No Lift - No Rub pinned thread and see if others have problems with it. With the size you are listing, you will get a 1/2" more diameter and .2" more width (in each direction but the in-bound is the concern). Not sure if others have had issues with it, but I hear that the width has challenged more sizes than the diameter so you may be on the wide side. But nothing that a 25/30mm spacer shouldn't handle (if you don't mind those, there are plenty of threads re: pros/cons). I'm no tire expert, but I would expect the 33 x 11.5 would be significantly larger than the 265/60-R20. Likely 1/2" more diameter and 1/2" more total width.
FWIW - @rirealtor fit the 265/60-R20 with no rub, no mods on BFG K02s. PM him w/ Q's.
FWIW - @rirealtor fit the 265/60-R20 with no rub, no mods on BFG K02s. PM him w/ Q's.
#4
In that case, I'm clueless!<g> I really don't know the tipping point. I always thought of them as off-road vs. on-road standards, but I'm certainly not the expert. I thought this was interesting, but it doesn't settle things beyond that:
https://www.carid.com/articles/under...surements.html
https://www.carid.com/articles/under...surements.html
#5
There’s not a place it definitely changes over, other than I think all 37s and up are given in US inch sizes. But some 35s are actually 315/75-17s, for instance, some 34s are 285/75-17s, but others are 35x12.5 or 34x11, etc. By the time you get down to 33” (and smaller) it’s more common to find the metric sizing, but there are plenty of 33s quoted as 33x whatever.
The formula is [(255 x .60) x 2]/25.4 + 20, where 255 is the metric width, .60 is the aspect ratio, the “2” is because you have a sidewall above and below the wheel, and the 25.4 is the inches-to-mm conversion. That gives you the combined height of both sidewalls. Then you add the wheel width (20” in this case) and you have the total tire height.
Unfortunately, that number is ALWAYS wishful thinking. Even if the manufacturer actually delivers a tire as tall as the nominal spec says (whether metric or SAE sizing), that is unmounted. When you mount it it gets shorter because you’re spreading the beads a little and that pulls the tread inward. Then when you put 6000# of truck on it it gets shorter still. Once mounted, for instance, a 35” tire typically will be 33.25 to 33.5.
Sorry if you already know all of this. Not trying to be pedantic.
The formula is [(255 x .60) x 2]/25.4 + 20, where 255 is the metric width, .60 is the aspect ratio, the “2” is because you have a sidewall above and below the wheel, and the 25.4 is the inches-to-mm conversion. That gives you the combined height of both sidewalls. Then you add the wheel width (20” in this case) and you have the total tire height.
Unfortunately, that number is ALWAYS wishful thinking. Even if the manufacturer actually delivers a tire as tall as the nominal spec says (whether metric or SAE sizing), that is unmounted. When you mount it it gets shorter because you’re spreading the beads a little and that pulls the tread inward. Then when you put 6000# of truck on it it gets shorter still. Once mounted, for instance, a 35” tire typically will be 33.25 to 33.5.
Sorry if you already know all of this. Not trying to be pedantic.
#6
this very helpful.
There’s not a place it definitely changes over, other than I think all 37s and up are given in US inch sizes. But some 35s are actually 315/75-17s, for instance, some 34s are 285/75-17s, but others are 35x12.5 or 34x11, etc. By the time you get down to 33” (and smaller) it’s more common to find the metric sizing, but there are plenty of 33s quoted as 33x whatever.
The formula is [(255 x .60) x 2]/25.4 + 20, where 255 is the metric width, .60 is the aspect ratio, the “2” is because you have a sidewall above and below the wheel, and the 25.4 is the inches-to-mm conversion. That gives you the combined height of both sidewalls. Then you add the wheel width (20” in this case) and you have the total tire height.
Unfortunately, that number is ALWAYS wishful thinking. Even if the manufacturer actually delivers a tire as tall as the nominal spec says (whether metric or SAE sizing), that is unmounted. When you mount it it gets shorter because you’re spreading the beads a little and that pulls the tread inward. Then when you put 6000# of truck on it it gets shorter still. Once mounted, for instance, a 35” tire typically will be 33.25 to 33.5.
Sorry if you already know all of this. Not trying to be pedantic.
The formula is [(255 x .60) x 2]/25.4 + 20, where 255 is the metric width, .60 is the aspect ratio, the “2” is because you have a sidewall above and below the wheel, and the 25.4 is the inches-to-mm conversion. That gives you the combined height of both sidewalls. Then you add the wheel width (20” in this case) and you have the total tire height.
Unfortunately, that number is ALWAYS wishful thinking. Even if the manufacturer actually delivers a tire as tall as the nominal spec says (whether metric or SAE sizing), that is unmounted. When you mount it it gets shorter because you’re spreading the beads a little and that pulls the tread inward. Then when you put 6000# of truck on it it gets shorter still. Once mounted, for instance, a 35” tire typically will be 33.25 to 33.5.
Sorry if you already know all of this. Not trying to be pedantic.
#7
As a V8 owner, this version should of sound wayyyy louder and much more aggressive. Very disappointed here .
Here's other changes I would like to see:
* The rear chrome exhaust tips is truly embarrassing for a vehicle of this price. Feels like they forgot that part when designing it.
* Dynamic mode shouldn't have to be reselected every time you turn off the car. Very annoying.
* With the Air suspension, you should be able to drive at faster speed on the lower setting.
Here's other changes I would like to see:
* The rear chrome exhaust tips is truly embarrassing for a vehicle of this price. Feels like they forgot that part when designing it.
* Dynamic mode shouldn't have to be reselected every time you turn off the car. Very annoying.
* With the Air suspension, you should be able to drive at faster speed on the lower setting.
#8
Solution:
https://landroverforums.com/forum/20...roller-106539/
Just bought and received one from Graeme, not installed yet.
https://landroverforums.com/forum/20...roller-106539/
Just bought and received one from Graeme, not installed yet.
Last edited by Defendit..; 07-02-2022 at 07:08 AM.
#9
It's already been said a lot in this thread, but as a 90X owner (love the car), not being able to get down to at least an 18" wheel is so unbelievably frustrating. If landy don't sort it asap I'm hoping someone comes out with an aftermarket brake disc/calliper setup that's been signed off so we can get some off-road wheels on these beasts. Mine came with the air compressor too, what a terrible joke.
#10