Wrong again.
Sure there are lots of variables here with vehicle weight, wheel base, suspension flex, weight distribution, ground conditions, tire pressure, etc. But what you don't want in 99% of the situations out there is a wide tire. Like I said before the wide tire will only leave you with a very short linear footprint and what you are trying to get is a long one. A short contact patch is always changing direction (think of an arrow on a tire as it spins) and wants to dig. The longer that contact patch is the longer that "pull" is - reducing wheel spin and loss of traction.
...
The idea is find a compromise with a tall and then wide tire and a suspension that will compliment it.
FWIW my next tire will be a 255/85/16, probably the KM2.
Zombie thread alert...!
Garrett : do you have an opinion on this tire proportion based on the following:
07 lr3, very modified fender liners and most of vehicle for 4x4 trails, extended camping, etc but while on long road trips coast to coast and regionally PNW-Rockies-SW. Been running 32" for years no problems due to the standard modifications for tire clearance during full articulation ranges of ~8" front & 13" rear on cross linked air suspension.
Goal, KM2 from only 2 viable choices:
wider- 33.7" 285/70-18 on factory 8" alloy, no spacers needed (which only make trouble spots worse anyway), only real trouble is near 100% flex in front fenders and only while turning.
narrower- 255/80-17 on factory 7" wide alloy. Currently requires 30mm spacer due to rear rotor and caliper sizing however soon to be remedied by way of v6 sourced parts allowing 17" wheel without spacers).
Note: this lr3 never really weighs less than ~7000 lbs and on trips loaded was 8200 lbs with only one person (me).
I "know" skinny is better off road than wider, however, in this scenario, the wider 11.5" section vs 10" section is almost the same sidewall plus larger diameter due to 33.7" diameter vs 33.3. Thus the resulting "long" deflated patch is not as vastly different as usually compared.
Negatives I can imagine using the 255 in this case are due to this lr3 weight and that it's used to go far on highways to places where lots of intense rock garden crawling is unlikely. Though I've taken it through ORV trails near Mt Rainier stating "35" tires, short wheelbase, lockers, high ground clearance highly recommended" is on the entrance signage, and that was done fine on 32" bfg ko2 which obviously pack up in any real mud/clay.
The 285 also has a significantly higher load rating and it's profile suggests to me that interstate highway 75-85mph stability or even mountain roads will be more sure footed on the extra tread contact patch width against pavement. The 255 is amazingly narrow - seems more suited to my 04 disco, not so much this pig lr3.
Maybe this will help anyone searching LR3 LR4 / Disco 3 threads too... thx guys.
Fish: how are you doing on the 255's ? You are possibly onto entirely new things by now.