Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner
21 - 40 of 69 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,479 Posts
This is on a stock non lifted FJ? Wow, nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,049 Posts
Stock tires are basically 32" so these would be a bit over an 1" taller. No the speedo wouldn't recalibrate itself and yes you would loose a little HP and Torque, but not much. Check this out:

Tire Diameter Calc
I'm still on the fence about the speedo calibration story, and I don't mean that in a fecetious or argumentative manner. When I went up to a 285/70/17 BFG, then Wrangler SA on my stock steelies I used my GPS to calibrate my Scan Guage II speedo readings. At the same time I was watching my dash speedo and it is spot on with the GPS. I never really bothered to compare my GPS speed readings with my stock tires, but it couldn't have been calibrated with a smaller tire diameter, since it is near exact with a bigger tire. It begs the question...Did Toyota expect buyers to put bigger tires on the FJ's or did Toyota originally plan to put a bigger tire on them from the factory? Hmmm.

sorry for the hi-jack.

The setup looks really good
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,828 Posts
I'm still on the fence about the speedo calibration story, and I don't mean that in a fecetious or argumentative manner. When I went up to a 285/70/17 BFG, then Wrangler SA on my stock steelies I used my GPS to calibrate my Scan Guage II speedo readings. At the same time I was watching my dash speedo and it is spot on with the GPS. I never really bothered to compare my GPS speed readings with my stock tires, but it couldn't have been calibrated with a smaller tire diameter, since it is near exact with a bigger tire. It begs the question...Did Toyota expect buyers to put bigger tires on the FJ's or did Toyota originally plan to put a bigger tire on them from the factory? Hmmm.

sorry for the hi-jack.

The setup looks really good
Mine are exactly the same, speedo is spot on with the 255/85/16's (33") according to GPS and roadside radar. I can only assume that is what Toyota was thinking, upgrade that rubber...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,957 Posts
Kool... I know what tires my wifes SF will get...

TY for the info..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts
How far have you aired down with this 255/85/16 setup?

I'm often at 12-15psi and am wondering if the tire bulge at that pressure will rub or not.

This is EXACTLY the setup I'm looking at for my BC...
:bananahump-slvrathl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
I recently got the same BFG 255/85R16 MTR's on TRD wheels and thought I would add a few comments to this thread.

I'm suprised the spare fits on the back. It clears the bumper? Did you use a spacer so the window will still open?
No problems, no spacer. Fits fine and rear window clears.

Mine are exactly the same, speedo is spot on with the 255/85/16's (33") according to GPS and roadside radar. I can only assume that is what Toyota was thinking, upgrade that rubber...
That's surprising... The difference between my stock Dunlop 265/70R17's and my BFG 255/85R16 MTR's is very real.

With the 255/85R16's my GPS indicates I am going faster than the vehicle speedometer, and the GPS odometer records more mileage than the vehicle odometer. Not surprising, given the differences here.

How far have you aired down with this 255/85/16 setup? I'm often at 12-15psi and am wondering if the tire bulge at that pressure will rub or not.
I did some easy wheeling this past weekend (no flexing with wheels off the ground) at 14psi and I had significantly less tire bulge than when I ran the stock Dunlop's at 17psi. The BFG side-walls are sturdier. I still have the stock suspension, stock front bumper and I haven't run these tires with the front sway-bar removed. That said, I've had no tire-rub yet. I suspect I'll get a bit of rub on the plastic behind the front bumper in a hard turn with severe flex. But, when I get an after-market front bumper that plastic will be cut out.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
Mine are exactly the same, speedo is spot on with the 255/85/16's (33") according to GPS and roadside radar. I can only assume that is what Toyota was thinking, upgrade that rubber...
Something is either wrong with your truck meaning by default your speedometer calibration was off to begin or someone modified it already. There's no way Toyota would sell uncalibrated speedometers off the showroom expecting the consumer to upgrade. So I have to say BS to that one.

Its physics, that 255 is taller than the 265 tire. The speedometer will be off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
Something is either wrong with your truck meaning by default your speedometer calibration was off to begin or someone modified it already. There's no way Toyota would sell uncalibrated speedometers off the showroom expecting the consumer to upgrade. So I have to say BS to that one.

Its physics, that 255 is taller than the 265 tire. The speedometer will be off.
Oddly enough, my GPS and the speedo were within 1 mph of eachother after fitting the 255/85 16s. So I had a friend follow me and sure enough, my speedo and his speedo pretty well matched up. I don't get it either and I've racked my brain to figure out how this is possible.:confused:
 

·
Full -N- Down
Joined
·
641 Posts
I think most speedo's have a margin of error. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but would think 3-5% wouldn't be out of the question. I would also guess that given a choice, manufacturers would rather have a speedo error on the fast side than the slow side. The 255-85-16's are only 4.6% larger than stock diameter tires, so they fall within that margin of error. Even if the speedo was dead on with stock tires, you are only looking at a difference of about 3mph at 65. Add a bit of speedo error in and you are close to actual speed. This could easily be the case. Although by this theory, you could also easily be off by 6mph if the speedo erred in the other direction, assuming manufacturers don't care which direction the error is in as long as it' within tolerances.

By the way, I like the tires. I'll probably be looking for 16" rims in the future to go this same route when my current tires give up the ghost. (probably be awhile though, seems these bfg mt's have pretty long legs)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I hope this isn't going to open up any libellous thread, but I've heard of a conspiracy theory that manufacturers are deliberately setting speedos/odometers to record a higher mileage (and therefore a higher speed) because it's in their interests to do so. More frequent servicing benefits the service garages, and a higher mileage means you're more likely to change your vehicle sooner than later; you can probably think of lots of other reasons too.
I installed Bridgestone AT Revos as part of the Dunlop recall, 265/70 X 17's, and when travelling at 60 according to my GPS, they speedo reads 62.

Do I need a lawyer now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
I hope this isn't going to open up any libellous thread, but I've heard of a conspiracy theory that manufacturers are deliberately setting speedos/odometers to record a higher mileage (and therefore a higher speed) because it's in their interests to do so. More frequent servicing benefits the service garages, and a higher mileage means you're more likely to change your vehicle sooner than later; you can probably think of lots of other reasons too.
I installed Bridgestone AT Revos as part of the Dunlop recall, 265/70 X 17's, and when travelling at 60 according to my GPS, they speedo reads 62.

Do I need a lawyer now?
That's a helluva first post:) Welcome to the forum UKDUDE and I'd wait on the lawyer... but since you replaced the stock tires with the same size tire, you've lent some credence to the "theory".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
I hope this isn't going to open up any libellous thread, but I've heard of a conspiracy theory that manufacturers are deliberately setting speedos/odometers to record a higher mileage (and therefore a higher speed) because it's in their interests to do so. More frequent servicing benefits the service garages, and a higher mileage means you're more likely to change your vehicle sooner than later; you can probably think of lots of other reasons too.
I installed Bridgestone AT Revos as part of the Dunlop recall, 265/70 X 17's, and when travelling at 60 according to my GPS, they speedo reads 62.

Do I need a lawyer now?

It has been known that some used car dealerships (they did get caught) do that - there use to be a book out there for such scams/crimes - but if a dealership did that to new cars, they have some might big cajones
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
I think most speedo's have a margin of error. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but would think 3-5% wouldn't be out of the question....
I ran into this problem on my previous vehicle. See below

I hope this isn't going to open up any libellous thread, but I've heard of a conspiracy theory that manufacturers are deliberately setting speedos/odometers to record a higher mileage (and therefore a higher speed) because it's in their interests to do so...
As noted above, I ran into this problem on my previous vehicle. I bought it new (1993) and it was almost (but not quite) 4% fast, right-off-the-lot. I was VERY unhappy and talked to the dealership about it. I got nowhere. After some more digging in other places I was told that Federal law requires speedo/odo to be accurate within +-4%. I don't know if that's true... but I was an unhappy owner...
My FJ was pretty much spot-on with the stock tires; it's off with these taller tires.

You put those on there with the truck stock, right?, no lift?
For me, yes, stock. No lift. Skinnier tires help. See Pizza cutters rock!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,160 Posts
I hope this isn't going to open up any libellous thread, but I've heard of a conspiracy theory that manufacturers are deliberately setting speedos/odometers to record a higher mileage (and therefore a higher speed) because it's in their interests to do so. More frequent servicing benefits the service garages, and a higher mileage means you're more likely to change your vehicle sooner than later; you can probably think of lots of other reasons too.

Do I need a lawyer now?
Honda just got sued for that very reason. Some staunch vehicle lessees kinda felt stung when their mileage penalties came up and their driving habits hadn't changed enough to warrant the difference in mileage at lease turn-in. This also allowed Honda a shorter (actual) warranty to honor in case of breakdown.

More than 6 million vehicles are included in the recently proposed settlement, which alleges that the odometers racked up more miles than they should have.

Honda called it an inadvertent oversight and said it is willing to make good. Honda has proposed to settle the class-action lawsuit, which alleges that the odometers in 2002 through 2006 Hondas and Acuras overstated the mileage........Honda said it was using a standard for computing mileage designed in the 1970s. When the standard was updated, Honda didn't make a change, a representative said, because the company felt the "old standard was not necessarily applicable or problematic."

Honda denies all allegations of wrongdoing, or that the odometers are defective.

ConsumerWatch: Odometer Lawsuit Filed Against Honda - News Archive Story - KETV Omaha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I really like the look and tire rack has rated them very well. How is the noise especially on the thruway? It is my wife's daily driver so i don't want to hear her wine about the noise level.:thinkerg:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
Hows your gas milagewith the 255's? I love my 12.50/33's, but the mileage drop was consideable. Being that these actually have a smaller contact patch, i'm wondering if the loss in mileage with this setup was minimal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,828 Posts
Hows your gas milagewith the 255's? I love my 12.50/33's, but the mileage drop was consideable. Being that these actually have a smaller contact patch, i'm wondering if the loss in mileage with this setup was minimal.
For me, it dropped ~1-1.5 mpg but I haven't taken the time to adjust to the speedo variance. If my speedo with the stock tires was actually reading higher miles, then I don't see that I had a significant drop, being that I "assumed" my original miles were true.

The distance travelled in one rotation is ~4.5% from stock to the 33's. If I was getting 18.5 mpg in mixed driving before and now getting 17.5 or a bit less on average. That is ~5.7% drop in mileage, that is assuming I did my quick math correctly.

So, assuming all factors, I may be dropping a bit more than 1.5% just due to the larger mass of the taller tires, something I'm willing to accept considering the difference in performance and off-road capability...
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
Top