I've always thought that tall and skinny makes sense for an off-road tire. I've carried a 33/9.5 BFG MT as my spare for years (it came with the truck) and I've been thinking my next full set might be that size. I just noticed on the BFG site that they make the AT in that size!

Why don't more people run 33/9.5s? Am I missing something?

 

i'm goin 33/10.50/15 when i get the cash.. I like the look of the tall and skinny. I dont' think the wieght and less mpg are worth wider tires. Most of my driving is paved hard surface. And for snow i just air down.

 

ive looked can you even find a 33 9.5 mt

 

Can anyone offer a performance comparison of 33/10.5 vs. 33/9.5?

 

Because the industry is DOMINATED by the domestic/fullsize demand. I was talking to a mfg one time and they said SEMA studies show something like 80% of the "offroad aftermarket" is people who have full size domestic trucks. Toyota and Jeep split the remaining 20%.

Hard to get the load rating on a tall/skinny tire, so most manufacturers don't make them despite all the benefits for those of us with lighter rigs.

There isn't really any discernable difference. I've run the 10.50's and AxleIke used to run the 9.50's. Remember, there is no factor for width/area in the friction equation - just weight and material.

The big thing is finding a rim narrow enough to hold on the 9.50 when aired down - you really need a 6" rim. The 10.50 works great with stock 7" rims.

 

This is probably the same reason why it's hard to find a 35/10.50

 

I have 1 33x9.50 mud terrain for sale if anyone wants it.

Located in San Diego

 

255/85/16

 

I am wearing out my last pair of 9.50 MTs, Mine are about 14 years old and about 1/2 tread left (they had been spares for about 10 years). I find I like the 10.50s better, they have a little better stability in off-camber situations:
http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/BFG_AT_KO.shtml

 

x2 I have 33x10.5 BFG AT KO's and they hook up sweet in most terrain! In think 10.5 is plenty narrow for a taller tire