BFG Mud Terrain on wet pavement?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

MrZero

MrZero

10 Year 15 Year 20 Year
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Threads
61
Messages
396
Location
Austin, TX
trying to decide between BFG AT and BFG MT.....these will be daily driven, but I'm the kind of person that "over buys" for "just in case" situations. However, with my young son in the car if the MT's are no good on wet pavement, I won't take the risk. I've been driving AT's for years, but never MT's....


--JP
 
What do you mean by wet pavement?

Like here in CO, its arid, and if a rainstorm goes through the pavement is just wet and they are fine.

But if it's monsoon season and there is standing water, they do tend to hydroplane a little faster than an AT. They kind of paddle through the water it feels like, I dont know if siping would help or not because I think it's generated by the amount of void and the large lugs.

The MT is a far better all-terrain tire though than what the AT is.
 
After 6 sets of BFG MT's over the years I'd say that they are great for all terrain (wet pavement included). If you are worried at all get them siped.
Ive als had AT's, but honestly couldnt tell the difference in handling v. the MT's. With the little tomato in the back you might go ahead and get them siped in case it snows...siped MT's did shine over the AT's in snow.
2 cents

The AT is a street tyre. The MT is an all terrain tyre.
The new MT KM is a superior tyre to the previous generation BFG's, and are great on the road. Little/no road noise too.
 
You should be fine with either. If you were considering a high performance car then wet pavement would be an issue. I doubt the most FJ60s and 62 are pushed hard enough for wet pavement to be an issue. The last car I saw hyroplane was a Nissan 300Zx on Intersate 5 in central California doing about ninety in a rainstorm. he 360ed three times and went into the center grass strip. Somehow, I do not see a Land Cruiser doing this.
 
Guess i better be a little light on the gas with the new Vortec then!!! Sounds like I should grab the MTs then and possibly have them siped...
 
stinkyfj60 said:
What do you mean by wet pavement?

But if it's monsoon season and there is standing water, they do tend to hydroplane a little faster than an AT.

The MT is a far better all-terrain tire though than what the AT is.
Click to expand...

I will have to agree with this modified statement.

I also think the AT's last longer than the MT's. My only experience with this is on my own 5 or 6 vehicles.
 
The AT is a "Traction Rated" tire which means the "feds" or whoever rates these things have tested it. Traction Rated means in states where "traction Tires" or Chains are sometimes required in snow you can run the AT and not bother with chans..If you had the MT on and the police wanted to get technical with you..they could make you chain up the MT where you'd just drive by with the AT.

The AT Is "siped" from the factory..there by the "Traction Tire" rateing...I have MTs on my 60...in heavy rain (like you guys in Austin get) I'd way rather have the AT. MY MT's will slide around in in light rain. I'm switching to the ATs on my next change out. I have to drive 200+ miles to get to the desert areas I run in, then there is no mud. I'm tired of the road noise and slow speed "bumping" from the lugs on the MTs..but that is my choie for my situation,,both or great tires ..

If your gonna hit the trails down there over 50% of the time then MT hands down. If this is a daily driver with occasional trail runs...looks like the AT would still be your tire..

Read up on the "traction rated" deal..that should help you decide.
 
What road noise/rumble are you talkin' about? Heck, my LC seats make more rumbling road noise than the tyres do! (take that as you will)!;) The older MT's had road noise, but the newer MT KM's are significantly silent...
One big factor is mud. AT's do not like mud. Period. They gum up instantly whereas the MT's clean themselves nicely.:cheers:

Oh yeah, Ive gotten over 50k miles on the last 4 sets of MT's...and they werent bald by any stretch.
 
I found MT's really poor in heavy rain. They were noticeably worse when stopping particularly after a long period of dry followed by heavy rain. For DD use and occasional off road I think the AT's win hands down. Also, the MT's were much noisier than AT's particularly on the highway, and much harder to balance.
 
In my opinion/experience:

MT's are "all terrain" tires with a bias towards off-road use
AT's are "all terrain" tires with a bias towards on-road use (or sand)

Sounds to me like ATs are a better tire for what you describe in the first post, and most of what I've heard is that AT's outperform MT's in the rain. I would also expect AT's to get better mileage- both on the tire and the fuel and to make a little less noise.

At the end of the day: you mention that you have had AT's for a while, but never tried MT's.... do you find yourself in many situations where you've lost traction (off pavement)? If so, MT's will probably help in just about anything besides sand or pavement. If not, then ATs are probably a good choice.
 
I have MTs on the 100 and ATs on the 60. I drive the 100 far more than the 60. That being said, if it were my daily driver, I would recommend the ATs.
 
To add to the already mentioned opinions, I ran both on my truck, off-road, not including snow, the MT are great. In snow the AT performed better. On the road, I would have to lean towards the AT, longer life, better traction, granted in Vancouver it rains a lot and I still have not gotten the MT siped. The only reason I still have the MTs is that once I hit the trail I don't worry about traction.
 
Thanks for all the information and opinions guys. My eyeballs want the MT, but reality seems to be pointing to the AT's.....plus I can get 5 for the price of 4 MT's.....
 
AT's all the way for your proposed use. AT's outperform MT's in wet and snow conditions and provide more street friendly manners. If snow and/or rain is a factor in your use scenario, you will be better served with the AT.

For what it's worth, the AT's off-road just fine and can hold their own against the MT's for about 90% of the typical trail conditions encountered. The exception to this is mud: the AT's get slippery pretty quick and due to the reduced void between lugs, gum up and fail to self clean like an MT. Chains help reduce the traction problem but the exercise of chaining up can be a bit of an inconvenience. This is the only condition in which I wish I had MT's over the AT's otherwise they go everywhere the MT's do when it's dry.

If I didn't have to drive a good distance to get into the dirt and if my truck spent the majority of it's operating time off-road, then I'd probably run MT's. As it stands, I've been extremely pleased with the BFG AT/KO's and pleasantly surprised at their off-road prowess here in the rainy Pacific Northwest.

My 2¢,
-dogboy- '87 FJ60
 
Either way, you will not regret it!
 
DirtyLittleSecret said:
What road noise/rumble are you talkin' about? Heck, my LC seats make more rumbling road noise than the tyres do! (take that as you will)!;) The older MT's had road noise, but the newer MT KM's are significantly silent...
One big factor is mud. AT's do not like mud. Period. They gum up instantly whereas the MT's clean themselves nicely.:cheers:

Oh yeah, Ive gotten over 50k miles on the last 4 sets of MT's...and they werent bald by any stretch.
Click to expand...

Yeah mine are 6 years old so they are the old style..and yeah it's pretty noisey anyway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom