Cool. You doing 285/65R18 defenders?
200 Series Tire and Wheel Size Database (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MScruiser
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
yeah that's the plan. I gotta save up though, they are notttt cheap
Interesting Duelers and Contis. One thing about continentals is that they transmit every pebble to you. I stopped buying them a few years ago because of this. Duelers are excellent tires. the set of tires on my truck are now duelers AT RHS. Good tires.
I found some 17" Rock Warrior wheels and plan on putting Wildpeak At4w 285/70R17 tires on them. I have a 2017 LX that is otherwise stock (not the LC in my profile pic) and pretty much going to stay that way, at least for now, maybe adding Slee sliders in the future. They come in C1, E1 or SL load ratings. Any reason for me to get a higher than standard load rating and @gaijin could you let me know the RCTIP, please?
I just put these exact tires on my wife's 2017 LX570. I have them mounted on Method MR703 wheels. I went with the SL tires.
Any photos by chance?
I'll take some tomorrow.
I'm not who you asked but these are RWs with at4ws in 285/70 (edit: realized you were asking to see the methods. It's late and I'm more of an idiot than normal)
Last edited:
Haha all good! Those E&E wheel rings / RWs look amazing on your truck. Nicely done sir!
I was trying to find a good set of RWs to do the same and nearly giving up at this point so mostly back to looking at Methods.
The LT tires usually have deeper tread. That would be one reason.
I’ve always run LT C range as they are generally similar in weight to an SL and have similar load ratings, but have the deeper tread. I ran LT C KO2’s on my F150 and GX460 and now LT C wrangler Territory MT’s on my F150 and LX570.
Many of the lighter duty factory offroad trucks are coming with LT C’s. The Raptor is LT C 315/70R17 KO2’s, the Wrangler/Gladiator Rubicon is a 285/70R17 LT C, Bronco Sasquatch is a 315/70R17 C. Same with the Colorado ZR2.
Thanks for that. Below I charted the pertinent points on the chart of Falken AT4W 285/70R17, other data points be essentially similar. The C rated LT tires have 1/8" more tread depth but the SL have a slightly longer tread rating at 65,000 vs 60,000 (negligible, really). When I (over)built my LC, I used the AT3W E rated tires for the extra load and sidewall protection. For my LX, I'm leaning toward the SL as this one is built more for on road and snow travel.
| Item number | Load rating | Ply rating | Tread depth (/32IN) | Tire weight (lbs) | Max load |
| 28844913 | SL | 3 | 14 | 53.4 | 2756 |
| 28847543 | C | 6 | 18 | 65.4 | 2755 |
| 28840612 | E | 10 | 18 | 65.4 | 3750 |
Woof, those C’s are HEAVY. I wonder if that is right. To put it in perspective, the 285/70R17 C range KO2's I had on my GX460 were like 51 lbs I think. They were the factory Wrangler Rubicon tires.
I would do some research on the AT4W in the snow. I know the AT3W were well regarded for snow performance but my understanding was that the design of the AT4W was a bit less snow focused.
Last edited:
Falkens run heavy due to the additional sidewall plys, one of the reasons I’m going with Rock Warriors, being so light. I’ll check out the snow performance on the 4s, thanks.
Yeah but they weigh the same at the E’s. That doesn’t make much sense.
Very nice. Is that in neutural height? No sensor lift, correct?
They run heavy because they are truer to size and full fat in tread depth (compared to say a KO2). All that rubber is what's heavy. Value in more rubber and tread.
Load range is not about more rubber or plies. It's more about pressure headroom. Often achieved with higher gauge cords or tighter weave. Maybe a tweak of ply composition or compound . But not with more material or layers like old school addition of 'plys'. 'Ply rating' is notional to that old strategy.
Ok, that’s all great, but generally C range tires tend to be ~5 lbs or more lighter than their E range counterparts for the same tire and size. Not the exact same weight to the tenth of a pound, as is the case with these AT4W’s.
It’s one of the reasons I generally pick the LT C’s over E’s
I've actually come across examples where the LT-C is heavier than the same size LT-E. Just saying they are not different the way we may assume. It's about structure for higher pressures and heat management at higher loads. Less tire carcass mass can actually help managing heavier loads.
Yes, I agree with using LT-Cs but for compliance rather than any weight advantages.
