THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

What fits and What performs

Moderator: Staff

THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby COYOTE102076 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:54 am

I have spent many hours trying to my best ability to compile a single post in regards to the whole "Wide vs. Skinny" tire debate.
I do wish I could have found more "PRO WIDE" post's, but they just were not in there. At least, none that I could find that had any sort of tangible information. I was REALLY hoping to find more "Pro Wide" reviews on the net. But they just don't seem to exist. What I DID learn is that the vast majority of us PI members that are running oversize tires are using "skinny" tires, and those who run the Wide tires love them! :lol:
Now, what DEFINES a tire as "Wide" or "Skinny"? I started out that question before I started this project, and I could find NO definite answer! All I have to go by is what other people are calling "Wide" and "Skinny".
And to further dilute the water, there is also that "COMPROMISE TIRE". Not a wide, but not a skinny either. The 32x11.50x15 most frequently comes to mind. So to come down to an actual term "Pizza Cutter", it has also got to be TALL as well as Skinny!
In reality, if SKINNY is all that made a tire a "Pizza Cutter", then I could literally mount up a set of 215/70/15 Firestone Destination LE tires that have a 6.4" tread width & call it a day. That would be dumb! So, I ask again, what then makes a tire a "Pizza Cutter"?
The baseline I could come up with is a tire that is at the least 31" tall (+/- 1/2"), with a maximum section width of 32% of its height.
So, based upon HOURS of research over multiple websites a true Pizza Cutter tire sizes would be:
31x9.92 or less, 32x10.24 or less, 33x10.56 or less, 34x10.88 or less
35x11.20 or less, and on & on. The formula is 0.32XTire OD.
NOTE: Do not confuse TREAD WIDTH with SECTION width.
I could fill in about 20 paragraphs worth of info on "This tire IS a......, and this tire is NOT a.....".
To see what tires meet the minimums, go to Tirerack.com and find the tire you are interested in and click on the "SPECS" tab and find your size. It will tell the actual tire OD, section width, recommended rim width, and tread width of that particular tire.
In conclusion, after many hours, many cups of coffee, and many trips to the loon, I can now confidently say:
The Winner is: BOTH! :roll:
Seriously. There is, nor ever will be that "Perfect Tire"
But here is all the info one could ever need on the tire debate. The final choice is YOURS, and there is NOT a "Wrong Choice" to be made! Run what you WANT to run, and BE HAPPY! :mrgreen:

.
PRO SKINNY TIRE "PIZZA CUTTER" GROUP SAYS:
A POST FROM OUR FEARLESS LEADER, TAD:
by Tad Mon Jan 26, 2009:
I won't argue the wide vs. narrow tire selection (I prefer narrow myself) but it's the diameter that kills the power and makes braking more difficult. Remember physics class where they taught you about levers and that using longer lever would increase the force that you can exert? The same is true of tires (and brakes - more on that below). The further the contact area is from the center of the wheel, the more force the tire can exert on the center of the wheel, and conversely the more force it takes to overcome it (which requires more power and better brakes). It isn't the weight of the tire.
Same thing applies for brakes. The larger the brake (in terms of distance from the center of the wheel) the more force it can apply, all other things being equal. That's why big-brake kits are sold. It's also why people started going to larger wheels: to clear larger brakes.
So please do buy narrow tires over wide ones, but don't confuse the weight of the tire with the diameter in terms of what's killing your acceleration and braking performance.

by DRaider90 on 05/09/2008:
I guess some of it does have to do with what trails/kind of trails you run, and what you expect out of your truck. After wheeling my truck for a weekend with the loaner 33"s on the trails I usually go on, it was obvious the (1)" of clearance was what I needed. I had found my truck likes to scrape its skid plates on rocks even when taking the best line with the 31"s aired down. With the 33"s I only scraped bottom once, vs 5-8 times with the 31"s. I do plan on putting a 1-2" body lift on my truck also, but that is mainly to give the larger 33"s room to flex/stuff. Yes it will give my body some more clearance, but the main place I need clearance is my pumpkin/skid plates which only tires will give you.
That's my reasoning behind my move to 33"s. And I will say it is a nice little bonus on the visual side too. Gives the truck a much nice stance. And with running them on alloy rims, plus going for 10.5 vs 12.5 I am putting a lot less strain on my drive train than even someone running 32x11.5 on steel rims. I would bet the alloy rim 33x10.5 combo is lighter/less straining than a 31x10.5 on a steel rim."

by shooter on 08/27/2008:
"Haven't read the article yet. As I traveled quite a bit in my former life, the areas which were wet, muddy, and all - around jungle terrain were best traveled in vehicles with very narrow tires and rims. Decades ago, it was not uncommon to see old Model -A type vehicles running around in parts of Central and South America. Those babies would trudge right on through all the muck. I guess if you have enough power, you could get away with wide tires in the mud. Skinny tires are the way to go."
 
NOTE WHAT TIRES ARE ON THE CAMEL TROPHY TRUCK! PIZZA CUTTERS!
Image

by coyote102076 on 10/28/2011: Edited 02/16/2012
I sweated over this for DAYS & DAYS before I bought my new set of 33x12.50's. I did a LOT of research, both on here and at therangerstation forum and also over at the Seriousexplorations forum. My gut told me to run a "Pizza Cutter", but I simply liked the LOOKS (and still do) of a w i d e tire. But I know the skinny's are the way to go for a DD.
SKINNY TIRE:
PRO'S:
Greater contact pressure, Better in hard packed shallow (less than 1 ft. deep) snow & slush.
( NOTHING but a dedicated winter tire compound with studs is really FAIR in true ICE!)
Lighter weight for same O.D. & Load range of a wide tire= better acceleration, braking & better fuel economy. (Debatable)
Less wear & tear on the suspension (if stock) and steering components.
Because they will usually "Tuck under" a fender, in SOME cases can fit a larger O.D. tire with less lift.
Cons:
TYPICALLY not as stable / as well handling on the street as a wide tire.
NOT GOOD for deep sand! More prone to cutting ruts in the yard or field where you may not want to see ruts.

WIDE TIRE:
PRO'S:
Better flotation over loose soil & sand.
Wider track width TYPICALLY yields better on road handling.
Generally better over really deep snow. (See "flotation" above)
CON'S:
Higher weight for same O.D.
Inferior to skinny tires when climbing loose rocky hills / trails.
Generally a little worse fuel mileage than a skinny tire of same O.D.

I am not going to say much on the performance in mud. Reason being is simple:
Yes, it is true a 33X12.50 would be better in deep mud, IF you had about 500 horsepower to spin the crap out of them!
But from my last 19 years of real world off road experience, on typical daily drivers, or low powered (under 300 HP) trail rigs, if you get stuck in mud, you would have been just as freakin stuck if you had 34x10.50's instead of the 33x12.50's, or vice-versa!
And ANY "Old Guy" that has actually BEEN on many trails / out in farm fields for long will (most likely) agree.

by West Coast Trooper Mon Jan 23, 2012:
I have never compared 10.5 and 12.5 but if you only think you need a wider tire for deep snow and you don't drive in it that often, then pick the 10.5. The skinny tire will be better on gas and easier on drive train parts and will still perform satisfactory in the deep snow.

by GoodyMOBB Mon Jan 23, 2012:
I've always handled better in snowy conditions with a skinnier tire. Id go 10.50. Wider just feels more like giant skis, don't dig as well in the slushy stuff and slide more on the ice. That's just me though

by DRaider90 Fri Sep 04, 2009:
Pizza Cutters: { PRO'S }
+ Narrow tread equals better traction for mud, rocks, and dirt (different story with Sand/Snow):
Not to mention narrow tires dig a lot better than wider tires also.
+ Narrow tires are lighter means less strain on the drive train, suspension, and other components.
+ Better MPG and less power loss than wider tires.
+ Can stay with stock width wheels saving money.
+ Don't have to worry about fender flares and other items (in some states if your tires stick out past the fenders you will get a ticket)
{ CONS }
- Don't get the protection from obstacles sticking out like you do from wide tires
- Loose the aggressive stance look
And I have run both wide (34x12.5) and narrow (34x9.5) and I can say the difference is night and day. Not to mention when you get into Swampers the narrower ones have little to no vibration, no death wobble, and are a bit quieter. I don't mind the noise of swampers but with the wider TSLs when they wear down you have to almost scream to have a conversation in your truck. The narrows are still loud but not like the wide ones. And with the Mitsu Carb'd 2.6 I4 I need all the power/mpg I can get, not to mention I don't need all the added strain/weight of wider tires on an essentially stock truck.
I had to adjust to the look of the 9.5s, because I did love the wide stance of the 12.5s. But I have come around and started to like the look. And I don't do a lot of driving in sand/snow so I don't need the flotation of a wider tire. If you have the engine to spin the tires, and the upgraded suspension and other parts then sure go for wider. But you still won't be gripping the rocks and digging in the mud like skinnies.
(Oh yeah, the 34x10.5 LTBs aren't skinny. They actually measure out to 11.2" wide. Almost an 11.5 which is a moderately wide tire.)
 
REALLY GOOD OFF SITE LINK:
http://www.expeditionswest.com/research ... _rev1.html
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRO WIDE "FLOTATION" TIRE GROUP SAYS:

by Gary Mon Jan 30, 2012:
It doesn't have a longer footprint, but a bigger footprint. If you are quoting someone, it was probably a misstatement.
A wider tire of a given diameter will have more area contacting the road (or mud, snow etc) Airing down also increases the the area somewhat. A larger diameter will also have more contact area. So if deep snow driving is what you want to do, you want the tallest and widest tires you can fit (and of course have the power and gears to turn them) under your truck.

by bansheedude Tue Sep 01, 2009:
Just posted a thread about getting some baja claws on my trooper with some pics. Had 33 13.5 16 claws and decided to go with some 33 14.50 16 ssr swampers. Don't know why all you guys run those skinny swampers. I live in bend and get a lot of snow. This ssrs are supposed to be awesome in the snow so I went as wide as I could go and love them so far. Had them in rocks and very loose sand with no problem or sinking. Sweet tires.

REFER BACK TO THIS ARTICLE AND GO ABOUT 3/4 THE WAY DOWN TO THE BOTTOM TO THE "PRO'S OF WIDE TIRES" SECTION:
http://www.expeditionswest.com/research ... _rev1.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN REGARDS TO WHAT TIRE IS BEST FOR SNOW, I THINK MY GOOD FRIEND "BIGSWEDE" SAYS IT BEST IN HIS POST A WHILE AGO.. AND WHEN SOMEONE WHO LIVES AND DRIVES IN THE MINNESOTA SNOW AS MUCH AS HE DOES, IF I WERE YOU I WOULD TAKE HIS ADVICE AS "WRITTEN IN STONE!" :wink:
by BigSwede Thu Dec 17, 2009:
Those of us who live in climes that have snow for extended periods know that there is no one-size fits all snow tire. Wet, heavy snow is a far different animal than dry fluffy snow. Depth matters too, there are times when a skinny tire is desirable to cut down to the pavement. There are other times when the pavement is covered in ice under the snow, and that cutting down to the pavement gets you precisely nowhere...that is when you may want a wide, aired-down flotation tire with multiple gripping surfaces to grab and hold as much dry crunchy snow as possible to get whatever traction you can. But there are a couple of generalizations you can make for snow tires:
- The more tread blocks, the better. Lots and lots of siping. This is why an AT is almost always a better snow tire than an MT. Tf you look at dedicated snow tires (such as Blizzak or the Nokian Hakkapeliitta) you will see literally thousands of tiny tread blocks, not big digging blocks like a mud tire.
- For ice traction, softer rubber is better. However, softer compounds, of course, will wear faster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BEST ARTICLE I COULD FIND ON "WIDE vs. SKINNY" IN REGARDS TO FUEL ECONOMY CAME FROM ONE OF OUR OWN MEMBERS:

by jcb18 Mon Jun 18, 2007:
Smaller contact patch comes from higher PSI and results in lower rolling resistance. However as far as rolling resistance is concerned, the actual width of the tire is of little relevance unless you are talking about really skinny or really wide tires. For most tires, the contact patch is determined mostly by the vehicle weight and the tire PSI.
The contact patch for properly inflated tires will only be as large as it needs to be, because the four tires support the full weight of the vehicle. Each tire bears a load that is dependent upon the distribution of the vehicle's weight. For each tire:
Weight supported in pounds = Tire PSI x area of contact patch in square inches

A little algebra gets us: Area of contact path = Weight supported / Tire PSI

So decreasing the vehicle weight or increasing PSI will both decrease the size of the contact patch, but you can't over inflate your tires, so their are limits to what PSI can do for you. This leaves us with decreasing the vehicle weight to lower rolling resistance and help your fuel economy, but we all knew that already.
You will observe fuel economy benefits from having skinnier tires from what 88supertrooper says, because they are lighter. They will have a smaller moment of inertia (Resistance to being rotated about their axis) in direct proportion to their lower weight. Resistance to rotation because of moment of inertia is a separate concept from rolling resistance, which is due to the interaction between the tire and the driving surface.
If you could get wider tires of the same weight as the skinny tires, they could be made equivalent in terms of fuel economy as long as you could safely adjust your tire PSI to produce the same size contact patch based on your vehicle's weight. The only difference now might be with air resistance hitting a tire with a wider cross-section. The type of tire matters too, since tires with more of their weight concentrated at the outer edges (M/T's) will have a higher moment of inertia than tires with less weight concentration at their outer edges, touring tires for example. Also, since rolling resistance comes from the interaction between the tire and the driving surface, the chemistry of each manufacturer's tread compound will matter, as will the surface upon which you are driving.

Summary, as everybody has said, there are trade offs everywhere. The most you can do for your fuel economy is park your zu and buy a bicycle. Short of that, your driving habits are going to have the greatest effect as long as you have reasonably sized, properly-inflated tires and a vehicle that is properly maintained otherwise. If you want to get fuel economy benefits from your tires focus on diameter, weight, and tread design (less aggressive is generally better for fuel economy). Width is not necessarily a factor with us because we drive bricks as it is, air resistance from wider tires is not going to change that much.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few links to other brands forums on the Wide vs. Skinny debate
http://forum.ih8mud.com/60-series-wagon ... tires.html
http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/forums/w ... tires.html
http://www.cherokeeforum.com/f59/tall-s ... ate-86588/
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/wide- ... es-586155/
http://www.fullsizechevy.com/forum/gene ... ebate.html
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/polls/599 ... res-2.html
Last edited by COYOTE102076 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-==Kevin J.
1994 Trooper "The Phoenix": given to my 16 year old son
My Rides: 1) 2005 Volvo XC90 Turbo 2) 2004 Mercedes Benz S500 3) 1988 Jeep Comanche Pickup

COYOTE102076 was thanked by:
DRaider90GarySelahdoorsteve600ccTatohead
User avatar
COYOTE102076
Donor
Donor
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: LBL AREA, N.W. TENNESSEE
Has thanked: 75 times
Have thanks: 35 times

Sponsor
 

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby squatch » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:01 pm

If this helps your definition some. The tires sizes such as 31x10.50x15, 32x11.50x15, 33x12.50x15, 35x12.50x15 are what is known as "floatation" sizes. I would consider them as wide tires. As opossed to the now defunct q78x15 designation which has been replaced by the metric tire sizes. Such as 265/70r16. This is basically a 32x10.50x16. Hence a skinny tire. Common metric sizes tend to be narrower than similar floatation tires in a similar diameter.

The concept is simple. A skinny tire has more contact pressure on a slightly smaller foot print. They also don't push quite the same wall of snow in front of the tire as a wider tire. Because of this they will "Supposedly" cut down through mud and snow to find solid traction. That's great until you don't find solid traction and your up to the hubs in muck. Put me in the wider camp up to a point. In the above situation a wider tire has a bigger footprint with a better chance of finding something to grab a hold of. It also keep the truck from digging down so fast in situations where there is no bottom. I have on many occasiuons been able to get traction with wider tires in places where others with me on Pizza cutters could not. The reverse has also been true. I personally prefer the wider footprint a floatation tire has on the street. It helps to compensate for the lift of the truck. It is all so vehicle biased as well. Some vehicle just work better with one style of the other. I've found the heavier a truck is the more width you want. I've pulled out several Superduty's on skinny street tires stuck in soft back yards with my Powerwagon on 12.50 mt's. Never even spinning a tire. Didn't even leave tracks in the yard.
These links have write-ups and pics of most anything you ever will do on a 2.6 Isuzu. Engine, brakes, suspension, interior, you name it! Enjoy!
Original '88 Trooper frame off build.
viewtopic.php?t=12172
The continuing Trooper project.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=43909
My '88 Spacecab build. In progress.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=56442

squatch was thanked by:
COYOTE102076woodsman1st
User avatar
squatch
I am the Stig
 
Posts: 10238
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:48 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 66 times
Have thanks: 319 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby DRaider90 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:51 pm

And to think I thought some of my posts on skinny tires vs wide tires were indepth, you have taken it many leaps and bounds beyond. :D

In the end its all based on what your needs are for your vehicle. As long as when people make their decision they compare apples to apples they really shouldn't have any issues making a decision. You have to compare a wide M/T to a narrow M/T, and a wide A/T to a narrow A/T and so on and so on. You can't take a wide M/T and compare it to a narrow A/T in the mud and say hey the wide M/T was much better.

When ever I get some modifications done to support a larger tire size I am going to go from my 34x9.5s to Q78s (which are still around) that come out to about 35.5"x10.8". And I don't wheel in deep mud or snow and I can live with the quality of the ride (or lack of) with a narrower tire. But that is just me.

Hopefully people considering skinny vs wide use your post and combine that information with what they are looking for in a tire and come to a conclusion/tire that best suits their situation.
Eli,

1988 Dodge Raider(Red): 170k, 2.6 I4 w/ Weber+K&N. 5spd KM145, SW Hubs, 34x9.5 Swamper TSLs, 4.62s & R/LSD, 1" T-Bar, 2" 4Crawler BL, some lights, CB, headlight washers and other neat stuff. Daily Driver Once Again

1988 Dodge Raider(Silver) & 1988 Mitsubishi Montero (Brown): Parts Rigs

2016 Ford Mustang GT: 11k, Premium Package, Flowmaster Outlaw Axlebacks

1996 Mazda 626:268k, Totaled

2013 Ford Mustang V6: 54k, Traded-In

For this post the author DRaider90 was thanked by:
COYOTE102076
User avatar
DRaider90
Zu Royalty
 
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Has thanked: 12 times
Have thanks: 5 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby COYOTE102076 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:04 am

DRaider90 wrote:And to think I thought some of my posts on skinny tires vs wide tires were indepth, you have taken it many leaps and bounds beyond. :D


Thanks DRader90. i spent a HUGE ammount of time puting this together. And gleaned quite a bit of info by reading YOUR past post's. (Note a couple of your's were included in the main sticky :wink: )
I know opinions are like belly buttons.
I was not trying, or WANTING to try to make someone else's mind up in any way. All I wanted was to have a single post that pritty much said all that is worthwhile to be said on the topic.
Having that been said, we WELCOME any new / different input anyone else might have on this never ending subject! :lol:
It's like the whole "270 vs. 30'06 vs 308",,,,,or Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge, it's a matter of personal choice. But all will get the job done.
If there were to ever be ONE TIRE that could do it ALL, I'd be kinda sad! :lol:
For some odd reason, I accualy enjoy all the research & options out there! Wierd, I know.
I have just joined the "Pizza Cutter" group last week with the purchase of my 33x10.50x15 BFG ATKO's.
Kinda funny how you just so happened to mention "wide MT to a skinny AT", and yet, that is EXACTLY what I had done! :lol: But I will say this, so far from what mud, hill climbing and trail riding I have done in the past week, my initial impressions of the BFG AT's is really good. MUCH better in the mud than I was expecting! Granted, the old remingon Mud Brutes I had were FAR superior to them in the slick stuff, but, even with the AT's, I did not get stuck. And the new AT's are
oh SO SO SO VERY MUCH NICER on the road! :D
As an added bonus, I have picked up nearly a full 1 MPG to boot! (of course, I ALSO went from 26 lb 15x8 rims to 17 Lb. 15x7 snowflake rims too, on top of the new tires being some 10ish lbs per tire lighter.)
-==Kevin J.
1994 Trooper "The Phoenix": given to my 16 year old son
My Rides: 1) 2005 Volvo XC90 Turbo 2) 2004 Mercedes Benz S500 3) 1988 Jeep Comanche Pickup
User avatar
COYOTE102076
Donor
Donor
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: LBL AREA, N.W. TENNESSEE
Has thanked: 75 times
Have thanks: 35 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby IsuzuGeek » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:11 pm

I've spent some considerable time researching this as well, and my conclusion is that tall and skinny is the way to go, both with tires and with women. :lol:

Seriously though, I will be going with pizza cutters on my Troopers when the time comes. I also really prefer the expo look over the wide tire and offset mud bogger look, so it is a win win for me.

Bart
:(
User avatar
IsuzuGeek
I am the Stig
 
Posts: 9913
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:27 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Has thanked: 9 times
Have thanks: 196 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby psguardian » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:01 am

Pizza cutters all the way! Higher lb p/sq inch, less resistance/friction, less weight.

Only downer is they don't floaty in soup, & have to be stiffer to avoid dancing around on road. But at normal speeds won't really matter.

~psguardian
hot 2.6L build
Her Rig: '06 TrailBlazer Ext 4.0L Strait 6 (my Daily Driver till my rig is street legal)
Dae wrote:Jerry is the Chuck Norris of Isuzu's, he could build one blind folded with one arm behind his back if he had to. :lol:

PNW Zoo Facebook Group
psguardian
Almost Joe Isuzu
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:56 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Has thanked: 6 times
Have thanks: 26 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby Ian1006 » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:03 pm

I know that for fuel economy, clearance, weight etc etc the skinny is probably the better choice...however I love the wide tire look. Practical? Less so than the skinny tires probably, but looks should count too! I wouldnt go over a 12.5 wide tire though and I am at 10.5 right now.
97 Honda Passport EX Auto to Manual Converted
G80 Dana 44
TreadWright Guard Dogs 265/70/16 on Snowflakes w/ matching spare
Sensa-trac shocks
Aisin Manual hub conversion
Lifted 2 inches front / add a leaf and custom shackles for 3 inches rear
DIY tie rod protectors
5W40 Rotella T6 / Wix filters

Build thread: http://forum.planetisuzoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=51622
User avatar
Ian1006
Zu Royalty
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:06 am
Location: Montana / Costa Rica
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby DRaider90 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:55 pm

Ian1006 wrote:I know that for fuel economy, clearance, weight etc etc the skinny is probably the better choice...however I love the wide tire look. Practical? Less so than the skinny tires probably, but looks should count too! I wouldnt go over a 12.5 wide tire though and I am at 10.5 right now.


I went from 34x12.5s essentially to 34x9.5s and it took a while getting used to as far as "looks" are concerned. And what I learned was skinny tires give you a more utilitarian look. Like I said it takes some getting used to, but in the end I think pizza cutters do give your vehicle the appearance that its built to do one thing, wheel.
Eli,

1988 Dodge Raider(Red): 170k, 2.6 I4 w/ Weber+K&N. 5spd KM145, SW Hubs, 34x9.5 Swamper TSLs, 4.62s & R/LSD, 1" T-Bar, 2" 4Crawler BL, some lights, CB, headlight washers and other neat stuff. Daily Driver Once Again

1988 Dodge Raider(Silver) & 1988 Mitsubishi Montero (Brown): Parts Rigs

2016 Ford Mustang GT: 11k, Premium Package, Flowmaster Outlaw Axlebacks

1996 Mazda 626:268k, Totaled

2013 Ford Mustang V6: 54k, Traded-In
User avatar
DRaider90
Zu Royalty
 
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Has thanked: 12 times
Have thanks: 5 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby Tatohead » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:49 am

Wow, thanks for pulling all this info together. I have 265/75/16, which are probably "wide"on the charts, but I would consider them 'in between'.

I really like the look of skinny and will consider that as my next option. I'm thinking 235/85/16. The only problem is, they are all load range E, so pretty stiff.

I have LR-E tires now, and at 50 lbs/in it's a little jarring on non-pavement. I think you could bounce a .22 slug off off of them with equal velocity on the ricochet.

Put me down as a vote for "skinny", based more on cosmetic appearance at this point.
1996 Accura SLX
AISIN Hubs / 2" Lift Springs / T-Bar Crank / G80 LSD
User avatar
Tatohead
Zu Royalty
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Boise, ID
Has thanked: 13 times
Have thanks: 45 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby rodeo9two » Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:31 pm

Seriously though, I will be going with pizza cutters on my Troopers when the time comes. I also really prefer the expo look over the wide tire and offset mud bogger look, so it is a win win for me.

Bart


Sad your 91 Troop is probably the coolest I've ever seen and it's mainly because I like it's stance. But don't let that hold you back lol. Oh that front bumper makes it really stand out to.
1992 Isuzu Rodeo 31/10.5/15 Treadwright Guard Dogs, powder coated rims, 49,000 volt Jegs Coil, 8mm Accel wires, Accel U-Groove plugs, Accel Kool Blue Air Filter, Flipped Lid, Alpine Deck, Cadence 500w amp, 10" Rockford Fosgate with Obcon box. 1.5" lift on homebuilt shackles.
Image
rodeo9two
Super Trooper
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:19 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby IsuzuGeek » Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:52 pm

rodeo9two wrote:
Seriously though, I will be going with pizza cutters on my Troopers when the time comes. I also really prefer the expo look over the wide tire and offset mud bogger look, so it is a win win for me.

Bart


Sad your 91 Troop is probably the coolest I've ever seen and it's mainly because I like it's stance. But don't let that hold you back lol. Oh that front bumper makes it really stand out to.

Thanks, and don't worry, she's still gonna look badass when I am done. :)

Bart
:(
User avatar
IsuzuGeek
I am the Stig
 
Posts: 9913
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:27 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Has thanked: 9 times
Have thanks: 196 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby Selahdoor » Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:31 pm

Is there a resource that shows a comparison in cutoff view, of the differences caused by tire size, wheel size and load rating ?

ie, something that looks like this: Image
-Jeff
1988 Trooper LS. 4ZE1. mua5.

How can I help you or make you laugh today?
User avatar
Selahdoor
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 7269
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:42 am
Location: Index, Wa.
Has thanked: 94 times
Have thanks: 165 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby littlegray » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

I really like the 33x10.5" tires. Here are the biggest factors to me: 1. Tire Weight (less weight = better performance: braking, steering, acceleration, mpg). 2. Fitment (easier to fit a narrow tire vs wide). 3. Cost (narrow tires cost less)

For trail driving I think the narrow tires "hook up" better (from personal observation). Rock crawling, Sand, Mud : I'd say get a wider tire. Daily driving narrow has more advantages.

My gas mileage increased 1mpg going from a 32" (265/75/16) to 33x10.5x15 (both BFG KM2s). It comes down to the weight being 4lbs less per tire!

Check the actual "Tread Width" the tires sizes don't mean much as actual size varies greatly between manufacturers. Personally I don't like tires with their tread width under 7". 7-8" tread width works perfectly for what I like. Much of it is really preference and how you use the tire.
1992 Isuzu Pickup - 3.1L V6 - 5 Speed - 4WD : Revenge Fab Winch Bumper + Rear Tube Bumper + Sliders + Exo/Rack, Warn m8000 + Wireless Controls + Amsteel Blue Sythetic, Yellow Top, CB w/ weather, Alpine Deck w iPod, BFG KM2 33x10.5s, 15" Snowflakes, Matching Spare w/ Custom Tire Carrier, Thule Rack w/ bike carrier, Diamond Plate Tool Box, ARB RTT, ARB Compressor, 4.56 Gears, ARB Locker Front & Rear, OME Springs/Shackles/Bushings/Shocks, Sway-a-way Torsion Bars, Ball Joint Flip, SS Brake Lines, Big Brake Upgrade, Ball Joints/Bearings/Seals/rotors/pads, HD Tie Rods, Exedy Clutch, Revolution 3:1 tcase gears - Build Thread: http://forum.planetisuzoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=53023

http://www.gitout.com - Off Road Enthusiasts
User avatar
littlegray
Trail Scout
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:11 am
Location: Portland, OR
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 2 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby QuantumRift » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:37 pm

Here's a good bit of info on "sprung" and "unsprung" weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass
"If Opportunity knocks and he's not at home, Opportunity waits."
"Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't do that thing."

1990 Isuzu LS SpaceCab 4x4 (Japanese-built, September 1989)
224,000 miles.
K&N Air Filter
2.6 L 4ZE1 engine, 5-spd manual
Monroe Sensa-track Load Adjusting Shocks (rear)
Monroe OE Spectrum Shocks (front)
MagnaFlow Muffler & Cat Converter
Akebono ProACT Ultra-Premium Ceramic Brake Pads (front)
Wagner Thermoquiet Ceramic Brake Pads (rear)
Owned since 15 miles. Bought new Honolulu, HI in Oct '89.
Original sticker price: $15,000.
User avatar
QuantumRift
Almost Joe Isuzu
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:46 pm
Location: Fairfield County, OH
Has thanked: 23 times
Have thanks: 99 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby qbenplaya00 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:46 am

so this would be a "Pizza Cutter"
Image

ok so right now my 91 trooper has 31x10.50, does this make it into the "wide" category? or is it one of those "COMPROMISE TIRE" and/or "floatation" sizes?

for me have/run a skinny it would be based off your formula; 31x9.92 or less, 32x10.24 or less.... i wanted sorta the look from above picture with skinnys thanks for the write up. very interested and i also wondered about all this.
<Fern
90 trooper II
.______
|_|_ \__ \__
|____ [O]|||[O]
()_)--()_)----)_)
qbenplaya00
Trail Rider
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:00 pm
Location: Hudson County NJ
Has thanked: 6 times
Have thanks: 2 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby IsuzuGeek » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:23 am

My goal is to run 255/85R16s on my Trooper next. Those are the specs I am looking to get.

Bart
:(
User avatar
IsuzuGeek
I am the Stig
 
Posts: 9913
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:27 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Has thanked: 9 times
Have thanks: 196 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby IsuzuGeek » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:31 am

Here's a good thread with pics:

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/t ... on-pics%29

I am leaning towards the Toyos myself.

Bart
:(
User avatar
IsuzuGeek
I am the Stig
 
Posts: 9913
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:27 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Has thanked: 9 times
Have thanks: 196 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby woodsman1st » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:56 am

I grew up reading and understanding tire sizes, height, width and tread as 31/10.5/15; I pretty much get an instant mental image of that tire.
Now with the metric sizes it is all gobbeldygook to me, and really doesn't compute in my aged brain.

Is there a chart, or printed comparison somewhere where I could look at the old and the new side by side (kind of); kind of like stating 31/10.5/15 and the metric equivalant right beside it or in another column right beside it?

I find it hard to equate changes like the above as any kind of improvement; to take something so simple to understand, and change it into metric that most Americans dont use on a daily basis really doesn't make sense to me.

Ken
MY BASKETCASE 1986 TROOPER
THE MOTOR APART IN A PILE BEHIND THE REAR SEAT;
PUT BACK TOGETHER AND RUNNING LIKE A CLOCK;
THANKS TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM;
JERRY, ERIC, john,TIM, DICK AND MANY OTHERS.
3 LONG YEARS BUT WE DID IT GUYS, WE DID IT!
woodsman1st
Mud King
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Peoria, AZ; my God I miss New Plymouth Idaho
Has thanked: 335 times
Have thanks: 10 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby JBsTrooper » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:01 am

95 Trooper: 3 inch suspension and 1 inch body lift, 35x12.50 BFGKM2s on 15x8 wheels, Aisin manual hubs, air intake, Hooker muffler, and bedlined interior - SOLD :(

Buildup: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=49271

For this post the author JBsTrooper was thanked by:
woodsman1st
JBsTrooper
Mud King
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Holly Springs, NC
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 6 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby woodsman1st » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:28 pm

Thank you Trooper; that's exactly what I was looking for and more.
Ken
MY BASKETCASE 1986 TROOPER
THE MOTOR APART IN A PILE BEHIND THE REAR SEAT;
PUT BACK TOGETHER AND RUNNING LIKE A CLOCK;
THANKS TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM;
JERRY, ERIC, john,TIM, DICK AND MANY OTHERS.
3 LONG YEARS BUT WE DID IT GUYS, WE DID IT!
woodsman1st
Mud King
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Peoria, AZ; my God I miss New Plymouth Idaho
Has thanked: 335 times
Have thanks: 10 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby QuantumRift » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:10 pm

1 inch = 2.54 centimeters. For eyeballing, just use 2.5 cm to the inch. :mrgreen:

woodsman1st wrote:I grew up reading and understanding tire sizes, height, width and tread as 31/10.5/15; I pretty much get an instant mental image of that tire.
Now with the metric sizes it is all gobbeldygook to me, and really doesn't compute in my aged brain.

Is there a chart, or printed comparison somewhere where I could look at the old and the new side by side (kind of); kind of like stating 31/10.5/15 and the metric equivalant right beside it or in another column right beside it?

I find it hard to equate changes like the above as any kind of improvement; to take something so simple to understand, and change it into metric that most Americans dont use on a daily basis really doesn't make sense to me.

Ken
"If Opportunity knocks and he's not at home, Opportunity waits."
"Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't do that thing."

1990 Isuzu LS SpaceCab 4x4 (Japanese-built, September 1989)
224,000 miles.
K&N Air Filter
2.6 L 4ZE1 engine, 5-spd manual
Monroe Sensa-track Load Adjusting Shocks (rear)
Monroe OE Spectrum Shocks (front)
MagnaFlow Muffler & Cat Converter
Akebono ProACT Ultra-Premium Ceramic Brake Pads (front)
Wagner Thermoquiet Ceramic Brake Pads (rear)
Owned since 15 miles. Bought new Honolulu, HI in Oct '89.
Original sticker price: $15,000.
User avatar
QuantumRift
Almost Joe Isuzu
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:46 pm
Location: Fairfield County, OH
Has thanked: 23 times
Have thanks: 99 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby West Coast Trooper » Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:20 pm

"Pizza Cutters" all the way!! I have 33x10.5/15. They fit great with a shackle lift. Although I have never had "wide" tires, I am convinced that skinny is better. They fit where the fatty's don't and get traction. :) Ultimately it comes down to the type of terrain you wheel on but for the majority, I think skinny would be best. They don't REALLY look "skinny" do they??? They're just skinny in testosterone filled 4x4 world...;)

Image

Image

Image
Image Image Image Image

Red 91 Trooper 2 280,000km 33"BFG, Shackle Lift, Front Aussie Locker, HD Tie Rods
Red 91 Impulse RS 140,000km 2.5" Cat Back Exhaust, Lowered 2" RTR Coilovers
West Coast Trooper
Has a Trail Truck
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: Victoria,BC
Has thanked: 8 times
Have thanks: 16 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby foytiX » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:34 pm

The only thing I don't like about my wire tires 13.50 on 15x10 is that the Trooper gets wrapped up so fast. Sometimes it's an advantage to be able to pull up over obstacles sooner, or to straddle some obstacles. Tit for Tat though. There are ups and downs to each.

Image

Image
'90 trooper 2.6 MUA 3" BL 33's, 5.38 gears, 12 bolt locker, and more http://forum.planetisuzoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=499
'94 Trooper MUA "theBeater"....http://forum.planetisuzoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=67019
'94 trooper ls.....parts and engine donor
'95 trooper limited.....1" hockey puck lift http://forum.planetisuzoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=66472
'98 trooper.........parts and trans donor
User avatar
foytiX
Almost Joe Isuzu
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:29 am
Location: Outer Banks, NC
Has thanked: 74 times
Have thanks: 86 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby trooper T/diesel » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:44 am

the wides have a bad affect on the old T\Ds

ive ran
225/75/15P on 7X15
235/75/15LT on 6X15 steel
31/10.50/15LT on 7X15

ive yet to find the ideal tire and i figure i never will.......but ill keep trying.. :mrgreen:

225/75 was nice in city driving staying under 45
the 31s are nice on the road as a DDer helping lower RPMs
the 235/75 are better for towing in some ways "getting moving", others its a negiteve "steady running" rpms are a little higher versus a 31.

its a case of there's no free lunch or, cant have cake and eat it too.

id like 31/9.50 but that size is not made, so i figure 215 or 235/85/16 is about what im looking for
or 33X9.50


you don't realize how much drag a wider tire has, tell you have a low HP engine.
trooper T/diesel
Almost Joe Isuzu
 
Posts: 2784
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: N\W OREGON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 21 times

Re: THE "Wide vs. Skinny" info post

Postby trooper T/diesel » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:50 am

woodsman1st wrote:I grew up reading and understanding tire sizes, height, width and tread as 31/10.5/15; I pretty much get an instant mental image of that tire.
Now with the metric sizes it is all gobbeldygook to me, and really doesn't compute in my aged brain.
Is there a chart, or printed comparison somewhere where I could look at the old and the new side by side (kind of); kind of like stating 31/10.5/15 and the metric equivalant right beside it or in another column right beside it?
I find it hard to equate changes like the above as any kind of improvement; to take something so simple to understand, and change it into metric that most Americans dont use on a daily basis really doesn't make sense to me.
Ken


in the link there's a Converter, P-Metric tire to Tire Diameter inches
http://www.ramblerman.com/blazer/gearcalc.htm
trooper T/diesel
Almost Joe Isuzu
 
Posts: 2784
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: N\W OREGON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 21 times

Next

Return to Wheels & Tires

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], wordfan and 4 guests