265/60-18 Cooper Rugged Trek tires installed

[Maverickman74]

Wow you’re one of the few people I’ve heard that also has seen that we have entered into a global cooling cycle. Since 08 temps have stabilized and should start to head down for some 240 years.

Temperature data isnt really there on that one, but it doesnt mean the pendulum wont swing. Thats really the whole point of the oscillation wave pattern of the earth wobble on its axis. Time scale(much like our lil wear and tear discussion) is what makes it all hard to figure out. If only one of these immortal dieties that people claim would avoid talking in riddles and laying down the laws, and actually tell us some scientific data on how the planetary systems work long term then we could build out our societies structures properly.

Hey Ford Motor Company, got any of those stress test data charts? I think a business case could be made for a making those readily available to the public. That way people could see how tough Fords actually are. I know I would prefer to buy from a company that offers up real data ball joints are and what temperature the bearing loosen up and walk around the clutch discs in the rear differential. That is the type of thing Tesla sure wouldnt do. They have to have their arms twisted to admit recalls.

Sponsored

 

[Maverickman74]

listen here’s why nobody can take you seriously.
You make a lot of assumptions about things then get mad when someone assumes things about you.

First you state that my tires are way over the safe limit with no facts or data to clear it up. Stating they are very heavy.
When in fact your setup is heavier.
Whe I point that out you pivot to the size and how they rotate. Btw you never responded because I believe you realized you were wrong to my fact that a bigger tire does in fact rotate less time around per mile than a small one. A point you said I must not understand.
So when I state that you ignore and move on. Same case with you stating the dumbest concept ever that my tire size is harder on the drivetrain than a tune. Lol
You have no way to back it up either or have any reason why the factory would trq limit our power to save what for it. The driveline.
You have a unique ability to shift the goal post change the subject or straight up ignore a reasonable point.
What happened here is you jumped on my thread to try to be some authority on a subject or act like what you did was correct and what I did was wrong.
You can continue to keep sliding to a different area of why like from the weight which was your first point you brought up until you realized yours are heavier. Then you went to the height. Which may in fact be better for wear as they roll around less.
Now your trying to say that my tires are so tall that they will cause damage while at the same time saying the height won’t help any off road over your shorter ones.
What are you even try to prove here other than to make people think your dumb or an a hole neither is a good look.
If you really think they won’t do any better why would you go 245? Why would anyone every change a tire size for bigger.
This is another thing that comes off as salty for some reason.
How much will these help over your who knows but what we do know is if the tire is .25” taller it will have roughly another .25” of clearance over an object. That may not help or it may be all that is needed to clear a rut.

I think you got your replies mixed up here. All groovy, its a hot thread

 

[Maverickman74]

Considering I was the only one mentioning my lifting experiences and my previous Tacoma, I know it was directed at me. I agree with you btw about the cultist mindset and the "if everyone else is doing something" trend - which seems to be the reason why this size tire was accepted in the first place and another reason why I got out of my Tacoma - it just wasn't that great. So color me a realist and I'll side with those optimal driving characteristics of said RPM ranges for DD vehicles when considering tire size. I don't think the tire size here is pushing our 8 speed tranny's into the 2.5 range at 70mph, but I know it's a lot more than those of us running a single size up. I still firmly believe there is nothing you are going to do with the clearance of a Maverick with 265's that you can't do with 245's and that extra bit of tire won't be the factor all in getting you out of a potentially stuck situation in softer grounding with this vehicles limited AWD capability. And you also mentioned usage based - which I also agree on - and OP has made it very clear they are an aggressive driver and tuner.

I see this whole thing as a flex. OP said it best - their intention was to show off. Consider it shown. I never tried to pass off my guestimate of 80k as a "fact" either. Maybe I should have made it more clear? The intention was early failure rates increasing drastically. Like you said, we'll find out in the long run but there is a lot of evidence to support the stress of all this including my own setup. It's just that one is easily arguable among safer limits than the other.

Im sorry I missed your Tacoma mention completely. I've actually been quite busy lately trying to force myself to work 70 plus hours a week to get some projects accomplished at home. 40 hours for the man and 30 for me. I live in a place where the Toyota cult is as hardcore as it gets, so its always my "go to" for speaking against blanket mindsets.

I want to say one thing about these tires that most here arent going to like. "All terrain" and "hybrid AT/MT" tires are all a joke to any hardcore offroader. Some ATs are durable enough for fast desert wheeling and some do ok in the snow on the road. But there is a reason that almost every non street legal offroad rig has tires more closely resembling tractor tires. Its because they are far better and all the popular ATs are basically the same as eco tires in comparison to them. So while I do agree a 0.5 taller ground clearance from sidewall height probably isnt going to get you much farther. The size increase could get you into a more aggressive MT tire. Which is the closest thing we can get to a real offroad tire that can still run on the highway. When I had my old CJs in 7 years of 3 different Jeeps(i liked to trade around) I ran Super Swampers on all except when I needed some tires and took a chance on some MTs. They got me buried every time I went out and had 2 punctures in a few months time. There is no super swamper available for and rim that will fit the maverick that also fit its wheel wells. So for me, when it comes time to spend money. I will have to go for the biggest tire possible to get up to sizes that offer a legitimate MT from a reputable offroad company. Really so far the only company I have found that offers an option is Maxxis. Famous for the Trepadors and Crawlers but long known as the the keeper of the torch for the Buckshot style tire. That was one of the first road tires adapted from military style treads for jeeps. Their first modern tire/ daily driver version of that line was the BigHorn MT. BFG also offers their KM3 in the 30-30.5 17" size but I personally feel about them the same way as I do Toyotas. Very cultish. I do have 2 KM3s on the front of my comanche. They are 5 years old (they had very low usage for 3 years) and while they largely hold air, they are cracked to all hell. So much that i really should move them to the rear. Where I have a set of much less cracked Mickey Thompson Deegan 38s. Im not changing my Maverick tires until I have worn out the factory Falkens, I dont have money to throw away like that, since I dont have another vehicle they will fit on. When I do it will likely be the Bighorns.

Long story short tire tread is everything offroad. And if you have to go to the largest size possible to fit our too big wheels, to get the most aggressive tread. Then thats just what has to be done.
Maybe it will wear out the parts a lil faster, maybe some good maintenance will negate that. Remember every time you drive through water over the centerline of the wheel hub, you should lubricate every joint and change every differential fluid.

 

[Montana]

How do we know that? Considering I'm the only one to even do the math on the gear ratio change... All you've done it run your mouth.

"Sheriff" is looking for factual evidence of your claims, as I've given mine and debunked your "21 inch wheels are just as bad theory" because their size at 265/40R21 has A LOT more revolutions per mile than your tire size, my tire size, and OP's tire size. We already know weight attributes to added stress, but it's not the ONLY factor.

We all agree on the basics - going over adds stress. The question is the limit. On every chart that exists when it comes to tire size and gear ratio sizes, a .13 change is significantly enough to consider new gearing (as mentioned - use dependant and OP has made his use clear but maybe you missed it). That's why I'm in THESE threads with tires over a certain limit. Maybe you should just stick to your flex threads and posting pictures if you can't contribute with actual data that's helpful. If anything, the forum knows what the gear ratio change is now and all they got from you was misinformation about "similar" tire sizes that are not similar at all.

Like @Maverickman74 said, time will tell. I'll be here... will you? My guess is no. You'll go with whatever vehicle you can flex on instagram next and be gone in 3 years. BTW, you are the only one to come in this thread hurling insults around. OP and I might disagree but at least we are having that discussion.

 

[Snox801]

I think you got your replies mixed up here. All groovy, its a hot thread

That was meant for Montana sorry must have screwed that one up.

 

[Snox801]

How do we know that? Considering I'm the only one to even do the math on the gear ratio change... All you've done it run your mouth.

"Sheriff" is looking for factual evidence of your claims, as I've given mine and debunked your "21 inch wheels are just as bad theory" because their size at 265/40R21 has A LOT more revolutions per mile than your tire size, my tire size, and OP's tire size. We already know weight attributes to added stress, but it's not the ONLY factor.

We all agree on the basics - going over adds stress. The question is the limit. On every chart that exists when it comes to tire size and gear ratio sizes, a .13 change is significantly enough to consider new gearing (as mentioned - use dependant and OP has made his use clear but maybe you missed it). That's why I'm in THESE threads with tires over a certain limit. Maybe you should just stick to your flex threads and posting pictures if you can't contribute with actual data that's helpful. If anything, the forum knows what the gear ratio change is now and all they got from you was misinformation about "similar" tire sizes that are not similar at all.

Like @Maverickman74 said, time will tell. I'll be here... will you? My guess is no. You'll go with whatever vehicle you can flex on instagram next and be gone in 3 years. BTW, you are the only one to come in this thread hurling insults around. OP and I might disagree but at least we are having that discussion.

Here is a question then
So if stock size tire is ok with the gear ratio of the standard maverick. Would it not be ok to jump to my size if you have the tow package that has the gear ratio changed already?
Pretty sure that that gear change is plenty to offset the tire size change.

 

[Snox801]

Here is a question then
So if stock size tire is ok with the gear ratio of the standard maverick. Would it not be ok to jump to my size if you have the tow package that has the gear ratio changed already?
Pretty sure that that gear change is plenty to offset the tire size change.

The reason I ask is because the gear ratio change is often to offset the lack of power with larger tires like in the yotas.
We have more ho and trq than most half tons from the 90’s. Say my f-150 has 3:31 rear drive. Most have 3:55. Does that meant the rear gear set is weaker than the 3:55? Or will have more stress?

I’m just not buying the whole over stressed driveline with bigger tires considering I’ve hauled 4K lbs with mine and I can say for sure everything is working much harder hauling that than moving these slightly bigger tires. Yet ford says I can haul 4K up the steepest grade in Co without any issues. But I’m supposed to think that these tires are too much.

 

[Snox801]

I also believe that new ratio needed is for acceleration. I’m highly skeptical that is a durability issue

 

[Snox801]

Well it handles the car, trailer and some gear right at 4K.
Perfectly capable of handling this load from sea to shining sea according to ford.
But it’s the slightly bigger tires that gonna do in my drive train.
Lol

 

[Montana]

Again, more useless info from someone that has no understanding of gear ratios.

Big difference in a .06 jump (what you are running? If so, your math comparison is wrong - no surprise) to what is being ran here at .13 jump. A little more than double? Right? Basic rule: Percentage change in tire revs/mile = percentage change required to the axle ratio. Just because you have the 4k package for towing - which is not the same as unsprung weight or revolutions per mile at the wheel - does not equate "more capable of being able to handle bigger wheels/tires". Especially when towing now that we have changed the ratio so drastically. That's why the next step up would be needed especially considering they are towing on the limit with said +3 tires sizes. The larger tires lower your your final drive ratio, as if your gears were higher. The 3.81 gearing is for the stock size towing 4k capability - not 265/60R18. +1 (mine) and +2 tire sizes = not that big of a deal (+2 would be a safe limit). +3 (OP and you if you are running 265/65R17's and towing) and above = time to consider a regear.

The fact that OP tows 4k is even more reason to consider gearing an issue. If you don't, you may be fine but it's certainly still beyond the "safe" limit for optimal driveline wear and I hope you are at the very least changing PTU/RDU/Tranny fluid religiously. Either way, go ahead and check my math, ask around on any forum in regards to towing with larger tires and gear ratios and see what the "experts" say there too. Maybe you do need to go more than 1.4" to have instant serious issues, but it's a safe bet that going up that much while towing will certainly have more negative side effects than it's worth even with a tune. Again, a tune doesn't change the gear ratio. You may gain some of that low end torque back but the dif's are still working just as hard. Generally people who tow this much and often do not go with the max tire size they can squeeze into the wheel well for many reasons which I've tried over and over to clarify here. But your logic is "you should be good". Guess we'll find out.

 

[Snox801]

Again, more useless info from someone that has no understanding of gear ratios.

Big difference in a .06 jump (what you are running? If so, your math comparison is wrong - no surprise) to what is being ran here at .13 jump. A little more than double? Right? Basic rule: Percentage change in tire revs/mile = percentage change required to the axle ratio. Just because you have the 4k package for towing - which is not the same as unsprung weight or revolutions per mile at the wheel - does not equate "more capable of being able to handle bigger wheels/tires". Especially when towing now that we have changed the ratio so drastically. With the almost +3 tire size done here, the gearing is essentially equal to the non 4k package when towing. That's why the next step up would be needed especially considering they are towing on the limit with said +3 tires sizes. The larger tires lower your your final drive ratio, as if your gears were higher. The 3.81 gearing is for the stock size towing 4k capability - not 265/60R18. +1 (mine) and +2 tire sizes = not that big of a deal (+2 would be a safe limit). +3 (OP and you if you are running 265/65R17's and towing) and above = time to consider a regear.

The fact that OP tows 4k is even more reason to consider gearing an issue. If you don't, you may be fine but it's certainly still beyond the "safe" limit for optimal driveline wear and I hope you are at the very least changing PTU/RDU/Tranny fluid religiously. Either way, go ahead and check my math, ask around on any forum in regards to towing with larger tires and gear ratios and see what the "experts" say there too.

I think you’re reading what he posted wrong. He’s saying that if you have the 4K and larger tires it’s still easier than stock tires towing. Yes I’m doing both. But I’m not sure wear is the issues with gearing. A certain part of gearing for the factory is being able to accelerate at a reasonable speed for passing. Same as with an f-150. The 3:31 is the same 8.8 rear end no different in toughness. That fact that rear ends almost never go out in these tells me they are gonna be fine. I’ve done this repeatedly for years and never an issues. Yes I change my fluids. Yes I added much more power than stock. I’ve yet to ever have an issue. Maybe if I lifted it and added huge tire maybe but I bet everything would be fine. I’d just be lacking power and pass the point of decent returns for tie size.

 

[Montana]

Do you know why the 4K gear ratio is 3.81? Because it's not capable of hauling 4k pounds efficiently at 3.63. OP is towing 4k and still lower than the standard gear ratio. You might be safe riding that limit with your larger setup and not towing (again, for the 100th time - usage based but the suggestion you are given in the pics you share is there for a reason - 4.07!) but OP is towing 4k pounds. And yea, if you are comfy riding that line knowing you have reduced your ratio by so much you are essentially not on any better gear ratio for your wheel setup, then go ahead and run it. I think you just made even more of an argument for the Hybrid owners to not do what you are doing and for everyone else to not take such giant leaps in tire sizes. Thanks again.

Sponsored