Jump to content

2021 AT4 - Stock Wheels, Biggest Tire W/Out Rubbing

MC AT4
 Share

Recommended Posts

MC AT4 New Member

MC AT4

Posted
Posted

Wanted to post my research and share my decision on selecting larger tires on a Factory '21 AT4, 20" Wheels. 

 

There are a lot of threads on this topic, all with great content, but there are some conflicting posts on size choice/rubbing/mpg impact that can make the decision difficult. As others have noted not all tires measure the same height/width/weight, so a one-size fits all approach likely cannot be taken. 

 

**In case you don't want to read through all the details below, I went with BFG KO2 in a 275/65R20. No rubbing, plenty of UCA clearance, ~1MPG loss, speedometer is off between .5 to 1MPG depending on speed. ~1MPG loss does not reflect accounting for speedo variances. I will need to update this post with a manual calculation. I do think you could fit a slightly larger tire, depending on manufacturer choice (see below variations of sizing). 

 

Tire Size:

Based on reading through other posts I narrowed my tire size to three options: 

1. 275/65R20

2. 285/65R20

3. 295/60R20

 

I personally didn't want rubbing issues after tire install. Minor trimming (IE: mud flap trimming) wouldn't be a big deal, but having owned a truck that had rubbing issues, it gets old quick and I wanted to avoid modifications if possible. 

 

Pros/Cons of each tire size I contemplated:

  • 275/65 - great tire size as you get 34" in height, but can appear to have a narrow stance depending on tire choice. Stock tire (Bridgestone Dueler A/T 275/60/20), width would remain the same as stock. Originally ranked 2nd of the 3 options. 
  • 285/65 - best of both worlds, gains in height and width. Ranked 1st of 3 options. Big concern around rubbing issues, especially at full lock on an incline. Likely could avoid by adding a levelling kit. Conflicting results on CV angles and longer-term impact of adding a level kit. 
  • 295/60 - prefer the stance of a 295, but didn't have a high level of confidence there would be clearance from the UCA. Rubbing concerns similar to 285/65. 

 

Tire Brand:

1. Falken Wildpeak AT3W

  • 275/65 - 34.1" X 10.6", 66.1lbs
  • 285/65 - 34.6" X 11.2", 67.7lbs
  • 295/60 - 33.9" X 11.6", 69.4lbs

2. Toyo AT3

  • 275/65 - 34.1" X 11", 54lbs
  • 285/65 - Not Offered
  • 295/60 - 33.9" X 11.8", 60lbs

3. BFG KO2 

  • 275/65 - 34" X 11", 57.3lbs
  • 285/65 - 34.5" X 11.5", 60.3lbs
  • 295/60 - 33.9" X 11.8", 68lbs

**4. After decision came across Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T (some great reviews coming out on this tire). 

 

Pros/Cons of each tire size I contemplated:

  • Falken - awesome tire with some fantastic reviews. Major consideration was the weight.
    • Example: 275/65/20 weighs 66.1lbs 
      • Toyo AT3 = 54lbs
      • BFG KO2 =  57.3lbs
  • Toyo AT3 - I've had several sets of Toyo AT2's. Really like the upgrades made to the AT3, but wanted a slightly more aggressive sideway. I also found it very difficult to find inventory at the moment. 
  • BFG KO2 - tried and true, some question around if newer technology is surpassing. Obviously not enough of a concern as this was the tire of choice. 

 

 

 

 

MC AT4 1.jpg

MC AT4 2.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
JT2000 Enthusiast

JT2000

Posted
Posted

I just put some Yokohama Geolander MTs 305/55 R20 on my 21 AT4 and they fit. 

JT2000 Enthusiast

JT2000

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, MC AT4 said:

Nice! Any pictures? Did you have to add a wheel spacer? 

If your talking to me everything is stock. I plan on adding a leveling kit. It’s close to running one of the bars in full lock, but not that close if it makes since. I’ll get some pictures later. Just had them put on Saturday.

Kanon Morris Enthusiast

Kanon Morris

Posted
Posted
On 7/26/2021 at 1:30 PM, MC AT4 said:

Wanted to post my research and share my decision on selecting larger tires on a Factory '21 AT4, 20" Wheels. 

 

There are a lot of threads on this topic, all with great content, but there are some conflicting posts on size choice/rubbing/mpg impact that can make the decision difficult. As others have noted not all tires measure the same height/width/weight, so a one-size fits all approach likely cannot be taken. 

 

**In case you don't want to read through all the details below, I went with BFG KO2 in a 275/65R20. No rubbing, plenty of UCA clearance, ~1MPG loss, speedometer is off between .5 to 1MPG depending on speed. ~1MPG loss does not reflect accounting for speedo variances. I will need to update this post with a manual calculation. I do think you could fit a slightly larger tire, depending on manufacturer choice (see below variations of sizing). 

 

Tire Size:

Based on reading through other posts I narrowed my tire size to three options: 

1. 275/65R20

2. 285/65R20

3. 295/60R20

 

I personally didn't want rubbing issues after tire install. Minor trimming (IE: mud flap trimming) wouldn't be a big deal, but having owned a truck that had rubbing issues, it gets old quick and I wanted to avoid modifications if possible. 

 

Pros/Cons of each tire size I contemplated:

  • 275/65 - great tire size as you get 34" in height, but can appear to have a narrow stance depending on tire choice. Stock tire (Bridgestone Dueler A/T 275/60/20), width would remain the same as stock. Originally ranked 2nd of the 3 options. 
  • 285/65 - best of both worlds, gains in height and width. Ranked 1st of 3 options. Big concern around rubbing issues, especially at full lock on an incline. Likely could avoid by adding a levelling kit. Conflicting results on CV angles and longer-term impact of adding a level kit. 
  • 295/60 - prefer the stance of a 295, but didn't have a high level of confidence there would be clearance from the UCA. Rubbing concerns similar to 285/65. 

 

Tire Brand:

1. Falken Wildpeak AT3W

  • 275/65 - 34.1" X 10.6", 66.1lbs
  • 285/65 - 34.6" X 11.2", 67.7lbs
  • 295/60 - 33.9" X 11.6", 69.4lbs

2. Toyo AT3

  • 275/65 - 34.1" X 11", 54lbs
  • 285/65 - Not Offered
  • 295/60 - 33.9" X 11.8", 60lbs

3. BFG KO2 

  • 275/65 - 34" X 11", 57.3lbs
  • 285/65 - 34.5" X 11.5", 60.3lbs
  • 295/60 - 33.9" X 11.8", 68lbs

**4. After decision came across Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T (some great reviews coming out on this tire). 

 

Pros/Cons of each tire size I contemplated:

  • Falken - awesome tire with some fantastic reviews. Major consideration was the weight.
    • Example: 275/65/20 weighs 66.1lbs 
      • Toyo AT3 = 54lbs
      • BFG KO2 =  57.3lbs
  • Toyo AT3 - I've had several sets of Toyo AT2's. Really like the upgrades made to the AT3, but wanted a slightly more aggressive sideway. I also found it very difficult to find inventory at the moment. 
  • BFG KO2 - tried and true, some question around if newer technology is surpassing. Obviously not enough of a concern as this was the tire of choice. 

 

 

 

 

MC AT4 1.jpg

MC AT4 2.jpg

Great post!  Thanks for taking the time to share your decision making process.  
 

I’m thinking of doing something similar as I research tires for my 18” wheels.

 

I’m curious why you opted for the 275/65 over 285/65 KO2s.  Was it weight, or size?

JT2000 Enthusiast

JT2000

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, AML said:

are those painted at4 wheels or elevation black wheels?

 

Yeah I used plasti dip on my wheels, emblems and tail pipes.

AML Enthusiast

AML

Posted
Posted

I really like this setup. Any chance you can measure the rake on your truck? I'm seriously worried about rubbing, the rake can vary on these things.

JT2000 Enthusiast

JT2000

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, AML said:

I really like this setup. Any chance you can measure the rake on your truck? I'm seriously worried about rubbing, the rake can vary on these things.

I did already, because I want to level my truck and some of the kits are different. My front and back are right around 2” off.

kenac Enthusiast

kenac

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nice write-up. I went through a similar amount of research before deciding on tires.

 

Not to hijack your thread but since "stock AT4 tire size" threads always get a lot of attention (and come up in google results) I figured I'd throw in that I kept stock wheels on my AT4 and fit 295/60R20 Cooper STT Pro's

 

Their actual dimensions are: 34.3" x 11.50"

 

They fit with no rub except a hard turn into an incline - they can barely clip the wheel well liner. It could be pulled out of the way but it happens so rarely I don't fool with it.

 

The only disclaimer is that I do have a 1" level on the front but the tires fit before that as well.

 

11.50" actual measured width is close to the max you can go on stock wheels on these trucks for sure. I can pass a finger tip between the UCA and tire but barely!

Edited by kenac
MC AT4 New Member

MC AT4

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/30/2021 at 10:00 AM, Kanon Morris said:

Great post!  Thanks for taking the time to share your decision making process.  
 

I’m thinking of doing something similar as I research tires for my 18” wheels.

 

I’m curious why you opted for the 275/65 over 285/65 KO2s.  Was it weight, or size?

Thanks! It primarily came down to not wanting to have rub issues. The peace of mind outweighed gaining an additional .5” width and height.  I have an incline turning in and out of my driveway that at full lock I feel had a good chance to rub. There appears to be a lot of folks running 285’s, it likely comes down to the specific tire. Based on the tread design of KO’s I’d expect 285’s would have cleared with zero or very minimal rubbing. 

MC AT4 New Member

MC AT4

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 hours ago, kenac said:

Nice write-up. I went through a similar amount of research before deciding on tires.

 

Not to hijack your thread but since "stock AT4 tire size" threads always get a lot of attention (and come up in google results) I figured I'd throw in that I kept stock wheels on my AT4 and fit 295/60R20 Cooper STT Pro's

 

Their actual dimensions are: 34.3" x 11.50"

 

They fit with no rub except a hard turn into an incline - they can barely clip the wheel well liner. It could be pulled out of the way but it happens so rarely I don't fool with it.

 

The only disclaimer is that I do have a 1" level on the front but the tires fit before that as well.

 

11.50" actual measured width is close to the max you can go on stock wheels on these trucks for sure. I can pass a finger tip between the UCA and tire but barely!

Glad to get some good conversation going on this topic. Lot of good examples out there worth sharing. Any photos of front or rear stance? I do wish I had a slightly wider tire for a slightly wider stance. Curious if the additional .5” makes much of a visual difference. 

Kanon Morris Enthusiast

Kanon Morris

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, MC AT4 said:

Thanks! It primarily came down to not wanting to have rub issues. The peace of mind outweighed gaining an additional .5” width and height.  I have an incline turning in and out of my driveway that at full lock I feel had a good chance to rub. There appears to be a lot of folks running 285’s, it likely comes down to the specific tire. Based on the tread design of KO’s I’d expect 285’s would have cleared with zero or very minimal rubbing. 

Yeah, that’s actually why I chose 275/70R18.  I didn’t want to risk any rub down the road.  Probably could’ve gotten away with 295/70R18, but I’m happy with what I got.

 

Next purchase will probably be some 20” takeoffs with slightly larger KO2s or Toto MTs when the time comes.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,770
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Paul8556
    Newest Member
    Paul8556
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 596 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...