Narrower 225s for snow/gumbo roads & trails?

Coyotefred · **Joined:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:50 pm **Posts:** 36

Like many of you I'm looking to upgrade the stock tires (P235 70R16 GY Wrangler SR-As) on my unlifted '02 KJ with something better. I live in the sticks but work in town, driving around 60 miles/day. Although most of this is highway, 15 miles are on a lousy county road that gets gumbo mud and slushy snow and makes the daily commute “interesting.” I don't do any intentional off-roading (yet!?), but I manage to find myself in plenty of poor driving conditions in pursuit of trails, slopes and fish the rest of the year as well.

Based on what I’ve read here and other places, I think the Firestone Destination A/Ts would be a good choice for what I need. For me the biggest issue is gaining traction on those gumbo mud and wet snow roads. The selec-trac and trac-lok will help with that too, but I want the best tires for that purpose

But I’m undecided on the size. I originally thought about going up to 245 70s to gain a little width and height, but most of the folks around here say that a NARROWER tire is actually a better choice for these mucky roads, since they help you bite down through the gumbo and wet snow down to a more solid road bed. “Tall and skinny” is definitely what you see more of around here on all the ranch pickups.

So I was thinking that dropping down to 225 75s might be a good choice. I’d gain a little height (29.2” compared to 28.9” for the stock 235 70s), but lose some in width (dropping to 8.86” from the 9.25” for the stock 235 70s).

‘Any thoughts on this? Anyone running 225 75s with good or bad experiences? Any other recommendations for what I’m looking for in a tire and thoughts on size?

‘Many thanks…this is a great site!

PCTim · **Posted:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:59 pm

I started with 215/75's on my '04. I first went to the 225/75 Destination MT. They were an inch taller than the 215's. I then went to a 245/70 Revo. They are an inch taller, and inch wider than the 215's. So, 225/75's are as tall as a 245/70, but an inch narrower. I have also heard that tall and skinny is better for mud and snow. Here are a couple of pics so you can see the difference.

Also, as tempting as the Destination MT's may be (I think they look great), I don't think they will be practical for highway driving. They are very stiff and noisy. Stick with the AT's if you prefer a more civilized ride.

225/75/16 Destination MT's

245/70/16 Revo's

Hope this helps!

Coyotefred · **Joined:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:50 pm **Posts:** 36

Those MTs look great and I bet really clean out the stuff, but you're right...I don't think they would be the best choice for my own-road driving. 'Glad to know the 225s sized out for you in the way I was thinking. How was the wear on your Destination MTs? I've read that the wear is faster than average on the ATs, but that's to be exected I think with that special rubber compound they apparently use... Thanks for your post!

the1jferg · **Posted:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:25 pm

anything that fits under the KJ fenders won't make that much of a diff either way

ManicMechanicJoe · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:52 am

It really comes down to how you build your truck. If you want to float, get a wide tire and run low pressure (I'd recommend this i nthe deep stuff). But if you are in shallow mud you want to sink down with high tire pressure and a skinny tire. Just remember, the wider the tire, the more tire touches the ground which means your traction (simple logic). Ferg is right though, My 255's don't feel much different then my 235's did. Maybe a bit more stable.

RespectMyLibertay · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:56 am

If you're dealing with lots of snow, and mud when the snow is on a dirt trail, then get mud terrain tires.
I have 245/75R16 Destination M/Ts (30.7x9.8") on my Lib. In snow on a dirt trail with muddy areas, they bite down to the harder surface of the ground very well. Through the snow and mud they go with ease, made so by great self-cleaning and overall traction. They grip awesome on everything, except ice....

I also just recently found out they're great on the only rocks I've been on so far.

BTW, I do a lot of street driving and haven't had these tires long enough to see what I can expect out of them mileage-wise. But when I got my alignment at the Firestone I got them at, the alignment guy told me had a buddy who had them on his Jeep, and they wore just as well as a BFG All-Terrain KO.

Coyotefred · **Joined:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:50 pm **Posts:** 36

Yeah those M/Ts are great looking tires and others have really reviewed them well...I'm just thinking that they might be a little much for my driving, most of which is highway/pavement. I'd say only about 10-15% of my driving is off-pavement, and for much of the year even that off-pavement is pretty decent quality gravel/dirt road or trail. But for that 5-10% of the time where those "roads" and trails get really gumbo and sloppy with snow and mud, I need to get through. I would think that the M/Ts wouldn't be all that great for highway driving and long-term wear compared to the A/Ts?

RespectMyLibertay · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:44 am

TireRack.com shows great reviews for them, people saying they easily get 40,000 miles out of them with a rotation every 5,000 miles. I will be using my life-time alignment at Firestone to make sure they last me as long as possible.
Read the reviews for yourself:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Firestone&tireModel=Destination+M%2FT

PCTim · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:13 am

Coyotefred wrote:

Those MTs look great and I bet really clean out the stuff, but you're right...I don't think they would be the best choice for my own-road driving. 'Glad to know the 225s sized out for you in the way I was thinking. How was the wear on your Destination MTs? I've read that the wear is faster than average on the ATs, but that's to be exected I think with that special rubber compound they apparently use... Thanks for your post!

I only had them on for a few weeks (about 200 miles) so I don't know about the wear. I did enjoy them, but they made no sense for the driving I do. I've had my KJ for over two years now, and it's only been off-road once. Yeah the MT's would have been nice that one time, but for the other 99.9% of the time, the Revo's are great. As far as the size goes, if you go with an MT tire, you will NOT be able to get a 245/70, as that is a P size, and not an LT size. I belive the MT's only come in an LT size.

BTW, my Revo's did great the one time I had them off-road. There was only one spot that they gave me trouble (packed wet sand/dirt around a tree stump), but otherwise they were great.

Hope this helps!

Coyotefred · **Joined:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:50 pm **Posts:** 36

I'm thinking at this point I'd be going with the narrower 225 75s no matter what; I'm pretty sure both the M/T and A/T are available in this size (although the M/T is more expensive). I'm wondering about the performance of the M/T on-road with slick wet/snow conditions though. I would think that with less tread to contact the ground on-road that would be less than ideal as far as highway packed snow, etc. ?

And somehwhat off-post, what about the spare? My existing 235 70/16 spare is perfectly new and I hate to just get rid of it (although I could probably sell it locally). But how much trouble would you run into having a 235 70/16 spare with a set of 4 225 75s? If you had to run with the smaller spare for 15-20 miles, would you have any problems messing up your driveline or tranmission or anything? The 235 70 spare is about 28.9" high, the new 225 75s would be about 29.2" high. From reading this it seems like the best approach is to just suck it up and buy a new spare and integrate into the rotation pattern:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/ ... ?techid=18

LibertyCRD · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:44 pm

OK, here's the deal. Some people say a narrow tire will work better in mud and deep snow. But I can tell you from personal experience that it isn't true. A WIDE tire will go more places off road than a narrow tire of the same height any day of the week. A wide tire will also go better in the deep snow too. I know this from first hand experience. The reason being...a wider tire has more contact with the surface, therefore provides more traction and more pull. So if not getting stuck is your concern, STAY AWAY FROM NARROW TIRES.

Having said that, your factory spare will work fine as a spare tire to get you home in the event of an emergency. I am going to be using my factory spare even though I'm upgrading to 255/70-16 tires. Keep the spare and save yourself $100.

Get a good AT tire like the General Grabber AT2 and you'll be happy on and off road.

kj lad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:40 pm

The debate about wide verses narrow tyres has raged on for decades. In the UK (mostly muddy offroading) the landrover defender comes with tall narrow tyres (235/85 r16's). However in the USA there seems to be preference towards wider tyres.

Wider tyres give a wider footprint and narrow tyres provide greater pressure per square inch. The question is do you need more rubber or more pressure to get the traction you need on the surface you on?

I reckon wider for rocks and sand. Narrower for mud and water crossings.

I have always pefered narrower mud terrain tyres when I'm offroad. I used to have 225/75 r16's mud terrains on my KJ and they were fantastic in the mud and I've always run tall, narrow tyres on the Landrovers I have owned. I used to use inner tubes on the landrovers when on expeditions so I could get more use out of punctured tyres and so I didn't need to carry so many spare tyres. I could only do that with narrower tyres.

The choice is yours.

Ian

Coyotefred · **Joined:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:50 pm **Posts:** 36

kj lad wrote:

The debate about wide verses narrow tyres has raged on for decades. In the UK (mostly muddy offroading) the landrover defender comes with tall narrow tyres (235/85 r16's). However in the USA there seems to be preference towards wider tyres.

Wider tyres give a wider footprint and narrow tyres provide greater pressure per square inch. The question is do you need more rubber or more pressure to get the traction you need on the surface you on?

I reckon wider for rocks and sand. Narrower for mud and water crossings.

I have always pefered narrower mud terrain tyres when I'm offroad. I used to have 225/75 r16's mud terrains on my KJ and they were fantastic in the mud and I've always run tall, narrow tyres on the Landrovers I have owned. I used to use inner tubes on the landrovers when on expeditions so I could get more use out of punctured tyres and so I didn't need to carry so many spare tyres. I could only do that with narrower tyres.

The choice is yours.

Ian

This makes sense. Since I don't plan to do much in the way of sand or rocks, I think narrower probably makes sense. I think the ranchers around here run "tall and skinny" on the gumbo and snowy roads in hopes of biting down through the muck to a more solid road surface below. What 225 75 16 M/Ts have you run on your KJ?

Taz · **Posted:** Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:04 pm

Coyotefred wrote:

And somehwhat off-post, what about the spare? My existing 235 70/16 spare is perfectly new and I hate to just get rid of it (although I could probably sell it locally). But how much trouble would you run into having a 235 70/16 spare with a set of 4 225 75s? If you had to run with the smaller spare for 15-20 miles, would you have any problems messing up your driveline or tranmission or anything? The 235 70 spare is about 28.9" high, the new 225 75s would be about 29.2" high. From reading this it seems like the best approach is to just suck it up and buy a new spare and integrate into the rotation pattern:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/ ... ?techid=18

Your spare will be fine as long as you keep it in 2WD with that odd size tire on.

the1jferg · **Posted:** Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:20 am

If you are going to lift it...put some meat under it to offset the center of gravity thing.

The 225's ain't going to do nothin a wider tire ain't gonna do in this range.

When you talk taller, you really need to be in the 85 range to envoke the theory. That theory is based on solid ground being under there somewhere before you frame out.

kj lad · **Posted:** Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:54 pm

On my KJ I ran 225/75 r16 Cooper discoverer stt's. I liked them a lot. But it's all down to personal opinion and opinions will always vary. I've told you what I think is best based on my experience......... I'm sure they'll be others that will tell you I'm wrong!

As I said before, the choice is yours.

Ian

Narrower 225s for snow/gumbo roads & trails?

Who is online