Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

hey all, I know I've seen different post about wheel/tire combos throughout the forum, but was wondering if I could possibly get some pics of what larger than stock tires you all have went with on oem 20" wheels.  Trying to decide what size I want to go with.  Thanks in advance for any replies.

Posted

There's only a few on YouTube that show bigger tires on factory rims. Most have lift kits or leveling kits installed and bigger rims. From what I've found a 35x12.5x20 will fit on factory rims and no lift or level. Thats what I'm going with next. 

Posted

that is my number 1 size pick so far Mike.  Also considering 295/65/20 as well, but would prefer the the slightly wider 35.  Was hoping to see some pics of the 35x12.5's installed.

Posted
55 minutes ago, Diver6 said:

There's only a few on YouTube that show bigger tires on factory rims. Most have lift kits or leveling kits installed and bigger rims. From what I've found a 35x12.5x20 will fit on factory rims and no lift or level. Thats what I'm going with next. 

Does that size fit on GMC Sierra Denali 2017?

Posted

Not sure, it was a 2022 truck I seen it on but can't imagine it's any different. I also had a 2019 and there was not much difference. I think the big key is factory rims as apposed to aftermarket wide rims. 

Posted

should fit the previous body style as well.  They would have had the same size tire with stock 20's too. 

 

Nobody is going to chime in with some pics of their truck?  I know there are some members with larger tires on their stock rims around here.

Posted

Sorry for being late to the party...

 

I installed 295/65/20 Yokohama Geolander AT-XD (G017) tires on my 2022 Silverado 2500 Custom. Truck is at stock height front and rear. NO cranking of torsion bars or anything.

 

They fit great, no rubbing! Looking at the Geolander AT-XD tires specifically.... 295/65/20's are 35.1" in diameter with a tread width of 9.7". The 35x12.5/20 are 34.5" with a tread width of 10.3". For reference, BFG KO2's in 295/65/20 are 35.1" diameter with a tread width of 9.8". The 35x12.5/20 are 34.5" in diameter with a tread with of 11.1"

 

Another thing to look at is load ratings. For reference, on the Yokohamas, the 295 had a max load of 4,080lbs @ 80psi. The 35x12.5 had a max load of  3,195lbs @ 65psi. Just more things to consider, especially if towing.

 

I have always been very particular in the tire I chose for all my vehicles. In the 35x's there are tons of options. The 295's the selection is significantly less. I have run BFG KO2, Goodyear Duratrac, Falken Wildpeaks AT3, Firestone Destination AT. They are all great tires for certain purposes. After a ton of research on forums and YouTube (for which there was very little), I went with the Yokohamas AT-XD. I went slightly taller and narrower with the 295's. I wanted to fill the wheel well as tight as I could without rubbing. The 295's also gave a little more room on the UCA in the event I upgrade UCAs in the future. And I got the highest load rating.

 

Hope this helps.IMG_7181a.thumb.jpg.aae96fd93d8edc5fe170abff055ffd56.jpgIMG_7182a.thumb.jpg.a81d44aea476a2762048a37f09f34e40.jpgIMG_7183a.thumb.jpg.38d5ecd3d86d083882f256dc7f6588c2.jpgIMG_7185a.thumb.jpg.728439783deb60e104c05ff052a63832.jpgIMG_7188a.thumb.jpg.9360359c94365bc742a84fad2dafc73c.jpgIMG_7212a.thumb.jpg.a3877568d609541694fc8ba393df8505.jpg

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

thanks for the reply Matt, great info and same model/color as mine as well.  I hadn't consider Yokohama's yet.  Was looking at Nitto Ridge Grapplers and Toyo Open Country R/T and Cooper Discover AT2 XLT.

Edited by Sonders
added more details.
Posted
7 hours ago, Elite130 said:

Sorry for being late to the party...

 

I installed 295/65/20 Yokohama Geolander AT-XD (G017) tires on my 2022 Silverado 2500 Custom. Truck is at stock height front and rear. NO cranking of torsion bars or anything.

 

They fit great, no rubbing! Looking at the Geolander AT-XD tires specifically.... 295/65/20's are 35.1" in diameter with a tread width of 9.7". The 35x12.5/20 are 34.5" with a tread width of 10.3". For reference, BFG KO2's in 295/65/20 are 35.1" diameter with a tread width of 9.8". The 35x12.5/20 are 34.5" in diameter with a tread with of 11.1"

 

Another thing to look at is load ratings. For reference, on the Yokohamas, the 295 had a max load of 4,080lbs @ 80psi. The 35x12.5 had a max load of  3,195lbs @ 65psi. Just more things to consider, especially if towing.

 

I have always been very particular in the tire I chose for all my vehicles. In the 35x's there are tons of options. The 295's the selection is significantly less. I have run BFG KO2, Goodyear Duratrac, Falken Wildpeaks AT3, Firestone Destination AT. They are all great tires for certain purposes. After a ton of research on forums and YouTube (for which there was very little), I went with the Yokohamas AT-XD. I went slightly taller and narrower with the 295's. I wanted to fill the wheel well as tight as I could without rubbing. The 295's also gave a little more room on the UCA in the event I upgrade UCAs in the future. And I got the highest load rating.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Those look great.  How's the ride and road noise? Did MPG's take a big hit? 

Posted
12 hours ago, A Chap said:

 

Those look great.  How's the ride and road noise? Did MPG's take a big hit? 

 

There is a slight hum right now that comes from the tires. I only have about 200 miles on them, so they really aren't even broken in yet. I did read one review that the tires do hum initially, but it goes away. Time will tell.

 

As for the ride, they actually feel a bit softer than the stock tires. Understandable considering there is more sidewall and the tread is 20/32" thick. They are marginally less responsive, but again, I attribute that to the thick tread and the tread design.

 

I do not have enough miles on these tires to make a comment on the MPG. I can only assume with each tire weighing 15lbs more each, along with the taller tire and more aggressive tread (i.e. more rolling resistance), I will see a MPG hit. What it is, I don't know yet.

Posted
18 hours ago, Sonders said:

thanks for the reply Matt, great info and same model/color as mine as well.  I hadn't consider Yokohama's yet.  Was looking at Nitto Ridge Grapplers and Toyo Open Country R/T and Cooper Discover AT2 XLT.

Those are all good tires. Pick a tire that best suits your needs. When I was choosing a tire, my focus was mainly packed snow and slushy snow performance as I live in Denver, CO. But.... I also wanted sand and mud performance as we do a lot of lake camping and a good heavy duty tire that was designed for the heavier 3/4 and 1-ton pickups. I know, my list was quite extensive. Over the years and many tires, I found the more closed-block designs, specifically the KO2, there was no good passage for the slush to get out of the tread blocks. So I would be sliding around on top of the slush.  Wet performance was not the best either. They did do very well with deep and packed snow. I loved the Duratracs in slush and deep snow, but didn't do well in pretty much every other category. The Falken Wildpeak AT3's are amazing tires. They did better than the KO2s in every category. The AT4s are just hitting the market now and the reviews are saying they are even better than the AT3's. I looked at all of the new RT tires, but I was concerned about the packed snow and slush performance due to the tread design. Especially when they wear down. The Yokohamas are new and checked every box I was looking for, at least on paper. 

 

So all of that being said, do your research. Each tire is designed a certain way to achieve a certain performance. Choose the tire that fits your needs the best. 

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Have you seen or hear of the BFG HD-Terrain? Curious is anyone has tried those. Also seeing that the KO2's have now been replaced with the KO3's

Posted
29 minutes ago, Truston Gunter said:

Have you seen or hear of the BFG HD-Terrain? Curious is anyone has tried those. Also seeing that the KO2's have now been replaced with the KO3's

I was really leaning towards the BFG HD-Terrains. I almost went with the BFGs. The reason why I went with the Yokohama AT-XD's was for their snow and packed snow performance, which is very important to me since I live in Denver and travel to the mountains with deep snow, packed snow and slush. The HD-Terrains didn't look like they would do as well in snow since there is not much siping along the tread face and the tread blocks are very large. There are only a small handful of reviews on those tires. And even less with actual ownership reviews. You can't go wrong with those IMHO.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,046 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...