Why do they only make metric size tires for 16" wheels?

I'm thinking I'm going to forced into the general grabber at2...the bfg ko2 in this size are only load rating e.

Grabbers load d on tirerack

295/75 r16 - $194 33.4in, 11.6 and 58lbs

285/75 r16 - $187 32.8in, 11.3 and 59lbs
 
Last edited:
Anyone have experience running nitto trail Grapplers in 285/70r16 or the tires in a different load E size? Only large manufacturer that carries that size that I've seen and unfortunately it's load E and pricy but like the 11.5 width over the 265/75r16. I'll likely go duratracs in the 265/75r16 due to the price and C load rating but really would have liked the wider tire. Tires would go on after a OME 2.5 lift.
 
Chris said:
Since I still have the 16" Moab wheels on my TJ Rubicon, one of the things I noticed when looking for bigger tires is that every single option out there is a metric size tire. For instance, I can't get an actual 33", I have to get a 285/75r16 or a 305/70r16, there is no 33".

I Googled the crap out of this and even asked the guy at Discount Tire why this was, and no one seems to have an answer. He even told me that he had been doing tires for 15 years and really wasn't sure why.

So, does anyone know the answer? I found that kind of odd that this only seems to be for 16" wheels.
Click to expand...

I posted this last year in this thread. I copied it to repost it here.

I'm now a "retired tire guy" after working for Michelin for 37-1/2 years.

I'm a "soon to be retired" tire guy so I can shed a little light on the subject on the sizing of 16" vs 16.5". But I'll try to keep it brief. One significant organization involved here is T&RA. This is the Tire and Rim Association. It is the standards organization that most manufacturers selling tires in the US belong to. Here's how I understand it. Years ago there were 16.5" and 16" flotation sizes. And years ago there were quite a few instances of tire techs trying to mount a 16" flotation tire on a 16.5" rim. The dimensions of the two were written very similar. They were the same except for the ".5" at the end of the dimension. This was not good as the bead on the 16" tire would usually break causing a tire explosion during mounting and usually an injury. As a way to try to reduce this, it was recommended that all 16" flotation tires be written as a metric tire and all the 16.5" flotation tires continued to be written as a flotation size. And now 16.5" tires are not near as popular and most 16" tires are still written as metric.

This dilemma also impacts 17" vs. 17.5" tires but not as much. What the T&RA did here was limit the load index of 17" light truck tires to 121. And I think the 17.5" medium truck tires are not suppose to have a load index lower than 128. (I think this is the lower limit.) I have attached some load/pressure tables. Scroll down to page 492. (Don't worry, it doesn't start at page 1) Take a look at the 17" LT-metric tires. None of them show a load capacity greater than 3195lbs. This is a load index of 121. Some of them will have the same max. load for 65 and 80 psi.

And you will not find any 16" flotation tires in the T&RA listing.
 

Attachments

  • 2017 load_pressure tables.pdf
    624.8 KB · Views: 324
  • Like
Reactions: Reign Mack, derekmac, StG58 and 2 others
DrDirt said:
I posted this last year in this thread. I copied it to repost it here.

I'm now a "retired tire guy" after working for Michelin for 37-1/2 years.

I'm a "soon to be retired" tire guy so I can shed a little light on the subject on the sizing of 16" vs 16.5". But I'll try to keep it brief. One significant organization involved here is T&RA. This is the Tire and Rim Association. It is the standards organization that most manufacturers selling tires in the US belong to. Here's how I understand it. Years ago there were 16.5" and 16" flotation sizes. And years ago there were quite a few instances of tire techs trying to mount a 16" flotation tire on a 16.5" rim. The dimensions of the two were written very similar. They were the same except for the ".5" at the end of the dimension. This was not good as the bead on the 16" tire would usually break causing a tire explosion during mounting and usually an injury. As a way to try to reduce this, it was recommended that all 16" flotation tires be written as a metric tire and all the 16.5" flotation tires continued to be written as a flotation size. And now 16.5" tires are not near as popular and most 16" tires are still written as metric.

This dilemma also impacts 17" vs. 17.5" tires but not as much. What the T&RA did here was limit the load index of 17" light truck tires to 121. And I think the 17.5" medium truck tires are not suppose to have a load index lower than 128. (I think this is the lower limit.) I have attached some load/pressure tables. Scroll down to page 492. (Don't worry, it doesn't start at page 1) Take a look at the 17" LT-metric tires. None of them show a load capacity greater than 3195lbs. This is a load index of 121. Some of them will have the same max. load for 65 and 80 psi.

And you will not find any 16" flotation tires in the T&RA listing.
Click to expand...

Thanks a million! That helps shed some light on what was otherwise complete nonsense!
 
I have to agree with the OP that never got his question really answered. Why is it that this metric BS only seemed attracted to 16" . Also that conversion chart going around is just proof of why we don't need metric to tell us what most tires other than 16" already have stamped on the side , Height , section width and wheel size . No chart needed its written right out what it is. In reality you still need to check the manufacturers spec to see what the actual diameter is no mater how its written on the sidewall.
 
Top Bottom
Back