Thanks - sounds like I’ll need new rims if I want to keep the weight down with larger tires. I think the Methods are also a couple lbs lighter than the OEM rims too so a 10.5” on Methods should be quite a bit lighter. Appreciate it -
Land Cruiser Tire Upgrades?
- Thread starter JPATTERS
- Start date
The Methods with the +35 offset and 34/10.5R17 tires looks great if that's the route your thinking of taking.
That’s what I’m leaning towards, probably the 703s with a Westcott collar lift. Assuming this combo would rub without the lift, I don’t want to trim anything (front air dam is removed already). Shame they don’t make a skinnier tire as I don’t mind the 18” OEMs.
with that size tire and offset you will have no rubbing even at full offroad articulation.
My wife calls me a tire monger, I've ran more than a few in only 10,000 miles.
Right off the bat I ditched the OEM Michelin LT Trails for 285/70R18 Toyo AT 3's.
OEM wheel - 27.5#
Mich. LT - 38# --------- Stock total weight 65.5#, 262# total
AT3 - 58# ------------- AT3 total weight 85.5#, 342# total
This netted me a +20# per corner, 80# total increase, and I noticed my pure factory approx 21.5 mpg drop to around 18.0 - 18.5.
I then almost right away removed the OEM LC wheels for Tacoma Trailhunter wheels.
OEM wheel - 27.5#
Trailhunter - 33#
AT3 - 58# ------------ AT3 + TH total weight 91#, 364# total
Another 5.5# per corner, 22# net. Overall increase from bone stock 25.5# per corner, 102# total net increase which got me down to approx 17.5 mpg.
More recently I installed Yokohama Geo. MT's, 35/12.5R18 but these were simply too big and heavy and came off after a week so I won't write them up. Replace them with although negligibly smaller 285/75R18 Yokohama Geo. MT's which I mounted on a set of SCS F5 18x9 +12 wheels which were THE lightest I could find and more than fairly priced. To note though I did add the ARB Baserack on the roof at the same time so mpg figures are skewed away from tire/wheel only changes.
285/75R18 MT - 65#
SCS F5 - 26# ----------- 285/75 MT + F5 total weight 92#, 368# total
Now with the rack and MT's (although not much heavier than the AT's they're rolling resistance is assumedly much higher) my mpg dropped to around 14.5.
I'll add in two things here; we just bought a travel trailer that will probably be near 5,200# loaded, and I'm not commuting nor driving in Western Washington's 7 months of rain on MT's, they're for fun in the hills and for looks. And yes I know that's a lot to tow with the LC, but hey, it's rated at, aka warrantied at 6,000#s lol
Finally I now have the MT SCS F5 setup and then went looking for the lightest AT I could find that didn't seem to be terrible and mounted to the Trailhunter wheels a set of Nokian Outpost NAT's in the same 285/75R18 size as even though there's the tread profile difference I didn;t want to aligning all the time.
Trailhunter - 33#
Nokian AT - 58# ---------- Nokian + Trailhunter weight 91#, 364# total.
I haven't had these on the LC for even 24 hours yet and can already tell the rolling resistance between these and the MT's is already worth some mpg's, but only maybe 1.5?? They should also be quite a bit better tow with than the MT's.
My commute is pretty messed up in the sense that it's only about 12 miles; in the am it's pretty much at freeway speeds but uphill and in the afternoon, it's downhill but only at about 30 mph so I can't capitalize on my mpg's via gravity.
I will say I have always aligned the LC after new tires and ride height adjustments, and this did help with some rubbing, but ultimately removed the crash brackets etc. and trimmed some front fender liner. I hated trimming that because it left some exposure (to nothing critical) and is a bit ugly for me because I know it's there.
I'm also working with SCS to get a second set of F5's. I looked through 68 pages of wheels on Custom Offsets today simply because of volume and the average for an 18x9 wheel is roughly 35#, and even expensive Japanese wheels like Rays, Gramlights, WedsSports etc are all still 29#-31# or more, and are averaging $600 on up. The SCS are about $1,300 for a set at 26#.
Catching my breath now!
Right off the bat I ditched the OEM Michelin LT Trails for 285/70R18 Toyo AT 3's.
OEM wheel - 27.5#
Mich. LT - 38# --------- Stock total weight 65.5#, 262# total
AT3 - 58# ------------- AT3 total weight 85.5#, 342# total
This netted me a +20# per corner, 80# total increase, and I noticed my pure factory approx 21.5 mpg drop to around 18.0 - 18.5.
I then almost right away removed the OEM LC wheels for Tacoma Trailhunter wheels.
OEM wheel - 27.5#
Trailhunter - 33#
AT3 - 58# ------------ AT3 + TH total weight 91#, 364# total
Another 5.5# per corner, 22# net. Overall increase from bone stock 25.5# per corner, 102# total net increase which got me down to approx 17.5 mpg.
More recently I installed Yokohama Geo. MT's, 35/12.5R18 but these were simply too big and heavy and came off after a week so I won't write them up. Replace them with although negligibly smaller 285/75R18 Yokohama Geo. MT's which I mounted on a set of SCS F5 18x9 +12 wheels which were THE lightest I could find and more than fairly priced. To note though I did add the ARB Baserack on the roof at the same time so mpg figures are skewed away from tire/wheel only changes.
285/75R18 MT - 65#
SCS F5 - 26# ----------- 285/75 MT + F5 total weight 92#, 368# total
Now with the rack and MT's (although not much heavier than the AT's they're rolling resistance is assumedly much higher) my mpg dropped to around 14.5.
I'll add in two things here; we just bought a travel trailer that will probably be near 5,200# loaded, and I'm not commuting nor driving in Western Washington's 7 months of rain on MT's, they're for fun in the hills and for looks. And yes I know that's a lot to tow with the LC, but hey, it's rated at, aka warrantied at 6,000#s lol
Finally I now have the MT SCS F5 setup and then went looking for the lightest AT I could find that didn't seem to be terrible and mounted to the Trailhunter wheels a set of Nokian Outpost NAT's in the same 285/75R18 size as even though there's the tread profile difference I didn;t want to aligning all the time.
Trailhunter - 33#
Nokian AT - 58# ---------- Nokian + Trailhunter weight 91#, 364# total.
I haven't had these on the LC for even 24 hours yet and can already tell the rolling resistance between these and the MT's is already worth some mpg's, but only maybe 1.5?? They should also be quite a bit better tow with than the MT's.
My commute is pretty messed up in the sense that it's only about 12 miles; in the am it's pretty much at freeway speeds but uphill and in the afternoon, it's downhill but only at about 30 mph so I can't capitalize on my mpg's via gravity.
I will say I have always aligned the LC after new tires and ride height adjustments, and this did help with some rubbing, but ultimately removed the crash brackets etc. and trimmed some front fender liner. I hated trimming that because it left some exposure (to nothing critical) and is a bit ugly for me because I know it's there.
I'm also working with SCS to get a second set of F5's. I looked through 68 pages of wheels on Custom Offsets today simply because of volume and the average for an 18x9 wheel is roughly 35#, and even expensive Japanese wheels like Rays, Gramlights, WedsSports etc are all still 29#-31# or more, and are averaging $600 on up. The SCS are about $1,300 for a set at 26#.
Catching my breath now!
I have the Stealth Custom Series FA 16 and they are 22lb and flow form so decently strong and lightweight
I haven't found anything near their weight......
Maybe some Enkei RPT1 but they are almost triple the price.
Not a bad find..
Blaze10
Get behind the wheel and ahead of the pack. The Blaze10 model was conceptualized based upon masterful engineering capabilities and classic wheel sensibilities. This next generation of the bullet hole design is created at optimal lightness, yet to be robust enough to withstand the most extreme...
www.stealthcustomseries.com
They're even in the 30# range I believe......
I’ve had my SCS FA16 for over 12k miles now and they have been great! I would highly recommend them to anyone!
Off the top of my head Gram Lights 57DR-X, Bradley V, Work Meister L1 and S1, and Advan RG-D2 are all cast and should be around 23 pounds each. There are probably some more examples from the JDM world.
Last edited:
The Gramlights in an 18x9 are 29 pounds and almost $600 each. The Works are 29 as well and almost $900 each lol
Trust me, I love the JDM wheels but not spending much when there’s lighter for a lot less.
The Gram Lights DR-X HD version is a little heavier but the regular DR-X should be right around 23-24lbs. The 57DR has been used in drifting for a long time because of its light weight and strength. It's not like other wheel manufacturers have a secret sauce that they can make even lighter cast wheels for lower prices.. If you import the cast JDM wheels directly they are USD$300-400 each + shipping.
- Jul 7, 2025
- 1,837
- Media
- 245
- 2,795
- Vehicles
- '25 LC 1958 || '25 Sequoia LTD TRD || '05 TJR || '24 Polaris Ranger 1000 Crew
I'm really late to this party since I have only just recently (past 2 weeks) begun seriously entertaining a tire upgrade. I read all 75 pages of this thread and there is some really good insight... and some that has me really fighting the urge to be contrary.
"Unsprung weight" (i.e. heavier wheels/tires) and their impact on vehicle performance (ride quality, braking distance, acceleration, suspension behavior) is thrown around in almost every corner of automotive/ATV/UTV/cycling enthusiast forums. The idea that this is the line in the sand for some people is such a head scratcher for me. I'm not an automotive engineer, but I am an engineer with a (half) mechanical focus. I understand the concept, and I am NOT going to sit here and say that it isn't a valid variable. But, it's just one variable in a system of systems that each have their own variables, and then cumulative variables in how they integrate and interoperate.
This is a 5,400lb truck... there is no way that I am going to believe that an additional 10lbs of "unsprung" weight on the corners (thinking SL vs. E load in general terms), even if dealing with rotational axis forces, is going to have a significant impact on performance. Hell, it isn't going to have a huge impact on MPG outside of situations requiring persistent periods of acceleration. What will have an impact? Those stiffer sidewalls forcing the suspension to further compensate. Those aftermarket, retro-styled wheels with weight distribution further away from the axis. Running tires at lower than required pressures because your E-load is too bouncy, creating more surface contact, and thus more friction to overcome driving down the road.
My other toy is a Polaris Ranger 1000XP crew cab. I have added about 15lbs of "unsprung" weight to the corners of that thing, and I understand the impact that can have on the whole system of systems. Even with a much more significant ratio of unsprung/sprung weight change (the vehicle weighs about 2100lbs full of gas), the impacts of that weight are only barely noticeable. Mainly, it's slower to get to speed.
Y'all are mostly pretty awesome, and I hope you don't judge me too much for failing to resist the urge to be contrary. But, after years of overland modding 4Rs, Tacos and Jeeps, 40 total pounds of additional unsprung weight is the very least of what informs my decisions. The stiff as a board, 10-ply sidewalls, however, are at the top.
"Unsprung weight" (i.e. heavier wheels/tires) and their impact on vehicle performance (ride quality, braking distance, acceleration, suspension behavior) is thrown around in almost every corner of automotive/ATV/UTV/cycling enthusiast forums. The idea that this is the line in the sand for some people is such a head scratcher for me. I'm not an automotive engineer, but I am an engineer with a (half) mechanical focus. I understand the concept, and I am NOT going to sit here and say that it isn't a valid variable. But, it's just one variable in a system of systems that each have their own variables, and then cumulative variables in how they integrate and interoperate.
This is a 5,400lb truck... there is no way that I am going to believe that an additional 10lbs of "unsprung" weight on the corners (thinking SL vs. E load in general terms), even if dealing with rotational axis forces, is going to have a significant impact on performance. Hell, it isn't going to have a huge impact on MPG outside of situations requiring persistent periods of acceleration. What will have an impact? Those stiffer sidewalls forcing the suspension to further compensate. Those aftermarket, retro-styled wheels with weight distribution further away from the axis. Running tires at lower than required pressures because your E-load is too bouncy, creating more surface contact, and thus more friction to overcome driving down the road.
My other toy is a Polaris Ranger 1000XP crew cab. I have added about 15lbs of "unsprung" weight to the corners of that thing, and I understand the impact that can have on the whole system of systems. Even with a much more significant ratio of unsprung/sprung weight change (the vehicle weighs about 2100lbs full of gas), the impacts of that weight are only barely noticeable. Mainly, it's slower to get to speed.
Y'all are mostly pretty awesome, and I hope you don't judge me too much for failing to resist the urge to be contrary. But, after years of overland modding 4Rs, Tacos and Jeeps, 40 total pounds of additional unsprung weight is the very least of what informs my decisions. The stiff as a board, 10-ply sidewalls, however, are at the top.
I'm a Mech E myself and totally agree...... On the back of a napkin it doesn't make sense that such a relatively small amount of weight causes that. There's also as you know and can imagine etc., the rubber compound, the rolling resistance of the tread pattern, and the simple cold fact that as you saw in the 75 pages, when we pull off the OEM tires and start upgrading wheels and/or tires, our MPG starts tanking (relatively speaking). I think a lot of it though, well know, that a lot of it has to do with driving "type"; steady freeway travel vs starting and stopping. Getting the mass moving takes more energy than keeping it moving.
- Jul 7, 2025
- 1,837
- Media
- 245
- 2,795
- Vehicles
- '25 LC 1958 || '25 Sequoia LTD TRD || '05 TJR || '24 Polaris Ranger 1000 Crew
I agree 100%, other tangibles like the fact that E load tires being installed on this type of vehicle are more AT-centric, thus less efficient, etc…
I got lost in my own rant. Of course there are going to be tradeoffs when increasing weight at the corners. MPGs, handling, suspension and felt response are all going to have some reaction. What I hate is the simple, oft erroneously applied statement that “I’d be concerned with adding that much unsprung weight…”. 40lbs cannot be as detrimental as implied by that statement when the denominator/consequent of that unsprung/sprung ratio is nearer to 5,000lbs. Especially when the implication is that by doing so you are risking damage or serious effect.
We’ll have to nerd out sometime. I took a job well outside of my academic credentials and don’t get much of an opportunity to flex that wrinkly muscle anymore.
Last edited:
Definitely...... I started where I'm at 11 years ago on the shop floor building airplanes, started my Mech E at 37, rolled right in to my Master's, and after about only 5 years of working as an engineer was pulled into leadership so I don't get to do much more than steer decisions anymore......
Well damn, great feedback but now what do I do? I’ve got 265 Toyo E loads on right now and I’d like something taller. I was thinking Method 703 (slightly lighter than OEM) with 34x10.5 17 in a D load for a thinner, taller, softer tire. If there was something that would work on the 18” OEM wheel, just taller (but not significantly wider), I’d stick with that.
So what do your engineering minds recommend for the best and most efficient approach to achieve a taller stance?
Also considering a Westcott collar lift as I know that would add some height, but I assume there will be a trade off with ride quality and travel.
Wish they just made the LC an inch or two taller out of the gate..
So what do your engineering minds recommend for the best and most efficient approach to achieve a taller stance?
Also considering a Westcott collar lift as I know that would add some height, but I assume there will be a trade off with ride quality and travel.
Wish they just made the LC an inch or two taller out of the gate..
- Jul 7, 2025
- 1,837
- Media
- 245
- 2,795
- Vehicles
- '25 LC 1958 || '25 Sequoia LTD TRD || '05 TJR || '24 Polaris Ranger 1000 Crew
It’s all a matter of what you’re willing to sacrifice in pursuit of static appearance or baseline constant. There are always ways to make complete changes to a system by completely replacing subsystems, but I assume your question is consistent with not spending $10-20k to make permanent modifications.
285/70R18 will get you really close to 34” and just over 11” in width. The 285/75 will get you over 34” with the same width. One will articulate with no issue, the other may require some work.
I’ve done all of the various lift types over the years. I’ll never recommend blocks, spacers and collars, but understand their appeal. My opinion: Spend the extra money and do it as close to right as possible with replacement coil overs. These TRD Pro and TH replacements are intriguing, but I’d research the things reputable overlanders are saying in critique of the TH OME weight limitations (specifically in the rear).
I’m having 275/70 Terra Graps installed in SL, keeping my 1958 wheels until I can stash cash to source some Rays. IMO engineering brained opinion, as it applies to my own ride, I do not intend to achieve any lift at the springs/shocks. I do intend to get some 0 lift Bilsteins. For every inch of lift you get at the springs, you lose that inch in inverse travel.
