In looking at C's vs E's for my 100 with 18's, you get an extra ply or 2 in the sidewall and about 4 more plys in the tread area and get about 3/32" more tread depth in the E rated tires. In terms of toughness and longevity, an E rated tire is superior to a C. Yes, they ride a little bit harsher, but the ride is still sufficiently plush for me.
E Rated Tires
- Thread starter VWEeplusa
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
joseywales
Renaissance Redneck
At the end of the day, tires are just about the most divisive thing you can buy for a truck. Some people have fully gone for the Kool Aid of brand X over someone else’s brand Y. I hear people constantly lauding the Falken ATs. I had a set on my Sequoia that the PO had installed. I was excited to try them out as I had heard such great things. In my experience, they are great on the pavement, great on dry dirt, but absolutely unsafe in snow (send the hate mail now). Where I live has pretty unique snow conditions though, and after two winters of having difficulty making it up even the slightest grade with more than a 1/2” of snow on it, I ditched them. My neighbor bought a set of the Falkens for his F350 and a set for his kids Tacoma. 2 weeks later, he bought new dedicated snow tires for both after his F350 swapped ends twice (2 different drivers on 2 different days). I will never drive a vehicle again with Falken ATs on it in winter. Again, our snow is weird as we are on the far western slopes of the Rockies in a valley with one of the warmest bodies of water in North America. The snow falls like regular Rockies dry and fluffy, but the warm moist air from the lake makes it turn extra greasy when it’s on the ground. I ran snowcats and plows for decades in various western climates, and I’ve never seen snow like this.
My point is, buy what works for YOU. I know I’m not going to convince YOU that Falkens are s***, but in my experience, they are. Likewise, you aren’t going to convince ME that Falken ATs are great in the snow, or that a C load range tire is going to survive stuff that an E rated tire can. There are always the fluke rock or road hazard cuts that will kill even the toughest tire, but you lessen that risk by buying the “right” tire.
My point is, buy what works for YOU. I know I’m not going to convince YOU that Falkens are s***, but in my experience, they are. Likewise, you aren’t going to convince ME that Falken ATs are great in the snow, or that a C load range tire is going to survive stuff that an E rated tire can. There are always the fluke rock or road hazard cuts that will kill even the toughest tire, but you lessen that risk by buying the “right” tire.
joseywales
Renaissance Redneck
Dead horse is 11 hours from Fairbanks if all goes well but that shouldn’t be an issue unless you’re really unlucky. Pick a good, tough tire and you should be fine with one spare. I’d still take plugs and a compressor along, but those things live in my rigs 24/7 anyway. I’d rather stick a plug (or 3) in a tire than wrestle the spare out from under a truck any day. In my experience, punctures don’t happen at 10 am on a sunny and 70* day on pavement. They happen at 10:00 at night when you’re trying to find that camp spot on BLM land with the camper on the truck, boat on the trailer behind and an unhappy wife in the passenger seat.
hoser
SILVER Star
Okay, can you explain why a C-load (6 ply rated) tire has the same puncture resistance as a E-load (10 ply rated) tire? Are we talking tread, sidewall or both?
Falkens AT3Ws are indeed crappy in the snow - and even worse in the mud - at street pressures. I about got my rig stuck in both and was super disappointed in their performance. And I don't quite understand how they got the snowflake rating on them. Our Subaru was quite a bit better than my GX is in the snow, when both were at street pressures.
Aired down, the AT3Ws are a totally different animal. Very good snow and mud performance.
Airing down for deep snow probably isn't feasible if you live in a an area where it snows a bit. But, I have found the AT4W is quite a bit better than the AT3W in the winter. On Monday I pulled a Chevy 2500 van with a tandem-axle trailer up a ice-covered driveway without airing down. Compound/treat pattern change must have helped.
joseywales
Renaissance Redneck
Mine were indeed the AT3W, and my bald 35” Toyo AT2s with literally 1/8” of tread were significantly better in snow! It usually snows a lot here, but we have none at the moment, and I couldn’t be happier!
We got 6" of snow for the first time in a decade last week. I broke out my compact diesel 4x4 tractor (new-ish toy) to plow the driveway. And promptly got near-stuck in my back yard - with both 40" rear tires spinning and the diff locked. My wife's Highlander did better than the 4x4 tractor. Funny as the tractor is a total mountain goat in dry conditions and in the mud - up and down steep slopes, driving over logs, etc, with no problem. Yet snow almost stopped it.
It has non-grooved R4 industrial tires without siping. I bought a tire groover and will be grooving the crap out of them for next time it snows.
Amazing how big of a different tires make.
joseywales
Renaissance Redneck
I run chains on my tractor 
In most practical scenarios? Both. They dont flex. I've had more sidewall tears on E rated ties than on anything else. I contribute it to lack of flex which equates to lack of traction. It usually happened when I had to spin the wheels to get over objects. You have to push them harder to do the same job.
'But I can deflate an E rated tire' yeah you can... and on a rig this size you'll have less flex at 10 PSI that an equivalent C does at 20 psi.
Any way you slice it the increased wear and tear on your suspension due to improperly sized (too stiff) tires, will cost you FAR more over time.
Lack of flex is totally relevant to the snow traction convo as well. Too stiff = s*** snow traction. My last set of AT3Ws were awesome in the snow.
No one has even mentioned washboard roads... absolutely awful on E's. Night and day going to C.
I've had a lot of rigs and a lot of tires, there is no scenario that is worth the compromises of going to an e rated tire unless your GVWR calls for it.
Last edited:
hoser
SILVER Star
I'm not an advocate of using Load E on the 100/250 but that is often what is available. The added flex and traction of the Load C are worthwhile to me. I see where you are coming from on puncture resistance but I wouldn't make that blanket statement. If somebody was asking for the most puncture resistant tire to travel hundreds of miles through Death Valley or Baja, I believe the higher load tire would be better suited. A Michelin XZL military tire has no flex at all but would be more puncture resistant than a Load C/E tire.
Last edited:
Well I did say 'in most practical scenarios'
FWIW - I switched recently from P SL rated Michelin Defender to a new set of E rated Michelin Defenders on my Tundra. The LT version is notably worse on snow and ice. I was surprised. A big part of it is probably the extra 10-15psi required for the LT tire vs the P rated. Ride quality is about the same - probably largely due to the extra sidewall of a 34.5" tire vs the OEM 32" tire height.
I wish there were more larger options in SL or C rating in larger sizes. It seems like anything approaching the 34 or 35" height defaults to E rated now - classic rule of the intolerant minority: if they make an E rated tire it can be used by the F350 and the Tacoma, but an SL tire in the same size can only be used by the Tacoma so the mfg will only make the E rated and force everyone to use it.
One interesting thing that really changed my understanding of winter tire performance was a Michelin demonstration that shows that it's the rubber, not the tread patter than matters most for winter tires.
I wish there were more larger options in SL or C rating in larger sizes. It seems like anything approaching the 34 or 35" height defaults to E rated now - classic rule of the intolerant minority: if they make an E rated tire it can be used by the F350 and the Tacoma, but an SL tire in the same size can only be used by the Tacoma so the mfg will only make the E rated and force everyone to use it.
One interesting thing that really changed my understanding of winter tire performance was a Michelin demonstration that shows that it's the rubber, not the tread patter than matters most for winter tires.
hoser
SILVER Star
Your blanket statement was: "And contrary to popular belief, E rated tires are not any tougher in a 'puncture' flat situation."Well I did say 'in most practical scenarios'
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Threads
- 168
- Messages
- 5,359
- Location
- Durango, Colorado
- Website
- www.durangomagazine.com
Well I don't think the average consumer could really understand the difference nor do I think the average tire sales person could explain it.
They aren't, in any practical scenario.
hoser
SILVER Star
@Poop Bubbles I named a couple earlier.... Death Valley or Baja. Hundreds of thousands of people travel there every year. Lots of flat tires. Grip is not usually an issue.
It's a very practical scenario. Popular belief is a higher load tire will be less prone to flats. I'm going with popular belief here.
It's a very practical scenario. Popular belief is a higher load tire will be less prone to flats. I'm going with popular belief here.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Threads
- 168
- Messages
- 5,359
- Location
- Durango, Colorado
- Website
- www.durangomagazine.com
The reality for us right now is that if you want an SL tire plan on running the stock size. You want a larger tire it’s going to be E rated in all likely hood. (Yes a few exceptions exist mostly for 17” wheels)
I agree and will add while load range "E" tires have very strong 10-ply (if I am not mistaken) sidewalls, they suck at deforming and grabbing when aired down. I run BFG Mud-Terrain T/A KM3 33" E's on my Xterra simply because they were the only available tires in that pizza cutter size (255 85 16); they perform well and resist slashes and punctures quite well, however, when airing down to 10-psi or lower you can barely see any sidewall flex.
One might say "what's the problem?" and my answer is: when running SL, XL, "C" range, the tires actually deform in a positive way. I am not solely referring to contact patch (fore-aft), but to the tires grabbing around rocks, roots etc. Seems counterintuitive, however, I think the more pliable deformation works better for the tough trails I do at Uwharrie when facing mud, rocks, roots, steep inclines and declines.
I do see the benefit of "E" range for "overloading" or driving on unimproved roads in the wilderness and camping due to the robust tire construction.
Look at the downsides of load range "E":
-not engineered for your light duty vehicle in most cases (excluding HD trucks and SUV's)
-very heavy (more mass to twist and harder on your back for wheel changes)
-significantly more expensive
-not the best choice for maximum traction in mixed off roading involving rock crawling/climbing
-harsher ride
-availability when traveling (referring to replacements as I have had issues with niche sizes in the past)
I guess it depends on individual use case. I have run them at least 3 times on SUV's mainly because of the sizes I was hunting. I have lost tires off trail on the road trips out west (highway) due to sidewall failure from puncture; so I see the draw to an overbuilt sidewall. I still believe for my uses the OEM SL, XL, or "C" range would be the best tires to use.
There’s been a little work in the A/T SL/XL range tires recently. For Rivian’s, nitto and Goodyear released 275/60 and 275/65r20 models in the SL/XL load range. Both companies have also released SL range in the Nitto G3 and wrangler territory M/T.
joseywales
Renaissance Redneck
If this is your off road use plan, may I asked why you bought the Overtrail +??? Seems counterintuitive. Wouldn’t a more street or luxury trim level make more sense?
