> 235/85R16. 255/85R16's will just barely touch empty, and will get pretty
> warm when loaded.

Signature
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
If you intend for this truck to tow heavy loads, why would you want to make
the tires any bigger than they already are?

Signature
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
> > 235/85R16. 255/85R16's will just barely touch empty, and will get pretty
> > warm when loaded.
>
> are there any taller, skinny tires that will fit?
Nathan W. Collier - 20 Jun 2005 05:05 GMT
> If you intend for this truck to tow heavy loads, why would you want to
> make
> the tires any bigger than they already are?
while towing heavy loads is the primary duty, off road prowess is equally
important. this is why most 1 tons up here are single rear wheel (running
aggressive off road tires). during a montana winter the interstates can
seem like off road wilderness. if a dually on stock tires with 3.54 gears
is enough to tow (everyone i talk to insists that it is) then i would think
that a dually on 4.10's with 33s (or even 35s) would be equally capable.

Signature
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
TBone - 20 Jun 2005 05:14 GMT
Well that would explain the need and desire for more aggressive rubber but
does little to explain why you want them taller, especially when you have
multiple vehicles to work with.

Signature
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
> > If you intend for this truck to tow heavy loads, why would you want to
> > make
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> is enough to tow (everyone i talk to insists that it is) then i would think
> that a dually on 4.10's with 33s (or even 35s) would be equally capable.
Nathan W. Collier - 20 Jun 2005 07:02 GMT
> does little to explain why you want them taller
the additional clearance, the larger radius makes climbing obstacles easier
(railroad timbers for example, do it quote often), and mainly for the "happy
medium" final drive ratio (between 4.10 and 3.54).

Signature
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
>> 235/85R16. 255/85R16's will just barely touch empty, and will get pretty
>> warm when loaded.
>
> are there any taller, skinny tires that will fit?
None that I know of. It's the section width, 235mm in this case, that's
your limiting factor on the rear. I've never heard of a 235 tire with a
higher aspect ratio than 85%. You're looking for a 235/95 or so... I've
never heard of a major manufacturer offering that size. A quick Google
search turned up one manufacturer: Kenda USA. Ever hear of them? Me
neither... I couldn't find any specific info. on that tire, and it may in
fact not even be available yet. If it's not a load range E, you don't even
want to think about it.
Of course - if you want to go the spacer route, then you can fit just about
any size tire you want. I've seen 39.5"x11" Swampers mounted on a dually
with a 2" aluminum spacer, on the stock wheels. The only problem there is
the custom modifications needed to the gooseneck trailer to make it fit :)
Nathan W. Collier - 20 Jun 2005 05:07 GMT
>>> 235/85R16. 255/85R16's will just barely touch empty, and will get
>>> pretty warm when loaded.
>>
>> are there any taller, skinny tires that will fit?
>
> None that I know of.
what about something like this? http://intercotire.com/site32.php

Signature
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
Tom Lawrence - 20 Jun 2005 06:04 GMT
> what about something like this? http://intercotire.com/site32.php
I'd never run a bias-ply tire on the highway. If you want a set of tires
for off-road only, then yeah, the 9x34's would work.
Nathan W. Collier - 20 Jun 2005 06:57 GMT
>> what about something like this? http://intercotire.com/site32.php
>
> I'd never run a bias-ply tire on the highway. If you want a set of tires
> for off-road only, then yeah, the 9x34's would work.
argh.....i never noticed they were bias. :-(
ive heard of 33x9.50's, any chance of finding them in 16" with proper load
rating?

Signature
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
Tom Lawrence - 20 Jun 2005 13:44 GMT
> argh.....i never noticed they were bias. :-(
Yeah, most of the Super Swamper line are bias-plys. The exceptions are the
TSL Radial and the SSR.
> ive heard of 33x9.50's, any chance of finding them in 16" with proper load
> rating?
Doubt it. Again, the closest I know of (and used to run on my '95) is a
255/85R16. Without a load, they're okay (they just barely touch - not
enough to heat up the tires, but just enough to make them shiny on the
inside sidewalls), but you wouldn't want to run them with any kind of
substantial load.
However - is the extra 3/4" of height between a 33x9.50 and a 235/85 (which
is just about 32" tall) really significant? I would think that a
decently-aggressive tread on a 235/85 would get you through just about
anything that you'd want to put a dually through.
Stephen Harding - 20 Jun 2005 11:48 GMT
> higher aspect ratio than 85%. You're looking for a 235/95 or so... I've
> never heard of a major manufacturer offering that size. A quick Google
> search turned up one manufacturer: Kenda USA. Ever hear of them? Me
> neither...
If you go to a *Mart and look at their $95 bicycle offerings,
you might find some of them with Kenda tires. I see Kenda
tires in some of my bicycling catalogs.
Never realized they made tires for bigger vehicles as well,
but why not? I suppose if you can make little tires you can
probably make bigger ones too.
SMH