How tall is 265.75 R16 really? - YotaTech Forums


Go Back   >


95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 4th gen pickups and 3rd gen 4Runners
Sponsored by:
Click Here

How tall is 265.75 R16 really?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2003, 06:24 AM   #1
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Bundubasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zimbabwe
Posts: 150
How tall is 265.75 R16 really?

Can some one please measure their new, or nearly new, BFG ATs for me:

265.75R16's should be approx 31.65" tall...

265.75R15's should be 30.65" tall...

Can anyone confirm or deny these figures AND are the MTRs everyone seems to be buying any good as 80% road tyres or do they wear down too quickly like BFG MTs?

I'm asking questions as I still haven't to the spare bucks to buy the BFG ATs, on steel rims, yet.

Best UK price for 6 (six) BFG ATs on white 8 spoke steel rims is: 559.30 INC VAT & DELIVERY. The worst is 950 excluding delivery! How does that compare to prices in the States?
Bundubasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 06:45 AM   #2
Contributing Member
 
rimpainter.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
I measured my 265/75/16's with a measure tape (not the most accurate way) and I got 30.8" -- I dont get it. Maybe I am doing it wrong.
rimpainter.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:00 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,705
It can vary from one manufacturer to another. I'll be mounting my 265/75r16 MT/R's next week so I'll snap some pics and take measurements. The Toy dealer has quoted me $50 for mount and balance with the Hunter machine and Haweka adapter.

Most people report 40k miles with the MT/R's - I think that is about average for a tire with such an aggresive tread. I have heard that they are pretty quiet considering their design and have a soft on-road ride. Some people steered me away from BFG because the ride was stiff and they had problems with the sidewalls being cut off-road.
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:03 AM   #4
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Bundubasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zimbabwe
Posts: 150
That's real interesting as I favoured the BFGs for their supposedly reinforced, tougher, sidewalls. The Pirellis I run at the moment have sidewalls like soft cheese!
Bundubasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:09 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,705
A lot of people were BFG devotees until the MT/R came out. The sidewall is not only reinforced but apparently the outer shell resists sharp objects so you never have to worry about the inner layers being used.

I was also under the impression that BFG's had the best sidewall but now it is my understanding that the MT/R is more resistant to puncture, and because of the rubber used, provides a better on-road ride. I was watching a TV show about a rock crawling contest and only one Jeep had BFG's (sponsored) - everyone else was running MT/R's.
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:15 AM   #6
Contributing Member
 
RTdawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,068
ive seen an unmounted MT/R and the sidewall is about half an inch thick!
RTdawgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:16 AM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 79
See I'm having a hard time with this dimesional ratio stuff. My 31x10.5x15 are the same height as a 31.10.5x16 but when it goes on ratio WTF......is it the same ........sounds stupid but my minds eye can't comprehend it?????

The hole in the middle should not effect the hieght of the tire.......should it......no it shouldn't but then the ratio and well.......damn
jroc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:27 AM   #8
Registered User
 
Churnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally posted by jroc
See I'm having a hard time with this dimesional ratio stuff. My 31x10.5x15 are the same height as a 31.10.5x16 but when it goes on ratio WTF......is it the same ........sounds stupid but my minds eye can't comprehend it?????

The hole in the middle should not effect the hieght of the tire.......should it......no it shouldn't but then the ratio and well.......damn
You said it, my friend.
Churnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 07:30 AM   #9
Registered User
 
Todd E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SW MI
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally posted by jroc
See I'm having a hard time with this dimesional ratio stuff. My 31x10.5x15 are the same height as a 31.10.5x16 but when it goes on ratio WTF......is it the same ........sounds stupid but my minds eye can't comprehend it?????

The hole in the middle should not effect the hieght of the tire.......should it......no it shouldn't but then the ratio and well.......damn
When you get the flotation tires (LT or light truck), they tell you the height, width, and rim size.
When you get the P-metric tires (passenger), they give you the width (in mm), the percentage ratio of sidewall, and then rim size.
For flotation tires, the rim size has no bearing on the tire height.
For the P-metric tires the rim size is used in the calculation of finding the tire height:
265/75/16 are: (265 / 25.4) x .75 x 2 + 16 = 31.65 inches tall (calculated)
Tirerack has a good description of how to calculate the tire dimention.
Hope this helps,
Todd
Todd E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:05 AM   #10
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,705
The sidewall on a 265/75r15 is the same size as the 265/75r16 - just the rim is 1" larger so that makes it a 32" tire instead of a 31" tire. 265 is the width of the tire and 75 (aspect ratio) is 75% of the tread width.
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:06 AM   #11
CTB
Registered User
 
CTB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: SC
Posts: 1,218
Quote:
Originally posted by Victor
It can vary from one manufacturer to another. I'll be mounting my 265/75r16 MT/R's next week so I'll snap some pics and take measurements.
So Victor, you must have gotten new rims. What kind did you get?
CTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:11 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,705
The ones I got are off a 2002 Sport Edition 4Runner. 16x7"
I haven't found the center caps but I'll probably not run them for a while.
Attached Thumbnails
How tall is 265.75 R16 really?-i-1.jpg  
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:14 AM   #13
CTB
Registered User
 
CTB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: SC
Posts: 1,218
Nice. Those are some of my favorite rims that Toyota ever put on 4Runners. Are you planning on still using the caps on the front eventhough you have the Aisin's? Going to modify them a little to fit?
CTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:20 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,705
The plastic caps from my 2nd gen wheels won't fit - but I found that the caps from a Tacoma with 15"-16" wheels will fit with a little work. They are a little small but I can bend out the mounting tabs. I bought a cheap set on Ebay but they don't have the factory metal clips - just plastic. They fit but I don't trust how hard they hold on. For now I'm trying to find the same shade of silver in a spray paint and then I'll paint the Aisin hubs and my rear axle mounting area so they blend with the silver on the wheels.

I cut my 2nd gen plastic caps in front to make them fit with the AISIN hubs. Looks almost factory.
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:23 AM   #15
Contributing Member
 
Darren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,031
Yes, many have reported BFG KM's to have a weaker sidewall than the MT/R. I can only imagine the AT's would be even more so, but I don't know.

I measured my old 265/75 MT/R's at 31.0" and will sit right at 30" mounted on the truck. I believe the BFG's will measure more true to the published sizes.

Many have reported to get 50,000 miles out of the MT/R.

I was just looking at Tire Rack where the KO's are $7 cheaper. I think the choice is clear being the price difference is rather moot. Not sure if that is normal or not though.
Darren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 08:27 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,705
JSB's brother Kevin sold me the MT/R's for $129 a tire and $12.60 each road hazard. Shipping was half of Tirerack's and even with tax I saved a big lump.
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justdifferentials / Nitro Gear 99 Land Cruiser 100 Series, SC'd, 4.88, lockers, etc justdifferentials Just Differentials 3 09-29-2015 05:30 PM
Opinions needed... Rickstwowheels 86-95 Trucks & 4Runners 7 09-29-2015 02:23 PM
newb looking for help. 91 4runner lift to fit 40in tires myotherrideisayoshi 86-95 Trucks & 4Runners 1 09-29-2015 05:41 AM
Anyone know the values of todays 85 4x4 pickup sonorn67 84-85 Trucks & 4Runners 3 09-19-2015 05:39 PM
Sloppy suspension 99 tall t4r Yotadawgjr 95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 10 08-23-2015 10:51 AM


Tags
16, 265, 26575, 26575r16, 70, 75, 75r, bfg, diameter, inches, r16, tall, tire, tires, true

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:08 PM.


2010 InternetBrands, Inc.