Battle of the LT A/T (1 Viewer)

[Itsky]

The official recommendation is to run 'P' at one pressure, door card pressure. You might increase the rears a couple psi with towing, but there is very little adjustment available. The other issue with 'P' is that air down pressures will be severely limited. I believe Ronny Dahl's channel has this in video showing some P sidewalls aired down, might want to look at that.
Between those options I'd select the 116 C tire or the JP make 121 E.
Target load for a LC/LX is around 2200lb if I recall.

Yeah, it's a tough balance, the C-rated only have a Q speed rating which is 99 mph. I can easily hit 90 mph on the highway (for example north nevada highways), so would you rather be near the max while hauling ass on on the highway, or near the max while aired down on a trail? i don't know the answer.

 

[Madtiger]

@TeCKis300 :
Which multiple tire insiders with first hand data knowledge, said new technology allowed them to create a tire that performed above the then competition. "W" standing for wear, winter, and wet so you know it designed to perform in those highlight areas.

That was back in ~2017. I still hold AT3Ws in high regard given my time with them and would buy them again. Having the deepest tread in the competitive set is a big thing for long term performance IMO.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Tire insider? Website advertisement does not count. Just because it has a “W” then we should take it at its word???

Falken is heavy. Heavier than other tires of similar size. Heavy as hell in fact. Why? I thought that “new technology” would help with weight, no?

The reason for Falken’s being such a fat a$$ tire is that they cut corners to keep cost low and used regular steel plies instead of high-tensile steel plies that other companies use! Thus, the weight DISADVANTAGE! Cheap materials resulting in disadvantage for consumer.

Or another famed “benefit”…that they “rolled” their tread to the edge of sidewall for strength??? Only to find out that their sidewall is paper-thin and very susceptible to sidewall puncture…almost as weak as the infamous GY Duratracs sidewall!!

Deep tread? Except that their warranty is no better than other tires. Their treadwear is no better than other similar tire. So, if tread depth is so impressive (and i agree they are deep!), then why does it wear like an average tire??? Maybe because their rubber compound is less impressive than you think?

If tread depth is what we look at…then why does Michelin Defender has some of the shallowest tread depth yet performs forever?!

 

[TeCKis300]

Assuming we are talking about the toyo at iii, their offerings are so confusing. In the size I am interested in 285/70/17:

Size

SIZE2

UTQG

max load

MAX. INFLATION PRESSURE

TREAD DEPTH

TIRE WEIGHT

RIM WIDTH RANGE

MEAS. RIM WIDTH

SECT. WIDTH

TREAD WIDTH

OVERALL DIAM.

REVS. PER MILE

COUNTRY OF

P285/70R17 117T SL

P285/70R17

600 A B

2,833 lbs

44 psi

13.6/32"

47 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

9"

32.8"

634​

JP

LT285/70R17 121/118S E

LT285/70R17

None

3,195 lbs

80 psi

16.5/32"

55 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

9"

32.8"

634​

US

LT285/70R17 116/113Q C

LT285/70R17

None

2,755 lbs

50 psi

16.5/32"

54 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

9"

32.8"

634​

US

LT285/70R17 121/118S E

LT285/70R17

None

3,195 lbs

80 psi

16.5/32"

54 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

8.8"

33"

630​

JP

Why is the bemoaned P Rated tire able to carry more than the LT-C?

Why are their two E-rated 1lb different? Why are the C and E equal weighted?

Does the P-rated offer more siping and more silica? Will this give me better snow performance?

The LT-C is 15% heavier than the P, is it about 15% more puncture resistant?

Edited to add: What about speed ratings for the above?
Speed Rating

• M = 81 mph
• N = 87 mph
• P = 93 mph
• Q = 99 mph
• R = 106 mph
• S = 112 mph
• T = 118 mph
• H = 130 mph
• V = 149 mph
• W = 168 mph
• Y = 186 mph
• (Y) = 195 mph

It would seem the C rated speed ceiling is pretty low, given real highway speeds. Thoughts?

Why is the bemoaned P Rated tire able to carry more than the LT-C?

Load rating is really independent of other qualities. It's highly correlated to the max operating temperature of the tire carcass at the specific load and speed. Interestingly, all else equal, a lower mass tire will generally have a higher load rating as there's less internal friction as the tire flexes round and round generating heat.

Why are their two E-rated 1lb different? Why are the C and E equal weighted?

It can vary more and I would chalk it up to varying of internal parameters to meet requirements. Things like rubber content, formulation, cords and belt diameter/pitch. Sometimes the LT-C is actually the heavier tire, by more than a few lbs per the point above that less mass has less heat generation leading to a larger load/temp envelope. And we've seen variations in the same brand as this Toyo depending on country of origin. It's been said the JP variants have less prominent side lugs.

Does the P-rated offer more siping and more silica? Will this give me better snow performance?

That's a good question that would be really hard to answer without first hand data. More aggressive tread can count for something too in certain types of snow.

The LT-C is 15% heavier than the P, is it about 15% more puncture resistant?

Probably hard to extrapolate. Especially the sidewall per @grinchy 's comment, as some LT have much more prominent and durable shoulders. Toyo P's have pretty minimal if any shoulder/sidewall lugs. KO2s have more prominent and I presume durable sidewalls even in P.



Good call on pointing out speed ratings. As the 200-series surely has the power to exceed some of these lower spec'd ratings.


In order of choice, I'm with @grinchy

 

[TeCKis300]

@TeCKis300 :
Which multiple tire insiders with first hand data knowledge, said new technology allowed them to create a tire that performed above the then competition. "W" standing for wear, winter, and wet so you know it designed to perform in those highlight areas.

That was back in ~2017. I still hold AT3Ws in high regard given my time with them and would buy them again. Having the deepest tread in the competitive set is a big thing for long term performance IMO.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Tire insider? Website advertisement does not count. Just because it has a “W” then we should take it at its word???

Falken is heavy. Heavier than other tires of similar size. Heavy as hell in fact. Why? I thought that “new technology” would help with weight, no?

The reason for Falken’s being such a fat a$$ tire is that they cut corners to keep cost low and used regular steel plies instead of high-tensile steel plies that other companies use! Thus, the weight DISADVANTAGE! Cheap materials resulting in disadvantage for consumer.

Or another famed “benefit”…that they “rolled” their tread to the edge of sidewall for strength??? Only to find out that their sidewall is paper-thin and very susceptible to sidewall puncture…almost as weak as the infamous GY Duratracs sidewall!!

Deep tread? Except that their warranty is no better than other tires. Their treadwear is no better than other similar tire. So, if tread depth is so impressive (and i agree they are deep!), then why does it wear like an average tire??? Maybe because their rubber compound is less impressive than you think?

If tread depth is what we look at…then why does Michelin Defender has some of the shallowest tread depth yet performs forever?!

Yeah, we've heard it all before. The same anecdotal words made up in your own echo chamber.

Wheeling this past weekend with buddies, we had a catastrophic failure of your vaunted tires. I don't presume any other AT tire would have faired any better. Yet there were lots of Toyo AT3s including P-rated fitments, Falkens, and other KO2s represented in this group. But it was this one that failed.

 

[dogdaysindurham]

I have Yokohoma Geolander X-AT in LT275/70R18 E Load (33") and have been very happy with them. I was comfortable airing them down to 18-20 psi.

A bit more noisy than the Michelin A/T2 that I had run on them previously.

 

[NYC570]

Assuming we are talking about the toyo at iii, their offerings are so confusing. In the size I am interested in 285/70/17:

Size

SIZE2

UTQG

max load

MAX. INFLATION PRESSURE

TREAD DEPTH

TIRE WEIGHT

RIM WIDTH RANGE

MEAS. RIM WIDTH

SECT. WIDTH

TREAD WIDTH

OVERALL DIAM.

REVS. PER MILE

COUNTRY OF

P285/70R17 117T SL

P285/70R17

600 A B

2,833 lbs

44 psi

13.6/32"

47 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

9"

32.8"

634​

JP

LT285/70R17 121/118S E

LT285/70R17

None

3,195 lbs

80 psi

16.5/32"

55 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

9"

32.8"

634​

US

LT285/70R17 116/113Q C

LT285/70R17

None

2,755 lbs

50 psi

16.5/32"

54 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

9"

32.8"

634​

US

LT285/70R17 121/118S E

LT285/70R17

None

3,195 lbs

80 psi

16.5/32"

54 lbs

7.5-9.5"

8.5"

11.5"

8.8"

33"

630​

JP

Why is the bemoaned P Rated tire able to carry more than the LT-C?

Why are their two E-rated 1lb different? Why are the C and E equal weighted?

Does the P-rated offer more siping and more silica? Will this give me better snow performance?

The LT-C is 15% heavier than the P, is it about 15% more puncture resistant?

Edited to add: What about speed ratings for the above?
Speed Rating

• M = 81 mph
• N = 87 mph
• P = 93 mph
• Q = 99 mph
• R = 106 mph
• S = 112 mph
• T = 118 mph
• H = 130 mph
• V = 149 mph
• W = 168 mph
• Y = 186 mph
• (Y) = 195 mph

It would seem the C rated speed ceiling is pretty low, given real highway speeds. Thoughts?

According to toyo, the P rated tire has more silica. That's stated in their website as well as vendor websites. It also has more siping. This is easy to see when compared to C,D,E rated tires. The P rated tire has one more sipe per lug.

 

[gaijin]

The official recommendation is to run 'P' at one pressure, door card pressure. You might increase the rears a couple psi with towing, but there is very little adjustment available. The other issue with 'P' is that air down pressures will be severely limited. I believe Ronny Dahl's channel has this in video showing some P sidewalls aired down, might want to look at that.
Between those options I'd select the 116 C tire or the JP make 121 E.
Target load for a LC/LX is around 2200lb if I recall.

Seems we are straying a bit and building assumptions not based on facts.

The Load Limit spec required of tires is different for the LC and the LX - and also different for LT-Metric tires and P-Metric tires.

Load Limit required for a stock LC200:

P-Metric tires: 2,512 lbs
LT-Metric tires: 2,286 lbs

Load Limit required for a stock LX570:

P-Metric tires: 2,315 lbs
LT-Metric tires: 2,105 lbs

For the P285/70R17 tires in question, the RCTIP for the two platforms is as follows:

LC200: 26psi F/R (This is the Minimum safe inflation for these tires) and yields a Load Limit of 2,480lbs
LX570: 26psi F/R (This is the Minimum safe inflation for these tires) and yields a Load Limit of 2,480lbs

If you were to run these tires at the "door card pressure" of 33psi, they would be overinflated with a Load Limit of 2,774lbs

HTH

 

[Madtiger]

@TeCKis300

Oh no, a sidewall failure……on the inside near rim no less……lol

What size was the KO2 in that pic?

Why don’t you show a picture of Falken’s failed sidewall? Oh it’s ok…let me help you:

Paper thin? Check. Compare that to your picture. Which do you think can stand more abuse?

 

[grinchy]

that's what I get for dabbling in tire science. Still 2200 for an LX is right between 2315/2105 accidentally correct?

Everyone is driving an LX, right?

 

[Madtiger]

I have Yokohoma Geolander X-AT in LT275/70R18 E Load (33") and have been very happy with them. I was comfortable airing them down to 18-20 psi.

A bit more noisy than the Michelin A/T2 that I had run on them previously.

Now Geo X-AT is a monster. I must admit that. I do believe that they are tougher than KO2. It’s damn good tire. The only negative is that it is heavy from the over-construction.

 

[gaijin]

Even tho max load shows that…but C still can carry more weight than P-metric…there is some math that is beyond my knowledge….

@gaijin can explain it.

Thanks (I think) for inviting me into this...

Anywho, the basic misunderstanding here is the comparison of apples to oranges - or, in this case, P-Metric Load numbers with LT-Metric Load numbers.

If you want to compare the two, it is important to deal with equivalent terms.

In the case of a vehicle that has P-Metric tires as the OEM stock tire (as is the case with the LC200/LX570) then the Load Limit for the stock tires must be divided by 1.1 to find the equivalent LT-Metric Load Limit.

For example:

The Max Load for the P-Metric tires under discussion is 2,833lbs @ 44psi

The LT-Metric equivalent for that Load is 2,833 / 1.1 = 2,575lbs

So when compared to the Max Load for the LT285/70R17 116/113Q C tires of 2,755 @ 50psi, the LT-Metric C-Rated tire is actually capable of a higher Load than the P-Metric tire.

Clear as mud, right?

HTH

 

[TeCKis300]

Seems we are straying a bit and building assumptions not based on facts.

The Load Limit spec required of tires is different for the LC and the LX - and also different for LT-Metric tires and P-Metric tires.

Load Limit required for a stock LC200:

P-Metric tires: 2,512 lbs
LT-Metric tires: 2,286 lbs

Load Limit required for a stock LX570:

P-Metric tires: 2,315 lbs
LT-Metric tires: 2,105 lbs

For the P285/70R17 tires in question, the RCTIP for the two platforms is as follows:

LC200: 26psi F/R (This is the Minimum safe inflation for these tires) and yields a Load Limit of 2,480lbs
LX570: 26psi F/R (This is the Minimum safe inflation for these tires) and yields a Load Limit of 2,480lbs

If you were to run these tires at the "door card pressure" of 33psi, they would be overinflated with a Load Limit of 2,774lbs

HTH

Sorry buddy. To recommend 26PSI for a tire is an absolute fail and is going to get someone hurt.

Tire pressures are not singularly designed around load limits. We see that in the the LC vs LX as they are sister vehicles, with the LX weighing ~300lbs more.

26PSI in a high profile tire P285/70R17 will lead to flacid handling. Worse, in maneuver like a moose test, may just have the vehicle roll over when the sidewall don't provide adequate stability.

 

[Madtiger]

@TeCKis300

” will lead to flacid handling. Worse, in maneuver like a moose test, may just have the vehicle roll over when the sidewall don't provide adequate stability.”



That would be AHC fault…not tire. LOL

Just (half) kidding….

 

[gaijin]

Sorry buddy. To recommend 26PSI for a tire is an absolute fail and is going to get someone hurt.

Tire pressures are not singularly designed around load limits. We see that in the the LC vs LX as they are sister vehicles, with the LX weighing ~300lbs more.

26PSI in a high profile tire P285/70R17 will lead to flacid handling. Worse, in maneuver like a moose test, may just have the vehicle roll over when the sidewall don't provide adequate stability.

I'm not your "buddy." And I have long given up trying to explain the science to you as you have doggedly clung to your "feelings" no matter how much the science stacks up against you.

I'm surprised it took you so long to post your "cancel culture" post - look forward to your next one (just kidding) which I will not respond to.

 

[AnyMal]

Geeeeeeez guys.

There is so much bull**** here its mind blowing. Its not even fun anymore. Not even for me.

To answer one question definitively though the P Toyo A/T 3 has more siping than its LT C counterpart. See my old direct comparison photo. I don’t remember if it was posted here or not but i know it was in another argument. Lol.

As far as my opinion on it yes Ps were grippier by my estimation. Not gripper enough to make me consider a P over LT for the wet though. Ice and snow is another story and ill let those with more experience in those climates speak but we all know a winter setup is practically mandatory in those situations.

 

[karprive]

Assuming we are talking about the toyo at iii, their offerings are so confusing. In the size I am interested in 285/70/17:

Why are their two E-rated 1lb different?

Yes, looking at that size as well and am still a bit confused by the different spec.

Regarding the two E-rated tires, I think one has the White Lettering on the outside, while the other doesn't. I read another post that talked about how they are manufactured differently.

 

[DadWagon]

So, is there a consensus on this?

I've basically been considering the 3 tires listed in this survey because most of my research is from posts in this forum. I had KOs on my 2010 FJ and really liked them, so automatically thought KO2s for my LC200, but got scared off by the many comments about it being horrible in wet conditions, old design, noise, etc. I feel like I see the most varied responses for the KO2s on this forum.

So, I then figured the Toyo AT3s or the Falken AT3Ws are the ones to get...but, crossed off the Falkens after reading about the compound change (no clue if this is true) and their use of lower quality materials...which made the Toyos the only remaining contender, but then I see some YouTube video from TireRack saying that it isn't very good in wet conditions and came in last in their comparison test...

I'm currently at the point of having to reconsider all these brands again as well as throwing in some other names like Coopers, Nittos, Generals, and now maybe even the Yokohamas and Michelins...

Help? My use case is that my LC is a daily driver. It's completely stock now, but will see less mall parking lots after getting new tires and maybe a suspension kit (which has also been driving me crazy with all the different comments and limited availabilities).

One more question...do most prefer Load E ? Tire shops are trying to get me to buy P-metric or C...not sure if this is because these versions are actually preferred or because Load E is out of stock. I'm leaning towards E, so please tell me if I'm wrong here. I think my FJ Trail Teams came with stock KOs that were Load E, so figured I'd stick with E.

Thanks in advance.

Consensus on AT tires, LOL that was a good one man. As the thread starter I can share a little about where my head is at, hopefully it's helpful as we seem to have similar intended uses.

I believe I've landed on the Wildpeaks and here is why.... This is my daily and I won't be using it for heavy or technical off roading, likely it will be most commonly used off pavement accessing hunting areas, gravel and fire roads to access fly fishing areas and some mild stuff like Old NC 105 for some sightseeing and camping. For this I do not need the toughest tire out there, I do want the best looking while still being quiet tire that performs adequately in a lot of rain, I'm in NC and we get our fair share. I don't drive aggressively though, I view this as a giant and heavyish SUV not a sports coupe so I don't take corners hard in the rain (or anytime for that matter) so as long as I'm not hydroplaining down the road I'll be perfectly happy with the wet performance I think. After doing a lot of reading on Mud, Reddit, Discount, Tire Rack, random tire review blogs and a bunch of youtube videos my assessment is that the Wildpeaks may balance out and be a little more quiet than the other two tires I'm considering. So that is where I am leaning, have a couple weeks til my spacers deliver to make the final decision, so this could all change tomorrow.

All of that said if Mich LTX AT2 was available in my desired size I'd probably pull the trigger on those but I can't do it with the Defenders, they just look too tame IMO.

 

[Madtiger]

KO2 bad in snow and ice you say? NOT!

forum.ih8mud.com

KO2 is AMAZING in snow and ice.

Drops mic….

 

[AUswimmer]

I think the cats been out of the bag for awhile that the Wildpeak's can stand on and above in its merits. They introduced the tire as the small guy, having to stand on price, and fortunately solid merits to gain market share. New small guy brand to the states, but really a branch of heavyweight Sumitomo Rubber Industries (which owns Dunlop) that's been a long standing Japanese company. With factories through Asia, but strong ties in Thailand which is the largest exporter of natural rubber. Little known but the Wildpeaks went through 3 iterations, benching against leading tires, AT1 and AT2 within a short span of time, finally landing on AT3Ws. Which multiple tire insiders with first hand data knowledge, said new technology allowed them to create a tire that performed above the then competition. "W" standing for wear, winter, and wet so you know it designed to perform in those highlight areas.

That was back in ~2017. I still hold AT3Ws in high regard given my time with them and would buy them again. Having the deepest tread in the competitive set is a big thing for long term performance IMO.

I have Toyo AT3s now. I consider them a milder tire than AT3Ws. Not that it's a bad thing, and they have been excellent all around, including the torrential rain I just drove through this morning. Toyos are like the mild mannered overacheiver, buy and forget, and always performing tire. Wildpeaks have much of the same livability characteristics but with edgier capability. Joe Bacal, a professional tire tester involved in the Toyo AT3 development, commented that the Toyo and Falkens went toe to toe trading places 1-3 in almost all metrics. Interestingly, he was especially flattering to the Falkens in his commentary, even when working for Toyo.

That’s where I came out. Went P rated because of the addition traction snow/wet and have been pleased. 10k miles and one 12 inch snow. I would have gotten any of the three listed here if the AT3 had been out of stock.

 

[AnyMal]

That’s where I came out. Went P rated because of the addition traction snow/wet and have been pleased. 10k miles and one 12 inch snow. I would have gotten any of the three listed here if the AT3 had been out of stock.

Not to stir things up specially not with teck but AT3W being more aggressive than A/T 3 is a figment of the imagination.

My next tire will be either a ridge grappler or KO3 BTW if anyone was wondering. Im going upstream and up in size when we have our second daily EV as the LX has no business being a daily for 1/2 people in my household.