265/60/18 -> bfg at 285/65/18

Anything relating to Wheels, Tires, and Brake options and upgrades...

Moderator: volvite

User avatar
doctahjones
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:08 am
Location: aurora, co

Postby doctahjones » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:56 am

NmexMAX wrote:Not sure why or if it's an issue but the 275 65 is not rated for severe snow. I think this was covered earlier in this thread, but they wont have the snow flake symbol whereas the 285 65's do have them and are rated for severe snow conditions.

Image
difference between with and no snowflake is, ones with the snowflake have been -tested- in snow/ice, whereas ones that don't haven't. m+s rating is just based on geometry. for regular 'colorado' type snow i don't think it's a big deal, but if you were in alaska or something, that might be more important. next time i buy if the size doesn't have the symbol but has the same load ratings/plys/etc i won't care that much.


User avatar
volvite
Sponsored Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: Hill AFB, Utah West Point UT

Postby volvite » Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:51 pm

Also,

If I remember correctly, if you have the snowflake on your tire, you are not required to have chains if sgins are posted for chains/snowtires. If you don't have the snowflake and just the M+S and you come across the chains/snowtire restriction you must carry chains. If I'm wrong with this analysis, let me know, but that's what I was told.

User avatar
doctahjones
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:08 am
Location: aurora, co

Postby doctahjones » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:00 pm

no 'severe' rating required in CO. funny that 4wd will supersede m+s though


Passenger cars are not required to have chains in their car. On rare occasions road conditions may be so severe that law enforcement requires all vehicles use chains but occurrences are exceedingly rare.

More common is the requirement for all vehicles to have adequate snow tires or tire chains. Adequate snow tires are defined as tires marked M/S (mud/snow) or studded snow tires with tread depth of 1/8th inch or greater. Four wheel drive engaged is considered an alternative to adequate snow tires or chains for passenger vehicles.


http://www.cotrip.org/faq.htm

User avatar
ThePainClinic
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:01 pm

Postby ThePainClinic » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:22 am

doctahjones wrote:
NmexMAX wrote:Not sure why or if it's an issue but the 275 65 is not rated for severe snow. I think this was covered earlier in this thread, but they wont have the snow flake symbol whereas the 285 65's do have them and are rated for severe snow conditions.

Image
difference between with and no snowflake is, ones with the snowflake have been -tested- in snow/ice, whereas ones that don't haven't. m+s rating is just based on geometry. for regular 'colorado' type snow i don't think it's a big deal, but if you were in alaska or something, that might be more important. next time i buy if the size doesn't have the symbol but has the same load ratings/plys/etc i won't care that much.
I searched Tire Rack and Discount Tire...both sizes (275/285) in the BFG's are listed as M+S and not severe snow. Is it extra?

User avatar
doctahjones
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:08 am
Location: aurora, co

Postby doctahjones » Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:07 am

on tirerack, all the bfg ats will have the snowflake, unless it's noted that they don't. so if you look at this list (click on the 'specs' link):

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp ... mpare1=yes

you'll see that some of the tires are noted with "Not Rated For Severe Snow". those won't have the snowflake.

the 275's won't have it, but the 285/65/18's will have it.

User avatar
doctahjones
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:08 am
Location: aurora, co

Postby doctahjones » Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:17 pm

figured i'd give an update...

time came to replace the tires. i probably could have survived the winter without replacing, but i don't feel i'd have the 'bite' in the snow like i've had the past 2 seasons. but, having gotten about 26 months out of this one set of tires makes me really happy.

the rears got down to 14/15/16 (x/32nds) for the outside/center/inside of the tire, and the fronts were 16/17/18.

as you can tell there seems to be a camber issue there. Now for the majority of the miles on these tires (i'll have to look it up later, i think around 20-25k) i did not have the front camber bolts in, so i believe it was the front that was doing the camber wear. when i put in the rancho 9000xls in the front i also put the camber bolts in and got it aligned.

another reason i went ahead and replaced was i started to be able to break the rears loose pretty easily when taking turns. i figure if i'm able to do that, then they'll break lose real easy in the snow.

one thing i did also notice/remember was the 'sloshy' feeling when the bfgs are new. on my worn ones i could take turns pretty fast and didn't feel alot of roll. with the new ones there's this 'slosh' that happens when you start a turn at highway speeds. it's hard to describe but you start your turn, then hold the wheel through the turn and you'll feel the vehicle 'slosh' over just a little like the tires are catching up. it's a little unnerving the first time it happens when you go from being able to take a turn with no slosh, to having that slosh.


lastly, discount tire didn't give me any grief this time when going with the 285's on the stock LE rims. previously discount tire said that the tire required an 8in wide rim, but the stock LE rims are only 7.5in. this time their computer showed 7.5min width for the tire, and 7.5 width for my rim, but was still giving them an error in their system when trying to apply the tire. they just overrode the error, but at least they didn't hassle me about it. paid $285/tire + 16 for mount/balance.

User avatar
doctahjones
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:08 am
Location: aurora, co

Postby doctahjones » Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:48 am

something else i forgot to mention....

while one of the fronts is -brand- new and the other already has ~1k miles, neither of them give me frame rub at all. it's very strange why it doesn't and i can't figure it out as my last ones would still rub just -barely- at full lock right up until i had them replaced.

I am back to getting just a slight rub on the mudflaps/plastic wheel well liner. i'm really thinking though that after the last year it's just come a little loose and just needs to be re-tightened.

User avatar
Philfinder
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:31 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Philfinder » Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:59 pm

Sorry guys waaaay late on this......Would I be right in assuming that with the 285/65/18 tyre, if you got a little rub with a lift, that if you had NO lift, the rub would be significantly worse? Especially nearing, or at full lock? Just trying to get a feel for what AT tyre to get without having a lifted vehicle.

I'm a UK spec 18" rim so its only 7" wide so options are 265/65/18 or 265/70/18, think i'm right in thinking there's only 13mm difference between the two but is that a total diameter of 26mm extra? (13mm top and bottom if you will)

Think the 265/70/18 is the equivalent wall size (185.5mm) as the 285/65/18... but if you were rubbing with no lift, then perhaps the best option would be the 265/65/18 as I have no plans to lift mine.

Thoughts?

thanks in advance.

Phil

User avatar
ThePainClinic
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:01 pm

Postby ThePainClinic » Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:43 pm

I had 275x65x18 BFG AT KO with very, very minor rubbing at full lock (u turns) WITHOUT A LIFT. Now that I have the quick lift, I plan to stay with the 275 but go up to a 70 for that extra inch in height...


Return to “R51 Brakes, Tires, and Wheels”