Wider vs Narrower Off-Road Tires Comparison

[Lion77]

3 Scientific Experiments to Settle This | Wide vs Narrow Off-Road Tires




I've stated this before, I plan to keep stock tire size even if I ever decided to switch to a different tire type and for good reason. There's also some really interesting info in there on the K03's and just how well they do.

Obviously if you care more about aesthetics, you may use something specifically for a "look", but I don't give a crap about looks it if negatively affects performance. It is also why performance car tires tend to run wider, because it changes the contact patch to a more optimal shape for that application, not the amount of contact area. For lateral grip in corners, you want a wider tire (road course). For drag racing, you want a longer contact patch for forward traction under power.

For off-road, you want grip over uneven surfaces, suggesting a longer more rectangular contact patch, which based on the evidence suggests a narrower tire profile is actually better for outright grip than a very wide tire.

I see F-150's, Silverado's, Ram's and Jeeps all the time with these stupidly wide tires, they have no idea they are significantly reducing their off-road grip...then again most them probably only use their 4WD for rainy days on the highway and for conversation to inflate their ego to 50 psi.

A larger diameter tire may provide more contact patch yet but only with a lower PSI. For sand, I don't think it matters, because it comes down to area and the area is the same with either, just the shape differs. Tire choice and air pressure are going to dominate sand performance.

What's really interesting is how much BETTER the narrower profile response to lower pressure (which is even more advantageous for use in sand). This might really explain why the stock RR on 33" K03's does so well despite "only being a 33in tire" and "just a K03". The combination of tire design, tread compound and shape with the tire's aspect ratio really make the most of it.

I liken this to all the wanna-be racers out there who lower their cars by 1" or more without ever correcting the roll center. Do you know what that does? Increases jacking forces on the suspension and REDUCES lateral grip...they are actually making their car handle worse!

When I lowered the ride height of my 2016 GT by 1.5", I used Steeda's Roll Center corrected lower links to get a proper roll center for the ride height. I tested the car first before correcting the roll center, then after and it was substantial difference at 90 to 100 MPH on large sweepers on the track (typically hold at 90, then accelerate on exit from the corner under power using the throttle to steer, typically hitting 100+ on corner exit into a straightaway).

Sponsored

 

[Lion77]

Basically, the factory tire size on the RR is highly optimized and "ideal" for the truck from a performance standpoint. If you're after aesthetics, sure, do what you want, but for performance, I just do NOT see any benefit by going with a wider tire OR a taller tire because you gain in ride height from a 35" is only 0.8 inches.... but substantial in weight.

Personally, I'm going with lighter Method's on the factory tires for an even lighter setup than factory, while also obviously gaining 90% of a true bead lock capability for the performance reasons.

Pro's
1. Acceleration (lower mass)
2. Braking (lower mass)
3. Turn-in response (lower mass)
4. Rebound is faster with less weight since the damping control is only on compression, rebound is fixed and partially related to the moving mass.
5. Reduced stress on the driveline, particular axles, torque converter and most importantly the torque locks.
6. Cheapest option, only need to replace wheels to get a set of Methods.

Con's
1. Looks, the larger tires do look a bit "cooler"
2. I don't gain 0.8" in ground clearance over stock

 

[Mystic]

I'm in sand and rock constantly when I offroad, so 35x12.5 was fine for my purposes.

Could have my math magic wrong, but I think going from OEM setup (actually a 32.7" dia.) to a "true" 35x12.5 nets you over an inch of extra clearance.

A lighter 35x12.5 tire - Toyo AT3s for example - paired with Method 703s, are only 1.55 lbs heavier than the OEM setup.

All that said, I'm going to get an old LX470 at some point in the near future as a beater vehicle and intend to put KO3s on it...an unbelievably good tire imo. Like having an infinite traction hack. Only got the Toyos because KO3s weren't/aren't available as 35s yet, but certainly not regretting the decision.

 

[Bushmechanic]

Taller, narrower tires produce a greater contact patch when aired down than shorter, wider tires.

There are compromises in all things, but for maximum grip, you need to be looking at diameter, not tread or section width.

The tire dimensions chosen for the Raptor are appropriate. I just don't like the tires. LOL

 

[HighDesertRanger]

If the tires are really optimized for the truck, then why did Ford bump it up to 35” for Baja?

 

[SubZombie]

If the tires are really optimized for the truck, then why did Ford bump it up to 35” for Baja?

?? The same reason you would have a different alignment and tires on a dedicated track car than you would a daily that you also take to the track. 35” give a little more ground clearance but you sacrifice acceleration and braking. The general population wants something optimized for mixed use not something specifically tuned to be good at a task they may never do.

 

[BuenaRaptor]

Why does ford racing put 35s on their stock Baja and Finke desert race trucks then?

 

[josephp732]

There is a reason why the US Army has always put narrow tires on the all-terrain/go anywhere/get-the-job-done workhorse Jeep. We are not talking about Baja racing, but general off-road utilitarian use.

 

[RaRaRaptor]

Basically, the factory tire size on the RR is highly optimized and "ideal" for the truck from a performance standpoint. If you're after aesthetics, sure, do what you want, but for performance, I just do NOT see any benefit by going with a wider tire OR a taller tire because you gain in ride height from a 35" is only 0.8 inches.... but substantial in weight.

Personally, I'm going with lighter Method's on the factory tires for an even lighter setup than factory, while also obviously gaining 90% of a true bead lock capability for the performance reasons.

Pro's
1. Acceleration (lower mass)
2. Braking (lower mass)
3. Turn-in response (lower mass)
4. Rebound is faster with less weight since the damping control is only on compression, rebound is fixed and partially related to the moving mass.
5. Reduced stress on the driveline, particular axles, torque converter and most importantly the torque locks.
6. Cheapest option, only need to replace wheels to get a set of Methods.

Con's
1. Looks, the larger tires do look a bit "cooler"
2. I don't gain 0.8" in ground clearance over stock

soooo, what if the 315s you went to are 5-12lb less in weight than stock or at stock and the replacement tires are actually cheaper than k03s, andddd you sold your old rims and tires for more than it cost to upgrade and lift the truck 2in?

thats what I did, I got 6ob lighter a tire, but with a different rim choice could have gone to 12lb lighter.

also I don't think a 10% increases in width from a 285 to a 315 is going to drastically reduce perform offroad but will help with slicker surfaces like wet pavement, snowy roads and doing 70+ on washboard.

 

[Mystic]

soooo, what if the 315s you went to are 5-12lb less in weight than stock or at stock and the replacement tires are actually cheaper than k03s, andddd you sold your old rims and tires for more than it cost to upgrade and lift the truck 2in?

thats what I did, I got 6ob lighter a tire, but with a different rim choice could have gone to 12lb lighter.

What are you running to be that light?

 

[RaRaRaptor]

What are you running to be that light?

raceline 958s and yoko a/t4 geolanders when I ran the numbers just looking online it was only gonna be about 4th less but weighing them in real life the new setup was just over 6lb less.

thats for the beadlock ford rims, from what info I can find online it would be about 2lb a wheel more than the other stock rims, with my exact setup. you could easily go with even lighter 35s and rim and beat the non-beadlock stock rims and ko3s in weight

 

[superj]

soooo, what if the 315s you went to are 5-12lb less in weight than stock or at stock and the replacement tires are actually cheaper than k03s, andddd you sold your old rims and tires for more than it cost to upgrade and lift the truck 2in?

thats what I did, I got 6ob lighter a tire, but with a different rim choice could have gone to 12lb lighter.

also I don't think a 10% increases in width from a 285 to a 315 is going to drastically reduce perform offroad but will help with slicker surfaces like wet pavement, snowy roads and doing 70+ on washboard.

Those would be great except on the wet stuff. You can hydroplane easier since there is more room for water to get under and lift up with.


But, you probably have a great tread pattern to fight hydroplaning

 

[RaRaRaptor]

Those would be great except on the wet stuff. You can hydroplane easier since there is more room for water to get under and lift up with.


But, you probably have a great tread pattern to fight hydroplaning

Heres the tred of the tires I went with. Yokohama Geolander A/T4 in 315/70R17

I did consider the Goodyear Territory MT tires another user @markferry runs, as they 9lb lighter putting me at 15lb lighter and over 20lb lighter with different rims. But reading around some people say their wet performance isnt all that great and they are noisy being a MT. I could have gone with lighter rims, but the price difference, and looks of what was available put me off.

I had great luck with the yokos on my previous truck in Montana winters.. Don't really have a comparison for hydroplaning, never had an issue on old truck though. Yoko does specifically state their patter helps 'sweep' away water to 'minimize the chance of hydroplaning' and i don't see anything about that on the Ko3 marketing.

Once I saw the yokos were so light it was an obvious choice for me atleast. The yoko and the goodyear territorys are the lightest 315s I could find. Pretty much all others were over 60lb and some 80 or more.

 

[Bushmechanic]

Heres the tred of the tires I went with. Yokohama Geolander A/T4 in 315/70R17

I did consider the Goodyear Territory MT tires another user @markferry runs, as they 9lb lighter putting me at 15lb lighter and over 20lb lighter with different rims. But reading around some people say their wet performance isnt all that great and they are noisy being a MT. I could have gone with lighter rims, but the price difference, and looks of what was available put me off.

I had great luck with the yokos on my previous truck in Montana winters.. Don't really have a comparison for hydroplaning, never had an issue on old truck though. Yoko does specifically state their patter helps 'sweep' away water to 'minimize the chance of hydroplaning' and i don't see anything about that on the Ko3 marketing.

Once I saw the yokos were so light it was an obvious choice for me atleast. The yoko and the goodyear territorys are the lightest 315s I could find. Pretty much all others were over 60lb and some 80 or more.

That's a strong attempt at a circumferential rib.

I think they'll track appreciably straight on the road.

 

[Blowndodge]

I'm glad this subject came up because narrow tires have always been better in my experience. Especially in snow. I'm actually looking at the K03's in a 245/70/18. It's actually 1/2" taller too. Also don't be putting LT tires on a medium duty truck unless your racing the Baja 100 and going 120mph. SP tires support anything a Ranger can do at the maximum and ride that much better on both off road and street.

Sponsored