New 255 BFG KM2 Wagon Wheels
- Thread starter Flank
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Kind of all things relative here.
The very worn, still barely legal stock Michelins were really struggling with the added weight of the goodies added when the 255s finally went on. Their top psi is 32 lbs, so just getting some adequate tires underneath and setting them at 43 lb as recommended by the shop guy (ex-Army and seemed to know his way around tire use on off-road capable vehicles) helped a lot.
I went up to 50 psi when we took a week-long, fully loaded test trek with the 80 and M101. That worked well, didn't see enough dirt/challenges to bother with lowering pressure or getting a full idea of their capabilities, but highway performance of the tires was exceptional.
On return, I've dropped to 40 lbs around town to see what that's like. A little more cushy ride, but I'm now also noticing a little mpg drop -- but then it's turned cold, so this is all more perceptual rather than significant in my book. You can definitely feel the softer sidewall at 40 lbs, though, even compared to 43 psi. In any case, I plan on bumping the tires back up to 43 psi, just to say I did something about it.
If the 255s feel a little squirmier than you like, try bumping up the pressure a notch. You'll feel the difference and more air can't hurt mileage, either. The 255 is a nice tool because it is so easy to adjust its performance in this manner. Can't wait to see what it'll really do offroad when I do take the opportunity to air-down.
On another point, which I'll just mention briefly pending a fuller report, winter driving hit the flatlands here this week and I'm very happy with the KM2's performance so far. Again, not enough to give a full report, but in town through fresh snow, then pretty icy conditions of packed road cover over asphalt and brick(!), the KM2 is a definite improvement over previous gen BFG MTs.
Of course that was with 40 lbs in them. Maybe things will change with winter performance when I put 43 psi back in? We'll see. Rate me as a long-time user who is very satisfied with the improvements BFG applied to the KM2.
The very worn, still barely legal stock Michelins were really struggling with the added weight of the goodies added when the 255s finally went on. Their top psi is 32 lbs, so just getting some adequate tires underneath and setting them at 43 lb as recommended by the shop guy (ex-Army and seemed to know his way around tire use on off-road capable vehicles) helped a lot.
I went up to 50 psi when we took a week-long, fully loaded test trek with the 80 and M101. That worked well, didn't see enough dirt/challenges to bother with lowering pressure or getting a full idea of their capabilities, but highway performance of the tires was exceptional.
On return, I've dropped to 40 lbs around town to see what that's like. A little more cushy ride, but I'm now also noticing a little mpg drop -- but then it's turned cold, so this is all more perceptual rather than significant in my book. You can definitely feel the softer sidewall at 40 lbs, though, even compared to 43 psi. In any case, I plan on bumping the tires back up to 43 psi, just to say I did something about it.
If the 255s feel a little squirmier than you like, try bumping up the pressure a notch. You'll feel the difference and more air can't hurt mileage, either. The 255 is a nice tool because it is so easy to adjust its performance in this manner. Can't wait to see what it'll really do offroad when I do take the opportunity to air-down.
On another point, which I'll just mention briefly pending a fuller report, winter driving hit the flatlands here this week and I'm very happy with the KM2's performance so far. Again, not enough to give a full report, but in town through fresh snow, then pretty icy conditions of packed road cover over asphalt and brick(!), the KM2 is a definite improvement over previous gen BFG MTs.
Of course that was with 40 lbs in them. Maybe things will change with winter performance when I put 43 psi back in? We'll see. Rate me as a long-time user who is very satisfied with the improvements BFG applied to the KM2.
315/75r16/d km2
Ordered a set of KM2's 315/75R16.
They will be delivered to my door this afternoon
LandCrusher80
Ordered a set of KM2's 315/75R16.
They will be delivered to my door this afternoon
LandCrusher80
I keep eyeing the 255/85s for my cruiser, any real world MPG tracking of these vs an all terrain tire in 265 or 285 width?
Didn't you say max PSI was 80? They shouldn't wear unevenly at 45 or 50 then.
Flank
American by Birth, Texan by the grace of God.
- Thread starter
- #48
there will be recommended pressures for what kind of vehicle you are driving, i reckon. Discount recommended 40-45psi, the tire is E rated to 80psi. Heavier vehicles will be ok on treadwear for higher pressures, lighter may see some issues. I think an 80 would classify as the former. From what I understand, tire shops have a guide to figure this out.
I'll be tracking the wear and its pattern. I suspect that the 80 is plenty heavy enough that uneven wear in the middle shouldn't be a problem unless you like driving around with very stiff tires from over-inflation. Too soon to say, as the truck only has about 2,000 miles on it since install last spring.
I doubt that the KM2 gives away much in mpg to its AT cousins. Its tread has less overall void than the previous BFG MTs and it runs smoother and quieter than them. I think the tire pressure you use is going to make more of a difference than the tread pattern, etc differences as far as mpg is concerned.
I doubt that the KM2 gives away much in mpg to its AT cousins. Its tread has less overall void than the previous BFG MTs and it runs smoother and quieter than them. I think the tire pressure you use is going to make more of a difference than the tread pattern, etc differences as far as mpg is concerned.
sandcruiser
....back in the saddle again....
you should get better mileage on the 255 vs the 285. the weight is similar, but the 255 is a hair taller and should have less wind profile, and be tighter to the body.
also, the contact patch should be thinner and longer... thus more front-back and less sideways friction.
it's the reason bicycles have tall narrow tires vs. wide rollers.
also, the contact patch should be thinner and longer... thus more front-back and less sideways friction.
it's the reason bicycles have tall narrow tires vs. wide rollers.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Threads
- 41
- Messages
- 360
- Location
- Leucadia (San Diego)
- Website
- www.anzaborrego.net
That is what I am hoping.
Having my new BFG MT T/A KM2s installed on our 92 80 tomorrow. Going with 33 x 10.5 on the stock 15" rims
Love the look and the price was pretty close to the ATs
Surf,
I think you'll be a happy camper.
Also, x2 on what sandcruiser was saying, every little bit of energy conserved helps when pushing the 80 down the road.
I think you'll be a happy camper.
Also, x2 on what sandcruiser was saying, every little bit of energy conserved helps when pushing the 80 down the road.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Threads
- 41
- Messages
- 360
- Location
- Leucadia (San Diego)
- Website
- www.anzaborrego.net
Thanks.
Have had the Old Man Emu lift on for 6 months or so .. the old 31's just don't look quite right anymore
Bob
See, that is everything I was thinking too, plus it will be less work on the power steering, the only unknown was if the MT rubber compound was so much softer that it would take more gas to push them down the road. Though I have seen a few online reviews getting 40k+ miles on the KM2s, so they must not be too soft.
