265/75/16 on a stock '97 Limited - any issues?
#1
265/75/16 on a stock '97 Limited - any issues?
I just purchased a 1997 4runner limited and am looking at tires. Doing my research, I find that the 1996-1997 is in the middle re factory height. That said, if I go with 265/75/16s can I anticipate rubbing at all? Maybe under compression, or at full lock? I see some folks have slight rubbing, mostly with the later years, just haven't seen much re the '97s though.
I do plan on going with a full OME lift (880 or 881 and 890 or 906) w/comfort shocks w/in the year.
*edit* - looking at the post here -> https://www.yotatech.com/50901526-post1.html it would appear that the '96 and maybe the '97 is on the shorter end. Hum...
Thanks!
|dg
I do plan on going with a full OME lift (880 or 881 and 890 or 906) w/comfort shocks w/in the year.
*edit* - looking at the post here -> https://www.yotatech.com/50901526-post1.html it would appear that the '96 and maybe the '97 is on the shorter end. Hum...
Thanks!
|dg
Last edited by dgz32; 08-19-2008 at 06:41 PM.
#2
May rub a little at compression but not bad, thats only when my 265/75's rubbed when my 97 was stock.
If your going to lift, you might as well wait for tires until then, unless you really need tires, so you can get some bigger ones
If your going to lift, you might as well wait for tires until then, unless you really need tires, so you can get some bigger ones
#3
Your rig looks great, btw.
Last edited by dgz32; 08-20-2008 at 06:43 AM.
#5
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been runnin' 265/75/16 for years now and it never rubbed. If, for some reason, you get some rubbing, throw on a 1" BL from 4crawler. Cheap and easy to install.
A while back I got the SS 7.2, and it doesn't look all that bad with 265s. Of course it's gonna look better with the 255s once bfg releases them.
A while back I got the SS 7.2, and it doesn't look all that bad with 265s. Of course it's gonna look better with the 255s once bfg releases them.
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rocky Top, Tennessee
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh. Well, I keep going back and fourth on that. The current tires have some tread left but not that much, and not down to the indicators, yet. Def do not want rubbing of any kind, though. So maybe you're the voice of reason here...collect what I need and do everything at once, kind of thing.
Your rig looks great, btw.
Your rig looks great, btw.
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My plan is to put 255/85's on and maybe do a 1" body lift if needed. Check my build thread in my sig line if you want to see pics from a '97 before and after lift/tires.
Trending Topics
#8
I'm too new around here to know the difference!
Already been there. Was checking it out trying to figure out if the 890s or 906s would be a better fit for me.
So how do you like the 906s? Is there any rake at all, or completely level? I'm pretty much settled on the 881/890 combo as I feel the truck looks good with a bit o'rake. But I don't want anything too crazy. And if there is too much, I'd rather not trim. From what I can tell looks like anything can be a little off advertised spec depending on the truck. Guess I could always sell the 890s if I don't like 'em and pick up the 906s.
So how do you like the 906s? Is there any rake at all, or completely level? I'm pretty much settled on the 881/890 combo as I feel the truck looks good with a bit o'rake. But I don't want anything too crazy. And if there is too much, I'd rather not trim. From what I can tell looks like anything can be a little off advertised spec depending on the truck. Guess I could always sell the 890s if I don't like 'em and pick up the 906s.
Last edited by dgz32; 08-20-2008 at 08:54 AM.
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already been there. Was checking it out trying to figure out if the 890s or 906s would be a better fit for me.
So how do you like the 906s? Is there any rake at all, or completely level? I'm pretty much settled on the 881/890 combo as I feel the truck looks good with a bit o'rake. But I don't want anything too crazy. And if there is too much, I'd rather not trim. From what I can tell looks like anything can be a little off advertised spec depending on the truck. Guess I could always sell the 890s if I don't like 'em and pick up the 906s.
So how do you like the 906s? Is there any rake at all, or completely level? I'm pretty much settled on the 881/890 combo as I feel the truck looks good with a bit o'rake. But I don't want anything too crazy. And if there is too much, I'd rather not trim. From what I can tell looks like anything can be a little off advertised spec depending on the truck. Guess I could always sell the 890s if I don't like 'em and pick up the 906s.
Yeah, if you get 890's and aren't satisfied, they'll sell like hotcakes (if hotcakes are still a prized commodity).
Be sure and let us know what you do!
Last edited by 4biker; 08-20-2008 at 09:12 AM.
#10
I actually like the 906's more than I though I would. It rides almost perfectly level as far as I can tell, and handles loads better than expected. I've been camping with a trailer, loaded with gear, and even pulled a 5000lb 21' boat without flinching. I was thinking that if I started getting sag, I'd just get a spacer for the rear (cheap and super easy to install), but it hasn't been an issue. You'll definitely get a solid rake with the 881/890's. I personally don't know why the 906's aren't more popular than they are. I guess 3" is the magic lift number for Jeeps and Toyotas, even though it can lead to problems. I'm not worried about rake, cv angles, articulation, panhard bar, or anything else with my current setup. Everyone has different needs, I guess.
Yeah, if you get 890's and aren't satisfied, they'll sell like hotcakes (if hotcakes are still a prized commodity).
Be sure and let us know what you do!
Yeah, if you get 890's and aren't satisfied, they'll sell like hotcakes (if hotcakes are still a prized commodity).
Be sure and let us know what you do!
My dilemma is this...last year I replaced my '95 runner's sagging rear springs with a factory height spring. And while it now sits level, it still looks a bit lower in the rear. I know that it's level; but optically, it just doesn't appear level. I just want to avoid this w/the '97.
#11
Hey Evan lets go wheeling this weekend...... Oh wait i forgot about you and wheeling
But seriously I am most likely going to Aetna this weekend.
And Evan you need to swap your rig.
My butt end is in the air by at least an inch and I like the look. When mine sit level it also looked like its butt was sagging. I would go with at least the 890's
But seriously I am most likely going to Aetna this weekend.
And Evan you need to swap your rig.
My butt end is in the air by at least an inch and I like the look. When mine sit level it also looked like its butt was sagging. I would go with at least the 890's
Last edited by crolison; 08-20-2008 at 11:05 AM.
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looking at your profile again...you wouldn't happen to have any pics straight on from the side, would you?
My dilemma is this...last year I replaced my '95 runner's sagging rear springs with a factory height spring. And while it now sits level, it still looks a bit lower in the rear. I know that it's level; but optically, it just doesn't appear level. I just want to avoid this w/the '97.
My dilemma is this...last year I replaced my '95 runner's sagging rear springs with a factory height spring. And while it now sits level, it still looks a bit lower in the rear. I know that it's level; but optically, it just doesn't appear level. I just want to avoid this w/the '97.
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All right, here's one. Just for context, this is with 881's and 906's, about 50lbs of cargo in the rear (just behind the seat). The springs have been on it since the beginning of March (5 1/2 months ago). I think it looks a little raked, but I haven't noticed it feeling raked. Let me know what you think.
#14
All right, here's one. Just for context, this is with 881's and 906's, about 50lbs of cargo in the rear (just behind the seat). The springs have been on it since the beginning of March (5 1/2 months ago). I think it looks a little raked, but I haven't noticed it feeling raked. Let me know what you think.
Regardless, I think is looks perfect. And I'm presuming based on your sig that those tires are 265/75/16s, too?
Last edited by dgz32; 08-20-2008 at 05:28 PM.
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, those are the 265/75's. I honestly couldn't wait to get out of my stock suspension, as the rear springs were so weak. Like I said, I think the 906's are too often overlooked, but they're great springs. I think most of us don't want to undershoot our goal, and get into overkill mode. I think this is the best option for running a slightly larger tire than stock - very proportionate.
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, those are the 265/75's. I honestly couldn't wait to get out of my stock suspension, as the rear springs were so weak. Like I said, I think the 906's are too often overlooked, but they're great springs. I think most of us don't want to undershoot our goal, and get into overkill mode. I think this is the best option for running a slightly larger tire than stock - very proportionate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RedRunner_87
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
84
06-01-2021 01:51 PM
djpg2000
Tires & Wheels
11
11-11-2020 04:56 AM
FS[GreatLakes]: 22RE performance and stock parts (pic heavy)
GreatLakesGuy
Engines - Transmissions
28
05-20-2016 10:27 AM