TJJK

Before mounting my 285/75/17s , were exactly 33.75 inches tall. My 255/80s were exactly 33 in he's tall. Of course when they are mounted on the vehicle, they will be shorter. Once a month, I see some hillbilly complaining about it somewhere on thee internet.

jnabird333

You're comparing apples to a hammer. The complaint is about the "inch" sized tires not holding up to their specified diameter (even unmounted). It also helps that both the tires you listed are "E" rated tires that would have less sidewall deflection.

I think most understand that a tire will not actually measure what is on the sidewall when mounted. The difference here is most tires only loose about 0.5-0.75". The KM2s start out with this under-size and once mounted are often 1-1.5" under the advertised diameter.

For me this isn't a deal breaker and I think they are pretty good tires. But for some is could be.

TJJK

That's my point. KM2s do NOT start out undersized.

Nwapache

What the heck?! I don't care what a tire measures out at sitting in a warehouse.... It only matters once they're aired up and rolling down the highway . KM2's are a good tire but they're about the smallest rubbers on the market

olyelr

I think differently.

There are too many variables. If you have a heavy rig and are aired down to say, 10PSI, ANY 37's are going to measure probably 34 or less. Does that mean they are undersized and should be called a 34? Well no.

To me, whatever a tire measures when mounted on a rim with no vehicle weight on them is a true tire size. Otherwise, factoring in vehicle weight and air pressure just involves too many variables.