Not sure what point or help you are trying to offer. Clearly said I was thinking of going to a 295, didn’t want to go to 35’s, and all 295’s are E’s, and was interested in folks experience with E load tires. I know there are C load 35’s out there. Your reply of 35” C’s are easy to find is a cool story, but isn’t the question.
What the heck is wrong with stepping up a tire size without needing any modifications???
You confused me, because OEM (32.7) and 295s (33.3) are both sold/advertised as 33 inch tires with marginally different widths (11.2 vs 11.6). The OEM is simply an undersized 33, and the 295 is an oversized 33.
Thx Bro. It’s good. Definitely notice the tires weight but I like the feel. Tires aren’t stiff, better in the wet (minimal testing but doesn’t spin on hard acceleration from a stop like the BFG.
If you end up going 295’s on KO3’s, let me know. Would love a pic.
If it helps hers my old thread showing lots of pics and info on the LT295/70R17s I use to have on my 24 model RR originally.
Have you considered a 34" in 285/75R17? Diameter is 33.8~34" depending on the tire mfg., almost exactly 1" larger than stock, same width, but you would need 1" strut spacers or fender mods if you jump your truck. I would imagine there are some C and SL load ranges in that size.
Humm...The specs on those Pirellis look interesting! 53 pounds even though they are load range E's. Half an inch wider than the KO3's. Doing a little more digging now...Thanks!
Yeah, I'd like to see a couple 295/70R17's in S/L or c rating. That would put them in the 34" range and a little wider. Maybe the Falcons?
Putting weight aside, rolling deforms the tire going into and coming out of the contact patch, which requires power input. That power input isn't returned. The harder it is to deform the tire the more power it takes to roll. A more supple tire takes less power to deform than a more rigid tire. The higher gas consumption is directly related to the power input required to deform the tire.
