33" VS 34.5" Tires

[BaseManSquatch]

What's the real reason why most members go with 33"s over 34.5" tires?

Falken Wildpeak M/T Mt01 LT255/85R16 are 33.1" and $255 a tire and weigh 59 pounds.

Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T LT255/85R17 are 34.5" and $360 a tire and weigh 63 pounds.

Members have stated that the Mickeys are "too heavy" but they barely weigh any more than the Falkens.

The only reason why I can think most members are going with the 33"s is the price difference ($525 price difference for all five tires) between the two brands.


A third option, if you're concerned about weight, is to get some LT235/85/16 which are 31.7" tires and cost about $130 a tire and weigh only 48 pounds.

Sponsored

 

[PWillette]

Most likely the reasons for 33s is they will pretty much fit any model w/o having to add lift or change wheel offset.

 

[V1Rotate]

What's the real reason why most members go with 33"s over 34.5" tires?

Falken Wildpeak M/T Mt01 LT255/85R16 are 33.1" and $255 a tire and weigh 59 pounds.

Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T LT255/85R17 are 34.5" and $360 a tire and weigh 63 pounds.

Members have stated that the Mickeys are "too heavy" but they barely weigh any more than the Falkens.

The only reason why I can think most members are going with the 33"s is the price difference ($525 price difference for all five tires) between the two brands.


A third option, if you're concerned about weight, is to get some LT235/85/16 which are 31.7" tires and cost about $130 a tire and weigh only 48 pounds.

You’re comparing tires that fit 2 different sized wheels? Unless it’s a typo..

 

[spuddy59]

What's the real reason why most members go with 33"s over 34.5" tires?

Falken Wildpeak M/T Mt01 LT255/85R16 are 33.1" and $255 a tire and weigh 59 pounds.

Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T LT255/85R17 are 34.5" and $360 a tire and weigh 63 pounds.

Members have stated that the Mickeys are "too heavy" but they barely weigh any more than the Falkens.

The only reason why I can think most members are going with the 33"s is the price difference ($525 price difference for all five tires) between the two brands.


A third option, if you're concerned about weight, is to get some LT235/85/16 which are 31.7" tires and cost about $130 a tire and weigh only 48 pounds.

Besides the difference in wheel size in your OP (the Falken tire is for a 17” and the Mickey is for a 16” wheel) people usually talk about the weight of tires, even if small, because the weight is considered unsprung weight (i.e. not supported by the suspension).

Depending on who you ask, each pound of unsprung weight is equal to 4 to 10 pounds of sprung weight. And more unsprung weight taxes the suspension more and hinders performance.

Ultimately will this negatively impact things in our application? Probably not if you’re within reason, but some think it is something to consider when looking for new tires/wheels.

 

[hemiblas]

This post has me totally confused. People will go with the tire that fits their rim...

 

[BroncoTrail]

The entire industry should just stop using whole numbers.

 

[LarryBirdsFace]

I went with 285/70/17 BFG KO2's because they fit my Black Diamond with no lift and weigh 55 lbs, 33's fill out the wheel well very nicely and look the part with no lift installed on a non-sasquatch model.

 

[rhinojlu]

Does anyone know what the stock offset/backspacing is on black diamond wheels?

 

[mpeugeot]

Does anyone know what the stock offset/backspacing is on black diamond wheels?

+55 If I remember correctly.

You want +30 or less for a little more poke and a little more clearance. Some people run 0 offset, but that's a little too much poke for my tastes (and desire to protect my paint).

 

[rhinojlu]

+55 If I remember correctly.

You want +30 or less for a little more poke and a little more clearance. Some people run 0 offset, but that's a little too much poke for my tastes (and desire to protect my paint).

thank you sir that’s great info

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Number one reason, if you are a gear head that cares about performance, will be what gearing you have in the axles.

I learned the semi-hard way that 34.5" tires are just a touch too tall for the 4.46 manual trans combo on my Base.
Factory 30"s felt too short.

I can now confirm on the new Badlands, 285/70-17 , /2.3/auto are dead on perfect, and probably would be with the manual as well.
Factory Badlands manual would also show 33'sand 4.7 work together very well also.

Furthermore, 4 lbs at the tire can be significant and effect which gearing might be ideal as well.
Depends on many factors.

 

[mpeugeot]

Number one reason, if you are a gear head that cares about performance, will be what gearing you have in the axles.

I learned the semi-hard way that 34.5" tires are just a touch too tall for the 4.46 manual trans combo on my Base.
Factory 30"s felt too short.

I can now confirm on the new Badlands, 285/70-17 , /2.3/auto are dead on perfect, and probably would be with the manual as well.
Factory Badlands manual would also show 33'sand 4.7 work together very well also.

Furthermore, 4 lbs at the tire can be significant and effect which gearing might be ideal as well.
Depends on many factors.

I can see your point with the manual transmission; however, with the slushbox and even the 3.73 gears, 34.5" tires are totally not a problem with the 2.7 as the torque converter and torque of the 2.7 engine are plenty strong to turn 35's all day long in 4L. A manual changes the game completely and gear ratio is much more critical unless you like changing clutches often.

So it really does matter what kind of transmission you are running before even worry about gear ratios.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I can see your point with the manual transmission; however, with the slushbox and even the 3.73 gears, 34.5" tires are totally not a problem with the 2.7 as the torque converter and torque of the 2.7 engine are plenty strong to turn 35's all day long in 4L. A manual changes the game completely and gear ratio is much more critical unless you like changing clutches often.

So it really does matter what kind of transmission you are running before even worry about gear ratios.

Ahh, agreed.
I was looking at it from a daily driver point of view**, thus 2H .frame of mind.. that is where my experience is with these rigs is.
I JUST got the Badlands ...last week? 10 days ago?

The 2.3/auto/4.46/32.5" is really coming to life as it is "learning".
It shifted through 10 gears like an old tractor trailer rig for those first couple hundred miles, LOL!!!
blaaaAAAHHH
mmmm
blaaaAAAHHHHHhhh
mmmm
blaaaAAAHHHhhhhhh
mmmm ........



**Probably due to the umpteenth thread on fuel mileage a little earlier today. Lol

 

[Jsullivan]

Ahh, agreed.
I was looking at it from a daily driver point of view**, thus 2H .frame of mind.. that is where my experience is with these rigs is.
I JUST got the Badlands ...last week? 10 days ago?

The 2.3/auto/4.46/32.5" is really coming to life as it is "learning".
It shifted through 10 gears like an old tractor trailer rig for those first couple hundred miles, LOL!!!
blaaaAAAHHH
mmmm
blaaaAAAHHHHHhhh
mmmm
blaaaAAAHHHhhhhhh
mmmm ........



**Probably due to the umpteenth thread on fuel mileage a little earlier today. Lol

Only a GM man.
10.5/5S42
The S is for Steel!!

 

[mike8675309]

Number one reason, if you are a gear head that cares about performance, will be what gearing you have in the axles.

I learned the semi-hard way that 34.5" tires are just a touch too tall for the 4.46 manual trans combo on my Base.
Factory 30"s felt too short.

I'm curious about your experience. I haven't noticed any issues personally.

Sponsored