Topic: BFG 33x10.50 vs 12.50?

[4xtoy]

Shopping for some used tires and i came across some BFG Mud terrains (don't know yet if they are KM or KM2's) But they are 33x10.50x15. I've always run a 12.50 on 33" or bigger tires with good results. Have any of you guys got experience on a taller 10.50 tire?  I will be running them on a very mildly built 85 hilux with a flat bed. Some street, ice and snow, rocky dirt trials, little to no sand or mud, and some rocks will be my driving conditions.

Thanks!

[Monster Yota]

I would stick with a 12.50 with a 33" tall tire IMO 

[jimbo74]

will be more liek a stock sized tire.... just narrow... not a big deal though

[emsvitil]

The 33x10.50 have a higher load capacity than 12.50   2620 vs 2225

and you can pump them to a higher psi  50 vs 35


So they're probably a more durable  tire.

[H8PVMNT]

I've had great success with both.  It's kind of a personal preference thing because they both work great off highway. 10.50s have a little less rolling and wind resistance and feel like a much smaller tire than they actually are on the highway.  the 10.50 rub less and can be used on a stock rim, not a big deal for most guys since we usually run wider than stock wheels anyway.  Narrow tires work better in some kinds of snow but the 12.50 work well too if you run single diget psi.  There is no right answer...

[Yota87Truck]

I love my 33x10.50 R15 KM2s.  They worked great on the snow, I have only used them off road on up to 12" of snow fully pressured and worked great, not much experience on snowy or icy roads.  I bought them because I like the look of skinny tires and also because I mounted them on a stock rim which rubbed the a-arm in a 12.50.  But regardless that a 12.50 rubbed I had planned on getting a 10.50, I wanted better mpg out of my tires and Toyota's are light trucks so a skinnier tire from the research I did would have better grip due to less square inch's of the tread block.  I don't DD on them but when I do drive on the street they manner ok, but in general i run 31" street tires on the street so it's hard for me to compare.  This tire seems to form well to the rocks even at full hwy air pressure but aired down work even better.  The one advantage I have found on the 10.50 VS a wider tire like a 12.50 is on some obstacles you are more likely to slide off a rock on one side or the other due to reduced tread width.

[zembalayan]

I have a taste for skinny tires too.  I really like the performance of the 33x10.5x15 BFGs that I have on my 1980 4x4.  They seem to really grab onto the terrain compared to the wider 12.5 widths I have seen and used.  I will definitely get this size again over 33x12.5x15. 

[4xtoy [OP]]

Thanks for the input guys. I got a chance to go check them out today and they are KM2's. I did like the look of the 10.50 for sure. However, the tires were a joke. They have a DOT date of 2011 but looked like they had 50k miles on them. The two fronts had horrendous alignment wear and the rears only had maybe 1/4" tread. The guy is asking $300 for them and said "that's why I'm selling them so cheap" He would have been better off spending the $1 per tire hazardous waste fee and left them at the tire shop.  I will definitely be keeping my eye out on 10.50's from now on though.  Even considering a 285/75 or a 305/75 now.

[zembalayan]

For the pizza cutter aficionados here, you'll want to keep your eyes peeled for these as well:  

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/michelin/

These Michelin XZL900s look bad to the bone, and nearly unobtainable.  Just think of it: a tire that's 36.5" X 10" X 16R (255/100R16) on your cruiser or crawler.  If I had my choice, I'd run these on 16" foreign market 80 series stock/factory steelies.  Fantasyland is great, isn't it?

34" X 10.5" X 15R  Interco LTBs are not a bad, but smaller substitute.