285 70 17 116t vs lt285 70 17 load c

[highfructose]

Might anyone be able to explain the difference in these tires?

With falken both seem to have a 50 psi max with similar load ratings…with one being markedly heavier.

I assume this would indicate the load c adds a bit of sidewall toughness…

But by the same token the lt285 70 load c k02’s weigh about the same as the euro metric falkens…

Is this an indicator that the sidewalls on the eurometric falken might be comparable to the light truck load c k02…and markedly thinner/weaker than the load c falken’s?

Does this mean that the load c k02’s are markedly weaker than the load c falkens?

falken load c

Falken euro metric

K02 load c

 

[TeCKis300]

Duraspec 3-ply and 18/32 tread depth vs 2-ply 14/32. It's going to be a tougher and more aggressive setup and getting a lot more tire with 28% more rubber.

Depends what you're looking for. Me personally as an avid off roader, Id choose Duraspec. It's pretty dramatic in person as I had the previous AT3Ws in a couple sizes with a narrower spare. Way deeper treads and side lugs.

It's why I don't fault Falkens weights when compared to a typically smaller and lower profile KOs.

Trade is probably longer tread life, tougher, likely similar ride with 3ply offset by more tread depth, some fuel efficiency loss

 

[highfructose]

Duraspec 3-ply and 18/32 tread depth vs 2-ply 14/32. It's going to be a tougher and more aggressive setup and getting a lot more tire with 28% more rubber.

Depends what you're looking for. Me personally as an avid off roader, Id choose Duraspec. It's pretty dramatic in person as I had the previous AT3Ws in a couple sizes with a narrower spare. Way deeper treads and side lugs.

It's why I don't fault Falkens weights when compared to a typically smaller and lower profile KOs.

Trade is probably longer tread life, tougher, likely similar ride with 3ply offset by more tread depth, some fuel efficiency loss

I don’t mean to be argumentative…but

The passenger tires hit the load carrying minimums for our vehicles at very very low psi’s (like 26)…whereas the light truck tires need like 40+ psi I think.

33 psi in the passenger tire would likely be dramatically more damped than the 42 that is recommended on the light truck, correct?

 

[TeCKis300]

I don’t mean to be argumentative…but

The passenger tires hit the load carrying minimums for our vehicles at very very low psi’s (like 26)…whereas the light truck tires need like 40+ psi I think.

33 psi in the passenger tire would likely be dramatically more damped than the 42 that is recommended on the light truck, correct?

Based on those inflation pressures, I would agree?

Both pressures in my mind will be either too low or too high, for both SL or LT. As load handling is only one dimension. Ride and handling is just as important to tune for.

I am a bit confused where 42psi comes from? LC200 derived pressures would be 40psi, and LX570 derived would be 35psi. Leaving that aside as RCTIP is all over the place with certain sizes...

I've found over the years and many sizes that I prefer higher inflation pressures with high profile tires. For a 70s profile, regardless of SL or LT, 33 psi is going to have the sidewall roll over too much. 35-40 will be a better working range and make for a great riding rig, with lots of opportunity to dial in ride for individual tastes without endangering load ratings. These larger volume tires tend to be more sensitive to ambient temp so trying to accurately run a single pressure exactly is futile. When laden, adding more air is not a bad idea.

 

[highfructose]

if I remember correctly, the lt285 70 17 load e k02’s that came as a standard option on the lc200 had mixed information regarding their recommended tire pressures, with the highest being 42+ (the rock warrior tundra, I think, had a recommendation of 46).

In your off-roading experience, have k02’s been subject to more sidewall damage than other, heavier load range c tires?

My understanding is that some load e tires, for example the michelin defender, are extraordinarily lightweight compared to others (42 lbs vs 58 lbs for the k02 version iirc) because the k02’s have thicker sidewalls specifically for Offroad durability rather than load carrying capacity as is the case in the defender.

My suspicion is that some passenger oriented tires, too, have thicker sidewalls for Offroad purposes…as many of the 285 70 17 passenger tires fall in the mid 45 lb range with the falken being an outlier at like 53 (comparable to a k02 load c)…

falken passenger 285 70 17 also offers a 50 psi max, comparable to the load c k02.

In your off-roading experience, have k02’s been subject to more sidewall damage than other, heavier load range c tires (many in the high 50-mid 60lb range)?

Or, similarly, any particular PASSENGER tires being quite strong in the sidewall?

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of tests/data on the actual carcass/sidewall strength of passenger vs light truck tires of various construction/application…we basically just go on vague manufacturer descriptions and anecdote/experience…

My goal would likely be a k02 load c grade passenger tire…essentially looking for maximum road comfort/damping/handling/rain traction in a tire that’s not paper thin in the sidewall and will pop easily if I hit an odd root Offroad…a load c that doesn’t necessitate, possibly, 40 psi…I’ve run 35 psi and 40 psi in load d 35” tire and load e 33” (on 20” rim)…

The 35” lod on 35 psi is acceptable…33 psi on it feels pretty good though on the highway it is a bit more wallowy than I’d like (better than my wrangler on stock tires though). The 35-40 psi in load e 33” 20’s was unacceptably harsh.

33” passenger tires on 20’s was reasonable at oem 33 psi but felt best damped at 28-29 psi.

Across all these tires, each experiment chasing the perfect tire is kind of expensive-$600-$1200…I guess I’m trying to do as much thinking, research, and discussion with others to get their experience so I get it right.

Supposedly I could run 26-50 psi in these falkens…they’re relatively lightweight…I suppose I’m wondering about sidewall durability mostly.

 

[TeCKis300]

KO2s are tough tires and will put up with good abuse. Any tire can be damaged and punctured, with usage and driver being a factor in this. To answer your question, I've firsthand seen 4 KO2s taken out, but they are also the most represented tire in the groups I run with. I still trust them as robust tires.

KO2s are also stiff and known to not have the best NVH. It is this quality as experienced on my previous LX470 that my brother now owns and installed KO2s on, and not robustness, that turns me away from them.

Long way to say the same pressure on different model tires is going to result in different experiences. More rubber and deeper tread can contribute to smoother rides. Different sidewalls may need different pressures to tune for ride quality and sidewall stability.

More reasons why RCTIP is misleading and should serve as a starting point to tune from.

For tire robustness, tire construction and number of plys is a big part of it. But there are nuances too. Deeper tread, rubber compound, cord and ply material, type of surface. What works for one person in one situation may not work for another so it would be hard to answer if a solid AT tire in SL passenger car size is enough.

 

[highfructose]

Long way to say the same pressure on different model tires is going to result in different experiences. More rubber and deeper tread can contribute to smoother rides. Different sidewalls may need different pressures to tune for ride quality and sidewall stability.

More reasons why RCTIP is misleading and should serve as a starting point to tune from.

this seems key. I found a video comparing an sl variant of the Nitto recon grappler against its light truck variant of the same size…and the tires flex was significantly different at the same pressures…as well as its compliance (damping I assume).

It’s too bad there isn’t a repository of tire deconstructions on YouTube…it would probably get a reasonable amount of views…I’d like to see a cutaway of whatever the extra falken “turn up” ply looks like compared to the 2 ply competition in standard load…as well as how hard it is to tear the material…it SEEMS like they’re trying to market a “tougher” sidewall’d SL tire than the competition for people that want a max durability SL tire but don’t want a light truck tire.

Quotes on the topic I found:
“
I would 100% agree with your initial inclination to opt for our non-LT 265/75R16 WILDPEAK AT3W with Load Index 116, which is in between a Load Range C (112 Load Index, aka 6-ply) and a Load Range D (119 Load Index, aka 8-ply), and far stronger than your OE fitment which was most likely P265/70R16 112.

I also agree the Load Range E version LT265/75R16 (123 Load Index, aka 10-ply) will be too much tire for a Tacoma, sacrificing fuel economy, and comfort as you said. The LRE version is really designed for a 3/4T truck application such as an F-250. You would actually compromise more than just comfort and fuel economy with the Load Range E version, as the contact patch would not be ideal, and could sacrifice wet and/or other traction characteristics. In fact, I always recommend our non-LT version for Tacoma owners, when asked in person or by email, and openly on TacomaWorld.com.

In terms of pure load carrying capability, our 265/75R16 116T WILDPEAK AT3W is superior to competitor offerings in p-metric P265/75R16 Load Index 112, as well as superior to competitor offerings in LT265/75R16 Load Range C Load Index 112.

To answer your question exactly, the construction of our WILDPEAK AT3W is as follows:
Sidewall: 2 -PLY POLYESTER WITH HIGH PLY TURN‐UPS
Tread: 2-PLY POLYESTER, 2 FULL STEEL WIDTH BELTS, 1 FULL POLYMIDE (NYLON) CAP PLY

As noted above, the WILDPEAK AT3W uses a 2 ply construction with high-ply turn-ups on all tire sizes, so both our LT version and non-LT 265/75R16 116T are quite robust in terms of sidewall protection and durability. Furthermore, the upper sidewall features of the tire actually protect against rocks and punctures, specifically when aired down, they're not just for looks.

Also, I have owned a Tacoma in the past and used this exact size in both non-LT and LT versions so I can speak from quite a bit of experience on this topic, I have never had any issue with the non-LT off-road around 20psi. On the other hand, if the truck is fully loaded with gear and people, I have found that 20psi is a bit too low and could cause a pinch flat or bead unseat, therefore I usually recommend no lower than 25psi in a loaded off-road application for a Tacoma. Off-road air pressure is a sensitive subject that really depends on a lot of factors such as speed, conditions, load, rim width, driving style, etc.”

“We disected the Cooper AT3 (and Cooper AT3 4s) and found the construction to be a 1ply carcass compared to our Falken AT3W 2-ply carcass with high turn ups. Cooper AT3 4s weighs 41lbs vs Falken AT3W 44lbs in size 265/75R16 SL 116T. Both have the same 14/32nds tread depth in that size. The Cooper AT3 4s is a lighter tire due to the tire construction. I'm leaving factual differences here only...”

LT or P rated wildpeaks?

Had c load BFG ko2's and the extra weight noticeably affected the power/acceleration of the truck. I had AT3's put on in p metric and it now is...

www.tacomaworld.com