M/Ts on a DD
#21
I drive 37" MT/R's everywhere.
The thing about swapping is it is only good in theory. When you get bored with doing it, have a set of dry rotted tires or run out of room, the novelty is gone.
If you wheel a lot, or don't drive a lot, leave the MT's on. If you don't get an aggressive AT and deal with it being a little worse off road.
The thing about swapping is it is only good in theory. When you get bored with doing it, have a set of dry rotted tires or run out of room, the novelty is gone.
If you wheel a lot, or don't drive a lot, leave the MT's on. If you don't get an aggressive AT and deal with it being a little worse off road.
#22
Personally, having them on when I want them and the looks of my MT/Rs far out weighs how fast they may wear...I have put a little over 45K in less than two years on mine, and still have some to go
#23
#26
If the tire is 33.7" diameter, (I'm going on your measurements here John...)
then the circumfrence is 105.87167242597604 inches...
which is 8.8226393688313366777777777777777, etc... feet.
Hence the 8.83 feet that John used. whether you call it diameter or rolling radius, Johns calculations seem to be correct.
(circumfrence of a circle is Pi times Diameter, FYI)
I did however check the rest of your calculations John, and while 60 miles is indeed 316,800 feet, it would appear that with a circumfrence of 8.83 feet, that 316,800 feet can be covered in 35877.7 rotations, as opposed to the 35908.7 which you stated...
That is all...
~Chris
EDIT: It occured to me where your number might have come from 91...so I checked your math...and even if you use a full 35" as the diameter of the tire....it makes the circumfurence 109.95 inches, which is 9.16 feet, it will still cover 316,800 feet (60 miles) in 2881.2 rotations... Not 108,617 as you stated....Sorry to burst everyones bubbles... lol.
EDIT AGAIN: Ah hah! I see where 91 came up with his number, take 60 miles, again, which is 316,800 feet, and figure that in inches, which is 3,801,600 inches, and divide that by 35 inches, and you get 108,617 rotations... unforunately for 91, that tire is not 35" around... for a tire to 35 inches around, it would be roughly 11.14 inches in diameter, and I would hate to see someone trying to offroad on a 12" tire....
Last edited by 04 Rocko Taco; Oct 25, 2006 at 12:19 PM.
#27
If the tire is 33.7" diameter, (I'm going on your measurements here John...)
then the circumfrence is 105.87167242597604 inches...
which is 8.8226393688313366777777777777777, etc... feet.
Hence the 8.83 feet that John used. whether you call it diameter or rolling radius, Johns calculations seem to be correct.
(circumfrence of a circle is Pi times Diameter, FYI)
I did however check the rest of your calculations John, and while 60 miles is indeed 316,800 feet, it would appear that with a circumfrence of 8.83 feet, that 316,800 feet can be covered in 35877.7 rotations, as opposed to the 35908.7 which you stated...
That is all...
~Chris
EDIT: It occured to me where your number might have come from 91...so I checked your math...and even if you use a full 35" as the diameter of the tire....it makes the circumfurence 109.95 inches, which is 9.16 feet, it will still cover 316,800 feet (60 miles) in 2881.2 rotations... Not 108,617 as you stated....Sorry to burst everyones bubbles... lol.
EDIT AGAIN: Ah hah! I see where 91 came up with his number, take 60 miles, again, which is 316,800 feet, and figure that in inches, which is 3,801,600 inches, and divide that by 35 inches, and you get 108,617 rotations... unforunately for 91, that tire is not 35" around... for a tire to 35 inches around, it would be roughly 11.14 inches in diameter, and I would hate to see someone trying to offroad on a 12" tire....
then the circumfrence is 105.87167242597604 inches...
which is 8.8226393688313366777777777777777, etc... feet.
Hence the 8.83 feet that John used. whether you call it diameter or rolling radius, Johns calculations seem to be correct.
(circumfrence of a circle is Pi times Diameter, FYI)
I did however check the rest of your calculations John, and while 60 miles is indeed 316,800 feet, it would appear that with a circumfrence of 8.83 feet, that 316,800 feet can be covered in 35877.7 rotations, as opposed to the 35908.7 which you stated...
That is all...
~Chris
EDIT: It occured to me where your number might have come from 91...so I checked your math...and even if you use a full 35" as the diameter of the tire....it makes the circumfurence 109.95 inches, which is 9.16 feet, it will still cover 316,800 feet (60 miles) in 2881.2 rotations... Not 108,617 as you stated....Sorry to burst everyones bubbles... lol.
EDIT AGAIN: Ah hah! I see where 91 came up with his number, take 60 miles, again, which is 316,800 feet, and figure that in inches, which is 3,801,600 inches, and divide that by 35 inches, and you get 108,617 rotations... unforunately for 91, that tire is not 35" around... for a tire to 35 inches around, it would be roughly 11.14 inches in diameter, and I would hate to see someone trying to offroad on a 12" tire....
hehe.... I call it a rolling raduis, since well its the rolling radius times two.. yes it diameter... so screw me

I also used excell so it carried all the decimals thru the math, giving me 35908.7, if you use the pi function of excell its only 35907.6... Now the 33.7" comes from BFG its rev/mile turned into diameter. If you take the rev/mile, which is 598 and mulitply it by 60 you get 35880, making the tire really a tall 33.7....
Haha.. geek math
#29
i ride 33" MT/R's on my DD. i only put maaybe 20km/day of city driving and in the last year have put 18000km on em and they seem to be wearing well. still lots of life on them, however they seem to be chunking more than i'd like 
ive got my stocker setup still, and have thought about keeping the LC+MT/R combo off till wheeling time, but i find its probably more hassle than its worth. mind you with sliders & a hi lift, it can be done under half an hour. but i decided that even if i only go wheeling a 3 times a month...id rather not have teeny weeny stockers on a lifted truck. if anything, improper tire pressure, lack of rotation and bad wheel alignment will wear things even more. if youre gonna run street tires, dont even bother with AT's. just run oem cheapies...

ive got my stocker setup still, and have thought about keeping the LC+MT/R combo off till wheeling time, but i find its probably more hassle than its worth. mind you with sliders & a hi lift, it can be done under half an hour. but i decided that even if i only go wheeling a 3 times a month...id rather not have teeny weeny stockers on a lifted truck. if anything, improper tire pressure, lack of rotation and bad wheel alignment will wear things even more. if youre gonna run street tires, dont even bother with AT's. just run oem cheapies...
#30
Been using Mud Terrains on my 4Runner for about the last 9 years or so. I reckon it's worth the slightly extra wear rate. Most of the quality brands still get decent mileage.
Got my best mileage out of BFG Muds, and the new MTZ's I've had fitted looks like they will be about the same.
Got my best mileage out of BFG Muds, and the new MTZ's I've had fitted looks like they will be about the same.
#31
I am running a set of 33x12.5" Hankook RT01 MTs on a 15x8 rim and so far I have over 30,000 miles and they are at ~50% tread left. If I were to put them a 10" rim they would probably wear even a little better. I have no problems at all running MT on a DD. I highly recommend these tires.
#32
I've been running the BFG MT's on my DD for a couple years now.
I've lost count at the number of comments from people who have said how smooth they ride and I whole heartedly agree with them.
Next time it comes to purchasing a set of new tires, I will gladly get another set of them (just in a larger size
).
I've lost count at the number of comments from people who have said how smooth they ride and I whole heartedly agree with them.
Next time it comes to purchasing a set of new tires, I will gladly get another set of them (just in a larger size
).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RedRunner_87
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
84
Jun 1, 2021 01:51 PM
mYnAmEiSmUd
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
2
Jul 20, 2015 06:48 AM





