# Silverado 2500HD Tires: 235/85R16 vs. 265/75R16



## Dougman

I've read all the current and past threads on the topic and researched all the tire vendor websites... and I am still on the fence. I don't want to reopen old wounds, so I'll keep this as specific as possible: For a 2006 Chevy Silverado 2500HD (Ext. Cab/Reg. Bed) to be used for mostly residential snowplowing with the stock, steel 6.5 inch wide wheels... which is the superior tire size for best fit & function: 235/85R16 or 265/75R16? Unless someone has a better suggestion, I am going with Bridgestone Blizzak W965 tires. Here is their official spec comparison:

LT235/85R16 Service Description: 120/116Q, Load Range: E, Speed Rating: Q, Sidewall Styling: BW, Article Number: 150-789, Approved Rim Widths: 6.0-7.0, Measuring Rim Widths: (6.5), Overall Tire Diameter: 31.8, Overall Section Width: 9.3, Tread Width: 7.2, Static Load Radius: 14.7, Tread Depth (32nds): 18

LT265/75R16 Service Description: 123/120Q, Load Range: E, Speed Rating: Q, Sidewall Styling: BW, Article Number: 156-477, Approved Rim Widths: 7.0-8.0, Measuring Rim Widths: (7.5), Overall Tire Diameter: 31.9, Overall Section Width: 10.5, Tread Width: 7.6, Static Load Radius: 14.8, Tread Depth (32nds): 19

Spec-wise, there is obviously not much difference. The 235 is a little narrower at the tread and might fit the stock 6.5 inch wheel better. The 265 is 0.4 inches wider at the tread and might bulge a little with a slightly under-width stock rim. But that's all I can get from the specs. What about in the real world? Is there any practical difference? Do they drive differently in snow, on ice or on a dry highway? Any more (or less) dry highway noise? Or should I just give up on a scientific comparison and toss a coin???

Dougman


----------



## Earthscapes

I wouldn't go with a smaller tire than the stock 245/75/16 as they are small enough to begin with. 
I do run 265/75/16's on my 90'&02' on stock rims. The 06' only has 6k so no tires needed yet, but that will get 285/75/16's when the time comes.


----------



## jay723

I am in the same boat. I can not make up my mind as to which size. The 235's will be better in the snow, due to less snow to push aside to get traction. The 235's will also help with mileage with the smaller foot print, and will be cheaper. The 265's will fill out the wheel well better. That is what I come up with. I would like to hear from some people running 235's.


----------



## Plowfast9957

So why not go with a 245 as a happy medium? Thats what usually comes on that truck from the factory.


----------



## jryden145

A 235/85/16 is the about the same height as a 265/75/16. The 235/85/16 is just narrower than the 265/75/16/. Narrower would be better for plowing.

J


----------



## Earthscapes

I disagree with the narrower tire is better for plowing. 
Your not out trying to drive through 12" of mud or snow, your out there with the blade down in front of you. So in actuallity your making a bigger footprint on the pavement, which gives you better traction.


----------



## Brothers

*tires*

excellent point earthscape..

needless to say .. i just put on 4 new bridgestones on my 2002 HD ,

size ... 265/75/R16


----------



## sw and me

*Go for the skinny ones*

I run BFG T/A 285 75 16 on summer rims

and Cooper Weathermaster MS 235 85 16 for the plow season and

Very happy with both

THX


----------



## Dougman

jay723 said:


> I am in the same boat. I can not make up my mind as to which size. The 235's will be better in the snow, due to less snow to push aside to get traction. The 235's will also help with mileage with the smaller foot print, and will be cheaper. The 265's will fill out the wheel well better. That is what I come up with. I would like to hear from some people running 235's.


That's about the long and short of it. I was over at the local Cooper dealership this afternoon after I posted. He wants to sell me the Cooper Discoverer MS. 265/75's are $10 more than the 235/85's... no big deal. He says the Bridgestone Blizzak W965's will wear out too fast. Anyone else feel that way?

But he was funny about the size thing. He says the 235/85 will likely plow better but that everyone with a Chevy/GMC 2500HD gets the 265/75 "so the truck will look like a truck"!

That about says it all I guess. Go for the probable small advantage in snow/ice performance... or make your truck look like a truck should look!

Dougman


----------



## Dougman

Plowfast9957 said:


> So why not go with a 245 as a happy medium? Thats what usually comes on that truck from the factory.


My daughter calls my oem/stock 245/75's "weenie tires." I've got to admit it... they look like the Chevy dealer played a nasty bad joke on me. No complaints on ride or capability, but they are not snows. And if I've got to buy new snows anyway, I want to dump the "weenie" look as well. Of course, either the 235/85 or 265/75 will solve the weenie issue in terms of diameter... so now it's plowing performance vs. "making the truck look like a truck" as the tire dealer said.

Dougman


----------



## jay723

so what are you going to do?


----------



## Dougman

jay723 said:


> so what are you going to do?


Funny you should ask! Just got back from doing it!

After shopping around for the Bridgestone Blizzak W965's and finding no stocking dealers (I like to see in person what I'm buying) and higher than expected prices, I took another hard look at the Cooper Discoverer MS. Lucky me... It just so happens that the Cooper dealer (another family-owned business) two towns over had four of the 265/75's in stock for me to see. His price was also within my budget. He did not have any 235/85's.

It turns out that everyone in the tire store owner's family uses the Cooper Discoverer MS on their trucks and SUV's in wintertime, including for plowing. It was no lie either as the vehicles were all parked right there in front for me to see! For a tire store owner's family who could drive on any snow tire ever made, that really impressed me.

Seeing the tire tread in person convinced me that going with the 265/75's would not be particularly detrimental to the cause. Narrower may have been better, but the 265/75 did not strike me as overly wide. Hardly! In fact, I was amazed at how fast the wheel wells "swallowed up" those supposedly oversized tires. Holy Cow. Maybe not "weenie" tires anymore... but not exactly monster truck-sized either. After examining the end result, I was glad I didn't go any narrower.

Driving with the bigger snows is a little funky compared to my stock OEM tires, which were impressively solid and functional for their tiny size and all the bad reviews. I tow some awfully heavy stuff and those stock tires drove nice and never let me down. The new snow tires seem a bit "squishy" and soft right now, but not objectionably so.

Another minor point: While Chevy seems to "diss" any tire size other than stock, they do seem to suggest the 265/75's are an okay alternative tire size in the owner's manual that came with my truck. No mention of 235/85's. While this is no definitive statement by any means, and perhaps I read far too much into it, I figured it could help me on a warranty issue *if* tire size ever came up.

Dougman


----------



## snowsniper1

i would go w/ the 235,s they will cut through the snow better


----------



## Detroitdan

snowsniper1 said:


> i would go w/ the 235,s they will cut through the snow better


But didn't you see where Earthscapes said that isn't true? In spite of all the evidence and knowledge to the contrary?


----------



## Earthscapes

Hey moron,

I never said narrower wasn't better in the snow or mud, I said "while pushing with the blade down, the wider tire makes more contact with the pavement."


----------



## Detroitdan

And the more contact you make, the more the weight is distributed over more of a slick surface. Therefore less weight and less traction. I don't think you need to call me names, but if you need to to make yourself feel smarter, then suit yourself. You're still wrong, and I think the vast majority of snow plowers will agree with me on this one. It's really not even worth arguing about since we are only talking about the difference between a 265mm wide tire vs 235mm wide tire. If it were a 33-12.50 or something then you would see a big difference. Which is not to say it can't be done, plenty of people plow with wide tires. But a wide tire is not better on snow, plowed or other wise. Have a lovely day.


----------



## Antnee77

All I know is, I have been running 265/75-16 Pro Comp ATs for around 9 months now and they have been great on dry pavement, light off-roading, and in the snow. They grip just fine for me and I have never gotten stuck. And I have had no problems with them on the stock rims. They are a great upgrade from the small stock tires and have no rubbing issues with a stock suspension.


----------



## Motorman 007

Earthscapes said:


> I disagree with the narrower tire is better for plowing.
> Your not out trying to drive through 12" of mud or snow, your out there with the blade down in front of you. So in actuallity your making a bigger footprint on the pavement, which gives you better traction.





Earthscapes said:


> Hey moron,
> 
> I never said narrower wasn't better in the snow or mud, I said "while pushing with the blade down, the wider tire makes more contact with the pavement."


Earthscapes,
You're out on an island on this one. When it comes to driving in the snow, narrower is better, ALWAYS. If you actually think about it, unless you're plowing roads, most of the driving you do is with the plow in the UP position, going from place to place, and if it's during the storm, the worst of conditions are then, when you need the traction the most.

From my perspective, name calling here will get you nowhere. There are a lot of great guys here with a wealth of knowledge and experience and we're all just trying to help.


----------



## Dougman

Motorman 007 said:


> When it comes to driving in the snow, narrower is better, ALWAYS. If you actually think about it, unless you're plowing roads, most of the driving you do is with the plow in the UP position, going from place to place, and if it's during the storm, the worst of conditions are then, when you need the traction the most.


In theory... and generally in practice... I'll bet you are probably right. Certainly traction is important plow up or plow down... in snow and/or ice... and within reasonable limits, physics being what they are, tire/tread design aside, narrower tires should generally give better traction

My problem is that we are talking about a relatively small difference in tread width between the 235/85 and 265/75. It is not the inch plus that the tire size designation suggests. It is 0.4 inches according to Bridgestone. And in the case of these particular two tires, we are talking about a specialized... almost extreme... severe snow and ice tire design which tends to concentrate (i.e., reduce) actual tread-to-road contact area. I'm guessing that the design of these two tires here are far more significant in terms of winter performance that the 0.4 inch tread width difference.

The bigger issue for me personally was best fit and function in the broader sense. In other words, what would give me the best and safest truck performance in *all* winter driving situations including wet, dry and sanded/salted roads. Most of my winter miles will *not* be in deep snow or on untreated ice. And I can always use chains in ultra-extreme situations (where I probably shouldn't be out anyway).

Like I said above... seeing those 265/75's installed, I am certainly glad I didn't choose to go even narrower. Theoretically, even narrower possibly could have been better in some situations, but these are already narrow enough for my taste. In the end, going more narrow than even my stock "weenie tires" just didn't sit right with me. I'll bet I am still more narrow that most pickup trucks on the road today using those lighter-duty flotation tires.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I respect and appreciate ALL opinions that have been expressed here. I thank all you guys for your thoughts and advice.

Dougman


----------



## Ron's Lawncare

Motorman 007 said:


> Earthscapes,
> You're out on an island on this one. When it comes to driving in the snow, narrower is better, ALWAYS. If you actually think about it, unless you're plowing roads, most of the driving you do is with the plow in the UP position, going from place to place, and if it's during the storm, the worst of conditions are then, when you need the traction the most.
> 
> From my perspective, name calling here will get you nowhere. There are a lot of great guys here with a wealth of knowledge and experience and we're all just trying to help.


so a 6'' wide slick will go through the snow better than an 8'' wide snow tread? my point is tread design is just as important as tire width.


----------



## Detroitdan

Ron's Lawncare said:


> so a 6'' wide slick will go through the snow better than an 8'' wide snow tread? my point is tread design is just as important as tire width.


I think tread design is a little more important than tread width.
On one of my old plow trucks I ran 35/12.50 all terrains in the summer and 265/75 mud terrains for plowing. Were some of the best plowing tires I ever had. (And they looked skinny to me). One year I switched back to the 35s too soon and we got a late snow, so I went out and plowed my route with the big tires. The tires were still like new tread and did the job, but there was a huge difference in traction, was spinning a lot more and needed 4x4 most of the time. Also the taller tires cut into my 4:10 gears low end power quite a bit. Another time I came across a car stuck on a snowbank so I stopped to help. Another kis in a lifted F150 with 33/12.50 all terrains stopped in front of my truck, so he said he wanted to pull them out. I hooked my chain to his plowframe and watched him dance all over the snowy road, sliding side to side trying to pull this Buick off the snowbank, never did budge it. Course he could only spin one front and one rear. So I had him move and I hooked my 3/4 Chevy up, backed up nice and easy without ever spinning a tire and pulled the Buick gently onto the road. Made me feel good to embarass a Ford like that, but I know it was not the trucks, it was the tires. And the Detroit Locker, and the ballast.


----------



## Antnee77

Oh, tread design is definitely more important than width. A perfect example would be the Firestone 245's I had on my truck when I bought it. They were absolutely horrible in the snow and ice. Once I switched to Pro Comp 265 AT's, I noticed they were 150% better in the snow. And if I bought Blizzaks, even in a 285/75-16, they would still be better.


----------



## snowsniper1

there is a limited amount of tire in 265s that you can get in load range e


----------



## beungood

*Cooper M&S*

How are the Cooper M&S's off road in the mud. I say this because I take my truck up to hunting camp and wonder if the tires will do double duty comapred to the all terrains. I am also thinking of an all terrain for spring summer and fall and running a dedicated set of winter tires for plowing.


----------



## scaper27

I would go with the 265's. I just put those on my '99. I actually plowed last year with285/75/16 with no problem. I needed new ones and decided to go with 265's instead


----------



## The Snow Punishers

Detroitdan said:


> And the more contact you make, the more the weight is distributed over more of a slick surface. Therefore less weight and less traction. I don't think you need to call me names, but if you need to to make yourself feel smarter, then suit yourself. You're still wrong, and I think the vast majority of snow plowers will agree with me on this one. It's really not even worth arguing about since we are only talking about the difference between a 265mm wide tire vs 235mm wide tire. If it were a 33-12.50 or something then you would see a big difference. Which is not to say it can't be done, plenty of people plow with wide tires. But a wide tire is not better on snow, plowed or other wise. Have a lovely day.


This thread is dead but very informative.
I agree with this Detroit guy. I'm upper east coast I've run 265, at one point in-between swaps 305 very shortly, and like 245.

The physics makes sense.

Both in This Point and Another I read I Think senior guys would appreciate.

At its most basic form...

Fn (Force Pushing Up Perpendicular to Surface)
Decreases With Larger Weight Distribution. It's Spreads Out Weight And Weight is a Big Factor
Force (Newton's) = Kg (mass) x acceleration (gravity is I think 9.8m/s²) so force is the variable.

Mass is constant and acceleration is variable with slope. Dynamic Rolling Resistance.

Physics has Also Proven Surface Area Does Not Change Friction Coefficient it's related to the Normal Force as @Detroitdan said.

F(N Normal) x u (coefficient of friction) = Force of Friction

So More weight isn't seen in this formula.
But I found a physicists article about it.

Said
The
tractive effort= Torque/tyre radius (dynamic rolling radius) 
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/torque-and-wheel-size-of-a-car.786610/

So you're vehicle torque in a "moment" is the constant and tire radius Increase, increases
tractive Effort (force vector for wheel traction)
While a lower radius lowers "tractive Effort"

There's so many different views on it I agree with @Detroitdan
Occam's Razor→ simplest Answer usually is the correct one.

245 and 265 work great. People recommend tires but the biggest variable of them all is the driver..

When you have high torque 1 rotation increases directly, the force which can lose traction. Force from dynamic rolling resistance is something I'm still trying to grasp.

But I know people who drive with $270 / pop tires who need 4 hi or f***** lo even at times so I'm told.
And veterans who know say same vehicle or tranny, Something they've gained road Experience in all the crazy **** you can get into.

I've read of guys who claim not needing 4wd from larger ballasts or just Different weather.

I'm pretty confident in saying this s*it. It's all fuel for marketers who promote these juggernaut type tires and what it does is maybe you gain ability to throttle less meticulously.

I hardly believe a good WINTER or A/T at 245 or 265 for $140 to $170 is a sweet spot.
I used to have 4hi on my first and part of second year.
Then I read of ballasts for particular vehicles doing better with more.
But ice + slope (customer thinking it's wonderful idea to salt the sealcoated driveway before storm leaving ice .... Ask me how I know haha)
You're going to need to add traction no tire is limitless.

Soi say if you treat it like a business you weigh risk Especially if hiring drivers vs cost.

It boils down to driver Because that Difference far Outweighs "1 more diameter or 20mm wider etc..

I'm buying winter tires

Will check used but I'm liking the Cooper's. Fair price and pretty good mileage claim and I know a mechanic who only sells MasterCraft and plowed around my area for a while. He also had a late model 6.0 2500hd crew. So I'm going to try out the
Mastercraft Courser MSR 245/75r16 for this season.
Under $160 right now. And max load of just over 3,000lbs and 80psi. E rated , 120/116 load rating.

So I will see


----------

