New Falken A/T4W (2 Viewers)

[Madtiger]

So, let‘s talk specs @TeCKis300

I picked 285/65/18 because that is what lots of LC200 owners go for. BFG KO2 vs. AT4W.

BFG KO2: Load Range E. 15/32”. Overall Width 11.5. Diameter 32.5. Revs/mile = 639. Weight 57 lbs.

AT4W: Load Range E. 18/32”. Overall width 11.7. Diameter 32.6. Revs/mile = 642. Weight = 60.3 lbs.

So, yes, AT4W has deeper tread depth. AT4W is 3 lbs heavier. Diameter is about same…BUT, notice the revs/mile. At least while rolling, AT4W is actually the SMALLER tire!!

So, at least on paper, the KO2 is the better tire. Now, the AT4W may be amazing performer on-road / off-road, and quieter, etc…but specs wise, it is a little behind.

 

[mcgaskins]

I recently retired my set of Ridge Grapplers for the Falken RT01 in the same size, and so far I like them. They seem a little heavier, a little louder (different noise more of a constant low frequency hum which doesn't bother me at all), but they feel smoother and at least as good off road as the Ridge Grapplers. I tend to run tires pretty hard, and this RG below only had about 19k miles on it when replaced. It was actually the best one of the bunch which is why I wrote "spare" on it for Discount Tire. The Falken has a great treadwear warranty, and a friend of mine, Nena Barlow, swears the RT01 holds up really well over lots of abusive miles under heavy loads. She runs them on her Jeep and Ram, so her endorsement was as good as gold to me.

 

[Madtiger]

I will add KO3 since that is the next gen and likely competitor to AT4W. Size: 275/65/20 (for those LX owners maybe?)

KO3: Load Range E. 15/32”. Width 11.0. Diameter 34.1. Revs/mile = 610. Weight 63 lbs.

AT4W: Load Range E. 18/32”. Width 10.8. Diameter 34.1. Revs/mile = 611. Weight 65.3 lbs.

Same conclusion as above with the KO2…but size here whether static or moving are very similar despite AT4W being deeper in tread depth. KO3 is 2 lbs lighter in weight.

 

[linuxgod]

Maybe i missed it somewhere…but they have PDF you can download on the site…i don’t see any notation.

I don’t see it in their PDF. The PDF for the RT01 has it (blob:https://www.falkentire.com/3c3727fa-b1ab-4e78-a455-a4cb3cd8d077) so I assume the ATW4 PDF (blob:https://www.falkentire.com/926cf113-6656-4f20-bc0b-38d6227abe41) will get updated with the info at some point.

 

[Rednexus]

They all appear to be 1-2 pounds heavier than the AT3Ws were. I'm nearing 40K on my AT3Ws and they have been great tires....even at a SL rating they drive great on the highway, tow our camper well, and off-road well. Sidewall strength has been great; I've never yearned for a C or E rated tire as their SLs are really pretty tough. Was thinking about changing but will probably stick Falken since they've upgraded it. I'll be due for a new set in late summer most likely.

 

[eatSleepWoof]

Sounds like a great, new option. I hadn't seen the A/T Trail offering before, either.

I'm still running my P-rated AT3Ws (during the 3 non-snow seasons of the year) and am still very happy with them. They're starting to get worn down and will be due for a replacement in a year or two. I'll be sticking with P-rated options, that's for sure.

 

[Bomar]

I would also look Nokian Outpost
nAT and Milestar AT pro

Not to completely derail this Falken v KO

 

[TeCKis300]

More depth has not resulted in longer tread life…at least on AT3W. So this calls into question the rubber compound Falken is using.

Good point. I suspect part of Falken's strategy is using a relatively softer compound for better traction and cold/wet performance. So they need the added depth for treadwear. Depth also had advantages to puncture resistance and rain/traction performance over the life of the tire. To your point, part of that trade is weight.

I'll have to see how these characteristics play out based on reports from new adopters.

For the floatation sizes I use, I don't like what I see in the Falken A/T4Ws as they are Load Range F.

 

[tbisaacs]

Nena Barlow, swears the RT01

Love her YouTube channel!

 

[TimCFJ40]

For those interested, Tire Rack and Discount Tire are showing prices and availability of some sizes of the AT4W now online.

 

[LX4x4]

The sipes on this model look like barely 2/16" deep. Which will just wear off quickly.
Soon we will have people asking why they are sliding all over snowy conditions.

 

[Madtiger]

The sipes on this model look like barely 2/16" deep. Which will just wear off quickly.
Soon we will have people asking why they are sliding all over snowy conditions.

Oh my…you are right! Unlike Michelins, these sipes are NOT tread depth! WTF?!!! That is some major cost cutting crap!

 

[Madtiger]

Comparison with KO3

 

[TeCKis300]

The sipes on this model look like barely 2/16" deep. Which will just wear off quickly.
Soon we will have people asking why they are sliding all over snowy conditions.

From my experience with the A/T3Ws, the sipes were good over 35k miles. Winter and snow traction held up well in my annual trips to the mountains.

Falken says that the A/T4W will have full depth sipes:

The severe-snow-rated A/T4W was engineered to perform in harsh winter conditions, with full-depth sipes providing traction for the life of the tire. Offering up to a 65,000-mile Limited Tread Life Warranty (60,000-mile for LT sizes) and Road Hazard Protection, Falken’s best just got better.

 

[Rednexus]

My AT3Ws have a ton of siping left at 40K. If they depth is similar on the AT4W, they'll be fine.

 

[LX4x4]

Falken says that the A/T4W will have full depth sipes:

I think we need to see actual photo. That may be a bad rendering. The picture on the jeep look like they installed the tire at the trailhead.

 

[TeCKis300]

I think we need to see actual photo. That may be a bad rendering. The picture on the jeep look like they installed the tire at the trailhead.

A/T3Ws at the time I sold them with 35k miles. I have no reason to not believe the A/T4Ws are similar.

 

[40Man]

I got 55k miles from my Falken AT3Ws, with decent tread when I tossed them and siping was still there. Replaced with Toyo ATIIIs and they are wearing much faster. Falkens are surefooted in the snow and ice for an AT (have them on my FJ62, 4Runner and Tundra as well). The Toyos are not as good in snow, and are louder (I do 5kish mile rotations). Gas mileage a tiny bit better on the Toyos. I started running Nokian studded on my 200 as I drive a lot on rarely plowed roads in western MT and the Toyos were just ok.

Definitely going back to Falkens on my next set for my 200, best all around AT I have run. Hope the AT4 is even better.

 

[Dayhiker]

Forgive crappy photo, but you can see my Wildpeaks with 75k on them here.

 

[TeCKis300]

We should get another thread going with pics of tires at various mileages.

Here's my Toyo AT3s at 32k miles which on its own is pretty good. In contrast to my Falken A/T3Ws, seem to be wearing much faster. Then again, it started with what seemed to be much less tread depth.