32's VS. 33's

TKDx00

Lockers Installed
Founding Member
Many places require 33's to ride some trails. To the folks running 32's, does anyone actually check and do you have problems not being able to go on some trails?

I ask because I currently run 31's and will be upgrading soon. I Understanding that trimming my be required for 33's.
BUT REALLY!!! What's the difference in 32's and 33's on ride other than the 1/2" height?

Disclaimer: If this is covered somewhere else please forgive me, I didn't find it.
 

NOXIOUS007

Bought an X
Founding Member
I have never seen anyone check, although I have only been to a handful of places. I wheeled on 32s for some time and never had a problem. I think it is to discourage weekend warriors from taking their stock wranglers out with their stock 29 inch road tires.

Other may correct me, but I have never been checked and never been turned away from a trail because of my 32 inch tires.
 

AbuseTheElderly

<img src="http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u7/ra
Founding Member
Location
Pearl, MS
If you run your stock rims, the only thing that needs to be trimmed is plastic (assuming you have a bodylift). If your BS is any less than stock, then you will need to trim metal. As for them checking, I've never encountered this. I ran 31"s at Coal Creek, they didn't even ask tire size.
 

Bklyn.X

Skid Plates
Moderator
Supporting Member
Founding Member
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Most of the time the guide lines are posted so that everyone will have a sense of what type of trail will be run. No one will ask or care unless you get stuck. If you do get stuck with folks that you don’t know from anywhere but internet forums they will talk about you behind your back, you will forever be known as “that guy” and it will be brought up at every opportunity to break your balls or make you seems less than equal.


Wow Tom... seems as if you might have some unresolved issues you should maybe deal with…

Not really...I’ve witnessed guys ripping on some girl because she did not have proper footwear her first time wheeling.

It’s a tough crowd out there on the trail…
 
Last edited:

drbandkgb

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
Ive ran 32s and 33s..

Weight is the biggest difference.. some can be 6 to 10lbs in difference

Im currently running 33" 15R 12.50 Goodyear Duratracs..
This summer I will be changing to a BFG 32" 15R 11.50 or a 33" 15R 10.50

I think I may see a MPG difference in either tire.. and untill STAN is a trail only rig a mile per could make a big difference

And really if you get stuck on that inch taller tire.. pick a better line :)
 

TKDx00

Lockers Installed
Founding Member
Ive ran 32s and 33s..

Weight is the biggest difference.. some can be 6 to 10lbs in difference

Im currently running 33" 15R 12.50 Goodyear Duratracs..
This summer I will be changing to a BFG 32" 15R 11.50 or a 33" 15R 10.50

I think I may see a MPG difference in either tire.. and untill STAN is a trail only rig a mile per could make a big difference

And really if you get stuck on that inch taller tire.. pick a better line :)

I saw a post by someone who said they were going to 32's from 33's. Which is what prompted me to post the question. If 33's are the HOLY GRAIL then logically no one should want to down size, RIGHT???? Seems to me 33's are only a status thing if 32's or even the 31's I currently run will work. Granted the 31's do look a bit odd w/ a 3" SL and will look even odder once the 2" BL is added. A 32x11.50x15 on stock rims will be fine for me I think. Thanks for the input.
 

BigWhite

Test Drive
Location
Calgary, AB
The biggest difference for me will be the increase in distance from the rim to the ground. Since I am running 17" rims the extra 1/2" brings my beads from 6.5" to 7" off the ground. It would suck to get curb rash at the mall in my big 4x4 lololol. I never wanted to be that guy with "low profile offroad tires" but its just how things happened. If your running 15 or 16" rims this is definitley not as big a deal. Still something to think about. Gives you a bit more room to play with for airing down also.
 

ChiXterra

Wheeling
I think the 32's that I have would look a bit odd once I install my 2" BL, considering I already have a 3" SL. That's why I chose the 33" (285/75/16) tires. I also like having a little more sidewall to work with.
 

granitex

Skid Plates
Founding Member
Location
Columbus OH
I started running 33s because I got a smokin deal on a set of 5 and it was just too good to pass up. Off road bigger is better, without question. Trimming to fit 33s is not bad even without a body lift, and when a solid front axle finds its way under the front end I will more than likely run 37s skipping the 35s in the prosess.
 

pro2amendment

Test Drive
Founding Member
I really didnt have a difference in MPG running my stock 29s vs 285/75/16s (skinny 33s) duratracs.. still 15. I was surprised, I expected some but I changed my drive habit a bit as well.
 

Jmac289gt

Sliders
Founding Member
Location
Dickinson, TX
I have a 3" SL, the rear is with 1 AAL and the shackle and a 2" BL and now my 32X11.50 15's seem just a little to small...not real bad but enough to make me want 33"'s now.

33X12.50's are simply just a "little" better offroad than a 32X11.50.
 

Bklyn.X

Skid Plates
Moderator
Supporting Member
Founding Member
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I'll most likely regret posting this but most of you know me by now and so will know that I'm not attacking anyone.
Everyone has a POV and they are all valid. I am far from any kind of expert and many folks use their vehicles for entirely different reasons than I do. I do drive my truck to work but it’s only about 5 miles and if it’s a nice day I ride my bike. I seldom make long trips with it unless it’s to go wheeling.
I drive with a suspension lift, body lift, full skid plates, sliders, aftermarket bumpers with a winch, I carry recovery equipment, tools and spare parts in an egg crate shaped truck that was lucky to get 17mpg new off the lot. It would be silly for me to not run the largest tire I could safely fit in order to save gas.
Every mod I make to my junk is to give me any kind of edge I can squeeze out of my egg crate when running the trails here in the northeast. If 33's will give me even the slightest edge over 32's then that's what I'm running. I don’t believe they are the “Holy Grail”, just the largest I can safely fit (I’ve seen 35’s on two 1st Gens. but believe they are more than my wimpy IFS front end can handle). The “status” I seek is when I can tell a wheeling friend that “I ran Boot Hill at Rausch this morning” and they say “damn Tom, you a hard core MF’er”.
Besides, if I’ve got a SL, a BL for reasons other than an edge to run trails then getting 33’s as a status thing is just a continuing trend for me, right?
If I'm going off road on some light trails a couple times a year then 31’s or 32’s would be great however that’s not my plan, is it yours?
 
Last edited:

TKDx00

Lockers Installed
Founding Member
I posted this question in the hopes of getting POV's actually. I know everyone has his/her own opinion and for once I looked forward to reading what is on y'all mind.

I'm really going back and forth on this trying to weight the cost vs. the look vs. versitility. I really REALLY want 33's but the cost for 5 BFG AT's or MT's is a bit up there. I saw 35's on a heep at work one day and thought "YEA, That's the look I want". So although 33's are at the high end of my price range, 35's are on my wish list.
 

drbandkgb

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
I'll most likely regret posting this but most of you know me by now and so will know that I'm not attacking anyone.
Everyone has a POV and they are all valid. I am far from any kind of expert and many folks use their vehicles for entirely different reasons than I do. I do drive my truck to work but it’s only about 5 miles and if it’s a nice day I ride my bike. I seldom make long trips with it unless it’s to go wheeling.
I drive with a suspension lift, body lift, full skid plates, sliders, aftermarket bumpers with a winch, I carry recovery equipment, tools and spare parts in an egg crate shaped truck that was lucky to get 17mpg new off the lot. It would be silly for me to not run the largest tire I could safely fit in order to save gas.
Every mod I make to my junk is to give me any kind of edge I can squeeze out of my egg crate when running the trails here in the northeast. If 33's will give me even the slightest edge over 32's then that's what I'm running. I don’t believe they are the “Holy Grail”, just the largest I can safely fit (I’ve seen 35’s on two 1st Gens. but believe they are more than my wimpy IFS front end can handle). The “status” I seek is when I can tell a wheeling friend that “I ran Boot Hill at Rausch this morning” and they say “damn Tom, you a hard core MF’er”.
Besides, if I’ve got a SL, a BL for reasons other than an edge to run trails then getting 33’s as a status thing is just a continuing trend for me, right?
If I'm going off road on some light trails a couple times a year then 31’s or 32’s would be great however that’s not my plan, is it yours?

Thats my point.. Most people on here will never run hard black diamond trails. So other than for looks and light trails.. I figure 80% are just wanting that bad ass look. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. The one thing I have noticed from running 33s is the loss of power in the X. I know my 2000 is rated slightly less that 2002-2004s but it has been very noticeable in the lack of get up and go.
I did notice this very slightly in my 2001 with 32 KM2s.. I can look at a few things that could explain why this is.

2001 Xterra: 32" 11.50 15R BFG KM2 on Nissan desert runner rims.

2000 Xterra: 33" 12.50 15R GY Duratrac's on Cragar steel rims.

We all know the steel rims are much heavier vs the factor rims. The rolling weight is about 26lbs vs 32lbs per rim.
The 32" KM2 weight is 52lbs. The 33" Duratrac is 49lbs
So I know the 2001 Xterra had slightly heavier tires.. 208lbs vs 196lbs
Thats only 12lbs difference
Rims Nissan - 104lbs Cragar- 128lbs thats only 24lbs difference

So with thats only 36 more lbs running steel 33s vs alloy 32s

I also know each tire has a different rolling resistance..

So what other factors would I be missing in the "why does the 2000 feel sluggish on the Steel . duratracs"
 
R

ryandavenport

Guest
Thats my point.. Most people on here will never run hard black diamond trails. So other than for looks and light trails.. I figure 80% are just wanting that bad ass look. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. The one thing I have noticed from running 33s is the loss of power in the X. I know my 2000 is rated slightly less that 2002-2004s but it has been very noticeable in the lack of get up and go.
I did notice this very slightly in my 2001 with 32 KM2s.. I can look at a few things that could explain why this is.

2001 Xterra: 32" 11.50 15R BFG KM2 on Nissan desert runner rims.

2000 Xterra: 33" 12.50 15R GY Duratrac's on Cragar steel rims.

We all know the steel rims are much heavier vs the factor rims. The rolling weight is about 26lbs vs 32lbs per rim.
The 32" KM2 weight is 52lbs. The 33" Duratrac is 49lbs
So I know the 2001 Xterra had slightly heavier tires.. 208lbs vs 196lbs
Thats only 12lbs difference
Rims Nissan - 104lbs Cragar- 128lbs thats only 24lbs difference

So with thats only 36 more lbs running steel 33s vs alloy 32s

I also know each tire has a different rolling resistance..

So what other factors would I be missing in the "why does the 2000 feel sluggish on the Steel . duratracs"

Roll gen 2...it solves all problems lol
 

drbandkgb

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
Id think Gen 2s would see a little power loss with the larger tires too... but a true large tire for you cats is a 35
Id think that would be about = to a Gen 1 going to 33s from a 29
 
R

ryandavenport

Guest
Id think Gen 2s would see a little power loss with the larger tires too... but a true large tire for you cats is a 35
Id think that would be about = to a Gen 1 going to 33s from a 29

33s aren't really noticeable at all. I've never run 35s, but I can see that being a problem. The bigger issue is armor. I have noticed slightly more sluggishness with the addition of sliders, tools, and rear bumpers. Weight is the real enemy on 2nd gens, not so much in tire size but more in what is added to the truck.
 

TKDx00

Lockers Installed
Founding Member
... The bigger issue is armor. I have noticed slightly more sluggishness with the addition of sliders, tools, and rear bumpers. Weight is the real enemy...

I know you had more in your statement, but I think this is the key line for my thinking. I'm not going to do hard BLACK trails I do know my limitations. So 35's are for the SAS dream. My intention it to keep the exterior look as OEM as possible... Wheels, lights, body but add the mods to have it a better trail ready vehicle.

I'm looking at the initial cost for 5 because I need a spare at the new larger size. Got 2 31's and a 29.
 

drbandkgb

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
Good thinking on 5... Most people forget the spare..
And you don't want to cut a tire and try and drive in 4wd on a small tire.. Lots of issues can pop up


Zzzzz...zzz..zzzzz
 

Jmac289gt

Sliders
Founding Member
Location
Dickinson, TX
Im still running my factory spare and 32's, If I get a flat in the rear I will just have to swap a front to the back and put the spare up front and limp it home. The thought of this kind of sucks though.
 

BigWhite

Test Drive
Location
Calgary, AB
To Drbandkgb's - "why does the 2000 feel sluggish on the Steel . duratracs" Its the extra leverage we're giving the ground over the drivetrain. The ground had a wrench (the tire) that was 29" or 32" long and couldn't affect the drivetrain. Now the ground has a 33" wrench and the drivetrain & engine can feel it more. 3.5% more in fact. Thats a 3.5% loss of total rear wheel torque. Which has its translations up the way to an even larger loss of hp. Thats just for 1" difference. Going from 29's to 33's is 14% loss of total torque. If you meant this as the odvious first reason, weight as the second and you were asking for a third reason I appologise for my narrow sightedness.

To all - Another fact not to be overlooked in the battle of the "s is rolling resistance(both pros and cons). Think about how hard a shopping cart is to push in even the least amount of gravel or cracks. The diameter of the tire plays a huge part in being able to get up and over obsticales. A 3" diameter tire has to climb straight up in order to climb a 3" rock. This is true all the way down to our scenario... say a 33" tire over a 10" rock. Larger diameter has to work less to climb more.

Does a 1/2" extra ground clearance make 33's the holy grail over 32's. nah. Do all the combined advantages of the extra 1/2" make it worth the extra money to the avid offroader. Absolutley :D. But only if he is willing to accept the slough of drawbacks that come with it.
 

dhyde79

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
Location
Amarillo, TX
Many places require 33's to ride some trails. To the folks running 32's, does anyone actually check and do you have problems not being able to go on some trails?

I ask because I currently run 31's and will be upgrading soon. I Understanding that trimming my be required for 33's.
BUT REALLY!!! What's the difference in 32's and 33's on ride other than the 1/2" height?

Disclaimer: If this is covered somewhere else please forgive me, I didn't find it.

32's are stock for my rig....but, let me throw my 0.02Â¥ in like everyone else and hopefully it'll make sense for you.

when it comes to offroading: Driver Skill > Tire Size. End of discussion.

I've taken my X up obstacles that my neighbor's 4 door rubicon on 35's didn't make it, not because I had better clearance (cause I scraped a skid on my way up and she wasn't anywhere near making contact), but rather because I drove it better. I picked a better line and stuck to it. once she'd failed 3-4 times on a bad line, her confidence in the jeep getting up the obstacle was blown and she wasn't going to get up it even after I put her in my tire tracks and stood less than 2 feet to the side, talking her through it the whole way.

Mind you, I'm in no way claiming I'm an expert, I learn more tricks every time I go out, but, confidence in your rig and driving ability will get you anywhere.

Take my rig vs GoBUFFS's X....he's got 2" sl, 2" BL, and 33x12.50's compared to my stock height, 265/75R16's (32's) and with my sliders, he's got WAY more clearance than I do, and I can almost guarantee that if we both went out to the local OHV right now, I could take my X through things that his won't make it through, even without my rear locker. I had him try to pull up on my front yard rock pile, he made it up a little ways, then I got in and took it up some more, but, before his lifted 1st gen (with no rear sway bar) could get as high as my 2nd gen gets on the rock, we were off the ground in the back. more tire height doesn't always HELP with obstacles, sometimes it puts you into more tipping risky situations because you lose ground contact faster from being flexed out quicker.

I've got a buddy that took a mostly stock cherokee on 31x10.50's up the same stuff guys on 35's were running on, so, don't let people tell you that you can't just because your tires don't have a certain number on the sidewall.

if you've been running just fine on 31's take the step up to 32's and get GOOD 32's, no half stepping to cut cost, and you'll be fine.
 
Last edited:

TKDx00

Lockers Installed
Founding Member
if you've been running just fine on 31's take the step up to 32's and get GOOD 32's, no half stepping to cut cost, and you'll be fine.

Define Good. I'm looking hard at BFG AT's. I've had GY MT's and now AT's both 31's after switching from stock tires. This new set will be my 3rd in 7 yrs and still have plenty of tread on the current ones. The spare has never been used.

I didn't think parks actually checked the tire sizes for 33's. And IMHO the 1/2" difference causes more trouble to adapt to as far as potentially having to trim metal than I'm willing to do at this point. If I'm gonna trim metal it'll be for 35's and a swap.

Thanks everyone for all the input. Another decision made.
 

NMTerras

Suspension Lift
Location
New Mexico
Thats my point.. Most people on here will never run hard black diamond trails. So other than for looks and light trails.. I figure 80% are just wanting that bad ass look. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. The one thing I have noticed from running 33s is the loss of power in the X. I know my 2000 is rated slightly less that 2002-2004s but it has been very noticeable in the lack of get up and go.
I did notice this very slightly in my 2001 with 32 KM2s.. I can look at a few things that could explain why this is.

2001 Xterra: 32" 11.50 15R BFG KM2 on Nissan desert runner rims.

2000 Xterra: 33" 12.50 15R GY Duratrac's on Cragar steel rims.

We all know the steel rims are much heavier vs the factor rims. The rolling weight is about 26lbs vs 32lbs per rim.
The 32" KM2 weight is 52lbs. The 33" Duratrac is 49lbs
So I know the 2001 Xterra had slightly heavier tires.. 208lbs vs 196lbs
Thats only 12lbs difference
Rims Nissan - 104lbs Cragar- 128lbs thats only 24lbs difference

So with thats only 36 more lbs running steel 33s vs alloy 32s

I also know each tire has a different rolling resistance..

So what other factors would I be missing in the "why does the 2000 feel sluggish on the Steel . duratracs"

Little things add up, but mostly it's a simple matter of pushing bigger circles. The circumference increases substantially when you go from stock or even 31s, like I did, to 33s (or in my case 33.4, ie 295 70r17s), therefore energy required to turn the circle increases. Bigger mass and longer distance = more work for our little doggy 3.3l engines. There might even be some math to back me up (?)
 

BigWhite

Test Drive
Location
Calgary, AB
sorry guys I have to speak up and say I was dissapointed going from Duratracs to KM2s .... going back to Duratracs now for this rig.

He is in snow/ice territory... Duratrac++

Sounds like the 2/3s price would help too.
 

dhyde79

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
Location
Amarillo, TX
....seriously? what trouble did you have with KM2's on snow/ice? I had absolutely no trouble with mine with 10+" of snow with a good 1-1.5" thick ice pack underneath...the only times I broke em loose was when I was trying to. 4x4 with VDC off, or 2x4 with VDC on and the X went everywhere I pointed it.....
 

BigWhite

Test Drive
Location
Calgary, AB
Had and loved both ... I was more impressed with the traction I got from the GYs. For Snow and ice GYs offer; softer compound, winter siping & optional studs. KM2s are a hard tire and in our low tempratures they turn into absolute steel. That might account for the difference in opinion.

I did a comparison of the tires I've owned here

I seriously have no reason to push one over the other... I was just really impressed by the GYs. Except for wear....sucks walking out each day and seeing your tires slightly smaller.
 

BigWhite

Test Drive
Location
Calgary, AB
sorry I wanted to add one thing that I think is important. KM2 tread pattern remains the same until you wear them down to nothing but some of the Duratrac features will be long gone by the time you reach half tread depth. ++ for KM2.
 

dhyde79

Titan Swapped / SAS'd
Founding Member
Location
Amarillo, TX
I've never liked the AT KO's, they're just too squared looking....but that's my personal taste...if you're going for AT's go to either the duratrac's or the Bridgestone Dualer AT REVO2's....I've run those for the longest time on other vehicles and they're lovely....
 
Top