265/60-18 Cooper Rugged Trek tires installed

[Montana]

DUDE! What? It's very clear you are not grasping this. Your revolutions per mile are the issue!

Yes, we have ALL added weight with aftermarket setups. Yes. It's a factor. Yes. The increase in size from ANYTHING above stock is also a factor. We have ALL agreed to this info in this thread. Nobody has denied it including myself.

There is a safety net! With YOUR size you have gone well beyond those limits. You got some lighter wheels - good job! And I apologized for using the term "useless" and replaced it with "diminishing returns" which you still do not understand. The SIZE with your added weight above stock is the issue because it changes the ratios needed to safely push them as a daily driver. You ARE "less times around per mile" than ANYONE with tires sizes similar to mine or the 21" setup you two fools were arguing earlier. You are exceptionally less revolutions per mile. You continue to reference tons of folks throwing 33's on bigger and totally different vehicles etc etc... but you fail to realize some of those setups are within the safe limits of the gear ratios before needing to be swapped to somethings safer. And the ones that are not? YES! They likely do have issue or will down the road. It's widely regarded this way! It's not new information!

You are not "close" to other setups you keep referencing - you are well beyond it with the width and height of the new tires. If you were just one of those I would have never given two 's. All I've ever tried to do is tell you this and you continually ignore one for the other and now you are so confused by some terrible information linked by another person comparing tire sizes closer to mine than yours that you think you are still without need to consider the driveline components and ratios. You literally have the opposite of what you are saying now - you have LESS rotations per mile than anyone running 245/65R17, 24560R18, or 265/40R21. You have literally the biggest set of tires on this forum by a LONG shot. Are some of the 245 setups SLIGHTLY heavier? YES! Has it been noted as a hit on MPG and more work for the driveline? YES! It's never once been refuted that it has not been an issue EVER on this forum. EVER! The difference is in the rest of your specs. I can't spell this out for you any easier.

ffs man. This amount of misinformation is astonishing. What you compromised on sprung weight for by getting lighter wheels was negated by the fact that your tire size is well beyond what should be used for the Mavericks driveline ratio. Diminishing returns.

Lastly, and this is without a doubt the last thing I will say - again, you started a thread with "no rub" and we know it's not true. You claim to have solved the issue but after seeing how little you understand about this stuff I highly doubt you checked your wheel at full tuck while turned in both directions and in reverse (or that you even knew that to begin with). There is likely STILL rub and always will be.

*EDIT
Now you have me confusing less and more revolutions per mile... what a cluster eff. Your setup gets less per mile. You have a greater rolling resistance. It takes your driveline MORE work than the 21" setups and my 245's but somehow you are confusing it as a good thing because you have less weight? It's not. Apologies for being confused by your terrible ranting and poor grammar. Losing revolutions per mile AND adding weight above stock is the issue. Certain sizes (which you all linked - not me) are acceptable within reason if you care to do the math as to why. Yours is above well above that simply because of it's size and loss in revolutions per mile. Do the math with the equation I linked to determine the new gear ratio you would need. You are failing to realize that your added tire width ALSO contributes to a larger tire height. You do not retain the 235/245 height with your 265's at 60R18.

The math for you:
(new tire height divided by stock tire height multiplied by the gear ratio = new ratio)
Your new setup:
30.5/29.1 x 3.81 = 3.99

My setup and many others:
29.5/29.1 x 3.81 = 3.86

You are without a doubt on the hook for increasing gear ratio to a point where it should be considered stressful. Do you see how 245's and the similar size 21" setups running slimmer tires retain a close enough gear ratio to where it's stressful, but not overkill? Now look at yours. THAT is the difference. No amount of weight shaving will change this. Also, that math does not even account for the added width or weight. So there is your trifecta of reasons that I have been trying to share with you over and over here. I'm not even certain if the 3.81 ratio is correct or not as I've never felt the need to check before now but either way you can see the massive change in ratio and that's the point here - always has been. I believe the ratio is 2.91 for Hybrids and 3.63 for non 4k EB's. All of which the math reiterates the same thing - a massive change in ratios.

Sponsored

 

[Snox801]

DUDE! What? Yours spin less time around per mile? It's very clear you are not grasping this. Your revolutions per mile are the issue!

Yes, we have ALL added weight with aftermarket setups. Yes. It's a factor. Yes. The increase in size from ANYTHING above stock is also a factor. We have ALL agreed to this info in this thread. Nobody has denied it including myself.

There is a safety net! With YOUR size you have gone well beyond those limits. You got some lighter wheels - good job! And I apologized for using the term "useless" and replaced it with "diminishing returns" which you still do not understand. The SIZE with your added weight above stock is the issue because it changes the ratios needed to safely push them as a daily driver. You are not "less times around per mile" than ANYONE with tires sizes similar to mine or the 21" setup you two fools were arguing earlier. You are exceptionally more revolutions per mile. You continue to reference tons of folks throwing 33's on bigger setups etc etc... but you fail to realize some of those setups are within the safe limits of the gear ratios before needing to be swapped to somethings safer. And the ones that are not? YES! They likely do have issue or will down the road. It's widely regarded this way! It's not new information!

You are not "close" to other setups you keep referencing - you are well beyond it with the width and height of the new tires. If you were just one of those I would have never given two 's. All I've ever tried to do is tell you this and you continually ignore one for the other and now you are so confused by some terrible information linked by another person comparing tire sizes closer to mine than yours that you think you are still without need to consider the driveline components and ratios. You literally have the opposite of what you are saying now - you have MORE rotations per mile than anyone running 245/65R17, 24560R18, or 265/40R21. You have literally the biggest set of tires on this forum by a LONG shot. Are some of the 245 setups SLIGHTLY heavier? YES! Has it been noted as a hit on MPG and more work for the driveline? YES! It's never once been refuted that it has not been an issue EVER on this forum. EVER! The difference is in the rest of your specs. I can't spell this out for you any easier.

ffs man. This amount of misinformation is astonishing. What you compromised on sprung weight for by getting lighter wheels was negated by the fact that your tire size is well beyond what should be used for the Mavericks driveline ratio. Diminishing returns.

So who stars in week above the limit you? I could not care less what you think is safe.
If I have more revolutions per mile travels why is my Speedo slower recording less miles than I’m actually traveling. That’s less revolutions of the tire than a small one. Put on shorter tire I get more revolutions per mile.
I’ve never said they are not heavier than stock what I don’t accept is your insistence on saying that it is trashing the driveline. We have zero proof of that. None.
Plus you keep changing the goal post. You started out by saying your was the safe limit but was bigger and heavier. Mine was a step over that. Then when mine end up being lighter you say it’s about the height and rpm of them.
plus you have never been able to back up your claim that slightly bigger tires are harder than a tune on the driveline. Which it indeed is not.
Again I’m not even arguing about if they are more of a strain on the driveline. Sure
What I’m arguing is will it ever matter? Nope. Definitely not at 80k mile like you posted.
All I was looking for and wanting to inform most on here is that you have zero idea what to big and what’s not. Non of us do until it’s tested best we have is bronco guy that do have lots of mile on bigger heavier tires with zero issues.
So either those setup defy your idea of physics or your simply wrong about how much these will affect the mavericks.

 

[Maverickman74]

I’m just also gonna add that I’m .002” taller than what ford puts on the tremor. And only.79” wider. So gearing and shift points must be radically different in the tremor? Because you yourself said that matters Yet I’m gonna have all these driveline issues according to you!
Get out with that.

I’ll also add that if adding power was so little compared to tires. Why are tires still covered under warranty times are not. Why does ford have trq limits in the ecu? Of that’s right to save the driveline. If it didn’t matter as much they wouldn’t limit trq.

Or you could simply realize your wrong and when you tried to take a dumb on me for what I did to my truck with a I told you so you plant your feet like that’s gonna change anything

Geeze I can't even finish each page without wanting to jump in lol. I definitely award you points in stating the very minor size differences in the tires. Only people with too much money regear when going from 31s to 33s etc. sure if you got a jeep making 130hp and you go from stock 30s to 35s or 38s Its gonna turn into a dog with 3.54s.

 

[Snox801]

What’s more impressive is he acts like I care if it really did cause damage. This is simply my work truck to save some money. I owe nothing on it so if it breaks it can sit till I fix it and drive my 150.
My hobby is building insane builds and of course they break. The fact I have a combined over 2k whp between a f150,2.3 focus and a gt 500 and he acts like I don’t comprehend how things work. Not to mention I’m guided by my uncle who was vp of sealed power then Dana. At one point. And was the lead engineer. Dude has a grasp on mechanical engineering farther than we could ever dream. He was able to look at my rs exhaust and say I didn’t need to change out a flatten section for big power. Weird part was a lot of his stuff had much larger wheels than factory also. But maybe he didn’t grasp the mechanics behind it. Lol

 

[Snox801]

What I don’t get is how I can increase the size of my f-150 tires drastically more in size and weight and make over 350k miles with a lot of drag racing and 500whp without any driveline issues. But a slight change in tire size is gonna drop my rear end at 80k.
So when I hit 200k and nothing can we say it’s all because I will swap to amsoil? Or am I gonna have to live knowing I was correct again.

 

[Montana]

What I don’t get is how I can increase the size of my f-150 tires drastically more in size and weight and make over 350k miles with a lot of drag racing and 500whp without any driveline issues. But a slight change in tire size is gonna drop my rear end at 80k.
So when I hit 200k and nothing can we say it’s all because I will swap to amsoil? Or am I gonna have to live knowing I was correct again.

IF you hit 200k without an issue running this setup, I'll gladly recant my statement about this tire size being over the limit on the C2 platform that exists on the Mavericks. So we are clear - No CV issues, no transmission/valve body issues, and no driveline issues. lol. Good luck!

 

[Snox801]

IF you hit 200k without an issue running this setup, I'll gladly recant my statement about this tire size being over the limit on the C2 platform that exists on the Mavericks. Good luck!

Well since a few broncos have higher mileage I think I’ll be fine.
Plus my wife has a very similar setup on her 2.0 powered awd edge that already has that many miles with zero issues. So I’m pretty sure it’s ok. Not to mention that her drag racing it with at least 10-20 passes a year

 

[Maverickman74]

Man I'm still on page 3 here. I think, at least I hope, that we all have different conditions that we deem safe or within limits of causing damage.

Nearly everyone on here that is a a sucker for overpriced Toyotas will tell you that these Mavericks are basically paper mache and aren't designed to last 10,000 miles before the time bomb 2.0 explodes. Obviously that's an overkill of opinion. That's what we got here. All these modifications are subject to usage. Which is 100% more of a culprit for failures, and safety concerns than any feasible modification these trucks can accommodate. You could adapt 54 inch Mickey Thompsons on a Maverick and get a quarter million miles on it if you took slow and easy. And without a doubt I could utterly destroy one of these vehicles in stock form in just a few hours.

It's all about usage. In the history of vehicle there are a lot that have been just terribly designed, yet there are original running Chevy Vegas still alive, without rust or melted cylinder heads.

Is a 30-31 big for a Maverick? Sure is. Will it increase wear on the truck possibly but if there was some way to perfectly control a scientific test and find out the answer of how much. I would be shocked if it cut it's life down by more that 5%.

Is it less safe? A rear joint failure could cause a spin but it's unlikely as the rear setup is fairly robust. Built for its payload capacity. A front lower ball joint or steering joint is the only thing that could cause a real crash. The steering rack should be built to a much higher standard than a 31 is going to hurt. Repeated hard hits steering against your momentum off-road could cause a lower ball joint failure. But still the margins you are talking with these sizes of tires is just too wide to acceptable by modern manufacturing standards.

If we were talking about low tier Alibaba truck for $8000. There is a case to be made for not pushing it. But just seeing what stock Bronco Sports have done off-road. There is plenty of strength in these drivetrains and suspension to last with any tire capable of fitting in the given wheel arch. If driven withing reason by someone with less wildness than I was when I repeatedly jumped a 87 Escort off the railroad tracks in Fairborn Ohio at I-supply before they fixed the road. These jumps were over 60mph with 5 people in the car. We cleared at least 50 ft most of the time. The only damage that car sustained was dents in the ceiling from our heads. That car was driven daily for another 2 years after that night. Probably without oil changes or even a new set of tires.

 

[Maverickman74]

IF you hit 200k without an issue running this setup, I'll gladly recant my statement about this tire size being over the limit on the C2 platform that exists on the Mavericks. So we are clear - No CV issues, no transmission/valve body issues, and no driveline issues. lol. Good luck!

But some Mavericks have CV issues from the factory? And anyone who off-roads is gonna tear a boot here and there. The world is not a laboratory and if it is the aliens aren't telling us the results.

Any reliability fact stated on the forum doesn't really mean crap for about another 5 to 10 years. It's just the way things are.

 

[Montana]

But some Mavericks have CV issues from the factory?

Any reliability fact stated on the forum doesn't really mean crap for about another 5 to 10 years. It's just the way things are.

Exactly. But I'm willing to bet the change in ratios is a lot more than 5% shorter on the lifespan. 5% seems about in line with those of us that jumped to 245/65R17 (245/60R18). Like you said, only time will tell and since we went big here, no way to tell if this Maverick with factory CV issues is caused by just that or the new setup. But it's safe to assume the process will be expedited either way, right? That's all it's ever been about here. So in 5 or 10 years I look forward to seeing a maintenance report from those of us running "safer sizes" vs. those running in the redlines. You said it yourself, you were/are a Jeep man and they go so far as to create charts for gear ratios needed to push each tire size safely. I'd love to see the same data on the C2 platform, but it's safe to assume since even Jeeps with a .18 change in ratios suffer on stock gears, then so does the Maverick. Lastly, I got out of the Toyota for my own reasons. It just wasn't what I needed anymore. But a "sucker for overpriced toyota's"... c'mon man... you are better than that, right? I've had about enough of the ad-hominem from some of you trashy members here.

 

[Snox801]

Man I'm still on page 3 here. I think, at least I hope, that we all have different conditions that we deem safe or within limits of causing damage.

Nearly everyone on here that is a a sucker for overpriced Toyotas will tell you that these Mavericks are basically paper mache and aren't designed to last 10,000 miles before the time bomb 2.0 explodes. Obviously that's an overkill of opinion. That's what we got here. All these modifications are subject to usage. Which is 100% more of a culprit for failures, and safety concerns than any feasible modification these trucks can accommodate. You could adapt 54 inch Mickey Thompsons on a Maverick and get a quarter million miles on it if you took slow and easy. And without a doubt I could utterly destroy one of these vehicles in stock form in just a few hours.

It's all about usage. In the history of vehicle there are a lot that have been just terribly designed, yet there are original running Chevy Vegas still alive, without rust or melted cylinder heads.

Is a 30-31 big for a Maverick? Sure is. Will it increase wear on the truck possibly but if there was some way to perfectly control a scientific test and find out the answer of how much. I would be shocked if it cut it's life down by more that 5%.

Is it less safe? A rear joint failure could cause a spin but it's unlikely as the rear setup is fairly robust. Built for its payload capacity. A front lower ball joint or steering joint is the only thing that could cause a real crash. The steering rack should be built to a much higher standard than a 31 is going to hurt. Repeated hard hits steering against your momentum off-road could cause a lower ball joint failure. But still the margins you are talking with these sizes of tires is just too wide to acceptable by modern manufacturing standards.

If we were talking about low tier Alibaba truck for $8000. There is a case to be made for not pushing it. But just seeing what stock Bronco Sports have done off-road. There is plenty of strength in these drivetrains and suspension to last with any tire capable of fitting in the given wheel arch. If driven withing reason by someone with less wildness than I was when I repeatedly jumped a 87 Escort off the railroad tracks in Fairborn Ohio at I-supply before they fixed the road. These jumps were over 60mph with 5 people in the car. We cleared at least 50 ft most of the time. The only damage that car sustained was dents in the ceiling from our heads. That car was driven daily for another 2 years after that night. Probably without oil changes or even a new set of tires.

This is absolutely correct. On all points even. I’ve had 88 ford ranger with huge tire stuck under it and it ran forever still ran when sold. But we didn’t know till they aged appropriately. Time will tell.
I’m ok if I’m wrong. This truck won’t owe me a thing me a thing. In about a month I and on my way to Texas hill country for some off road testing. Make sure it’s up to snuff before I try CO. But I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be good at what I want it to do.

 

[Snox801]

Exactly. But I'm willing to bet the change in ratios is a lot more than 5% shorter on the lifespan. 5% seems about in line with those of us that jumped to 245/65R17 (245/60R18). Like you said, only time will tell and since we went big here, no way to tell if this Maverick with factory CV issues is caused by just that or the new setup. But it's safe to assume the process will be expedited either way, right? That's all it's ever been about here. So in 5 or 10 years I look forward to seeing a maintenance report from those of us running "safer sizes" vs. those running in the redlines. You said it yourself, you were/are a Jeep man and they go so far as to create charts for gear ratios needed to push each tire size safely. I'd love to see the same data on the C2 platform, but it's safe to assume since even Jeeps with a .18 change in ratios suffer on stock gears, then so does the Maverick. Lastly, I got out of the Toyota for my own reasons. It just wasn't what I needed anymore. But a "sucker for overpriced toyota's"... c'mon man... you are better than that, right? I've had about enough of the ad-hominem from some of you trashy members here.

Or maybe you for the mold of the typical yota owner. They do all seem to be pretty sure of themselves. As for trashy be careful. Glass house and stones or something like that.

 

[Montana]

Or maybe you for the mold of the typical yota owner. They do all seem to be pretty sure of themselves. As for trashy be careful. Glass house and stones or something like that.

Says one of the people who initiated the ad-hominem war and generalized assumptions of someone because of a vehicle they (previously) owned. I've also owned Honda's, Chevy's, RAM's, and Subaru's lol. I guess Ford's and Jeeps are the only acceptable brands here...

Real classy. Especially considering we are both in Mavericks now.
See ya at 200k

 

[Snox801]

Ya I’m ok with only owning fords. Well and two rotary Mazdas. So I guess not just ford.
I’ve never been accused of being real classy so you’re probably right. I don’t go out of my way to be either.

But at least I know I’m comfortable with what I’m doing and don’t jump in someone’s thread to show off some new parts that I made the choose to buy and try and dump on them. Some people would say that’s not very classy. But you are probably an expert on that also so I’m probably wrong again. Oh darn.

 

[Maverickman74]

Exactly. But I'm willing to bet the change in ratios is a lot more than 5% shorter on the lifespan. 5% seems about in line with those of us that jumped to 245/65R17 (245/60R18). Like you said, only time will tell and since we went big here, no way to tell if this Maverick with factory CV issues is caused by just that or the new setup. But it's safe to assume the process will be expedited either way, right? That's all it's ever been about here. So in 5 or 10 years I look forward to seeing a maintenance report from those of us running "safer sizes" vs. those running in the redlines. You said it yourself, you were/are a Jeep man and they go so far as to create charts for gear ratios needed to push each tire size safely. I'd love to see the same data on the C2 platform, but it's safe to assume since even Jeeps with a .18 change in ratios suffer on stock gears, then so does the Maverick. Lastly, I got out of the Toyota for my own reasons. It just wasn't what I needed anymore. But a "sucker for overpriced toyota's"... c'mon man... you are better than that, right? I've had about enough of the ad-hominem from some of you trashy members here.

5% is actually a pretty big number. We are talking like 4 or 5 trips from sea to shining sea against a vehicles avg lifespan. Aside from that those datio charts aren't about safety. They are about ideal driving characteristics and the usable power rpm ranges.

As for Toyota. I have ridden in, drove, or even offroader one from the last 4 decades( no 2020s, but i did flat tow one)Not one has fit my body comfortably, felt anymore durable inside than their contemporaries, or inspired any sense of confidence that warranted their high regard and used prices. Similar to the iPhone cult. It's always they are the best, the best, the best. So why do I always hear, I need a new one, why won't it connect, my charge port is clogged. It's just parroting popularity in bubbles.

We will see where the Maverick journey takes us. I think we will all be surprised in one way or another.

About the trashy business. I don't think that's necessary. Call me poor if you want. I wasn't attacking your Toyotas. But I do take offense of any type of popular band wagon. A good rule of thumb is if everyone is doing something, watch closely and proceed with caution.

Sponsored