255/85 16 tire pictures

[65-f100]

Does anybody have a picture of their truck/Sub with these tires? Dmax - I know you run them but your photos are of the 285's. Do you have any pics with the 255's. Just want to know what they'll look like on my K2500 Sub.

Thanks

[MTTwister]

Yeah Me too - eventually I'm going to have to replace the OEM tires.. smile.gif

[JohnC]

Look left...

(link for the optically challenged) (http://members.aol.com/gmc65td/255-85.jpg)

[gvt]

Not the best pictures, but they should give you an idea of what 255/85's will look like. The footprint of these tires is narrower than the previous 255/85's (Dunlop Rover Rv's) that were on the truck, not sure why? I really like this tire size, but there are not alot of choices. Thanks

http://www.afreeimagehost.com/upload/4431/255-85a.JPG
http://www.afreeimagehost.com/upload/4431/255-8b.JPG

[ 09-13-2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: gvt ]

[DmaxMaverick]

Originally posted by 65-f100:
Does anybody have a picture of their truck/Sub with these tires? Dmax - I know you run them but your photos are of the 285's. Do you have any pics with the 255's. Just want to know what they'll look like on my K2500 Sub.

Thanks I haven't used that size for many years. I currently have 285's on the '01, , 9 X 16's on the '95, and 33 X 12.50's on the '85. I plan on staying with the 285's on the '01, but would use 255's if I need a narrower tire. 285's ride better and wear longer than 255's, all else being equal, in my experience. The 255's do perform better in deeper, heavier snow. Bridgestone (my prefered brand) only has them in the Dayton Timberline A/T in load range D, which would fall a little short for my capacity requirements. BFGoodrich also offers them in a couple treads. If they offered an E load range, the story may have been different. The 255's are recommended for a 6.5" - 8" wheel.

[65-f100]

Dmax - I thought I had read that the 255's rode better. I do not have any snow to worry about - my goal is a better ride and better mpg. Which do you think would be better? I know there are more choices with the 285's. gvt - thanks for the pics - they do fill the wheel wells a lot better.

[DmaxMaverick]

Theoretically, the 255's should get better mileage due to the narrower contact area. They may ride smoother these days, but my experience was with older 255's and newer 285's.

Unfortunately, ride and economy can be a trade off. Narrower tires need to be at high inflation to maximize the mileage, but high inflation hardens the ride. Lower inflation softens the ride, but lowers the mileage. Tough choice.

[gmenor]

Gvt, how much noise does it add to your driving?

[gvt]

I did not notice any change in mileage when I switched from 245/75's to 255/85's. My take on that is that it still requires the same amount of work to move the truck down the road at a given speed (for roughly the same width tire). And, the slight change in engine rpm is not enough to allow the engine to operate noticably more efficient. I believe that slowing down 5-10 mph will improve mileage more than a tire change or any other mod.

The tires are NOT at all noisy, especially at highway speed. I only notice the aggressive tread when coming to a stop or sometimes when cornering. I really expected them to be a little noisy. I've got about 5,000 miles on these tires.

I switched to the 255's for two reasons: Looks and better performance in snow (ice fishing). I'm satisfied with both. Thanks

[MTTwister]

gvt - Did you hack the VSSB to adjust for the different tire sizes? Thanks

[gvt]

MTTwister,
Yes, I had two sets of dip switches soldered to the VSSB by an electronics repair shop. I used the Radio Shack part numbers from the feature article a few years ago to get the correct switches. Speedo matches GPS exactly!