Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I’m thinking of getting some new tires for my 2020 Sierra elevation crew cab. Can the 2020 Sierras fit 33x12.50s in the stock 20x9s with a 2” leveling kit without rubbing?

20AD00B2-E559-481F-9593-9749B0C586B8.jpeg

Posted

Just about to ask the same question. Hoping for some good news. I like the stock wheels and would love to level and throw some meaty tires on there. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Have either of you thought about searching the 1,000's of other threads asking the same question? That is probably the number one question on any car/truck based forum...

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Posted (edited)

You should be able to fit 295/60R20 tires on a 4x4 leveled truck. 

 

BUT Read my recent post, below, first, although it doesn't address 33x12.5 specifically.

 

I think with a 33x12.5 you're going to be rubbing your UCA, even if you aren't rubbing the fender or liner, unless you run a spacer.

 

 

Edited by jbr1888
  • Thanks 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, BlackElevation said:

I am putting 295/60/20 ridge grapplers on my Sierra elevation (leveled) tomorrow. I’ll let you know how they fit. 

Sounds good let me know!

Posted (edited)

295/60/20 Ridge Grapplers fit perfect with a 2 inch level. The shop had to do zero trimming. The only thing I did to make them fit was remove the steel bracket from behind the front fender liners which many have done on here. I’ll take pictures in a few hours for you guys. 

Edited by BlackElevation
  • Thanks 1
Posted

I will likely go with the Rough Country 2” level for my Sierra. This will be my first leveling kit, but have sized up on tires before on other trucks without an issue. I’m kind of an instructions/recommendations guy. If a recipe calls for a certain amount, I assume someone brighter than me came up with that ratio and I should follow it, haha. So why wouldn’t I (or what makes you all not) follow the RC recommendation of 285/55R20? Purely aesthetic? Or other reasons?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

Mine was purely aesthetics...I wanted not only a wider tire but taller as well. Tires are obviously not cheap, and the 285/55 is hardly any difference over stock size. Personally if I was going to drop the money for tires I wanted to notice the difference. Either way a level and beefier tires will look good. 

  • Like 1
Posted

I agree with wanting to change the look. I would like to do that with zero modification, I mean no trimming or removing the bar. If the 295/60R20 require the bar to be removed I assume the 285 would be totally fine. Seems to be right....maybe...haha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • 1 month later...
Posted
On 8/11/2020 at 5:38 PM, BlackElevation said:

295/60/20 Ridge Grapplers fit perfect with a 2 inch level. The shop had to do zero trimming. The only thing I did to make them fit was remove the steel bracket from behind the front fender liners which many have done on here. I’ll take pictures in a few hours for you guys. 

Hey man just ordered the exact same tires, can you show me what bracket you’re talking about? I’m fairly new to it. Thanks

Posted
Hey man just ordered the exact same tires, can you show me what bracket you’re talking about? I’m fairly new to it. Thanks

Interested as well, if anyone has a YouTube link or anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
On 8/11/2020 at 6:47 PM, BlackElevation said:

DB98698D-9BB9-4AD1-9D34-82E75B1253DA.jpeg

I was able to mount the 295/60r20 ridge grapplers on my elevation with no trimming whatsoever or removal of the bracket without scrubbing issues. I used the 2 inch level as well and it looks great!

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...