↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home > Wheels & Tyres > Another tire question..
Post Reply  Down to end
Page 1 of 2 12>
Print this entire topic · 
Landie Boy



Member Since: 14 Jan 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 431

United Kingdom 2010 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Stornoway Grey
Another tire question..
Hi,

I know this topic has been covered in detail but the one thing that always appears is that the person wants one with reasonably street performance for daily use.

Me and my dad are looking at getting another set of tires + alloys/steel, this set would only be used when we were planning to go off road in the 110. So we are not really worried about road noise etc... We would want a tire that is good in mud and capable on rocks to, I know the KM2 and STT will be mentioned but we were wondering what people would recommend now road performance isn't really a issue? We don't want to put simexs on because we could easily turn up the ground and cause problems for other etc... we were ideally thinking 265/75/16.

Thanks Jack
Post #84100 12th Aug 2011 6:03pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
SteveS



Member Since: 05 Oct 2010
Location: Devon & Berkshire
Posts: 388

England 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Santorini Black
Well I'm very happy with my BFG KM2s - gone for 8" width and 285/75 - lots of grip, reasonable road manners, sits nice with a 2" lift - CW alloys from Devon4x4 - proven off road
Post #84114 12th Aug 2011 7:09pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
leeds



Member Since: 28 Dec 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 8578

United Kingdom 
Simex and other aggressive tres are banned at some sites and at various club events.

We have been running on BFG M/Ts for last 10+ years. Size being 255/85/16, this gives a larger overall diameter then 265/75 or 285/75 which means greater ground clearance under diffs.

Never had any problems with road noise from them.


Brendan
Post #84129 12th Aug 2011 7:50pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
CFB



Member Since: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posts: 803

United Kingdom 
Brendan, do you need a 2" lift to stop the 255/85's fouling on full articulation?

I need to change the 285/75/16's on mine as they are almost worn out and would prefer a slightly narrower tyre but don't really want to lift it. Andy
Post #84132 12th Aug 2011 7:54pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
Landie Boy



Member Since: 14 Jan 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 431

United Kingdom 2010 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Stornoway Grey
CFB wrote:
Brendan, do you need a 2" lift to stop the 255/85's fouling on full articulation?

I need to change the 285/75/16's on mine as they are almost worn out and would prefer a slightly narrower tyre but don't really want to lift it.


Land rover fit 235/85's as standard so you should not have a problem Smile

Jack
Post #84134 12th Aug 2011 7:56pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
MrFlips



Member Since: 27 May 2009
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 682

Wales 2008 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 PU Santorini Black
I would have thought that as long as the wheel has the same offset then a 255 would foul less than a 285 as although it is taller, it is narrower, so should be further away from the chassis and wheel arches. Keen to know as I could fancy some 255s. Peter
2008 SWB Truck Cab
1952 80" Soft top
Post #84140 12th Aug 2011 8:06pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
leeds



Member Since: 28 Dec 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 8578

United Kingdom 
Andy, on our red 110 we run on HD +2" springs without rear anti roll bar. Steering lock adjusted to max i.e. just scrubs the radius arms. On upward articulation in muddy condition there is evidence of scuffing on the wing tank.


On black (09) 110 we are running same tyres on standard suspension. This has wing tank fitted and anti roll bar fitted. I have not noticed the tyres fouling on articulation yet. Will have to look and check for fouling on wing tank


Brendan
Post #84145 12th Aug 2011 9:00pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
df1



Member Since: 06 Aug 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 221

What about 275/75/16 BFG MT on standard suspension 110

Any problems with these scrubbing
Post #84212 13th Aug 2011 4:20pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
leeds



Member Since: 28 Dec 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 8578

United Kingdom 
df1 wrote:
What about 275/75/16 BFG MT on standard suspension 110

Any problems with these scrubbing


275/75 are about 20mm smaller in diameter then 255/85 so they should be fine. If need be adjust steering stop so tyres just do not catch front radius arms.


Brendan
Post #84219 13th Aug 2011 4:59pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
df1



Member Since: 06 Aug 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 221

Cheers,

As mentioned before, does adjusting the stop bolt have a limit in regard to extra stess on the CV joints ?
Post #84320 14th Aug 2011 9:09am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
CFB



Member Since: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posts: 803

United Kingdom 
I fancy going for 255/85/16 but can only find BFG MTKM2 which are too aggressive, anyone know of others in this size and if so where from? Andy
Post #84321 14th Aug 2011 9:17am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
SteveS



Member Since: 05 Oct 2010
Location: Devon & Berkshire
Posts: 388

England 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Santorini Black
leeds wrote:
Simex and other aggressive tres are banned at some sites and at various club events.

We have been running on BFG M/Ts for last 10+ years. Size being 255/85/16, this gives a larger overall diameter then 265/75 or 285/75 which means greater ground clearance under diffs.

Never had any problems with road noise from them.


Brendan


Brendan - I think I'll live with the 3mm loss of axle height that your tyres have in return for the 30mm extra width and bigger footprint of the 285/75s. If I get really desperate I'll put a bt more air in.
Post #84385 14th Aug 2011 7:43pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
SteveS wrote:
leeds wrote:
Simex and other aggressive tres are banned at some sites and at various club events.

We have been running on BFG M/Ts for last 10+ years. Size being 255/85/16, this gives a larger overall diameter then 265/75 or 285/75 which means greater ground clearance under diffs.

Never had any problems with road noise from them.


Brendan


Brendan - I think I'll live with the 3mm loss of axle height that your tyres have in return for the 30mm extra width and bigger footprint of the 285/75s. If I get really desperate I'll put a bt more air in.


Thumbs Up Same here. I LOVE my 285s.... but looking for a set of Simex Jungle trekkers... Awesome ability but not as aggressive as the Extreme trekkers.

Glyn Dog Sheep
Post #84424 15th Aug 2011 5:26am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
JSG



Member Since: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 2412

United Kingdom 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
Landie Boy wrote:
CFB wrote:
Brendan, do you need a 2" lift to stop the 255/85's fouling on full articulation?

I need to change the 285/75/16's on mine as they are almost worn out and would prefer a slightly narrower tyre but don't really want to lift it.


Land rover fit 235/85's as standard so you should not have a problem Smile

Jack


255/85s are taller than the 235/85s that are fitted as standard so that's why the question was asked. John

http://www.hampshire4x4response.co.uk

2011 Tdci 110 CSW XS
Post #84458 15th Aug 2011 9:37am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
leeds



Member Since: 28 Dec 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 8578

United Kingdom 
255/85/16 have overall diameter of 840 mm
285/75/16 have overall diameter of 836 mm
265/75/16 have overall diameter of 804 mm
235/85/16 have overall diameter of 806 mm

The tyre diameter controls ground clearance on a vehicle.

Turning circle can be affected by both tyre diameer and tyre width for a given wheel offset.

Some people argue that taller thinner tyres are better for cutting through the gloop to find solid ground down below. Others argue that wider the tyre the greater the 'floation' effect.

The wider the tyre and the greater the wheel offset (or is it inset,?) more likely for mud to be thrown up side of vehicle/tread to stick out from below wheel flare. Believe this infringes C & U regulations.

Whatever tyres people choose will really be a compromise/personal choice. Like many Land Rover items there is no one choice which is right for everybody.

My choice for our 110's are BFG M/T 255/85/16 and we find road noise and on/off road handling to be fine. I am sure that other people are happy with their wheel/tyre size/tyre tread combination.

Brendan
Post #84542 15th Aug 2011 5:48pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Post Reply  Back to top
Page 1 of 2 12>
All times are GMT

Jump to  
Previous Topic | Next Topic >
Posting Rules
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
DEFENDER2.NET RSS Feed - All Forums