Do-it-all 33" Tires for LC/LX - Data Analysis Version

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

Itsky

Itsky

Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Threads
24
Messages
799
Location
El Dorado Hills, CA
My 200 serves equal proportions daily driver, road tripper, ski resort shuttle and adventure mobile. The most challenging scenarios my tires see are:
-mountain driving in snow storms
and touring based camping trips such as:
-Mammoth Area/Coyote Flat, Alabama Hills, Death Valley, Joshua Tree
-Grand Canyon, Prescott, Sedona
-Calgary, Banff, Glacier, Yellowstone, Teton
when touring it's a ton of highway, but we like to take all back-roads short of 35" requiring rock crawling and mudding. We dispersed camp as much as possible.

For the past 50K miles, I've been running BFGOODRICH ALL-TERRAIN T/A KO2 - LT285/70R17 116/113Q C (51 lbs), doing a 5 tire rotation, most of my tires still have 5-6/32". They have done the deed, no flats, and I can pull decent highway mileage, usually 16 MPG. With a vertical bike rack, 4 mtbs, roof box, going 80+ MPH, it will drop to 14-15 MPG. I'm pretty happy with the ride characteristics at 38-40 PSI (but I don't know what I'm missing). My LC has an OME lift and SPC control arms, rock warrior wheels and no armor.

I am content with these BFG perceived and demonstrated toughness on this LC and my previous 4runner over the 100k miles. But, I read this forum, am aware of more recently released A/T tires, and I am not content with the LCs range and MPG. I'm greedy for more range. I would like a bit better smoothness, snow performance, and road handling.

I pulled the following data from TireRack.com on tire specs for 285/70/17 options that I am considering. It's currently 21 items that fit into three groups:

TireGroups.PNG


  • LT C which has a load rating of 2,755 - I usually run 38-40 PSI
  • LT E which has a load rating of 3,195 - I think these would also be 38-40 psi
  • P Rated which has a load rating of 2,833 - I estimate these would be run at 33-36 psi?

Below is the data for each tire on my list, some are front runners, others are wild cards:

TiresData.PNG


Spoken on this forum as gospel is that LT is "tougher" than P-rated and P-rated has no business off road. But the above data has me wondering if that is really so. The LT C group has the lowest max load of 2,755 and their speed rating is mostly Q (99 mph), compared to P rated which is 2,833 and T (118 MPH). Additionally, the Max PSI for LT C is 50, and a couple P-rated (Geolanders, Wildpeaks) beat that out with a 51 max PSI. It would seem by looking at this data, that the P-rated is tougher on the road side of the equation, while the LT C is tougher on the aired-down off-road side of the equation (inferred by the additional weight). Another consideration are compound and construction differences which can't be studied in the above data, but I have read here that the P-rated versions of many of the A/T above have more siping and better snow performing (due to more silica for example).

I have some preliminary conclusions, but I would love input.

If you were me, looking at 285/70/17 tires for my use case, prioritizing:
  • equal or better MPG and road handling to my current BFGOODRICH ALL-TERRAIN T/A KO2 - LT285/70R17 116/113Q C (51 lbs)
  • equal or better snow & rain performance
  • really want to add 30-60 miles range (which is currently at ~320 miles per 20 gallons)
  • Can stand a bit less off road worthiness to the BFG AT KO
What would you go with and why? Is the data above deceiving in some way? Is there anything I am missing?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Some great data but really tough questions in there! Haven't quite looked at it from the angle of efficiency as that's usually further down most peoples list. Until realty hits. I tend to use my car a lot like how you do, and compromised range is a big PITA. There's always someone in the group with the shortest range, that is usually the most built up and heaviest of us. We love to give him a hard time as 190miles range can be hard to plan around.

30-60 miles more range is a big ask. Assuming 20 usable gallons on average, it's asking for a rather large 1.5-3 more gallons per mile. From your data, looks like you're getting actually pretty strong MPG at 16MPG, and 14-15MPG loaded? Perhaps doable but may have to go pretty conservative on tires.

I'd guess that your current KO2s might be doing as good as most aggressive ATs possibly can. As they are worn with lower profile tread blocks, potentially harder rubber at the base of the tread blocks, lending more efficiency than a new tire of the same model.

I would lean heavily towards a mild AT tire that focuses on efficiency as your biggest bogey, and I think you're headed in the right direction. Perhaps something that mimics more a highway tread tires.

My first impression would be to take a look at Micheline Defender LTX tires. They advertise strong efficiency, wet, and snow capabilities as headline features. Whether P-metric or LT, for me personally, I'd probably opt for LTs, but Ps may do the job better given your priorities. IMO, static weight has relatively little to do with overall efficiency.
 
Easy!! Michelin Defender LT-E. 50 lbs per tire. Behind KO2, it probably has the strongest carcass of the other tires on your list. Great MPGs. Quiet. And did i say 50 lbs?! In LTE, it just 2-3 lbs more than your P-metrics above!
 
A newcomer to the block is the Nokian Outpost AT. On paper it sounds like a good fit for your needs and comes in 285/70r17 (both LT and P sizes). Has a lot going for it and being 3 peak rated should do well in the snow. Just not a lot of user reviews out yet.

Nokian Tyres Outpost AT - EXTEND YOUR ADVENTURE / Nokian Tires

The NOKIAN TYRES Outpost AT offers supreme traction in all conditions, extreme durability and puncture resistance, and increased service life so drivers can extend their terrain, toughness and travel.
www.nokiantires.com www.nokiantires.com
 
TeCKis300 said:
Some great data but really tough questions in there! Haven't quite looked at it from the angle of efficiency as that's usually further down most peoples list. Until realty hits. I tend to use my car a lot like how you do, and compromised range is a big PITA. There's always someone in the group with the shortest range, that is usually the most built up and heaviest of us. We love to give him a hard time as 190miles range can be hard to plan around.

30-60 miles more range is a big ask. Assuming 20 usable gallons on average, it's asking for a rather large 1.5-3 more gallons per mile. From your data, looks like you're getting actually pretty strong MPG at 16MPG, and 14-15MPG loaded? Perhaps doable but may have to go pretty conservative on tires.

I'd guess that your current KO2s might be doing as good as most aggressive ATs possibly can. As they are worn with lower profile tread blocks, potentially harder rubber at the base of the tread blocks, lending more efficiency than a new tire of the same model.

I would lean heavily towards a mild AT tire that focuses on efficiency as your biggest bogey, and I think you're headed in the right direction. Perhaps something that mimics more a highway tread tires.

My first impression would be to take a look at Micheline Defender LTX tires. They advertise strong efficiency, wet, and snow capabilities as headline features. Whether P-metric or LT, for me personally, I'd probably opt for LTs, but Ps may do the job better given your priorities. IMO, static weight has relatively little to do with overall efficiency.
Click to expand...

I know 30-60 miles is a big ask, but I'm thinking 30-45 is realistic - one can dream! In a month we are heading to the PNW for a tour and will likely put on 3k miles so I'm motivated!

Yes, 15-16 mpg is what I am currently seeing, here are my results from my trip a few weeks ago to Park City UT from Sacramento:
(family of 4 with ski gear, drawers, no bikes, 91 octane, new brakes, pcv valve)

- 2/21/22, M: 265.965, G: 17.89, MPG: 14.87 (Sac to elko, over Donner summit in absolute blizzard in the middle of the night)
- 2/21/22, M: 173.25, G: 10.8, MPG: 16.04 (elko nv - Utah 80+ mph)
- 2/23/22, M: 308.175, G: 19.9, MPG: 15.49 (Up to park city and tooling around)
- 2/25/22, M: 278.25, G: 18.6, MPG: 14.96 (somewhere in Utah to Elko Nv 80+ MPH)
- 2/25/22, M: 297.36, G: 18.1, MPG: 16.43 (Elko to reno 80 mph)
- 3/1/22, M: 152.46, G: 7.99, MPG: 19.08 (reno to home, most downhill, but uphill reflected above)

I agree the KO2s are pretty good for MPG, it actually used to be a bit better when they were new.

I like your inclination for the Michelins, it's high on my list, but can it off-road at all? I might have to try it.

Thanks for the reply and input!
 
Madtiger said:
Easy!! Michelin Defender LT-E. 50 lbs per tire. Behind KO2, it probably has the strongest carcass of the other tires on your list. Great MPGs. Quiet. And did i say 50 lbs?! In LTE, it just 2-3 lbs more than your P-metrics above!
Click to expand...
Can't argue with this analysis! It's up there on my list, I'm apprehensive about it's durabilty aired down and the load - e, will it ride like too firm?
 
TLC2013 said:
A newcomer to the block is the Nokian Outpost AT. On paper it sounds like a good fit for your needs and comes in 285/70r17 (both LT and P sizes). Has a lot going for it and being 3 peak rated should do well in the snow. Just not a lot of user reviews out yet.

Nokian Tyres Outpost AT - EXTEND YOUR ADVENTURE / Nokian Tires

The NOKIAN TYRES Outpost AT offers supreme traction in all conditions, extreme durability and puncture resistance, and increased service life so drivers can extend their terrain, toughness and travel.
www.nokiantires.com www.nokiantires.com
Click to expand...
Interesting! doesn't look like they are available though and not a lot of specs on their site, do you know if this time is available yet? thx!
 
Forgot to mention but the rooftop box probably is a larger factor in efficiency than it would seem. A well-known hack is to reverse mount cargo boxes as oddly enough most hypermillers have found is more aerodynamically efficient in this orientation.
 
Itsky said:
Interesting! doesn't look like they are available though and not a lot of specs on their site, do you know if this time is available yet? thx!
Click to expand...
Looks like simple tire has them in stock. They distribute tires to local shops for the installation.



Also could try Walmart or discount tire (America’s tires) as they also carry the Nokian brand.

I have a set of the Nokian ONE HT in Lt275/70r18 and get about 2-3 mps better with them then the same size Kenda Klever RTs when on the highway. I generally average 14-15.5 mpgs on the highway with the RTs and have seen as high at 17.8 mpgs with the Nokians.
 
I get same mpg AT and RT, in nearly the same size (0.5" difference). Knowing that, I prefer RT in a lower load (like 121).
 
Itsky said:
@grinchy what do you mean by "I prefer RT in a lower load (like 121)"?

I'm not following as Load 121 is the highest load. thanks!
Click to expand...
As tire sizes go up, so does the load rating. For E, 35" non flotation it caps around 129 load. Some other large/wide sizes the same.
I imagine 285/70r17 are most all 121, as you say.

I like the 'soft' load 121 D I run now, but I have also run 125 and 129. They all worked, but the 121 works best for what I'm doing/like.
 
Another option not on your list, the new Baja Boss A/T SUV, which has a 48lb 116 load 285/70r17 size.
 
Maybe there is a 275/75/17 that will squeeze out slightly better mileage? Otherwise I think you’re approaching this in a great way 👍
 
Itsky said:
Spoken on this forum as gospel is that LT is "tougher" than P-rated and P-rated has no business off road. But the above data has me wondering if that is really so. The LT C group has the lowest max load of 2,755 and their speed rating is mostly Q (99 mph), compared to P rated which is 2,833 and T (118 MPH).
Click to expand...

I like where you are going with all this - nice compilation of data.

One note:

If you are evaluating based on published Load numbers, it is important to compare equivalent values; i.e. P-Metric Load values are not the same as LT-Metric Load numbers.

To make the numbers equivalent, it is your choice: either multiply the LT-Metric Load number by 1.1, or divide the P-Metric Load number by 1.1.

In the snip I took from your post above for example, if we make everything P-Metric equivalent Load numbers, then:

LT-C Max Load of 2,755 becomes (2755 x 1.1 = 3031) 3,031 P-Metric equivalent Max Load. This is higher than the 2,833 P-Metric Load you use as an example.

Conversely, if we make everything LT-Metric equivalent Load numbers, then:

P-Metric Max Load of 2,833 becomes (2833 / 1.1 = 2595) 2,595 LT-Metric equivalent Max Load. This is lower than the 2,755 LT-Metric Load used in your example.

So, bottom line, the examples you use show that LT-Metric has a higher Max Load than the P-Metric tires.

HTH
 
gaijin said:
I like where you are going with all this - nice compilation of data.

One note:

If you are evaluating based on published Load numbers, it is important to compare equivalent values; i.e. P-Metric Load values are not the same as LT-Metric Load numbers.

To make the numbers equivalent, it is your choice: either multiply the LT-Metric Load number by 1.1, or divide the P-Metric Load number by 1.1.

In the snip I took from your post above for example, if we make everything P-Metric equivalent Load numbers, then:

LT-C Max Load of 2,755 becomes (2755 x 1.1 = 3031) 3,031 P-Metric equivalent Max Load. This is higher than the 2,833 P-Metric Load you use as an example.

Conversely, if we make everything LT-Metric equivalent Load numbers, then:

P-Metric Max Load of 2,833 becomes (2833 / 1.1 = 2595) 2,595 LT-Metric equivalent Max Load. This is lower than the 2,755 LT-Metric Load used in your example.

So, bottom line, the examples you use show that LT-Metric has a higher Max Load than the P-Metric tires.

HTH
Click to expand...
I did not know that, good stuff! But wow is that confusing for the laymen!
 
With some additional consideration, and input from you all, I think I'm sticking with LT rating and ruling out the P-rated option. The Yokohama Geolander was my top choice in that group, but I'm sticking with a LT.
 
Itsky said:
With some additional consideration, and input from you all, I think I'm sticking with LT rating and ruling out the P-rated option. The Yokohama Geolander was my top choice in that group, but I'm sticking with a LT.
Click to expand...
Note that in the TireRack’s comparo, Yokohama G015 P-metric got the worst fuel economy in the group…worst than KO2! I cannot imagine that LT G015 (with its slightly more aggressive tread than P-metric) would fare better.


BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2
18.3​
819.7​
-3.3%​
Firestone Destination A/T2
18.9​
793.7​
--​
Hankook Dynapro AT2
18.6​
806.5​
-1.6%​
Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015
17.9​
838.0​
-5.6%​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SammyNicotine
Blackstone Oil Analysis at 278k Looks Good (?)
Replies
1
Views
274
ryanCA
ryanCA
R
LX to LC anything to watch out for
Replies
12
Views
977
grinchy
grinchy
FerrisBueller
  • Poll
Wide tires or pizza cutter tires?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
TeCKis300
TeCKis300
S
Performance Chip for LX 570?????
Replies
4
Views
549
eatSleepWoof
eatSleepWoof

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom