Joined
·
367 Posts
Nice ravioli!
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6000 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6000 using Tapatalk
225/75R16 A/T 2003 Rav4 AWD 5Speed
Heyo! First time poster here,
Just wanted to say that 225/75R16 (29.3"x8.9") fit without any rubbing whatsoever. The wheels I used are Konig Monza Japans, they are 7" wide with a ET 40 offset, and the tires are Hercules Terra Trac ATIIs.
I upgraded from 215/70R16 tires on the factory steel wheels.
No trimming or removing of mudslaps necessary. I find the larger diameter tires actually match the manual transmission gearing better as well as the speedometer seems to be more accurate. Here is a side by side comparison on the Rav and an all-said-and-done photo:
![165811]()
![165812]()
Just wanted to say that 225/75R16 (29.3"x8.9") fit without any rubbing whatsoever. The wheels I used are Konig Monza Japans, they are 7" wide with a ET 40 offset, and the tires are Hercules Terra Trac ATIIs.
I upgraded from 215/70R16 tires on the factory steel wheels.
No trimming or removing of mudslaps necessary. I find the larger diameter tires actually match the manual transmission gearing better as well as the speedometer seems to be more accurate. Here is a side by side comparison on the Rav and an all-said-and-done photo:
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Joined
·
780 Posts
I looked for close to three years for a manual RAV4.2 for sale. Exceedingly rare. I'm jealous 
Interestingly, the 4AT has a lower first gear, but the ratio gap between each subsequent gear is just awful. I cringe a little bit reading these posts of larger tire installations on RAVs with the automatic, but I have little doubt the 5MT can row 225/75-16's quite nicely
Interestingly, the 4AT has a lower first gear, but the ratio gap between each subsequent gear is just awful. I cringe a little bit reading these posts of larger tire installations on RAVs with the automatic, but I have little doubt the 5MT can row 225/75-16's quite nicely
Joined
·
8 Posts
Welcome aboard, I like your new choice of wheels.
Joined
·
900 Posts
@05RAV: your chart is very interesting.... but you need to correct the ring and pinion diff ratio.
With this Toyota FWD drivetrain orientation, you don't use the rear diff ratio. This ratio is calculated to get 1:1 with the transmission ring and pinion ratio (via the t-case ratio)... whatever is the trans diff ratio! So the final drive ratio you need to use in your calculations is the transaxle diff ratio.
And now the magic number (for off-road and not highway haha!) is the RAV4.1 manual trans diff ratio....
- E250F: 4.93
With this Toyota FWD drivetrain orientation, you don't use the rear diff ratio. This ratio is calculated to get 1:1 with the transmission ring and pinion ratio (via the t-case ratio)... whatever is the trans diff ratio! So the final drive ratio you need to use in your calculations is the transaxle diff ratio.
- U140F: 3.08
- E352F: 4.56
- E359F: 4.56
And now the magic number (for off-road and not highway haha!) is the RAV4.1 manual trans diff ratio....
- E250F: 4.93
Joined
·
780 Posts
Great, that's nice to know. I'll do that and repost.
Those 4.93s would be sweet. I wish I could find some interchangeability with RAV4 gear ratios, being stuck with the OEM garbage is painful. The benefit of having lower gear ratios, as you know, is running larger tires at a 4.93 ratio gains you back some highway efficiency without loosing too much torque on the bottom.
Those 4.93s would be sweet. I wish I could find some interchangeability with RAV4 gear ratios, being stuck with the OEM garbage is painful. The benefit of having lower gear ratios, as you know, is running larger tires at a 4.93 ratio gains you back some highway efficiency without loosing too much torque on the bottom.
Joined
·
780 Posts
Thanks Commando, that makes a big difference!
![Material property Font Parallel Screenshot Number]()
Basically, the manual does everything better.
I'm confused though, why the E359F is regarded as yielding poorer city mileage and greater highway efficiency, despite having more gear reduction everywhere? My intuition would be the opposite is true.
![Automotive parking light Car Wheel Tire Motor vehicle]()
Basically, the manual does everything better.
I'm confused though, why the E359F is regarded as yielding poorer city mileage and greater highway efficiency, despite having more gear reduction everywhere? My intuition would be the opposite is true.
Joined
·
900 Posts
I think what makes the difference is the engine... 2.0L vs 2.4L.
Joined
·
780 Posts
Would be the case if the mileage discrepancy was a 2001-2003, but the E359F is driven by the 2.4L.
Joined
·
780 Posts
Just to be absolutely clear, what the graphs I shared with Commando's help show, is that the 5-spd manual transmission turns 225/75-16s with greater authority (more mechanical advantage) than does the automatic with the smaller 235/60s. This is quite simply, huge. I haven't done the math, but some members here use 235/70s and it looks like this large of tire may still perform like the OE tire when equipped with the automatic.
If I ever find a 5-spd with low mileage, I'll be buying my third RAV4.2.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
