33x10.5x16 is what in metric
12-22-2005, 12:54 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
33x10.5x16 is what in metric
does anyone know what size 33x10.5x16 would be in metric... and does anyone make an AT tire in that size... BFG's maybe?
Danke
Danke
12-22-2005, 01:26 PM
#3
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are gonna be looking for a 265/75/16 which is the closest common size to yours, but is not 33". An 80 tire would be kind of out of propotion unless it's for commerical use I think. If you are looking for a 33" tire, I'd say try 285/75/16.
12-22-2005, 02:47 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marko has it right - It's 285/75R16.
This might prove interesting - http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/asset...rain_ta_km.pdf
This might prove interesting - http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/asset...rain_ta_km.pdf
12-22-2005, 04:04 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ah, looks like the closest available seems to be these
LT255/85R16/D 10"x33.3"
hmmmmm... tall and skinny...
Wonder what they look like on a runner and how much lift is needed to run them...
LT255/85R16/D 10"x33.3"
hmmmmm... tall and skinny...
Wonder what they look like on a runner and how much lift is needed to run them...
12-22-2005, 04:09 PM
#6
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jeremys73
ah, looks like the closest available seems to be these
LT255/85R16/D 10"x33.3"
hmmmmm... tall and skinny...
Wonder what they look like on a runner and how much lift is needed to run them...
LT255/85R16/D 10"x33.3"
hmmmmm... tall and skinny...
Wonder what they look like on a runner and how much lift is needed to run them...
I'd go for 285/75/16.
12-22-2005, 04:17 PM
#7
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bellingham, Washington and Ketchikan, Alaska
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by marko3xl3
Why would you wanna do that? You'd lose traction and IMO, it'll look just plain ugly. No one here has used those wheels and I assume you won't really find out what kind of lift you need, but I am gonna guess somewhere around 3-4". Maybe even less because they are so skinny, depends on where they rub.
I'd go for 285/75/16.
I'd go for 285/75/16.
A wider tire doesn't mean more traction.
Trending Topics
12-22-2005, 04:17 PM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was just curious after reading about the guy on here running 35x10.5's with no lift...
I've seen pics of guys running the 33x10.5x15. They don't look too bad. But thats exactly what I was thinking. Since they are skinnier, not as much lift would be needed... They don't make them in the AT ko though...
I've seen pics of guys running the 33x10.5x15. They don't look too bad. But thats exactly what I was thinking. Since they are skinnier, not as much lift would be needed... They don't make them in the AT ko though...
12-22-2005, 04:27 PM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here they are... look pretty good... 33's no lift
Originally Posted by pinnacle
255/85/16 (33x10) BF Goodrich Mud Terrains on 16x7 Tacoma wheels.
Before:
After:
I have no rubbing issues as of yet. The front valace and the plastic corners on the front bumper are coming off soon. Also probably pound the pinch weld while I'm at it. Overall I'm very happy with the way the fit and how they look.
Before:
After:
I have no rubbing issues as of yet. The front valace and the plastic corners on the front bumper are coming off soon. Also probably pound the pinch weld while I'm at it. Overall I'm very happy with the way the fit and how they look.
12-22-2005, 04:30 PM
#10
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yamaha+Toyota=Fun
A wider tire doesn't mean more traction.
12-22-2005, 04:34 PM
#11
Registered User
Originally Posted by jeremys73
here they are... look pretty good... 33's no lift
https://www.yotatech.com/forums/members/2589.html
Those coilovers and the Total Chaos kit will be the lift.
12-22-2005, 04:51 PM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He may have a lift in the pics I quoted but the TC isnt on yet.
Have been reading up on them. Some say they may get a bit better mpg. Good in the mud, good in snow, have to air down a bit in soft stuff though.
I wonder if they would ride better on the highway also... and getting that extra inch of clearance for the axles, for a full foot of clearance
Have been reading up on them. Some say they may get a bit better mpg. Good in the mud, good in snow, have to air down a bit in soft stuff though.
I wonder if they would ride better on the highway also... and getting that extra inch of clearance for the axles, for a full foot of clearance
12-22-2005, 05:44 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mountains outside of Boulder
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by marko3xl3
You sure about that? More surface area contacting the ground means more adhesive friction, means more traction. To me at least.... I might be wrong though.
a wider tire may be better because it can be made softer (increasing the coeficient of friction) while keeping the same wear rate as a narrow tire. but assuming that the rubber compounds are the same, then the traction will be the same.
12-22-2005, 05:45 PM
#14
Contributing Member
12-22-2005, 06:51 PM
#15
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mike_d
nope. friction is only proportional to the weight on the tire and the coefficient of friction between the tire and the surface. there is no dependance on tire size.
a wider tire may be better because it can be made softer (increasing the coeficient of friction) while keeping the same wear rate as a narrow tire. but assuming that the rubber compounds are the same, then the traction will be the same.
a wider tire may be better because it can be made softer (increasing the coeficient of friction) while keeping the same wear rate as a narrow tire. but assuming that the rubber compounds are the same, then the traction will be the same.
12-22-2005, 07:25 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mountains outside of Boulder
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by marko3xl3
Well buy the coefficient of friction will be greater when a wider tire is pulled forward than a narrower one. Sorry for hijacking here by the way.
see: http://www.school-for-champions.com/...ctioncoeff.htm
12-22-2005, 07:51 PM
#17
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mike_d
no, the coefficient of friction only depends on the materials involved. the size of the contact patch is irrelevant.
see: http://www.school-for-champions.com/...ctioncoeff.htm
see: http://www.school-for-champions.com/...ctioncoeff.htm
12-22-2005, 07:55 PM
#18
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and wind resistance. 2 inches wider, 33 inches tall. 66 square inches per tire. 4 Tires = 264 square inches
http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html
http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html
12-22-2005, 08:29 PM
#19
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Simi Valley, Ca
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I ran those tires for about a month without any lift at all. The only rubbing I had was on the back of the front fender and it was very minimal.
The ride is so much better with the muds than the rugged trails.
The ride is so much better with the muds than the rugged trails.
