I am planning on using a 265 70or 75 r16. In a mud terrain. Will there be any issues with rubing or should I add 2 inch spacers to slightly raise my disco?
And if they don't fit what do you guys recommend. Thanks.

 

They will rub even with a lift, you will need a 2" spring lift plus a camel cut to rear guards as well as adjustment of the steering stops so tyres wont rub on the radius arms.
If you want to stay stock then 245/70 or 245/75 are a perfect fit and wont throw the speedo out.

 

So a 245 with 2 inch spacers.

 

245/75 works well enough with just 2 inch spacers. I've had this setup with KM2's myself and confirm it works.

I would think 225/75 might work well without the spacers, and you could get that with KO2's.

The 75's handle very nice. I have 85's now which have awesome traction when you air them down, but probably don't handle as nice as the 45's at speed. I would think the 70's would have lower traction still. In my experience, wide tires don't give good traction compared to high profile tires that can be aired down. The long contact patch and the longitudinal flex in the sidewall grip strong.

For me, the 245/75 is probably the best tire I've ever had. It's perfect for an overland vehicle. Offroad, the Rover is too long and too wide for that tire to give good clearance for difficult obstacles. I went up to a 255/85 with a lift but there is a tradeoff, and even now it is not really an "Ultimate Adventure" vehicle (there was a P38 in UA 2015 though). A vehicle the size of the Rover needs the kind of big tires you see on the Jeeps to do the hard obstacles. It would need 37's or 40's to clear the differentials and give enough break-over angle for the 100 inch wheelbase. But those tires have a big penalty. Their weight is punishing in many ways. Their cost is also impractical. So, you'll have better success with your build if you keep your goal closer to stock. It's not about lowering your criteria, but seeing the value of a different goal.

 

Tool long ? rovers are shorter and narrower than all but a suzuki.
Spacers are crap, get decent springs.

 

Some good profile recommendations for a mud environment. Wider/lower has it's place on road or drier conditions but M&S is different.

.....

 

Great now I'm so confused cus the tire guy was like oh you can put 33s no problem! And I was like WTF are you crazy!

 

I have 33's on a 3 inch lift and wheel spacers and they rub. I had to do the "camel cut" for sure, but they still rub the back of the wheel well in the rear, and they rub the radius arms in the front but can be blocked with the stops on the knuckles. Without the wheel spacers, you lose even more turn radius, and you will rub the spring perches in the rear.

As for the Rovers being long and wide, what I'm saying is they're too long and wide for good obstacle clearance with 31-33" tires. A 2-door JK has a shorter 95" wheelbase and fits 37 to 42" tires with a lift kit. There's no comparison on approach, longitudinal break-over, and departure angles. It's true the JK's track is a bit wider, but with the much taller tires, the lateral break-over angle under the differential is still better. A lifted JK isn't by any means the best rock crawler, but my point is that 31-33" tires on a full-size, full-body car isn't good for offroading over challenging obstacles. They might work better on an older 80" Jeep or SxS-sized tube frame crawler. Maybe it's a daft point to try to make, but look at Ultimate Adventure 2015 on Youtube. They had a Rover in it for the first time this last year, and it has as big a tires as 99% of the Rovers out there. Still it obviously performed by far the worst of all the vehicles except on the road portions. Most of this was down to tire size. UA used to have a minimum 37" tire size requirement. The kind of vehicles and wheeling in UA are popular, and the fact that a Rover participated shows that Rover people consider their vehicles part of that scene. Even in my local clubs and meet-ups, most of the vehicles are running 37-42" tires.

Here: http://www.fourwheeler.com/ultimate-...or-4x4-fiends/

There's plenty of shots of the Rover in there. Read the text too. They call it an "underdog" and an "easy target" (for jokes). Yes, it did well (considering), but if big knobbies are your goal, the Rover is the wrong platform. It wasn't the OP's question, but whenever I see someone trying to fit the biggest tire size possible, that's what I think. For a person with a Rover, my advice is not just to get over tire-envy, but to set a different goal (or get a different vehicle).

The problem with replacing the springs to lift a Rover is they are invariably too stiff. The spacers are far from ideal, but they allow one to keep the lower stock spring rates that actually allow some flex. The OME and Terrafirma springs lift the truck to fit bigger tires, but don't flex very well. They're aimed at more at people with tire envy than people that actually want to make the vehicle work well. I don't know which is worse. The best bet is to get proper spring rates and tires that fit.

 

Salesmanship at it's......

......

 

So here's what I decided I'm going with a 235 85 r16, big all terrain with 2 inch lift. Good enough for mild off roading and trail riding.