Toyo Commercial M55 Tires

[Builder]

Got the Toyo's on Friday. Pretty impressed as I ordered them at 2pm on Monday.

Went to Wally World to get them mounted. Sat for 90 minutes and was told they won't do it. Not the "recommended size". What the ? Went to the farm & fleet store around the block and 45 minutes later was driving on some new tires.

Aside from having more traction and sitting up 2" higher the only comment is that the ride is a bit rougher. Then again, it was below zero on the ride home.

No rubbing issues on the front fenders? I couldn't put a 1/2" taller tire on my GMC without rubbing. There's just no room left.

Are they load range E?

 

[dgl24087]

No rubbing issues on the front fenders? I couldn't put a 1/2" taller tire on my GMC without rubbing. There's just no room left.

Are they load range E?

Load range D, 8 ply according to Toyo web site.

 

[john_bud]

Load range D, 8 ply according to Toyo web site.

Wrongo!

Load range E Rating 123M


See for yourself at:

http://marktg.toyotires.com/file/18975.pdf


Can be bought at Tires, Wheels & ATV | Treadepot.com with free shipping until Monday.

$225 per tire delivered to the door. Best price I found with a LOT of searching.



Toyo used to do D rated M55, but I think those are obsoleted. Have seen them for ~165 per tire. I wanted the tougher tire and extra capacity.



Builder - I have no rubbing issue at all. The Tire is 33.3 tall and the old ones were 30.5 tall. Well, before the tread all wore off! I do have the Tbars cranked a bit to raise the front end. Not quite to level, but close. Also, if you check close, you can see where I sliced the plastic part of the bumper in the wheel well. It would have been close there. Reports are that you don't have to do it. But, I already had the 1/8" cutting wheel in the angle grinder....


jb

 

[Skyco]

Overlooked this thread for awhile because I thought it was about "heavy" duty trucks
Dunlop also makes a 255/85/16 tire, had them on my Ford F350 for awhile...they did great- for awhile. After around 20,000 miles they started having tread seperations one by one..went through 9 tires on that truck before Goodyear, who now owns Dunlop, replaced them with 265/75/16 Wranglers. They were really bad, not a one was round, the tire store kept ordering replacements trying to get round ones. Finally gave up on them too and went with Michelin XC LT4 all the way around...they've been great.

As for WalMart not mounting them because they aren't a recommended size- I'm hearing more and more of this, also hearing some tire places will not mount non-trailer tires on a trailer. Our legal system at work
I just put Michelin XPS Ribs on my dump trailer to replace the lousy Chinese Load Boss tires that kept getting tread seperation/bulges. I hope the XPSs work out, they were big bucks, twice what Chinese tires cost, but worth it if they hold up.

One other thing- on many late model computerized powertrain vehicles it is an absolute necessity to recalibrate the vehicle speed sensor input if you change tire diameters, shift points, not to mention the speedo/odo can be all off if you don't. I know on my Ford it can be reprogrammed only 6 times then you are done, gotta buy a new one One last note john bud- since your new tires are around 2 inches taller your truck only sits 1 inch higher...the diameter increased by almost two inches but the radius, of course, only increased by one inch

Whew- that was long winded Good luck with oyur new Toyos, might be looking at some myself soon....

 

[Builder]

My 3500 comes stock with 265 load range E tires.

The 255's look to skinny for me. I would like to go up to a 285/16 because I get a little extra height, width and even in load range D, they have almost the exact same rating as a 265 load range E.

Problem is, my GMC has almost no room to spare without doing something hokie to my front bumper.

I had BFG 295/16's AT's on my F-350, they looked great. Best tire I ever owned.

I like those Toyos you bought. Nice "practical" all-around tread. Not a street tire, but not some kinda crazy monster mudder, either.

How bad is your speedo off by? Are your shift points better/worse?

 

[john_bud]

Skyco,

Yeah, my mental calculator's battery must have konked out. Dern cheap thing! The new tires are 33.3" tall according to the spec sheet, the old ones were 30.5, so it sits not quite an inch higher. But, the old tires were down from 18 / 32 to 5 /32 so there was 13/32 + that near inch. It's enough that my wife has some issues getting her leg up to get in the truck.

(strangled held back chuckling sound)

The tires being replaced are Goodyears. They are correctly named as the tread lasted a year! I never liked them from day 1. The truck was squirmy on the freeway, traction was poor on dry, wet, mud and snow and tread life was burning off like a roman candle. If you've read many of my posts on fuel economy, you may have seen that I am the President of the "Drive like an Old Lady" club. So the tread life was not shortened by driving style.

Builder,

I read a lot on the D vs E rating. People with a working truck seem to dump the D's and go with E the next time around. The sidewalls are thinner and the tires are reputed to give a looser feel and are more prone to road damage. It was enough for me to pop for the more $$ E tires. Might be a mental only difference, who knows? But it makes my mental rest easier.

The 255/85, is a decent size for me. I wanted to get the truck up some as it has bottomed on the frame rails when following the muddy ruts and that requires hours of shovel time. Didn't like that. Also, the skinny tire shouldn't impact fuel economy much and as reported on line they don't rub anywhere. That might change when I run it loaded, but it doesn't look that way - will have to see. I do hope that the tread is agressive enough, but as it is 90+% of the time on pavement or gravel, mud tires didn't seem to be the right choice. (Would have looked better, but I'm going for utility and durability these days.) The snow performance has been good so far, but that was just in my back yard.

jb

 

[Builder]

Any speedo calibration or shifting issues?

"Aside from having more traction and sitting up 2" higher the only comment is that the ride is a bit rougher. Then again, it was below zero on the ride home."

That will probably go away. Usually when tires are first mounted the don't seat 100" on the rims. A few hundred miles and some nice bumps will make them smoother.

I remember once putting a new set of load range E's on my F-350, went straight to the lumber yard an tossed about 1,500lbs of lumber up on the racks. The new tires felt like they were going to roll off the rims on a few turns that day. Bigger truck tires can be downright scary before they're fully seated!

 

[john_bud]

Oops forgot to answer that didn't I!

I did a GPS comparison before and after the new tires. Before 70 mph on the speedo was 68.5 on the GPS. After the tires, 65 on the speedo is 70mph on the GPS. It's actually what I expected from doing the math on excel. The worn tires made the speedo read slightly fast and the taller tires make it read 5 mph slow on the freeway. I'll have to muck about in the excel fuel / milage spreadsheet to make it report real mpg's and watch the speed or face getting some face time with the men in blue.

I was expecting some shift difference, but honestly I can't tell any. Doing the math, it should shift into OD at 48 mph vs 45 mph. That is a pretty small difference. The other gears seem to hit and behave the same. The Allison is a pretty smart unit.

I did notice that the truck seems to respond to steering input better than with the old tires. I was NOT expecting that as they are taller and some wishy washiness was anticipated from the taller sidewalls. I'm guessing that the "E" rating construction makes it stiffer as it runs out good.


Now to put on 65-80,000 miles and see how they hold up....


jb

 

[john_bud]

Quick update. 2 tanks of fuel with the new tires. 17.8 and 18.2 mpg. My since new average is 17.785, so I'd say it's right in there with the historical levels. Last fills of the year historically resulted in 14.8, 15.9, 17.0, 18.4, 18.6 and this years 18.2. That's last fill in December 2002 - 2007.

I am using a correction factor of dividing the miles traveled by 0.9147 due to the change in circumference.

jb

 

[MarblemountLane]

I've no direct experience as yet, but I'm sure looking at the M55 for the next tires on my '86 F250 Supercab 4x4. The E-rated Toyo M55 has a strong following in these parts (Western Washington State) with the Loggers. No radial has an indestructible sidewall, but the M55 is "a little tougher," and it's a hard compound, quite resistant to cuts when used in harsh rocky environment of many logging roads. I actually had a Les Schwab guy recommend against them in favor of their TXR, when I was looking for a skinny winter tire on a K2500 Suburban.

Bottom line as I can make it out: The M55 is a very tough "work" tire. It's not going to be a super mudder, look sexy on shiny rims, or ride particularly comfortably on the road. But it will work.

Oh yeah, it's not cheap.