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

[DenverLX]

I get WAY less mpg than you and I just don't see how changing AT tires will possibly give you more mpg than stock, but I guess you can dream. It seems you might be over thinking this. I buy tires based on looks first and snow traction. These trucks get s***ty mpg and range, so I save myself the disappointment and don't even think about that.

 

[Itsky]

I get WAY less mpg than you and I just don't see how changing AT tires will possibly give you more mpg than stock, but I guess you can dream. It seems you might be over thinking this. I buy tires based on looks first and snow traction. These trucks get s***ty mpg and range, so I save myself the disappointment and don't even think about that.

No denial here, I am definitely overthinking it.

On stock tires, which I didn't keep long, my range was awesome (in comparison to now), so I know there is room for improvement.

<wayne voice> The range will be mine, oh yes, it will be mine.

 

[Madtiger]

No denial here, I am definitely overthinking it.

On stock tires, which I didn't keep long, my range was awesome (in comparison to now), so I know there is room for improvement.

<wayne voice> The range will be mine, oh yes, it will be mine.

Defender…..looks horrible (bland as heck) but it seems to fit your bill perfectly…LT, 50 lbs, good on all roads/weather, half decent off-road, tough. Everyone will think your LC as a mall-crawler. Perfect.

To a smaller scale, i am also in similar boat with my stock LC….whether to continue with KO2 in stock size (load range D) or go to Defender XL.

 

[Sandroad]

The Michelin Defender will handle everything in your use case with no drama. Your uses sound somewhat similar to what I do, other than the LC is not my DD. Get 5 of the LT version and enjoy the ride. I can't guarantee anything about MPG, but if you are looking for an improvement there for greater range, simply slow down. I have a graph somewhere I did with my LC showing that MPG decreases in a non-linear manner with speed, the faster you go, the more quickly MPG decreases. Darn wind.

 

[Itsky]

Top contenders right now:
- Michelin defender LTX (lt e 50 lbs)
- Michelin LTX a/t2 (lt e 53 lbs)
- BFG AT KO2 (lt c 51 lbs)

Can’t pull the trigger though.

 

[Madtiger]

Top contenders right now:
- Michelin defender LTX (lt e 50 lbs)
- Michelin LTX a/t2 (lt e 53 lbs)
- BFG AT KO2 (lt c 51 lbs)

Can’t pull the trigger though.

Do NOT get Michelin AT2. It is not good in rain…minimal siping. I had it on my 4runner over a decade ago. Noisy too. And Michelin Defender is indeed tougher than AT2 from my conversation with Michelin rep.

Now b/w KO2 and Defender…….ha, that is my same dilemma!

 

[eatSleepWoof]

For what it's worth, I've ran Falken AT3W , 275/60/20 (33"), p-metric, for about two years. No complaints whatsoever. Not as good as a quality winter tire on packed snow/snow-covered highway, but still quite good. Easily handles everything I've thrown at them. I did have one flat when I picked up a 3" bolt, but I'm quite certain that same bolt would have penetrated literally any other tire, regardless of its advertised load rating. Would buy these tires again in a heartbeat.

 

[Itsky]

For what it's worth, I've ran Falken AT3W , 275/60/20 (33"), p-metric, for about two years. No complaints whatsoever. Not as good as a quality winter tire on packed snow/snow-covered highway, but still quite good. Easily handles everything I've thrown at them. I did have one flat when I picked up a 3" bolt, but I'm quite certain that same bolt would have penetrated literally any other tire, regardless of its advertised load rating. Would buy these tires again in a heartbeat.

By the spec sheet and the many good reviews here and like yours I was very interested. The P-rated Falken at3w is 51 lbs and has a high max PSI, which look good. I'm swayed by the many sources that warn against running a P-rated tire offroad or with a heavy 200 series. But man, I wonder is there really much difference in strength in a 51 lb tire like yours and a C-rated BFG of similar weight? This is a really tough choice. Thanks for the input.

 

[eatSleepWoof]

By the spec sheet and the many good reviews here and like yours I was very interested. The P-rated Falken at3w is 51 lbs and has a high max PSI, which look good. I'm swayed by the many sources that warn against running a P-rated tire offroad or with a heavy 200 series. But man, I wonder is there really much difference in strength in a 51 lb tire like yours and a C-rated BFG of similar weight? This is a really tough choice. Thanks for the input.

"Strength" is something that needs to be measured in a labaratory. The tires need to be subjected to the exact same forces for a real comparison. Impossible to do on the street, even with identical vehicles.

I run my Falkens at 32PSI on road, and 18PSI off-road (when I bother to air down); nowhere near max PSI.

Unfortunately all we see on the internet (my previous reply included) is subjective, butt-dyno opinions that offer little to no emperical proof, but many people take such comments as factual gospel.

As far as running p-metric tires off-road on a heavy vehicle... talk against this is largely from the "bro" crowd that need the biggest, heaviest, loudest everything to feel secure in their... whatever they're lacking. All you need to do is look at the vehicles being used for 100% off-road travels in places like Africa: how many of them are running E-rated, 40" monstrocities? None. They are all running street tires, and they see worse terrain on their daily commute than most of us will see all year. Cost and availability are factors, of course, but evidence clearly shows that it's quite possible to run non-LT tires off-road with good results.

And then consider the fact that these vehicles come with p-rated tires from the factory, while being built (and advertised!) for significant off-road use. If the tires were even marginally close to being a poor choice, they would not be on the vehicle to begin with. The stock tires may not have as much traction as we would like, but they are not likely to fail simply due to being p-rated.

I can't count the number of bros on 35" and larger tires that I've pulled out of local ditches while easily passing through the same obstacles without an issue. I similarly recall going up to Top of the World in Moab in my double cab, long-bed, TRD sport tacoma on 31" tires, 2.5" lift, no lockers or even spotters, while Jeep bros with $20k in aftermarket modifications were coming down and telling me I'd never make it. Very few of us actually need all the sh!t we convince ourselves to buy.

Now, if you are going to be rock crawling and mud bogging every weekend, by all means, set yourself up for success with an aggressive M/T. If you're aggressively off-roading every weekend, go ahead and fit 35's. But for those of us that see a dirt road once a month, and traverse a few cross ditches and ledges twice a year? Suggesting anything beyond an aggressive, road-oriented tire is simply ridiculous IMHO.

 

[Madtiger]

By the spec sheet and the many good reviews here and like yours I was very interested. The P-rated Falken at3w is 51 lbs and has a high max PSI, which look good. I'm swayed by the many sources that warn against running a P-rated tire offroad or with a heavy 200 series. But man, I wonder is there really much difference in strength in a 51 lb tire like yours and a C-rated BFG of similar weight? This is a really tough choice. Thanks for the input.

B/w p-metric at3w vs LTE Defender at same weight? Easy choice in my mind.

 

[grinchy]

I largely agree with @eatSleepWoof . I never got stuck on my aired down mild ATs. But I do feel like I'd really have to work to get stuck on aired down RTs. And they look boss to boot.

Aside from that, there is this puncture test on P vs LT:


And finally, P vs LT aired down:

See around the 5 min mark.

It's these later two points (not so much traction) where I think an LT is paying off.

 

[Pskhaat]

My review:

Perfect off-highway tire = LTX? What?

The off-highway tire debate is over, and I’m embarrassed. The winner has been anointed. Sans oil. The inevitable my-tire-is-better threads may now cease. Allow me to proclaim: I've found the tire and they are the prosaic LTXen. Or, rather the Michelin Defender LTX M/S as officially called...

expeditionportal.com

 

[eatSleepWoof]

@grinchy - that test (first video) is pretty decent, but still not “good enough” IMO because they are comparing not only three different load ratings, but three different tires. Even within the same load-rating group, tires vary drastically from brand to brand: different tread patterns, different amount of tread, different ply construction, different rubber compounds, etc. For example, compare the amount of tread on a new Falken AT3W and a new BFG KO2 in the same size and load rating - the Falken will have significantly more tread, which will absolutely affect puncture resistance.

What I’d love to see is the same test done with the same tires (ex. KO2 or Falken) in the same tire size, but different load ratings so that the load rating is the only difference. That’ll give us a perfectly clear picture of the real differences. And in an ideal world the test would be repeated with a bunch of different tire brands and models to show us consistent (?) results.

 

[Madtiger]

My review:

Perfect off-highway tire = LTX? What?

The off-highway tire debate is over, and I’m embarrassed. The winner has been anointed. Sans oil. The inevitable my-tire-is-better threads may now cease. Allow me to proclaim: I've found the tire and they are the prosaic LTXen. Or, rather the Michelin Defender LTX M/S as officially called...

expeditionportal.com

What size tire were you using during that review?

 

[Pskhaat]

What size tire were you using during that review?

295/70r18. I now run 275/70s.

 

[grinchy]

@grinchy - that test (first video) is pretty decent, but still not “good enough” IMO because they are comparing not only three different load ratings, but three different tires. Even within the same load-rating group, tires vary drastically from brand to brand: different tread patterns, different amount of tread, different ply construction, different rubber compounds, etc. For example, compare the amount of tread on a new Falken AT3W and a new BFG KO2 in the same size and load rating - the Falken will have significantly more tread, which will absolutely affect puncture resistance.

What I’d love to see is the same test done with the same tires (ex. KO2 or Falken) in the same tire size, but different load ratings so that the load rating is the only difference. That’ll give us a perfectly clear picture of the real differences. And in an ideal world the test would be repeated with a bunch of different tire brands and models to show us consistent (?) results.

Sure, the test is Cooper testing Cooper tires, they are getting publicity on all of it. It's a light, mid, and heavy carcass from their lines (P, AT, and RT) tires. The Discoverer has 2 ply, the Maxx is 3 or 4 ply (it turns up the rubber at the bead), but three ply in the tested area. I think the P is probably 2 thin plies or 1 ply. No info on that, and I'm not looking it up.

I agree it would be better to do a class test and see how they compare. I miss the old all tire comparos that would show up in a print mag every couple years.

An interesting new take, for example, is the Baja Boss SUV, which has the tread pattern of the new Baja Boss (aggressive AT/RT style), but on a p rated carcass. Mickey Thompson says : These new sizes of the Baja Boss A/T are a lighter-duty alternative to our LT metric offerings while still delivering a bold look, off-road traction and protection, with an improved ride.
The tire is weight competitive with the other light duties, 48 lb in a 285/70r17. And 116 Load might be perfect for a lot of users that don't air down much but want an aggressive tread option.

 

[mep1811]

The best way to get better mileage/range out of a 200 Series is an aux. 40 gallon Long Range America tank.

 

[TeCKis300]

My review:

Perfect off-highway tire = LTX? What?

The off-highway tire debate is over, and I’m embarrassed. The winner has been anointed. Sans oil. The inevitable my-tire-is-better threads may now cease. Allow me to proclaim: I've found the tire and they are the prosaic LTXen. Or, rather the Michelin Defender LTX M/S as officially called...

expeditionportal.com

Thanks for that review and I believe it wholeheartedly. Michelin is a top tier tire in so many circles. They did not earn that reputation by underperforming and underdelivering. Quite the opposite. Like old man strength, they've had a lifetime of experience and knowledge to teach the youngins a thing or two. Walk softly and carry big stick comes to mind.

Another thing that comes to mind with more aggressive R/T and M/T tires - they're really only incrementally better in mud and superslick terrain. But big voids maybe a bigger compromise than generally understood on most surfaces.

 

[grinchy]

Another thing that comes to mind with more aggressive R/T and M/T tires - they're really only incrementally better in mud and superslick terrain. But big voids maybe a bigger compromise than generally understood on most surfaces.

Yeah, none of us are really muddin'.

Don't discount that some M/T and R/T have soft compounds, which has on road advantages (except for treadwear).

 

[TeCKis300]

Yeah, none of us are really muddin'.

Don't discount that some M/T and R/T have soft compounds, which has on road advantages (except for treadwear).

I don't quite buy into them being softer compounds. Their tread life is compromised due more to bigger voids and less rubber. As they have to hold up to aggressive driving with large exposed treadblocks, they can only get so soft while maintaining good chip resistance.