Made the tire downsize from 35" to 33"

[TheMightyGoose]

Long ago (like in the 2000s), standard tire sizes for Land Cruisers and Land Rover Discoveries were 29-31".

Those trucks went just about everywhere, and it was a big deal to up grade to 33-34", and was generally only required for more technical off-roading, or for rock crawling. For >35" you were basically redoing the entire suspension design.

Today, everyone thinks they need 35" tires to even take it out of the mall parking lot.

Best bet is to use it as is, and then figure out if you need to go through the expense and hassle of lifting/bigger tires. You can go a lot of places on 33" tires, if you know how to drive/pick your lines.

. Toyota gave us 32.6” tires. Thats pretty good for a stock 4x4. When we were in the Eastern Sierras, the stock LC outperformed several heavily modified Tacos and T4Rs. But I think 90+% of modifications are for looks, not capability. Which is totally cool. People should have a car they like to look at. But justifying it as a “need” can be rather pointless.

 

[SGaynor]

. Toyota gave us 32.6” tires. Thats pretty good for a stock 4x4. When we were in the Eastern Sierras, the stock LC outperformed several heavily modified Tacos and T4Rs. But I think 90+% of modifications are for looks, not capability. Which is totally cool. People should have a car they like to look at. But justifying it as a “need” can be rather pointless.

I agree.

If someone wants bigger tires for looks - have at it. But own it. It seems a lot of people insist on making a justification based on off-road ability when it's simply looks.

Criticizing the fact that the ground clearance is only 8.7" or needing a 2" lift and 35" tires to overland (basically dirt roads) is a bit much, and seen quite often on here (and other forums).

Having had a Land Rover Disco and a Taco for 20+ years (and a Colorado for the last five), I was thinking a 2" lift and 33" tires would be in the mix when I started looking into the new Land Cruisers. And then I learned they already came with 33s (basically). The lift is on hold until I figure out if I really need it (for the light off-roading I do these days). Or until I hit 100k miles and need to refresh the suspension...but then it would be for looks.

ETA: One thing I learned in the Land Rover community when the Disco IIs were 15 years old and cheap - people would complain that they couldn't easily put 35" on them to rock crawl. The Disco, and IMO, the Land Cruiser, was/is like a Swiss Army Knife - good at lots of things, not great at any one thing. It's gets you places that you can't easily get to, but in comfort and style (as opposed to a leaking soft top Jeep). Heated/cooled seats, decent sound, comfort, drivability, is a premium for me over the ability to rock crawl. But then again, I'm old(er). YMMV.

 

[TheMightyGoose]

I agree.

If someone wants bigger tires for looks - have at it. But own it. It seems a lot of people insist on making a justification based on off-road ability when it's simply looks.

Criticizing the fact that the ground clearance is only 8.7" or needing a 2" lift and 35" tires to overland (basically dirt roads) is a bit much, and seen quite often on here (and other forums).

Having had a Land Rover Disco and a Taco for 20+ years (and a Colorado for the last five), I was thinking a 2" lift and 33" tires would be in the mix when I started looking into the new Land Cruisers. And then I learned they already came with 33s (basically). The lift is on hold until I figure out if I really need it (for the light off-roading I do these days). Or until I hit 100k miles and need to refresh the suspension...but then it would be for looks.

That disconnecting sway bar adds a tremendous amount of capability to the platform. It's really impressive what a stock LC250 is capable of.

 

[MSINAL]

I think I looked at tires until my head was spinning!
yes I considered this size but here was my thinking....I like Toyo and also read good things about this EV tire which I did not see in 285/70. But I was also focused on width, weight, as well as diameter. The 285 is a little wider than my ideal and somewhere around .3" to .5" larger in diameter. Its funny how the diameter seems to be hard to pin down exactly - there is some variance depending on who is telling you and what web-site you are using.

Then there's the pressures you run on thrown in the mix, adding to the headspin. Do you run low pressure for less diameter and more resistance (&comfort), or do you increase the psi to reduce rolling resistance but increase diameter? No win scenario for street mpg and mechanical sympathy for powertrain.

 

[42-77]

Diameter formula: 285/70 R18 example
285mm x .70 = 199.5mm (7.85 inches)
7.85 x 2 + 18 = 33.7 inches

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Hmm, as much as the tire touching the ground flattens, that air goes somewhere......I would doubt one will actually measure different OD with different pressures......unless so high there was true expansion and no compression underneath....yikes! Like a drag tire.

 

[SGaynor]

That disconnecting sway bar adds a tremendous amount of capability to the platform. It's really impressive what a stock LC250 is capable of.

That and the locking center/rear diffs were the selling points for me.

Pretty sure I'm not getting stuck in any snow...Ever.

 

[D-mac]

Hmm, as much as the tire touching the ground flattens, that air goes somewhere......I would doubt one will actually measure different OD with different pressures......unless so high there was true expansion and no compression underneath....yikes! Like a drag tire.

On pre-TPMS vehicles, spare tires are sometimes deflated to fit into smaller spaces like the stock spare wheel wells.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

??? I think we were discussing rolling OD????