Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

[Deeptank Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Deeptank]

Been reading tyre threads for a couple of evenings now - and learned heaps in the process.

I am currently leaning towards BFG 265/70R17's and am waiting for a couple more quotes to drop in.

Before I shell out on them, can anyone give me a single reason why I should NOT buy them? Noise? Wear? Un-roadworthy (VIC)? Anything else?

[404pug Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close 404pug]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Why not 265/65 OR 275/65- both available and both legal? These are the 2 at the top of my list ATM. Neil

[Guest Close Guest]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

They are illegal unless you get an engineer's certificate.
On early model 120s, the speedo is already accurate. Fitting 70 profile tyres makes it under read. If you have a late model 120s, then it makes the speedo more accurate.
70 profile tyres are bigger and heavier, so it's going to cost you in fuel.
You also need spacers for the spare tyre carrier. Let me know if you need them as I made 1 spare set in the current batch. [Sorry, shameless plug ops: ]

Many here run 70 profile tyres as the more rugged/proper 4WD tyres are commonly available in this profile. The good thing is that BFG AT's are now available in 2 sizes that fall within the legal limit of max 15mm diameter larger than OEM spec.

Good luck with your decision.

[ozwapet2 Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close ozwapet2]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

If you've been reading other tyre discussions on this forum, you'd be aware that technically at them moment the 265/70 do not comply with Vic Roads vehicles modification guidelines, because they exceed the maximum increase in rolling diameter you can make ( I think it's 15mm but need to check ). Edit : no need above got in before me
However I know a number of what you'd call "conservative" people who run this size on their 120s, and am thinking of doing so myself.
It's all a risk management decision - if you're the extremely low risk type stay with the tyre size on the placard.

Other than that, I run these tyres in the OEM size and think they are great.

[Deeptank Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Deeptank]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Thanks for the replies guys.

I've just read the ADR for tyres and it would indeed seem that the 265/70R17's are 'unroadworthy' - I was after that little bit of extra height on top of my 2" lift. Call it greed, I guess... :wink:

From what I've read here, so people have mentioned the 275/65R17's rubbing against components in full steer left/right, which, if the case, is also unroadworthy and possibly more dangerous...

Perhaps I better go 265/65R17's then...? No point in having full insurance if a mod voids it...

[BARRLIND Lurker Find all posts View Profile Close BARRLIND]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Hi ozwapet2

If you've been reading other tyre discussions on this forum, you'd be aware that technically at them moment the 265/70 do not comply with Vic Roads vehicles modification guidelines, because they exceed the maximum increase in rolling diameter you can make ( I think it's 15mm but need to check )

The following was received from Vicroads in answer to a question in January 2009 re tyre sizes

The VSI is currently under review and the VSB14 requirements relating to tyre size are being incorporated into the VSI.

TYRES

i) The overall diameter of any replacement tyre fitted to a passenger car or passenger car
derivative must not be more than 15mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre
designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that model.

ii) The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to an off-road passenger vehicle or a commercial
vehicle must not be more than 50mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre
designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that model.

Unfortunately there has been no update to their VSI8 document at present although they stated 265/70 would be ok.
From one of your "conservative" people

[Deeptank Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Deeptank]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Thanks Bazza - that's excellent news. I guess the 265/70R17's are back on the list then!

Your reply is very much appreciated!

[Guest Close Guest]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

My 265/70 Mickey Thompson MTZ were about 60mm increase.

I would not fit them without getting an insurance certification (In writing) or an engineers certificate and plate (See existing threads on doing this).
Otherwise in an accident an insurance ompany can void your insurance as you have oversize tyres fitted... (Yes we know they look for any way out so dont let them!).

I would also suggest looking at Mickey ATZ's or FC-II or even Bridgestone Duellers etc.

You need to figure your main driving type, bitumen or offroad?

[Deeptank Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Deeptank]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Thanks TP,

If my understanding of tyre sizes is correct...

265mm width at 65% profile = 172.25mm profile
265mm width at 70% profile = 182.5mm profile

Therefore the profile difference = 13.25mm - so diameter increase = 26.5mm. Over 15mm, but well under 50mm...

Am I missing something?

As for driving... In all reality, probably 70-odd% on-road - 30-odd% off-road. However, willing to put up with a little extra fuel consumption and very little extra noise. Don't really do much sand driving, but mainly rocky, rutted and sometimes muddy tracks around Vic. High Country, Wombat, Rubicon, Lerderderg etc etc.

The last thing I need is a voided insurance policy - that's not even an option.

I'll buzz Vicroads tomorrow... whatever good that'll do me... :roll: Followed by a call to AAMI, who have so far been exceptional.

[Guest Close Guest]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Either TP made a typo or he's on something.

[Deeptank Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Deeptank]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Just spoke to Vicroads and looks like Bazza's post above was right on the button. After my call the lady I spoke to emailed me the relevant link:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... eb2006.pdf

Have a look at top of page 16... For off-road vehicle max diameter increase is 50mm. This seems to be Australia wide, not just Vic. Passenger cars is 15mm, but a lot of folk here seem to think this applies to off-road vehicels too, but that clearly isn't the case.

So, it would seem that 265/70R17 for a 120-Series Prado is perfectly legal.

Nice one Bazza!

[Guest Close Guest]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

I didn't think that the NCOP has been adopted by any transport department. Looks like VIC is the first?

[Deeptank Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Deeptank]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

I didn't think that the NCOP has been adopted by any transport department. Looks like VIC is the first?

Sheesh, I don't know mate... All this 'regulation stuff' is new to me - something I've never really had to think about.

At the end of the day, all I really want is something in print from the right authority to OK what I want to do. And let's face it, it's not like I'm trying to shoe-horn 35" muddies in there. The step from 265/65 to 265/70 isn't THAT big...

And bugger me, now I have to sort out a spacer for the spare wheel carrier...! :roll:

The thing is this all started a few years back with, "Jeez, it would be nice to go camping..." :wink:

[ozwapet2 Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close ozwapet2]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

Interesting so looks like in Vic we're now Ok to replace with 265/70 or even 275/70 if they don;t rub.

[Guest Close Guest]

Re: Any reason NOT to get BFG A/T 265/70R17's...?

At the end of the day, all I really want is something in print from the right authority to OK what I want to do. And let's face it, it's not like I'm trying to shoe-horn 35" muddies in there. The step from 265/65 to 265/70 isn't THAT big...

I'm not sure if I speak for the majority of people here who have gone to 70 profile tyres, but we have been waiting a long time for the transport authorities to adopt NCOP, so have decided to take the risk (without an engineer's certificate) as the chances of the cops pulling you over for larger tyres is quite minimal compared to other more at risk vehicles on the road. I think the minority have an engineer's certificate for oversize tyres.

And bugger me, now I have to sort out a spacer for the spare wheel carrier...! :roll:

You know where to find me :wink: