Tire Size 295/65r20 vs 35×12.50r20

The main difference between tire sizes 295/65r20 and 35×12.50R20 lies in the section width. The 295/65r20 has a width of 11.61 inches, while 35×12.50R20 is wider at 12.52 inches. This 7.8% increase in width affects various performance aspects.

35×12.50r20 vs 295/65r20

Fitment Guide

The 35×12.50R20 is only 0.2% larger in overall diameter and circumference. This minor difference means it can directly replace 295/65r20 tires without fitment issues.

No adaptations to accommodate the barely noticeable increase in size are required.

Ground Clearance

With just a 0.07-inch smaller diameter, the 35×12.50R20 offers virtually the same ground clearance as 295/65r20 tires.

Both clear obstacles and uneven terrain equally well without increased risk of scraping. The difference is negligible.

Gas Mileage

The wider 35×12.50R20 has a larger contact patch, which increases rolling resistance slightly. This results in marginally reduced fuel efficiency compared to the narrower 295/65r20. However, the difference is minor, and both offer respectable mileage.

Ride Comfort

While the 35×12.50R20 is fractionally shorter in sidewall height, the cushioning and impact absorption difference is imperceptible. Both absorb cracks and bumps effectively to provide a comfortable ride on-road and off-road.

Aesthetics

Visually, the two sizes are difficult to distinguish. The 35×12.50R20 appears slightly “stretched” due to the 0.04-inch lower sidewall, but the difference is subtle. Overall, both offer a balanced aesthetic on trucks and SUVs.

Handling & Stability

With such minor dimensional differences, both sizes deliver responsive, stable handling and traction.

The 35×12.50R20 marginally shorter sidewall does not noticeably impact handling precision or road holding.

Noise & Vibration

While the wider 35×12.50R20 has a slightly larger air cavity, both sizes effectively dampen road noise and vibrations. Differences are negligible, and cabin noise remains low in either size.

Durability & Wear

The additional width of the 35×12.50R20 distributes tread wear over a broader area, potentially improving evenness and extending tread life slightly. Both exhibit good durability.

Adverse Conditions

Performance in snow, ice, mud, and off-road conditions is comparable. The barely noticeable difference in ground clearance does not discernibly impact traction or capability. Both perform well overall.

Speedometer Reading

The 0.2% difference in diameter results in a minor 0.2% lower speedometer reading with the 35×12.50R20.

At an actual speed of 20 mph, the speedometer reads 19.96 mph. While not a significant deviation, it should be considered.

35×12.50r20 Equivalent

The 35×12.50R20 tire size does not have an exact metric equivalent, but the closest would be 318/60R20 based on the measurements.

However, metric tire sizes are typically rounded to the nearest 5mm increment. So the nearest standard metric size to 35×12.50R20 is 315/60R20.

This standard metric 315/60R20 size has a section width of 315mm, which converts to 12.4 inches – very close to the 12.52-inch width of a 35×12.50R20 tire.

The aspect ratio is also similar at 60 for the metric size versus 60.8 for the 35×12.50R20. While not an exact match, the 315/60R20 metric tire size has dimensions comparable to 35×12.50R20 and would serve as a suitable metric equivalent.

Our Observation
Upon close examination, the 35×12.50R20 and 295/65r20 are remarkably similar in most dimensions and characteristics except for section width. In real-world conditions, the minor fractional differences in diameter, circumference, and sidewall height are imperceptible.

Both sizes offer comparable ride quality, handling, off-road capability, noise levels, and visual appeal. Either can directly replace the other without adaptation.

For most drivers, the choice between these two sizes comes down mainly to personal visual preference rather than measurable performance differences. In practical terms, they are essentially interchangeable all-terrain tires.

• 305/70r18 vs 295/70r18