Originally Posted by Stan
I hate to do this, but I have to agree with CC on this one.
You should not have to research a company to see if the ads they place in EVERY offroad mag. are true.
In my business (floor covering) if I sell a customer 1/2 pad, it better be 1/2 thick. I have several customers that do check.
The pad companies do offer cheaper pad that has a +/-, they call it "shaved" pad.
I have taken accounts from other companies that use that pad and didn't tell the customer.
It's total bullshit to advertise a tire size and be so far off.
What happened to the big 3 with their bullshit HP numbers on new cars? Didn't they get caught or lose in court and had to change ads?
I agree, that it SHOULD be that way. They should be sized within 0.5", since most are available in 1" increments (there are 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 38.5, 39.5, 40, 41, 42, 44" sizes at least, in the interco lineup).
Yes, there is tolerance and component shrinkage. HOWEVER, its not like some of the 37" iroks are 35.5" and some are 37.5". They are consistantly small. There is some variation between different mounting sizes, but they do run consistantly small, and everyone knows its (except, apartantly pre-december CC).
Thre is also variation of how people measure, with many measuring from the ground to the top of tire when mounted, which is rather worthless.
However, regarding the arguement going on here, when it comes to tire sizes, it is rather easy to spend a little timeon pirate4x4 and find first hand reports of how big tire sizes ran for those iroks.