Tire Advice Needed - 35x12.50 or 35x11.50 on SAS Suspension

[pequigah]

Hey guys. Joined a few weeks back and I can't tell you how many hours that I've spent reading the forums. All (well, mostly all) very informative stuff!

I have a Badlands SAS 2.7 scheduled for build on 6/6, and I'm looking to immediately swap out the 315/70/17 GYs for a mud terrain tire. RIght now, I'm considering the Nitto Trail Grapplers or Mickey Thompson Baja Boss MTs listed below:

1. Nitto Trail Grapplers MT (35x11.5R17) C-Rated
2. Mickey Thompson Baja Boss MT (35x12.5R17) D-Rated

As far as the wheel goes, I'm open to keeping the stock SAS wheels but I'm concerned the 11.50s with the SAS positive offset and SAS fenders may look silly. I know it's really personal preference but I'm hoping for some "professional" advice.

Things I'd like to consider:

1. Poke (I prefer something flush or barely outside of the fenders)
2. Ride (is there a noticable difference between C and D rated tires? Either w/ firmness or noise?)
3. On-road traction (does a narrower tire do any better in rain, etc.?)

I should add that I don't intend to do any hardcore rock crawling where sidewall strength should be an issue. Is there anything else that could sway the decision one way or the other? MPG? I know it's only an inch but I'm suffering from paralysis by analysis at the moment and could use a nudge.

*If anyone has any pictures of the 35x11.50s (with or without the SAS fenders), I'd love to see them!

Sponsored

 

[TiredOldMedic]

Non sas badlands 35/11:50/17 Nitto trail grapplers on 8 inch bead lock capable wheel.

 

[da_jokker]

Don't know how much the Mickey's weight, but the nito trails are one of the heaviest tires out there at 73 lbs!

 

[pequigah]

Don't know how much the Mickey's weight, but the nito trails are one of the heaviest tires out there at 73 lbs!

The 35x12.5 Mickey Thompsons are just a bit less at 69 lbs.

 

[da_jokker]

The 35x12.5 Mickey Thompsons are just a bit less at 69 lbs.

Ouch. Personally I'm going to go with Toyo OC AT3 because they are one of the lightest.

I need to reach out to them, because ironically their 35x11.5 is claimed to weight MORE than their 35x12.5 version and that doesn't make sense, but we are talking in the 59 lbs range.

 

[pequigah]

Non sas badlands 35/11:50/17 Nitto trail grapplers on 8 inch bead lock capable wheel.

@TiredOldMedic From the looks standpoint, I love it! Assuming those are the stock +55mm offset wheels, the +30mm offset of the SAS wheels would give me another 0.98" of poke.

From a performance standspoint, how do they ride? Also, do you have the 2.3 or 2.7 and what kind of MPG do you get?

Appreciate the picture.

 

[TiredOldMedic]

@TiredOldMedic From the looks standpoint, I love it! Assuming those are the stock +55mm offset wheels, the +30mm offset of the SAS wheels would give me another 0.98" of poke.

From a performance standspoint, how do they ride? Also, do you have the 2.3 or 2.7 and what kind of MPG do you get?

Appreciate the picture.

They ride great. I have the 2.3 still plenty of power. About 14.6 this past weekend.

 

[da_jokker]

Ouch. Personally I'm going to go with Toyo OC AT3 because they are one of the lightest.

I need to reach out to them, because ironically their 35x11.5 is claimed to weight MORE than their 35x12.5 version and that doesn't make sense, but we are talking in the 59 lbs range.

Just and fyi, Actually called toyo support. It was interesting.

Confirmed:

35x11.5 C = 63lbs
35x12.5 C = 59lbs

As it turns out the smaller tire is heavier because oh they are both "C", the 12.5 is only 111Q rated (the bare min allowed for my Wrangler) and the 11.5 is a 118Q ... Basically supports ~500lbs more per tire. So the 11.5 has "thicker rubber".

 

[pequigah]

Just and fyi, Actually called toyo support. It was interesting.

Confirmed:

35x11.5 C = 63lbs
35x12.5 C = 59lbs

As it turns out the smaller tire is heavier because oh they are both "C", the 12.5 is only 111Q rated (the bare min allowed for my Wrangler) and the 11.5 is a 118Q ... Basically supports ~500lbs more per tire. So the 11.5 has "thicker rubber".

I'm with you. I never would've thought the smaller tire could weigh more but seeing the explanation, that makes sense. Thanks for following up.

 

[kodiakisland]

Just and fyi, Actually called toyo support. It was interesting.

Confirmed:

35x11.5 C = 63lbs
35x12.5 C = 59lbs

As it turns out the smaller tire is heavier because oh they are both "C", the 12.5 is only 111Q rated (the bare min allowed for my Wrangler) and the 11.5 is a 118Q ... Basically supports ~500lbs more per tire. So the 11.5 has "thicker rubber".

The 35X11.50s are the ones I'll go with this fall whenever I change out my coilovers. Those should have thicker sidewalls like an E tire. The 255/80s are great with what I have now but will want to get taller but stay skinny.

 

[MIBronco21]

Hey guys. Joined a few weeks back and I can't tell you how many hours that I've spent reading the forums. All (well, mostly all) very informative stuff!

I have a Badlands SAS 2.7 scheduled for build on 6/6, and I'm looking to immediately swap out the 315/70/17 GYs for a mud terrain tire. RIght now, I'm considering the Nitto Trail Grapplers or Mickey Thompson Baja Boss MTs listed below:

1. Nitto Trail Grapplers MT (35x11.5R17) C-Rated
2. Mickey Thompson Baja Boss MT (35x12.5R17) D-Rated

As far as the wheel goes, I'm open to keeping the stock SAS wheels but I'm concerned the 11.50s with the SAS positive offset and SAS fenders may look silly. I know it's really personal preference but I'm hoping for some "professional" advice.

Things I'd like to consider:

1. Poke (I prefer something flush or barely outside of the fenders)
2. Ride (is there a noticable difference between C and D rated tires? Either w/ firmness or noise?)
3. On-road traction (does a narrower tire do any better in rain, etc.?)

I should add that I don't intend to do any hardcore rock crawling where sidewall strength should be an issue. Is there anything else that could sway the decision one way or the other? MPG? I know it's only an inch but I'm suffering from paralysis by analysis at the moment and could use a nudge.

*If anyone has any pictures of the 35x11.50s (with or without the SAS fenders), I'd love to see them!

17x9 w/-12 offset. 35x12.5 Nitto Trail Grapplers.

 

[pequigah]

The 35X11.50s are the ones I'll go with this fall whenever I change out my coilovers. Those should have thicker sidewalls like an E tire. The 255/80s are great with what I have now but will want to get taller but stay skinny.

Is staying skinny just a personal preference or are there actual benefits of 11.50s that 12.50s don't offer?

I've always heard skinnier tires do better in the snow but aside from that, and considering there's not much of a weight advantage (if any), I'm guessing it's personal preference for most people.

 

[RagnarKon]

In case you weren’t aware… the “315” in the stock 315/70r17 stock Sasquatch tire gives you the width of the tire in millimeters. Meaning the stock Sasquatch tire is roughly 12.4” wide. So if you want it to poke out slightly from the Sasquatch fenders… probably should go for the 12.5” wide tire.

In terms of MPG… well… I’m sure you are aware of this already, but a heavier mud terrain tire is basically the opposite of what you should be doing if MPG is a concern.

So it just depends on what is a priority to you. If this is going to be sitting largely on pavement and you are concerned about things such as MPG and road noise… I personally would go something more on the mild/hybrid side like the Nitto Recon Grapplers. If you are going to be mudding a lot, obviously it makes sense to do the mud terrain tires. If it’s a mix a both, maybe All-Terrains (BFG KO2, Nitto Terra Grappler, Nitto Recon Grappler, etc.) makes more sense.

 

[kodiakisland]

Is staying skinny just a personal preference or are there actual benefits of 11.50s that 12.50s don't offer?

I've always heard skinnier tires do better in the snow but aside from that, and considering there's not much of a weight advantage (if any), I'm guessing it's personal preference for most people.

I prefer a skinnier tire for a combined on and off road tire. In my experience, on the vehicles I've run them on, they have better handling characteristics over a wide tire. Now of course there are plenty of times a wide tire is better, but I expect my vehicle to do everything well enough. Several times a year I do 3-4K mile trips to then off road in various conditions. I've just found the skinnier tires to be a better compromise for my use.

That's why I have the 255/80s now and it's what I run on my Tacoma. I used 33X10.50s on my 1st gen Blazers.

 

[pequigah]

In case you weren’t aware… the “315” in the stock 315/70r17 stock Sasquatch tire gives you the width of the tire in millimeters. Meaning the stock Sasquatch tire is roughly 12.4” wide. So if you want it to poke out slightly from the Sasquatch fenders… probably should go for the 12.5” wide tire.

In terms of MPG… well… I’m sure you are aware of this already, but a heavier mud terrain tire is basically the opposite of what you should be doing if MPG is a concern.

So it just depends on what is a priority to you. If this is going to be sitting largely on pavement and you are concerned about things such as MPG and road noise… I personally would go something more on the mild/hybrid side like the Nitto Recon Grapplers. If you are going to be mudding a lot, obviously it makes sense to do the mud terrain tires. If it’s a mix a both, maybe All-Terrains (BFG KO2, Nitto Terra Grappler, Nitto Recon Grappler, etc.) makes more sense.

To get the same poke as the SAS combo, I'd likely pair the 11.50s with a +18mm offset. Even going as far as a 0 offset would push them 0.73" further out than stock SAS per tiresize.com.

MPG and road noise aren't necessarily a concern as I'm currently driving a Jeep w/ 35x12.5 Dick Cepek Mud Countrys. I just like to know what I'm signing up for going in.

Thanks for the response!

Sponsored