Rims and Tires

[LastDayScout]

I grew up with a kubota tractor/mower. You sir are a good man. I didn’t think anybody wanted super expensive-I was just implying at a certain point-an over engineered tire gets expensive vs a little lost range for a relatively straight forward tire. I like the Easter Egg Idea. Like Ford requiring the wrangler tires to not say wrangler-that was funny!

Thanks for the kind words. I probably sounded overly sensitive! I hope it’s not over engineered and super expensive too. I’d like to see wheels in the 17-20” max range. There is a place for the 20” on primarily street used vehicles. Many if not most of these will be used primarily on the street. I really could see a nice 20” on the Travelall. As for tires, I’m sure we will see all season, all terrain and mud options. I don’t know much about snow tires but that seams like a no brainer for Scout to offer those as an option with a “rust proof” rim.

 

[J Alynn]

Thanks for the kind words. I probably sounded overly sensitive! I hope it’s not over engineered and super expensive too. I’d like to see wheels in the 17-20” max range. There is a place for the 20” on primarily street used vehicles. Many if not most of these will be used primarily on the street. I really could see a nice 20” on the Travelall. As for tires, I’m sure we will see all season, all terrain and mud options. I don’t know much about snow tires but that seams like a no brainer for Scout to offer those as an option with a “rust proof” rim.

Agree on rust proof and for Street and my use I could see 20” without issue. My Acura has 20” so that would be great for daily use

 

[Chaparral]

The wheels and tires should be spec-ed for real off road use. Land Rover got this very, very wrong with the Defender. A pinch against a rock and its most rugged tires puncture.

The wheels and tires must be able to be aired down and used at low pressures. The sporty looking big rims with low profile tires that we see on so many SUVs are completely impractical off road.

The Scout should be rugged and functional with real off road wheels and tires. The wheels should look tough and functional, no need to look pretty. The wheel rim itself is one area where I’d look to keep the costs down. Rugged tires will be expensive.

The big question is whether to offer two sizes like the Bronco does. The Bronco gives the buyer a choice because the trade off is between ultimate off road ability and energy efficiency. Real off road tires will greatly reduce driving range. Rivian seems to have tried to strike a balance with their all-terrains.The Rivian All-terrain wheels might just about cut it off road but all the options on the Bronco are better. Very few people in the off road world are rushing out to buy a Rivian or a Defender but there’s a year long wait for a Bronco.

 

[R1TVT]

Your perspective is excellent, but the negative offset, mud chucking 37" BFG KO's we see on lifted trucks at the mall are completely impractical on road. So, where do you strike the balance? What % of the odometer reading does the avg Bronco, Rivian or Defender spend rock crawling (compared to driving on an actual road)? If Scout wants to be profitable at this game, I'm sure that they will want wheels & tires to be both rugged and "pretty". Wheels will also be available aftermarket of course, but Scout will want to control and balance efficiency, EPA ratings and durability / ruggedness out of the gate. At the end of the day, the truck needs to sell to a much broader demographic, and the term "off-road" means a lot of different things to truck owners. For me personally, I will never rock crawl in Moab. My usage is sloppy rutted logging roads, ClassIV roads, beaches etc. Off-road? Yes, but hardly a boulder in my way. I would bet the MOST owners never take advantage of what they have. They seem more interested in over-compensating for something, rather than actually driving the truck into the woods.... If we are being honest here.

 

[Chaparral]

There should probably be a choice when buying the Scout - off-road wheels and suspension (with less range as a result) or a lower vehicle with more efficient tires (with longer range).

The demographic for a rugged off-roader is huge, there’s no need to compromise functionality to make it work for a wider market that just want a luxury SUV for the paved road. Ranchers, farmers, landscapers, construction workers, recreational off road enthusiasts, park rangers, lifeguards, other emergency services, geologists, botanists, border patrol and people just setting out to explore nature regularly go off road. Here in this area many people need to go off road just to get onto and around their own property.

The idea that people with off-roaders don’t ever go off road is a cliche. The argument that they don’t really need an off-roader because the time spent off road is a tiny fraction of the time spent on road is logically flawed. It’s just like arguing people don’t need to learn to swim because the average person only spends less than 1% of their time swimming.

I’m not a rock crawl guy but I have been to Moab to visit Arches National Park. Within Arches and some other National Parks there are dirt roads that require off-roaders and many visitors miss those parts of the parks. When exploring remote areas I’ve encountered obstacles where the road has been washed out by a storm or hit by a rock slide and also times where I needed to cross a stream. The Scout needs to be able to easily cope with such things. Get stuck and there’s no cell service! Therefore, when it comes to off road ability I do want a bit a of headroom, something that can cope with a bit more than I will throw at it.

The massive popularity of the Wrangler and Bronco tell us a lot about what the market wants. The Defender tries to make a compromise. It’s quite capable off road until it gets a puncture. The Defender is far more expensive than a Wrangler and too focused on luxuries. It looks the part but has some fake ruggedness such as the tread plates that make it look like you can stand on the side of the hood but it you actually did that it wouldn’t take your weight. The Defender cannot be easily modified in the after market. The Defender is not selling well in the US market and Scout needs to learn from the reasons why if it is going take any market share.

 

[J Alynn]

There should probably be a choice when buying the Scout - off-road wheels and suspension (with less range as a result) or a lower vehicle with more efficient tires (with longer range).

The demographic for a rugged off-roader is huge, there’s no need to compromise functionality to make it work for a wider market that just want a luxury SUV for the paved road. Ranchers, farmers, landscapers, construction workers, recreational off road enthusiasts, park rangers, lifeguards, other emergency services, geologists, botanists, border patrol and people just setting out to explore nature regularly go off road. Here in this area many people need to go off road just to get onto and around their own property.

The idea that people with off-roaders don’t ever go off road is a cliche. The argument that they don’t really need an off-roader because the time spent off road is a tiny fraction of the time spent on road is logically flawed. It’s just like arguing people don’t need to learn to swim because the average person only spends less than 1% of their time swimming.

I’m not a rock crawl guy but I have been to Moab to visit Arches National Park. Within Arches and some other National Parks there are dirt roads that require off-roaders and many visitors miss those parts of the parks. When exploring remote areas I’ve encountered obstacles where the road has been washed out by a storm or hit by a rock slide and also times where I needed to cross a stream. The Scout needs to be able to easily cope with such things. Get stuck and there’s no cell service! Therefore, when it comes to off road ability I do want a bit a of headroom, something that can cope with a bit more than I will throw at it.

The massive popularity of the Wrangler and Bronco tell us a lot about what the market wants. The Defender tries to make a compromise. It’s quite capable off road until it gets a puncture. The Defender is far more expensive than a Wrangler and too focused on luxuries. It looks the part but has some fake ruggedness such as the tread plates that make it look like you can stand on the side of the hood but it you actually did that it wouldn’t take your weight. The Defender cannot be easily modified in the after market. The Defender is not selling well in the US market and Scout needs to learn from the reasons why if it is going take any market share.

I agree with your thoughts but I don’t think at any point Scout/Jamie had implied it will be luxurious-at least not G-wagon or Range Rover level. I think the feedback above is the meat and potatoes portion of the buyers will never go off road or maybe a semi-rugged logging trail. I’m sure when you or others go off “road” at Moab or similar locations you aren’t seeing 1,000 O-R SUV’s. My guess is less than 5% of Wrangler/Bronco/4-Runner etc… do any off-reading at all. As a number of us on here are on the east coast we don’t have the opportunities of the mid-west. Beachhead sand and snow are our biggest hurdle with an SUV. Don’t get me wrong-I agree with your statements above and have stated prior that I believe the ideal approach is to not offer trim levels/tiers but rather a “core” type (off-road, EV and nicely finished daily driver) and then let everyone build up from that standard package. If we all want to spend $60K -great, you load/build yours with features for off roading like wheels, suspension, trail cams , the EV folks add range extenders and features to max range and make it comfortable and I get my leather, heated/cooled seats and steering wheel, maybe a nice wheel package and so long as we can all easily remove the roof we all win.
My push has been the order/build process to individualize for needs and cost rather than set packages that break all our banks because we have to order expensive packages just to get one or two items.
Kind of like kids going into high school and picking their career path thoughts so they take classes they need rather than the traditional way. I thinks it’s about a new approach to sales as much as providing options that are flexible

 

[LastDayScout]

I agree with your thoughts but I don’t think at any point Scout/Jamie had implied it will be luxurious-at least not G-wagon or Range Rover level. I think the feedback above is the meat and potatoes portion of the buyers will never go off road or maybe a semi-rugged logging trail. I’m sure when you or others go off “road” at Moab or similar locations you aren’t seeing 1,000 O-R SUV’s. My guess is less than 5% of Wrangler/Bronco/4-Runner etc… do any off-reading at all. As a number of us on here are on the east coast we don’t have the opportunities of the mid-west. Beachhead sand and snow are our biggest hurdle with an SUV. Don’t get me wrong-I agree with your statements above and have stated prior that I believe the ideal approach is to not offer trim levels/tiers but rather a “core” type (off-road, EV and nicely finished daily driver) and then let everyone build up from that standard package. If we all want to spend $60K -great, you load/build yours with features for off roading like wheels, suspension, trail cams , the EV folks add range extenders and features to max range and make it comfortable and I get my leather, heated/cooled seats and steering wheel, maybe a nice wheel package and so long as we can all easily remove the roof we all win.
My push has been the order/build process to individualize for needs and cost rather than set packages that break all our banks because we have to order expensive packages just to get one or two items.
Kind of like kids going into high school and picking their career path thoughts so they take classes they need rather than the traditional way. I thinks it’s about a new approach to sales as much as providing options that are flexible

Amen

 

[R1TVT]

You can add beadlocks & mud-chuckers to any truck. When Scout goes to publish its range and efficiency numbers as an EV, I'm not sure something like these will be part of a base spec: https://www.supertweaks.com/land-ro...10-spectre-edition-beadlock-style-wheel-et-32 There is a combined benefit of matching a tire to a wheel that will impact range, and these will add weight and drag, so there would be a very significant penalty. I bet the new Scout is going to have some excellent tire / wheel options straight out of the gate, to do basically everything off-road. I've been really happy with the 20's on the R1T, and having a built-in air compressor is great. Air suspension is a whole different topic. This is my 2nd vehicle with air. I could do without it, but it does make for a nice ride. Air is tough outside of the warranty period and very expensive to repair, and obviously not as easy to modify. Scout could have a nice edge over Rivian with no air for many buyers, and will keep costs in check and allow for more customized suspension options.

 

[Jim Nichols]

I like the steely version on this rendering only smaller 17", 7" wide with 245 75 17 tires in Anthracite/gunmetal gray. On the bare bones base model.

 

[LastDayScout]

I like the steely version on this rendering only smaller 17", 7" wide with 245 75 17 tires in Anthracite/gunmetal gray. On the bare bones base model.

I think that’s the new Defender steelie.

 

[OleScout]

Not sure how small we can go yet, but internally we've had discussions about it and it is on the radar. Also pushing hard personally for the design team to adopt a steely wheel that looks like the old wagon wheels on the Scout II.

Yes, This!

 

[sambown]

Wondering what folks think about how Scout should handle Rims and Tires?
I’m thinking they should be more ala cart rather than fixed rims per model/style like the Bronco. Various styles, colors and even chrome. Maybe several price groups and maybe sizes to allow for road tires or off-road/rock crawling sized tires. And good quality tires based on member input, not whatever Goodyear, etc.. think. Also think tires with white lettering would be a great option. Cover a good portion of looks for those of us without a lot of hands on experience.

I think the base should be 20" rims, 31" tires. Then a few options in between, up to 17" rims and 35" tires. Range-focused people can get the smaller rotating mass, off-roaders or people that just want to ride higher can deal with the shorter range and get the 35s. Very similar to Ford's bronco, although when upgraded to 35s on the new bronco the rear-end is re-geared to 4.70s, helping the final drive ratio of both tire sizes equal out. I am not sure how gear ratios work in an ev.

 

[Bodie]

My 2¢, I want 17” wheels (I’d really like 15”) and 8.5” wide. Big rims look stupid on 4x4s - any other opinion is wrong. I’d like to keep the stock wheels, especially if they are retro looking, and be able to put up to 35x12.50 tires on and tire shops don’t like the wheel to be more than 4” narrower than the tire. If I can’t get what I want stock, I at least hope the brakes are sized to allow 17” wheels. With regen, the rotors shouldn’t have to be huge.
For tires, I’d like to see it come with at least 31s, preferably, 32-33” with a sasquatchesqe option for 35s - range be damned. Also, make them actual 35x12.50, Load range ‘C’, not almost 35” p metric like the Sasquatch Bronco.

 

[TaconicBear]

There is a lot more to selecting wheels & tires than the current trend to taller and wider driven by testosterone, egos, and that elusive factor of 'looks better'. My '66 Scout 800 still rides on OEM rims and the closest tire I can find to the 28" 600/16 tires it came with. There are two reasons, first I want it to look like a '66 Scout 800; and second, like many old New-Engladers I have found that those narrow tires did dug in and went in the snow. At car and truck shows the old-timers come by and show their friends while the younger crowd tries to sell me on taller and wider. Their controversy has not shaken my convictions based on 58 years of driving Scouts but it has been enough to get this old scientist's mind wanting to check out the research, so I did. There is a lot of solid research out there, Google links to some highly technical papers. Admittedly the researchers I've found so far deal with every day driving in typical conditions of dry-wet-snow-ice not rock climbing. So far, everything I've found favours the narrow tire & tread,. I'll link one study whose author presented it in easily digestible YouTube form; it's a good introduction to this sort of research.

...

 

[Bodie]

Whether skinny tires are better or not is kind of irrelevant if (almost) nobody makes them.
My Scout came with 37x12.50 tires on 17x8.5 wheels. It looks cool (to me, testosterone included) but they’re too big for full articulation and they’re heavy and I don’t like the wheels and the giant spacers used to make them fit. I want 35s because I like the look so I started looking to see what is available. I would love to get less than 12.5” wide tires but they are hard to find and expensive. My non-scientific search results were:
35x12.50R17 - 48 different tires
35x11.50R17 - 1 (out of stock)
35x12.50R15 - 16
35x11R15 - 1 (out of stock)

34x10.50R17 - 2

33x12.50R17 - 22
33x11.50R17 - 1
33x12.50R15 - 29
33x10.50R15 - 5
33x9.50R15 - 1

So yeah, there are very few skinny tire choices, especially at 35”. Even at 34 or 33 there aren’t many.
In the same diameter, 15” tires were generally cheaper than the same tire in 17” and I prefer the smaller/lighter wheel so I’m going to go with 15x8.5” wheels. I’ve got some nice vintage American Racing Vector wheels that I’ll pair with some raised white letter Mickey Thompsons.
I would have loved to have been able to use some 15x7 wheels and a narrow tire to keep the weight as low as possible but the few available either weren’t available or were crazy expensive.