Advertized vs actual tire height

RatLabGuy

RatLabGuy

You look like a monkey and smell like one too
Joined
May 18, 2005
Location
Churchville, MD
The height of a nearly new set of 32x11.5 BFG ATs measure out at about 31".
My set of worn 31s measure out around 29.75".

I'm just curious how common this is.
Does it happen w/ p-metric rated tires too? AKA, 265x75 R16s should be abit over 31", how much are they really?
 
Very common. My 35" BFG mt's are 34" mounted. When I had 35" Interco TrXus mt's, they were closer to actual size, but still about 1/8" short.
 
Yea, very common for the tire to be smaller than advertised. Metric tires are measured in millimeters from the bead (I think) so they will be more accurate, just gotta go through a math equation to get an actual height in inches.
 
rattlecanpaint said:
Yea, very common for the tire to be smaller than advertised. Metric tires are measured in millimeters from the bead (I think) so they will be more accurate, just gotta go through a math equation to get an actual height in inches.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm just curious if the equation will come out "true" or also 10% under or whatever. Like I said, is a 265/75/16 really 31"? Or is it 30" just liek a "31" would be? If the p-metric rating is more "true" then the answer is yes, and no.
 
You can check the mfg website alot of times to get the true heights, I know that is true for BFG and TSL since I looked them both up.

I think my BFG A/Ts I just put on the Excursion, 265/75ish 16 came out to 31.4 or so according to the BFG site. I didn't bother to measure.

From what I understand almost all bfgs are under the advertised height...some TSLs are MORE (not many) many are right on and a few less too.

So..to answer your question, yes...non-metrics are an estimation AND marketing ploy combo.
 
Back
Top