Factory tires on ORP?

The brochure for 4 Runner describes the tires on the Off-road or ORP as “ mud-snow” tires. Can someone tell me what actual brand and model tire I should expect on my 2023 ORP when it arrives? My Tacoma TRDOR had Goodyear Wrangler with Kevlar and they were decent but not as good as the Goodyear Duratracs I replaced them with. I just want to know what kind of performance I can expect for off-road traction in wet conditions. Thanks

 

Dunlop Grandtrek AT20’s.

They’re not the worst, but they’re nothing special. Lots of people swap them right away.

 

I wouldn’t expect anything great, not sure if every one gets the same, but I got Bridgestone Duelers.

I took them to the logging roads of northern Maine once and got a flat. So I switched for my next trip up. However the duelers are back on as I have done a ton of highway miles this past 6 months. From Maine to New Orleans and back, and a trip to Virginia as well.

 

They’re quiet and help with mpg. Other than a gravel road, I would use them only for pavement. Replaced them with less than 100 kms (60 miles) as I wanted to drive off road with a little confidence.

 

For you guys that did replace them, can you use a 275/65/70 tire without rubbing anything? That’s 10mm wider than stock and therefore slightly taller (about 1/2”) tire?

 

I guess you mean 275/70R17. I used BFG KO2 275/70R17 on my ORP with stock wheels and it didn't rub. My only complaint was they were Load E tires and the ride was on the firm side.
Some folks run 255/75R17 which is slightly taller than stock that has lot of load rating options for a wider range of use.
Or many directly go for a lift + little plastic trimming and do 285/70R17 tires.

As for stock tires my 4runners came with Dunlops which help me to get good amount of money when I sold them new. But one of my buddy's TRD ORP came with Bridgestone which we could not get much money when they were sold new.

 

Did you mean 255/75R17? Those run about 1/2 inch taller than stock, but 255/70R17’s run 1/2 inch shorter than stock.

For the OP, I couldn’t tell you much about the stock tires, I replaced them with only 60 miles just like 5six.

 

Yes, I meant 70 series. Still thinking Tacoma. So the 275/70 don’t rub. That’s good. Probably another 1/4” ground clearance.

 

Don’t be afraid to do a tiny plastic trimming and front mud flap removal. That’s all that is needed to run 33’s on either a Taco or 4 Runner. I ran 255/85R16’s on my Tacos, and 255/80R17’s on my 4Runner. I love having 33.3” tires without needing to cut any metal.

 

Oops, damn auto correct. Yes I mean 255/75R17.

 

Just remember 275/70s in an A/T look to only be available in E load, and some folks have noted the ride to be harsh due to stiffer sidewalls.

 

Aren’t the E load tires heavier? Does that hurt fuel mileage? And do people find the 255s to be wide enough for good off road traction?

 

E rated tires are very heavy and overkill for our 4Runners unless you plan on some serious off-roading. I had load range C on my 4 runner before but just put on some Firestone Destinaion AT 2’s that are p rated and the ride has improved dramatically and my fuel economy went up a bit.

 

Yes, much heavier … but not much heavier or even the same weight sometimes as a C load. Lots of folks off road with 255/80s (aka pizza cutters). The argument against it is it may not “float” as well in soupy mud or on soft sand (beach) trails. I think if you don’t live in Canada or the upper states, or if you switch tires out for winter, and do extreme technical rock crawling wides are the choice. Since I live in Toronto area (Canada) and don’t have winter tires, and fuel prices are more offensive than US, I’m strongly considering pizza cutters. Only thing holding me back is worrying about it being too harsh. But better traction in rain/snow, just under a 1/4” more lift, less likely I’ll need to mod my fender (I’m lifted), and less drag so some mpg benefits.

 

I'd get some 255 75 17, there's a plenty of tire options in that size.

 

-Yes, generally

-Yes, a little bit

-and, I'm sure that size is fine for off-road traction. A lot of people run "skinny" tires, and some even prefer them

But, if you're not going rock crawling, I might go with a stock size tire in SL, or load range "C" for a good compromise of durability and road manners. Just switching to a more aggressive looking AT will give the appearance of a larger tire, and there are a lot of good options in the stock size.

 

I just ordered a set of geolander at go15 in 255/75. Should be here Monday. Still need to pick up the 4Runner from the dealer on Monday, install 1" cornfed then have tires put on new wheels. So it might be a week or two..

 

Those Yokohamas are some of the best tires I've used! Not aggressive looking, but very good snow traction, and good all-around traction.

 

That's what I'm hoping for. This 4Runner will see 80 miles a week highway for work then some gravel and ocasional fire road on the weekends. No crazy offroading, no mud. And snow traction is always a big plus.

 

I've tested my 21" ORP in two different 7"/8" snows with the factory Dunlap's.
My previous 10' FJ Cruiser came with the off-road package which included BFG/KO-2" tires.
The FJ performed better than the later 4R in the deep snow. Since the two vehicles are essentially the same drive train, I attribute the FJ's better performance in the snow was due to the tires.

I would rate the Dunlop's as a good all-season radial - but not an AT tire. A set of BFG/K-O2 tires for my 4R is in my near future.

 

Mine came with the Bridgestone dueler HT's. I actually really like them. They're terrible in snow, not really suitable for off-road, but as a street and highway tire, they were terrific. They ran smooth, quiet, no front end shimmy, and I was easily able to get 22 MPG with them.

Moving to General ATX all-terrains in the stock size made all of that worse. Only off-road and snow performance improved.

 

Yes, E load tires are heavier and stiffer, and WAY tougher. I get great peace of mind from having the thicker sidewalls and overall construction when driving on anything other than pavement. I don't mind a slightly stiffer ride, I like my truck to feel like a truck. As for fuel mileage, very little difference, in my experience. I may have lost a single mile per gallon, if that, switching from stock to E load tires.

You'll find countless volumes on wide vs skinny tires for off-roading, so we may be opening a huge can of worms here, but this is my short answer: "Tall skinnies" have (arguably) far superior traction off-road than big wide tires. When you air down a tire, the width of the contact patch barely expands at all, whereas the length of the contact patch increases greatly (think snow skis vs snowshoes). A wider contact patch also generates more friction, which slows forward momentum. For this reason, many of the most famous and experienced world travelers/ overlanders/ off-roaders, like Andrew St. Pierre White, for example, swear by tall skinny tires, and have used them to travel around the globe for decades. Tim and Kelsey, of "Dirt Sunrise Adventures", who have travelled all over the world in their Toyotas (and Tim instructs US Special Operations in off-roading), choose 255/85 R16's for their vehicles.

 

Interesting perspective on the narrower tires. Counterintuitive but makes sense the longer contact patch would bite better.

 

I absolutely love my 255/80R17's. I've been a skinny fan for many years.

 

What I like about the Duelers:
They are paid for
They have tread
They are round
They hold air
They are quiet

I run 38psi for gas mileage, I don’t care if they wear uneven.
I have my old 4R for booney crashing.

AND the main reason I am keeping them on for awhile is my truck had shimmy from new, a road force balance made 98% go away. I personally think the tire balance is not the root of the problem, it is a symptom, there is something wrong in the steering/suspension to make the 4R so sensitive to tire balance. I am not changing anything to give the dealer an excuse/way out of being responsible for the issue. I fully expect it to come back.

 

The U.S. Military Jeeps from at least WW2 through the Vietnam eras were equipped with tall, narrow tires with big lugs. For snow and/or mud I would guess.
The old, original VW Beetles all had tall, narrow tires. I remember my 1966 with snow tires, combined with the engine/trans. weight being at the rear, would move very well through the snow.
On the other hand, I can imagine the wider tires working better on dry, sandy surfaces, offering better flotation.

 

Some of the pro-skinny tire arguments are based on the wider tires being shorter, so take it with a grain of salt. For example, if both tires are the same diameter, the length of the contact patch will expand similarly when aired down, while a wider tire will still be wider.

It partially comes down to the type of terrain you're going to be off-roading in. For solid surfaces like rock and gravel, or situations where you want to cut through, skinnies can be better. But, for situations where you want maximum flotation, wider can be better.

 

That is very interesting. Just by the specs 255/80R17 seems to be just 0.1in side wall advantage so 285/70R17 have almost same room for air down? vs 285/70R17 seems to have 1.2in extra width so atleast per by specs 285s seems to have a pretty good extra area. Not sure what its in real life. Wish there's a easy way to test with someone. Both in same diameter 33in or even 33.1in would be a very interesting experiment with different psi. Weight of the vehicle vs load rating would be another factor that could impact too. I mean 255/80R17 only comes in load E vs someone running standard load 285/70R17, the 285 person might get an advantage since the SL tires will squish more? Maybe, not sure. Just thinking out loud.

 

Those two tires have a very similar diameter, for sure. But I'm not understanding their math...they say there is a .4" difference in overall diameter, and both have a 17" wheel, so I'm not understanding how they are coming up with the 8" vs 7.9" numbers. Logically that makes no sense, it should be .2", not .1". But regardless, keep in mind that by airing down, the sidewall difference is not the key factor in increasing contact patch, the circumference (103.8 vs 102.7) is what you're extending a percentage of, which is over an inch difference to start off with. The circumference increases at a larger percentage than the width does when airing down (like exponentially larger). In other words, the 1.2" wider tire will still have a smaller contact patch aired down than the 1.1" longer (circumference) tire when aired down, all else being equal.

 

Narrow tires are the way to go on ice and hard pack and most types of mud trails.