95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 4th gen pickups and 3rd gen 4Runners

33x10.50x15 or 285/75/16

Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:02 AM
  #21  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by jacksonpt
If you are considering buying new wheels so you can run 285s, have you given any thought to buying new wheels and running 33/12.5-15s? You'll need to get the correct back spacing to push the tires away from the a-arms, but...

This is what I'm hoping to do in the spring.
Yes, I would love to do that, but I think it would take a bodylift. For me, a bodylift would be tough with a front ARB and a custom Trailcarnage bumper in the back and sliders (that would be a lot of stuff to make brackets for to lift). I have thought about 33x12.50's that were a little shorter like a Mud King (32.4" tall).

Has anyone ever run wheel spacers? I really like the factory wheels though.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:04 AM
  #22  
jacksonpt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
From: Binghamton, NY
yea, it would definitely take a body lift to clear in the back, though I'm not sure how much would be necessary. I've got a TJM front and weld-on sliders. A 1" BL won't be a problem for me... hopefully that will be enough to clear the 33s in the back.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:11 AM
  #23  
sschaefer3's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
From: Tempe, Arizona
Think 35's (315/17/16)





Yes those Yokohama's walked right up that wet slick rock. Think outside the box.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:32 AM
  #24  
TDiddy's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,112
Likes: 0
From: Urbandale, IA
What did you do to stuff those things in there? Did you know there are two gremlins in the back of your rig?
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:46 AM
  #25  
sschaefer3's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
From: Tempe, Arizona
Originally posted by TDiddy
What did you do to stuff those things in there? Did you know there are two gremlins in the back of your rig?
2" Suspension
1" Body
Many inches of Dremmel. (the back of the fenders are cut, the lower pinch weld is completely ground flat and the TJM ends were shortened 2.5" and bobbed)
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:40 PM
  #26  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by sschaefer3
2" Suspension
1" Body
Many inches of Dremmel. (the back of the fenders are cut, the lower pinch weld is completely ground flat and the TJM ends were shortened 2.5" and bobbed)
Do you think a 33x12.50 would fit with 2.5" suspension and a little dremel action with no bodylift? I'm assuming that the 12.50 width is the clearance problem here? Here is my setup now:

Front - OME 882's, one trim packer, OME HD shocks with an ARB bumper and Warn M8000, diff drop

Rear-OME HD (forget the #) coils and shocks, Trailcarnage bumper

I'm not scared of a little dremel action on the inside of the fenders, it wouldn't be visible anyway.

How about some pics of what you cut with the dremel?
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:58 PM
  #27  
vudbster's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Vernon BC, Canada



Here's another pic of my rig.


Mike.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 05:46 PM
  #28  
jacksonpt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
From: Binghamton, NY
Originally posted by dragr1
Do you think a 33x12.50 would fit with 2.5" suspension and a little dremel action with no bodylift? I'm assuming that the 12.50 width is the clearance problem here? Here is my setup now:
FWIW... I'm running all OME HD gear on my 96, and I've got 32/11.5-15s. They clear everything in the front, all the time. In the rear, they only rub when the suspension is fully compressed, and I'm pretty sure it's the outside of the tire rubbing on the inside of the fender. If I kept the factory wheels and went with 33/12.5-15s, they would rub even more on the rear fender (possibly the tread, not just the side of the tire), and on the upper a-arm in the front as well. Going with aftermarket wheels with less backspacing would push the tires out, away from teh a-arms, solving that problem, but the rubbing would be even worse in the back.

In short, no, I don't think you could get away with 33/12.5-15s. On factory wheels they would rub pretty significantly in the front and the back. With aftermarket wheels, they would rub really badly in the back. I think you'd probalby have to enlarge the wheel well, not just trim back the inside of the fender.

I say all this based solely on the research I've done. I'm thinking about going with 33s in the spring, and I wanted to know what to expect, and what I would have to do to get them to fit.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 05:54 PM
  #29  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by jacksonpt
FWIW... I'm running all OME HD gear on my 96, and I've got 32/11.5-15s. They clear everything in the front, all the time. In the rear, they only rub when the suspension is fully compressed, and I'm pretty sure it's the outside of the tire rubbing on the inside of the fender. If I kept the factory wheels and went with 33/12.5-15s, they would rub even more on the rear fender (possibly the tread, not just the side of the tire), and on the upper a-arm in the front as well. Going with aftermarket wheels with less backspacing would push the tires out, away from teh a-arms, solving that problem, but the rubbing would be even worse in the back.

In short, no, I don't think you could get away with 33/12.5-15s. On factory wheels they would rub pretty significantly in the front and the back. With aftermarket wheels, they would rub really badly in the back. I think you'd probalby have to enlarge the wheel well, not just trim back the inside of the fender.

I say all this based solely on the research I've done. I'm thinking about going with 33s in the spring, and I wanted to know what to expect, and what I would have to do to get them to fit.
For me and the little amount of wheeling I do, seems like the 33x10.50's may be the way to go. Less trouble and less cost. I like the way the wider tires look better, but they are heavier (seems underpowered now) and would make it easier to hydroplane (rains a lot in Alabama).
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 07:48 PM
  #30  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by jacksonpt
yea, it would definitely take a body lift to clear in the back, though I'm not sure how much would be necessary. I've got a TJM front and weld-on sliders. A 1" BL won't be a problem for me... hopefully that will be enough to clear the 33s in the back.
I even thought about some 32x11.50x15 Swamper SSR's, slightly wider than a conventional 11.50, but almost as tall as a 33x12.50. Wonder if they might work on a factory wheel?
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 07:56 PM
  #31  
Brendan's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,226
Likes: 3
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally posted by dragr1
Wonder if they might work on a factory wheel?
what's the width of your wheels? Anything less than 8" and your going to to have excessive wear in the center of the tires. even 8" is not really advisable. better off with 10s.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 08:05 PM
  #32  
sschaefer3's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
From: Tempe, Arizona
The only way you can fit the 12.5" on a 4.5" backspaced rim is with the ATS Arms.

A 3.5" Backspaced rim would fit with stock arms. 12.5 is so wide you'll rub the frame no matter what you do. Mt 315 his the frame a hair before the stop so it's no big deal.

You'll have to do some cutting reguardless that wide.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 08:29 PM
  #33  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by SizzleChest
what's the width of your wheels? Anything less than 8" and your going to to have excessive wear in the center of the tires. even 8" is not really advisable. better off with 10s.
I would never go wider than an 8" wheel on a 11.50 or 12.50.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 09:13 PM
  #34  
Brendan's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,226
Likes: 3
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally posted by dragr1
I would never go wider than an 8" wheel on a 11.50 or 12.50.
if you go by the book, an 11.5" wide tire requires an 8"-10" wheel. 12.5" tires need 8.5"-11" wheels.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 03:18 AM
  #35  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by SizzleChest
if you go by the book, an 11.5" wide tire requires an 8"-10" wheel. 12.5" tires need 8.5"-11" wheels.
Yeah, but I've run a 285 (about 11.2" wide) on 7" wheels for about 300,000 miles in the last 6 years on my last 2 Z-71's and have had no problems with wear or anything else. Same thing for the 11.50's on 7" rims on my 4Runner. I like the wide tire narrow rim combo best.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 04:04 AM
  #36  
jacksonpt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
From: Binghamton, NY
Originally posted by dragr1
I even thought about some 32x11.50x15 Swamper SSR's, slightly wider than a conventional 11.50, but almost as tall as a 33x12.50. Wonder if they might work on a factory wheel?
Those swampers (in a 32/11.5) measure basically an inch taller than my 32" duelers. I didn't see an overall tire width on the interco site, but I may have just missed it. If they are slightly wider than a conventional 32, and an inch taller, then I'd bet they will rub on the a-arm. My 32s have very little clearance at the a-arm. If you go with a tire that's an inch taller, that puts the fat part of the tire an inch higher (i.e. closer to the a-arm). I know they will rub, and rub a lot, on the rear fender. The rubbing on the a-arm will be frequent - you'll probably get some rubbing on the road, and a lot off-road. In the back, you'll probably only rub off-road.

I thought about going with the 33/10.5-15s too, but BFG is one of the few companies that offer a tire in that size, and I really want to avoid BFG. Swamper makes the thornbird in a 33/11.5-15, but I've read very mixed reviews about this tire.

Last edited by jacksonpt; Jan 28, 2004 at 04:06 AM.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 04:08 PM
  #37  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by jacksonpt
Those swampers (in a 32/11.5) measure basically an inch taller than my 32" duelers. I didn't see an overall tire width on the interco site, but I may have just missed it. If they are slightly wider than a conventional 32, and an inch taller, then I'd bet they will rub on the a-arm. My 32s have very little clearance at the a-arm. If you go with a tire that's an inch taller, that puts the fat part of the tire an inch higher (i.e. closer to the a-arm). I know they will rub, and rub a lot, on the rear fender. The rubbing on the a-arm will be frequent - you'll probably get some rubbing on the road, and a lot off-road. In the back, you'll probably only rub off-road.

I thought about going with the 33/10.5-15s too, but BFG is one of the few companies that offer a tire in that size, and I really want to avoid BFG. Swamper makes the thornbird in a 33/11.5-15, but I've read very mixed reviews about this tire.
Why avoid the BFG? Incidentally, I see you have the Dueler AT's-that's a great tire, I run the MT's b/c with all the clay around here, an AT won't get you far, otherwise I might run the AT's. That Thornbird is wider than it sounds, the lugs on the sides stick straight out, the 10.50 Thornbird is really comparable to an 11.50 and so on. A good many guys around here run the Thornbirds-they are great in ruts, but not real good anywhere else.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 05:31 PM
  #38  
jacksonpt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
From: Binghamton, NY
Originally posted by dragr1
Why avoid the BFG?
Just personal preferance. Everyone around here runs BFGs, even if their rig never sees the dirt of a trail. I just want something different. That's what's really drawing me to the Firestone Destination MTs. I've had 2 sets of bridgestone/firestone tires and I've been really happy with them. As a segway... yea, I love my Dueler ATs. I'm going to hold on to them as a summer street tire, but they are worn enough so I need more tread on the trail, and will need more tread by next winter, so I'm looking for some MTs.

Like you, I've basically got 2 options... 33/10.5-15 BFGs, or find a way to run 33/12.5-15s. I know what I have to do, I'm just not sure it's worth the extra money/time/effort to get them to clear.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 05:39 PM
  #39  
abalagtas's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Here is a link to a post I made on another board. Basically showing how 33x10.5 looked on 2nd gens.

BFG 33x10.5
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 07:04 PM
  #40  
dragr1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, AL
Originally posted by jacksonpt
Just personal preferance. Everyone around here runs BFGs, even if their rig never sees the dirt of a trail. I just want something different. That's what's really drawing me to the Firestone Destination MTs. I've had 2 sets of bridgestone/firestone tires and I've been really happy with them. As a segway... yea, I love my Dueler ATs. I'm going to hold on to them as a summer street tire, but they are worn enough so I need more tread on the trail, and will need more tread by next winter, so I'm looking for some MTs.

Like you, I've basically got 2 options... 33/10.5-15 BFGs, or find a way to run 33/12.5-15s. I know what I have to do, I'm just not sure it's worth the extra money/time/effort to get them to clear.
Looking more like the 33x10.50's for me, right now it's looking like the wide 12.50's just aren't worth the money it would take-for me anyway.

But keep the comments and pics coming!
Reply
Related Topics
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
BornChaos
Offroad Tech
3
May 12, 2005 06:03 PM
socal98runner
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
17
Jan 10, 2005 03:56 PM
turboale
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
24
Dec 10, 2004 01:30 PM
dragr1
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
12
Jun 27, 2004 09:55 AM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 AM.