275 60 r20 toyo at3’s

[TimCFJ40]

If you are staying primarily on road, and the roads where you live are fairly good, you may see a benefit to the P rated tires. In my experience, P rated tires don't hold up under a heavy truck like LT tires do. Even on my Tacoma, I experienced several flats due to tire damage with P rated Cooper ATs within 30k miles. I've had LTs for the other 150k miles of the truck's life with no flats. While it's anecdotal, it is back to back use on the same vehicle under the same conditions. The flats were generally not extreme offroad use, but things like punctures and sidewall rips from road debris.

I'd recommend against the P Metrics for a crusier unless you spend all of your time on fairly good roads.

 

[highfructose]

If you are staying primarily on road, and the roads where you live are fairly good, you may see a benefit to the P rated tires. In my experience, P rated tires don't hold up under a heavy truck like LT tires do. Even on my Tacoma, I experienced several flats due to tire damage with P rated Cooper ATs within 30k miles. I've had LTs for the other 150k miles of the truck's life with no flats. While it's anecdotal, it is back to back use on the same vehicle under the same conditions. The flats were generally not extreme offroad use, but things like punctures and sidewall rips from road debris.

I'd recommend against the P Metrics for a crusier unless you spend all of your time on fairly good roads.

This is useful. Thank you.

It appears there’s no free lunch. Lt tires will give a harsher ride but be more durable. P rated tires will give a softer/more compliant ride but at a sacrifice of longevity/durability.

 

[AnyMal]

If you are staying primarily on road, and the roads where you live are fairly good, you may see a benefit to the P rated tires. In my experience, P rated tires don't hold up under a heavy truck like LT tires do. Even on my Tacoma, I experienced several flats due to tire damage with P rated Cooper ATs within 30k miles. I've had LTs for the other 150k miles of the truck's life with no flats. While it's anecdotal, it is back to back use on the same vehicle under the same conditions. The flats were generally not extreme offroad use, but things like punctures and sidewall rips from road debris.

I'd recommend against the P Metrics for a crusier unless you spend all of your time on fairly good roads.

I agree.
Im not trying to stir anything up either, i just dont see the point of putting Ps on a cruiser where durability and dependability is the reason i own one.

A properly inflated LT is not that much harsher in lower load ranges at all. It has a lot of benefits and only a few downsides.

A P all terrain at 2 ply sidewall in large sizes is just too soft for the weight and requires an arbitrary amount of pressure to handle correctly thus giving up the majority of the comfort benefit. The load inflation numbers don’t even make sense at plus sizes.

If you are not grossly over inflating your LT you will still have a great ride, albeit less grip on road. Also, Its when tires get into the 70-80 lb range that the equation tips against their favor and you see a lot of drawbacks and more fitment mod requirements in suspension.

My C loads handle the driving dynamics at 32 PSI the same way the Ps did at 36. Thats 10 PSI over load rating minimum and only gives 8 PSI under maximum thus making punctures and pops that much more likely to happen as well. The Cs aren’t even any less comfortable, its an all around win.

Reading the forum I was scared of harsh ride, rotational mass, on road performance and a lot of nonsense that has proven to not be the case at all or highly exaggerated. I think everyone should run Cs if they are up sizing. In lower aspects, the sidewall flexion is more negligible.

 

[AnyMal]

This is useful. Thank you.

It appears there’s no free lunch. Lt tires will give a harsher ride but be more durable. P rated tires will give a softer/more compliant ride but at a sacrifice of longevity/durability.

Thats a bit overly simplifying things. Read my reply above.

 

[lx200inAR]

Would you happen to know how the 285 70 r17 k02 in load range c (2755 lbs) compare to the Toyo at3 275 60 r20 load range sl (2679 lbs) for durability for our trucks?

Can one just trust the numbers provided by manufacturers and compare them?

Is there an ideal minimum “max load rating” that one should be seeking for our 6,000 lb vehicles?

Is there some unlisted factor one must research to determine if the manufacturer is producing a lower quality product than the numbers would indicate?

I wouldn't get super hung up on the load values (obviously within reason). The max load listed for each size tire is actually a function of the sizing standard. As in, every tire from any manufacturer of a LT285/70R17 (C) tires is going to have the exact same max load of 2755 lbs. It isn't the case that each manufacturer goes out and tests the max load and reports a value for that size tire in that construction method. In reality, the tire is only required to meet the max load prescribed by the tire standard at a minimum.
So with max load rating out of the picture. To me, the most important function to look at related to load rating is what it means as it relates to max fill pressure. If the max pressure is 80psi, then the sidewall is going to be stiffer than a tire with a max fill pressure of 50psi (mind you, I'm not saying stronger/more durable, just stiffer).

I saw in the other thread about "tire regrets" you posted about the Evo Corse 17" wheels. I found my Load E 34" tires on 17" wheels to be far more compliant than my P rated tires on 20" wheels. So if you were thinking about going 17s, i certainly agree with that. I don't tow or run high speeds on the highway much where the 20s would be best. So for my driving the 17s have been a huge improvement for my ride comfort on the road and on trails even going with the stiffest available tire. Also, it seems like i have a large window for adjusting my tire pressures to affect ride comfort. If i was super soft plush ride on road, i drop to 33-34psi (when it was cold recently they fell to 30 psi, seemed fine, but a little more mushy than i preferred). And i can go up to 37-39psi and get a stiffer sportier ride. The ATs probably did cost me 1-2mpg on the highway and 2-3 mpg around town.

 

[Fisher23]

Would someone with more experience care to offer some feedback/advice regarding a toyo at3 in 275 60 r20.

Weight seems to keep the lx tire and rim weight very close to stock, even though it’s a taller all terrain tire than stock.

Does the “load range, service description, and max load” match up with the requirements of an lx570? With some bumpers and gear would the tires no longer be appropriate?

• Size:
  275/60R20
• Service Description:
  115T
• Load Range:
  SL
• UTQG:
  600 A B
• Max Load:
  2,679 lbs
• Max Inflation Pressure:
  44 psi
• Tread Depth:
  13.5/32"
• Tire Weight:
  42 lbs

They are excellent tires. My friend runs them on his new ford pickup and loves them.

 

[TeCKis300]

I'm not going to say there's a right or wrong for tires, even as I have my preferences. Tires more than anything has lots of trades, pros, cons, and a spectrum of qualities. Even between qualities, there's parameters than can be adjusted like tire size, pressure, etc. to compensate for other qualities. Pressure compensating for tire sidewall stiffness. Narrows compensating for weight or decreased efficiency of ATs.

Nothing wrong with a P-metric tire. That's what Toyota/Lexus fitted. Whether that works as expected for the individual, is another question, with its own possible subjective qualities.

In general, any AT tire, regardless of type, is going to be more robust and durable than HT tires. Which is to say in the spectrum of tire type: HT < AT < RT < MT. A Toyo AT3 P-metric tire is going to definitely gain that advantage over stock HTs. I think the AT3 P-metric is a great tire, albeit middling in the spectrum of AT tires. As good as the Toyo is, in general, any AT tires will trade some degree of NVH, efficiency, etc. to an OE highway tire. No doubt, there's real and objective differences, perhaps less in P-metric than say LT/Floatation, but I think some of this discussion has been in regards to the degree of advantage, and whether it's enough. Which mixes in subjectivity, but is for the individual to decide.

Not unique to the AT3, every model tire, including HTs, has a spectrum of aggressiveness. That's sizing, load, and construction type: P-metric, P-metric XL, LT-C through LT-E, Floatation. That's a generalization too as specific sizing may have load and construction differences.

One thing I'll say is there's a disparate focus on tire weight. It's not a primary factor for rolling efficiency that it's being made out to be.

Argue on...

 

[AnyMal]

I'm not going to say there's a right or wrong for tires, even as I have my preferences. Tires more than anything has lots of trades, pros, cons, and a spectrum of qualities. Even between qualities, there's parameters than can be adjusted like tire size, pressure, etc. to compensate for other qualities. Pressure compensating for tire sidewall stiffness. Narrows compensating for weight or decreased efficiency of ATs.

Nothing wrong with a P-metric tire. That's what Toyota/Lexus fitted. Whether that works as expected for the individual, is another question, with its own possible subjective qualities.

In general, any AT tire, regardless of type, is going to be more robust and durable than HT tires. Which is to say in the spectrum of tire type: HT < AT < RT < MT. A Toyo AT3 P-metric tire is going to definitely gain that advantage over stock HTs. I think the AT3 P-metric is a great tire, albeit middling in the spectrum of AT tires. As good as the Toyo is, in general, any AT tires will trade some degree of NVH, efficiency, etc. to an OE highway tire. No doubt, there's real and objective differences, perhaps less in P-metric than say LT/Floatation, but I think some of this discussion has been in regards to the degree of advantage, and whether it's enough. Which mixes in subjectivity, but is for the individual to decide.

Not unique to the AT3, every model tire, including HTs, has a spectrum of aggressiveness. That's sizing, load, and construction type: P-metric, P-metric XL, LT-C through LT-E, Floatation. That's a generalization too as specific sizing may have load and construction differences.

One thing I'll say is there's a disparate focus on tire weight. It's not a primary factor for rolling efficiency that it's being made out to be.

Argue on...

Im gonna agree that for a P tire finding an XL load is nice for the additional 6 PSI of headroom.

There is a good point as well that teck demonstrates in his build; when you increase tire size you should scale wheel size with it. An 8” 2 ply sidewall with 2000 lbs on it will not perform the way it needs to and is danger territory If you ask me. You cant ask a tire to do magic things, there is a synergy here to achieve.

Other half of this is that manufactures spec Ps with a much greater load capacity than needed to preserve comfort from unladen and fully loaded cabin / cargo without having to tell people to adjust their pressure. Lots of other things as well but the former is pertinent here.

You may think that going with a large tire will allow you to run less pressure but that is simply not the case, you have to add in pressure until the performance characteristics and rigidity are met again. Im really not gonna bark about this but you should know that biggest tire on smallest wheel only really works with stiffer sidewalls. You are gonna end up doubling your sidewall P for OEM P and then at adequate minimum pressure, wonder why it rides like ass.

Not gonna say that stiffer tires dont impact comfort either, but this stubborn idea that LTs are super harsh is so easily debunked. Run your Ps at 40 PSI and you will see theres a lot more to it than that.