Why Bigger Tires Might Be the Worst Overlanding Mod You Can Make

The allure of the oversized tire is rooted in the "overland" aesthetic that has dominated social media and automotive marketing for over a decade. The narrative suggests that to truly explore the backcountry, one needs maximum flotation and significant clearance to traverse boulders and deep mud. This was the mindset that led adventurer Bryan Rogala to modify his 2018 Toyota Tundra. Like many enthusiasts, Rogala’s history with modifications began years earlier with a 2000 Jeep Cherokee. By lifting the Jeep and fitting it with oversized rubber, he successfully created a rock-crawling specialist, but in doing so, he effectively "ruined" the vehicle for any other purpose. It became a chore to drive on the highway, its fuel economy plummeted, and its mechanical reliability was compromised by the constant stress of rotating heavy mass. Despite this experience, the siren song of the 35-inch tire remained, leading to a controlled experiment to quantify exactly what happens when you deviate from factory specifications.

To understand the impact of tire size, it is necessary to look at the physics of "unsprung weight" and "rotational inertia." In Rogala’s test, he compared a set of 35-inch BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 tires against a set of stock-sized (32-inch) Nokian Outpost nAT tires. The weight difference was stark: the BFGs weighed 68 pounds per tire, while the Nokians weighed just 53 pounds. A 15-pound difference per corner might seem negligible on a 6,000-pound pickup truck, but because this is rotating mass, its effect is multiplied. Every time the vehicle accelerates, the engine must work significantly harder to overcome the inertia of those heavier wheels. Conversely, every time the vehicle brakes, the braking system must dissipate the massive kinetic energy stored in those spinning weights.

The most alarming discovery in the data involved braking performance. In repeated simulated panic stops from 60 miles per hour, the truck equipped with 35-inch tires saw its stopping distance increase by a staggering 80 percent compared to the stock-sized tires. Perhaps more concerning was the behavior of the Anti-lock Braking System (ABS). With the oversized tires, the driver was unable to get the ABS to activate at all. This indicates that the factory braking system—designed for the leverage and weight of a 32-inch tire—simply did not have the clamping force necessary to overcome the rotational momentum of the 35s. In a real-world emergency, such as an animal darting onto the road or a sudden traffic jam, this 80 percent increase in distance represents the difference between a controlled stop and a catastrophic collision.

Beyond safety, the daily "livability" of the truck suffered across every measurable metric. Fuel economy is often the first casualty of the "big tire" trend. On the Toyota Tundra, which is already known for its "thirsty" 5.7L V8 engine, the switch to 35s caused the highway range to drop from over 500 miles to barely 400. This 20 percent reduction in efficiency is caused by two factors: increased rolling resistance from a wider contact patch and the aerodynamic drag created by a taller vehicle profile. Furthermore, the truck’s transmission began "gear hunting"—constantly shifting between fifth and sixth gear on even slight highway inclines—as the engine struggled to maintain speed against the increased leverage of the taller tires.

The impact on maneuverability is another often-overlooked downside. Larger tires frequently require "trimming" of the inner fender liners or body mounts to prevent rubbing during turns. Even with these modifications, the turning radius is often compromised. A truck that was once easy to navigate through a tight parking lot or a narrow mountain switchback becomes a lumbering liability, requiring multi-point turns where a single arc once sufficed. Steering feel also becomes "mushy" or vague, as the power steering pump works overtime to move the heavier mass and the taller sidewalls of the tires flex under lateral loads.

For those who insist that 35-inch tires are a necessity, the path to restoring factory-level performance is prohibitively expensive. To fix the loss of power and the transmission’s gear hunting, a vehicle must be "re-geared." This involves replacing the ring and pinion sets in both the front and rear differentials with a higher numerical ratio (such as moving from a 4.10 to a 4.88 or 5.29). This modification essentially gives the engine more mechanical advantage, bringing the effective gear ratio back to stock levels. However, re-gearing is a precision task that typically costs between $3,000 and $5,000. To address the braking deficiencies, high-performance big-brake kits from companies like Alcon or PowerStop are required, which can add another $2,000 to $5,000 to the build cost. When you factor in the need for speedometer recalibration tools and the accelerated wear on CV axles, ball joints, and wheel bearings, the true cost of "looking cool" on 35s can easily exceed $10,000.

The central question, then, is whether this investment yields a proportional increase in off-road capability. For 99 percent of users, the answer is a resounding no. Modern 4WD systems, equipped with sophisticated traction control and electronic locking differentials, are incredibly capable on stock-sized tires. The primary advantage of a 35-inch tire over a 32-inch tire is a gain of exactly 1.5 inches of ground clearance at the differential. While that inch and a half is critical for professional rock crawling or traversing deep "whoops" in the desert at high speeds, it is rarely the deciding factor on the Forest Service roads, beach dunes, or muddy trails that constitute the bulk of overland travel.

This perspective is championed by industry veterans like Jonathan Hanson, co-founder of Overland Journal. Hanson has long advocated for the "minimalist" approach to vehicle builds, arguing that excessive modifications often decrease a vehicle’s overall reliability and "expedition endurance." A vehicle that is stressed to its mechanical limits by oversized tires is more likely to suffer a catastrophic component failure in the backcountry—miles away from help. In contrast, a vehicle running stock or near-stock tire sizes operates within the safety margins engineered by the manufacturer, ensuring that the cooling system, brakes, and drivetrain can handle the rigors of long-distance travel.

The shift back to stock-sized tires can be a revelation for the driver. When Rogala eventually swapped his 35s for a set of stock-sized Nokian Outpost nATs, the truck’s personality was instantly restored. Acceleration became crisp, the steering regained its precision, and the "soft" brake pedal disappeared. Most importantly, the vehicle became safer. In a poignant conclusion to his testing, Rogala recounted a drive through northern New Mexico where he encountered a high density of elk along the highway. On three separate occasions, he was forced to perform emergency braking maneuvers to avoid wildlife. Had he still been running the 35s with their 80 percent longer stopping distance, the outcome likely would have been a totaled vehicle and a dangerous situation for the occupants.

In the final analysis, the trend toward massive tires in the adventure community is often more about fashion than function. While there is a niche group of enthusiasts whose specific terrain requirements justify the compromises of 35-inch or 37-inch tires, the average weekend warrior is better served by a high-quality, stock-sized all-terrain tire. These tires offer the puncture resistance and tread patterns needed for off-pavement excursions without sacrificing the safety, economy, and reliability that make a truck a versatile tool for both daily life and distant exploration. The most capable rig is not the one with the biggest tires, but the one that reliably gets its occupants to their destination and back home again. For most, that means trusting the engineers who designed the vehicle in the first place.