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

Chris said:
I use that all the time, it's very helpful!

Personally I just wish the US would get on board with the rest of the world and adopt the metric system... Sheesh!
Click to expand...
Haha we use a complete mixture of both systems here.
If it's a long distance we will usually talk about it in miles same as speed we use miles per hour. Shorter distance we use meters unless it's a persons height then we use feet and inches.
We use stone if it's a persons body weight and kg for larger objects.
Petrol is sold in litres but everyone uses miles per gallon for fuel efficiency.
Temperature in degrees C but sometimes F is used in the summer (usually to hype up a heatwave)
Foods and consumable liquids get a bit more complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CodaMan, JMT and Chris
IMG_2219.JPG
Maybe you're just not shopping for big enough tires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMT and BigWheel88
Interco has a "Blem" list that you can get some pretty sweet deals on too! You can find it under the "Merchandise" tab on their website. http://www.intercotire.com/blem_list_0
Before I pulled the trigger on 17x9 wheels I was an rch away from getting a set of IROK ND's in 285/75/16 for about $150 a tire. and am still considering the same style tire in 285/70/17 as backups for only $145 each just to throw into storage, that is about half of what I paid for my Nitto Ridge Grapplers. :facepalm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: UpperMI
A JK buddy of mine just got the Ridge Grappler in a 285/75/17 flavor. they are a nice looking tire, and he seems happy with them so far. Pricey though, like you said.
 
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 it 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozarkrubi, sgtjdgelinas and bobthetj03
DrDirt said:
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 it 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.
Click to expand...
Well, there you go. Thanks @Dr.Dirt for the down and dirty...
 
One other thing that seems unique to 16" tires, at least in the size I was looking - 33", is that they are all load range E. Most of the same equivalent 15" tires are load range C. I went with the 15" for this reason only so I could maintain a softer ride on the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
It would appear as if the tire manufacturers just don't want people owning 16" wheels... Haha!
 
All the same. A 305 is technically a 12.5" width, 255, 10.5" And profile? 75 is 75 regardless.
But the whole world uses 15/16/17' rims. Michelin tries the metric rim thing with Ford.... once. Called the TRX?
 
I don't know if they are still made but Parnelli Jones had several inch sizes in 16". I've seen 33-12.50-16's and a few others.
 
I’ve come across 295/75r16. Compared to the 285s, they seems to be a taller 33 and you can get them in a D load rating. Closer to 34in tall, minimal increase in width, any reason that the size isn’t more popular?
 
Top Bottom
Back