New Shoes - Nokian Outpost nAT LT275/65r18 (2 Viewers)

[w4lks0ftly]

I've been on the hunt for some stronger tires ever since we started taking chunks out of the (otherwise excellent) P-metric Michelin Defender LTX M/S 275/60r18 that came fitted on Pearl. Clearly, the former owner had good taste but didn't primarily drive Colorado ex-mining roads. Running shoes are great until you start ripping them up on hard rock. When that happens, it's probably time to choose a hiking boot.

Use case:
-Roughly 50% off road driving by hours
-Regular drives from the high alpine in Leadville down to the Western Slope, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico
-Truck is very stock, and happily so

Goals:
-A single tire that can safely manage packed snow at 0°F in Leadville in the morning, wheel competently at 75°F in Utah in the afternoon, and not drown out child entertainment devices during a few hours of highway driving in between
-Must fit in the spare tire storage area without hitch interference while using a range of accessories
-Speed rating of R or higher in LT metric
-Weight 56 lbs or less
-Tread spec'd to resist cutting and chunking

Those parameters felt like threading a pretty tight needle. Toyo AT3 has too low of a speed rating in LT form. BFGoodrich KO2 has only "OK" snow performance in the bitter cold according to friends in town. Wildpeaks are heavy and louder. I was spending more time reading tire threads than actually working on the truck...

Enter the Nokian Outpost nAT. This was a model that I'd been excited about before in its earlier Outpost AT form, but stock dried up this summer as Nokian finalized the pivot to their new Dayton, TN plant. An excellent review thread for the older model lives on Expedition Portal. Nokian's reputation rides on snow and commercial mining tires, and the older reviews and current design bill seemed a perfect fit for my own goals. When Priority Tire got the Outpost nAT in stock last week, I ordered five.

The LT version of this tire has 18/32" tread depth, and 275/65r18 is the largest diameter I would run with the OEM bumper hitch and stock spare storage location. See pictures below for how close this fits. First is an OEM Toyota hitch ball receiver, second is a Yankum Ropes Tow Points recovery bar. These are both known to be low profile, and clearance is still tight. Glad I didn't try to stuff a 275/70 in there!

Tires weigh a nominal 52.9 lbs each, which is more than the outgoing Defenders, but as I said--hiking boots.

According to my shop, they balanced well and installed easily. And the look is fantastic.

These are shockingly quiet on road, with almost no additional noise compared to the Defenders at up to 90 MPH on pavement. I didn't push any higher than that...

Handling is actually improved, especially in twisties, which I did not expect. Steering is lighter and more precise, and lateral motion is far more controlled. The ride is firm, but not harsh. Acceleration should be slightly worse, but it's not enough to impact the way I drive.

Temperatures here are around 25°F in the mornings, warming to 70°F in the afternoon, and the compound seems to handle that swing very well. We will see how they do once the real cold and snow arrive.

I will update as miles accumulate and I get a chance to run these in more conditions. Very happy so far!

 

[excessive]

Very nice looking. Not very familar with the brand, where are they made?

 

[w4lks0ftly]

Tires are made in Dayton, TN USA.

Nokian is a Finnish company and their Hakkapeliitta line of winter tires are legendary in the northern US, Canada, and Alaska. They do a special model for Arctic Trucks.

 

[Couvi]

Great writeup and thanks for sharing. Really good looking tire. I was wanting the previous version of this tire and was sadly disappointed when I found out it was discontinued. I may look into the non-LT version of this, possibly the 265/70/18. The Toyos OC AT3s I currently have (at 50k+ miles) have gotten too loud for my mostly highway driving. I'm also considering the BFG Trail Terrain TAs.

 

[ClassyJalopy]

Nokian is highly regarded everywhere that gets real winter.
Curious if you considered LT rated Defenders at all?

 

[w4lks0ftly]

Great writeup and thanks for sharing. Really good looking tire. I was wanting the previous version of this tire and was sadly disappointed when I found out it was discontinued. I may look into the non-LT version of this, possibly the 265/70/18. The Toyos OC AT3s I currently have (at 50k+ miles) have gotten too loud for my mostly highway driving. I'm also considering the BFG Trail Terrain TAs.

The P-metric version is a nice option! It lacks the extra aramid layer in the tread and has 14/32" tread depth, but the weight savings are considerable - 45.2 vs 52.9 lbs according to the info sheet. Would love to hear your experience if you go that direction!

I was considering 265/70 for the slight bit of extra clearance, but I couldn't find enough feedback regarding the impact to on-road handling. I reached out to a couple mud members who described having run this size in KO2s, but no response. 265/70r18 is the stock size for the new GX550 Overtrail edition, so it is certainly within the OEM+ envelope. In the end, I was swayed by a thread where @TeCKis300 suggested that, while a skinnier tire will always have superior straight-line off-road traction, going narrower than 275 on a 100-series negatively impacted cornering in all conditions. Their opinions generally seem well-grounded, so I decided to hew a bit closer to original spec for my use-case. The LT265/70r18 also wasn't in stock yet. It looks like the P-metric version is!

 

[w4lks0ftly]

Nokian is highly regarded everywhere that gets real winter.
Curious if you considered LT rated Defenders at all?

I did look at the LT Defenders. The capabilities of the P-metric version on our truck were mighty impressive even at 50% tread and losing chunks. We had great fun passing other folks with beef tires on terrain they had decided was too spicy. The design clearly works very well for the 100-series!

If we got less snow, I would probably have gone with the LT-metric Defender. But since both Michelin and other users downplay their deep snow performance, they were out. Snow season in Leadville is 6 months out of the year, and we regularly drive through a foot of unplowed fresh when accessing ski areas or backcountry parking lots on a powder day. I reckon Nokian has a little more snow reputation on the line when they advertise a tire as all-weather!

 

[ClassyJalopy]

I did look at the LT Defenders. The capabilities of the P-metric version on our truck were mighty impressive even at 50% tread and losing chunks. We had great fun passing multiple Wranglers with beef tires on terrain they had decided was too spicy. The design clearly works very well for the 100-series!

If we got less snow, I would probably have gone with the LT-metric Defender. But since both Michelin and other users downplay their deep snow performance, they were out. Snow season in Leadville is 6 months out of the year, and we regularly drive through a foot of unplowed fresh when accessing ski areas or backcountry parking lots on a powder day. I reckon Nokian has a little more snow reputation on the line when they advertise a tire as all-weather!

Keep us posted please on how they do in winter. Our winter here is WI is not quite 6 months long but it is brutal with temps 20 below for weeks. In my experience ice is the worst surface to drive a heavy vehicle like 100 through! And I have found out that true dedicated winter tires are head and shoulders above all weather varieties.

Hopefully Nokian has cracked the all-weather formula and you get great traction out of them year round!

 

[w4lks0ftly]

Will do. I'm confident there will be compromised performance compared to a dedicated winter tire - the question is just how much.

My sister in Denver found the Nokian WRG4 to achieve effective all-weather performance, driving to and from the hospital in some pretty bad storms, so that was another factor in looking at Nokian products. I think they may indeed have the compound figured out, and I am interested to see how this tread design behaves.

We have always run dedicated snow tires on our AWD Volkswagen (Michelin and Bridgestone), and when my wife's parents gifted us their old FWD minivan, we put snow tires on it, too (Michelin). Thus, the all-weather thing will definitely be an experiment for us. The VW is our daily driver and primary ski car, and it will remain in that role for precisely the reasons you mention regarding heavy vehicles on ice!

 

[4LoforSno]

I put a set of Nokian Outpost AT 285-75-16 on my 2001 LC primarily as a winter setup, ran them last winter in sierra epic winterness. Driving from coast to mtns in CA is basically a wet to slush to powder kind of experience(hopefully, at least and the reverse when headed back to the coast, as a result you get to see how the treads work in all those various wintery conditions ...these really did quite well as a M+S rated vs full-on snow tire. As stated earlier in this thread Nokian has a great rep in winter lands ...I was intrigued to put these onto the 16s and run them as my trail tires and winter tires. I also have a set of TRD Pro 18s from '23 tundra that have michelin LTX? I think, which i have been very happy with for around town.

 

[Couvi]

The P-metric version is a nice option! It lacks the extra aramid layer in the tread and has 14/32" tread depth, but the weight savings are considerable - 45.2 vs 52.9 lbs according to the info sheet. Would love to hear your experience if you go that direction!

I was considering 265/70 for the slight bit of extra clearance, but I couldn't find enough feedback regarding the impact to on-road handling. I reached out to a couple mud members who described having run this size in KO2s, but no response. 265/70r18 is the stock size for the new GX550 Overtrail edition, so it is certainly within the OEM+ envelope. In the end, I was swayed by a thread where @TeCKis300 suggested that, while a skinnier tire will always have superior straight-line off-road traction, going narrower than 275 on a 100-series negatively impacted cornering in all conditions. Their opinions generally seem well-grounded, so I decided to hew a bit closer to original spec for my use-case. The LT265/70r18 also wasn't in stock yet. It looks like the P-metric version is!

Thanks for the info sheet, I've been looking for as many specs on these as I can find and this really helps. I've been running the 265/70 r18 Toyos for about 3 years now and haven't noticed any real difference coming from some 275/65 r18 Continental Terrain Contacts (except the road noise). I wanted a slightly taller tire without the extra weight. I really like the Nokians you have and called Discount Tire yesterday to see if they had them yet – will know next week as they're so new and not in their system yet. You still liking the ride on road too?

 

[Couvi]

Here's a pic of the 265/70 18s when they were fairly new:

 

[w4lks0ftly]

I put a set of Nokian Outpost AT 285-75-16 on my 2001 LC primarily as a winter setup, ran them last winter in sierra epic winterness. Driving from coast to mtns in CA is basically a wet to slush to powder kind of experience(hopefully, at least and the reverse when headed back to the coast, as a result you get to see how the treads work in all those various wintery conditions ...these really did quite well as a M+S rated vs full-on snow tire. As stated earlier in this thread Nokian has a great rep in winter lands ...I was intrigued to put these onto the 16s and run them as my trail tires and winter tires. I also have a set of TRD Pro 18s from '23 tundra that have michelin LTX? I think, which i have been very happy with for around town.

That's great feedback! Did you have a takeaway for how the Outpost AT compared to other AT tires in those mixed conditions?

 

[w4lks0ftly]

Thanks for the info sheet, I've been looking for as many specs on these as I can find and this really helps. I've been running the 265/70 r18 Toyos for about 3 years now and haven't noticed any real difference coming from some 275/65 r18 Continental Terrain Contacts (except the road noise). I wanted a slightly taller tire without the extra weight. I really like the Nokians you have and called Discount Tire yesterday to see if they had them yet – will know next week as they're so new and not in their system yet. You still liking the ride on road too?

You have a great looking truck! For the Nokians, 265/70r18 and 275/65r18 have identical weight in both P and LT-metric. Did you find the the additional height of the 265/70 vs 275/65 to be helpful off road, or was it more of an aesthetic improvement? No judgement on either, but I am curious how much benefit I'm missing with the shorter tire. Glad to know you didn't find a difference in on road handling.

Priority Tire is a newer company (15 years old, I think), but they had a great price and seem to be a legit outfit. They have discounts for teachers, military, and first responders, too, so this set came out to $1360 shipped. I think the major downside is giving up the physical location access and road hazard coverage of Discount...

 

[Trapper50cal]

Like those...
We have Nokian winter tyres on the wife's Fusion and they are incredible.
I wouldn't expect Nokian to enter the truck AT game without thinking it through extensively.

 

[Couvi]

You have a great looking truck! For the Nokian's, too, 265/70r18 and 275/65r18 have identical weight in both P and LT-metric. Did you find the the additional height of the 265/70 vs 275/65 to be helpful off road, or was it more of an aesthetic improvement? No judgement on either, but I am curious how much benefit I'm missing with the shorter tire. Glad to know you didn't find a difference in on road handling.

Priority Tire is a newer company (15 years old, I think), but they had a great price and seem to be a legit outfit. They have discounts for teachers, military, and first responders, too, so this set came out to $1360 shipped. I think the major downside is giving up the physical location access and road hazard coverage of Discount...

Thanks man! I really did not notice a difference on or offroad relating to the tire height. The Continentals were great for my usage but wanted a taller more aggressive AT to better fill the wheel well and balance out the size of the cruiser. I did crank the front torsion bars to get about another inch of height as it had sagged some over the last 20 years. Keep us posted on the Outpost ATs and once I get some I'll share my experiece as well. I did a thread on the Conti's a while back but wasnt as good at documenting the Toyos:

Continental TerrainContact A/T

Had a flat last weekend after a road trip and had to pull the trigger on a new set of tires. I'd done a fair amount of research both on the web and here on mud over the last year -- decided an AT tire was a better fit for me. When I bought my LC in 2015, it had a fairly new set of Bridgestone HL...

forum.ih8mud.com

 

[w4lks0ftly]

First follow-up: 373 miles

TL;DR: I am still very pleased with these tires! On-road performance is great, and off-road grip at 40+ PSI on known trails is substantially better than the Defenders without airing down--no ATRAC activation where formerly it was required.

Full report:
We had an abortive trip down to Arches, UT last week with a turn-around halfway through to take care of a sick kiddo. We didn't get to camping but at least had a good measure of tire performance while fully loaded. Truck was carrying camping supplies for 4 people x 3 days including 3.5 gallons of water and a full cooler, ~60 lbs of firewood on the roof, two bikes on a hitch rack. Two big people + two little people w/car seats = 450 lbs of occupants. People and stuff probably totaled around 800 pounds.

The handling was superb, with the truck happily doing 5-10 mph over the speed limit on Hwy 24 from Leadville to Minturn (exceptionally twisty, two-lane mountain road with damaged pavement) and then holding 80-85 MPH coming down I-70. Glenwood Canyon on 70 can be a real bear with a heavy vehicle (again, tight and twisty), but there was no drama here. Running the adjustable damping on stiffer settings does help dramatically. The Outpost nATs in LT-metric continue to track better and maintain steering input better than the old Defender P-metrics, especially loaded. On this point, I would be curious to try the Defenders in LT and see how the stiffer carcass compares in handling. One negative is that the Outpost nAT tread pattern holds and flings stones all the way up to highway speeds. I would not run them without mud flaps, running boards, or some other means of protecting lower body panels.

While pushing pretty fast through curves on Hwy 24 we did have the VSC activate twice (once on the way out, once on the way back) on the left front wheel; the truck and tires didn't seem to be at the limit, but having grown up in mountains, I do drive curves fast. Further examination revealed the left front tire was a few PSI lower than the rest, so this may have been the culprit. Will continue to monitor. We never had this happen with the Defenders, but they also scrubbed and let go at lower speed than the Outpost nATs, demanding a less aggressive driving style in curves.

We had one scary incident on I-70 were some road debris showed up suddenly in the dark at 75 MPH. In the Golf I would have swerved, but that clearly wasn't going to work with the truck. We hit something like a 2x6 dead-on with the passenger side tires and rolled right over. No damage, no drama. Definitely felt good having heavier tires in that moment!

A few hundred miles in, I can distinguish more road noise than the Defender LTX, but I have to listen. Keep in mind this is on already-noisy CO roads. My wife doesn't notice any difference either riding or driving. We were running 44 PSI from the tire shop, and comfort was very good. Going back and doing the calculations courtesy of the Toyo load table, inflation should actually be 40 PSI to match factory load specs. Please correct me if you notice errors in my math!

• Front calculation converting from stock: P275/60r18 at 29 PSI = 2216 lbs nominal load rating. Derate for light truck/SUV use: 2216 / 1.1 = 2014 lbs actual load rating. Lowest pressure for LT275/65r18 corresponding to load >= 2014 lbs is 40 PSI (2130 lbs).
• Rear calculation converting from stock: P275/60r18 at 32 PSI = 2326 lbs nominal load rating. Derate for light truck/SUV use: 2326 / 1.1 = 2114 lbs actual load rating. Lowest pressure for LT275/65r18 corresponding to load >= 2114 lbs is 40 PSI (2130 lbs).

I am curious to see if the lower pressure notably impacts comfort or performance. I will update again once I have some meaningful cold/snow performance to share.

 

[shortribs]

I too enjoy the underrated Michelin Defenders, though recently swapped them out for Nokian Outpost AT (not the newer nAT) in a 285/70/17...which are just a hair under 33". I was looking specifically for an A/T tire in a P-metric size and have had good first hand experiences with Nokian tires in the past; I was also looking at the Toyo AT3's but was more interested in the all weather compound that might better handle the four seasons here in the NE area without necessitating a true winter tire.

Initial impressions (approx. 2,500 miles in), are that the Outpost are almost silent when new, and are up to the task when towing/trailering. They are just starting to pick up a bit of hum at highway speeds with the windows down. Moreover, compared to the Defenders, it gives up a fair amount of wet grip and braking performance in the rain, and exhibit more roll, though with the taller sidewall that's not at all unexpected.

Photos here

 

[Mike NXP]

Tires are made in Dayton, TN USA.

Nokian is a Finnish company and their Hakkapeliitta line of winter tires are legendary in the northern US, Canada, and Alaska. They do a special model for Arctic Trucks.

I've got the Hakkapelitta 10's on my Highlander and it's by far the best snow tire I've ever used.

 

[Mike NXP]

First follow-up: 373 miles

TL;DR: I am still very pleased with these tires! On-road performance is great, and off-road grip at 40+ PSI on known trails is substantially better than the Defenders without airing down--no ATRAC activation where formerly it was required.

Full report:
We had an abortive trip down to Arches, UT last week with a turn-around halfway through to take care of a sick kiddo. We didn't get to camping but at least had a good measure of tire performance while fully loaded. Truck was carrying camping supplies for 4 people x 3 days including 3.5 gallons of water and a full cooler, ~60 lbs of firewood on the roof, two bikes on a hitch rack. Two big people + two little people w/car seats = 450 lbs of occupants. People and stuff probably totaled around 800 pounds.

The handling was superb, with the truck happily doing 5-10 mph over the speed limit on Hwy 24 from Leadville to Minturn (exceptionally twisty, two-lane mountain road with damaged pavement) and then holding 80-85 MPH coming down I-70. Glenwood Canyon on 70 can be a real bear with a heavy vehicle (again, tight and twisty), but there was no drama here. Running the adjustable damping on stiffer settings does help dramatically. The Outpost nATs in LT-metric continue to track better and maintain steering input better than the old Defender P-metrics, especially loaded. On this point, I would be curious to try the Defenders in LT and see how the stiffer carcass compares in handling. One negative is that the Outpost nAT tread pattern holds and flings stones all the way up to highway speeds. I would not run them without mud flaps, running boards, or some other means of protecting lower body panels.

While pushing pretty fast through curves on Hwy 24 we did have the VSC activate twice (once on the way out, once on the way back) on the left front wheel; the truck and tires didn't seem to be at the limit, but having grown up in mountains, I do drive curves fast. Further examination revealed the left front tire was a few PSI lower than the rest, so this may have been the culprit. Will continue to monitor. We never had this happen with the Defenders, but they also scrubbed and let go at lower speed than the Outpost nATs, demanding a less aggressive driving style in curves.

We had one scary incident on I-70 were some road debris showed up suddenly in the dark at 75 MPH. In the Golf I would have swerved, but that clearly wasn't going to work with the truck. We hit something like a 2x6 dead-on with the passenger side tires and rolled right over. No damage, no drama. Definitely felt good having heavier tires in that moment!

A few hundred miles in, I can distinguish more road noise than the Defender LTX, but I have to listen. Keep in mind this is on already-noisy CO roads. My wife doesn't notice any difference either riding or driving. We were running 44 PSI from the tire shop, and comfort was very good. Going back and doing the calculations courtesy of the Toyo load table, inflation should actually be 40 PSI to match factory load specs. Please correct me if you notice errors in my math!

• Front calculation converting from stock: P275/60r18 at 29 PSI = 2216 lbs nominal load rating. Derate for light truck/SUV use: 2216 / 1.1 = 2014 lbs actual load rating. Lowest pressure for LT275/65r18 corresponding to load >= 2014 lbs is 40 PSI (2130 lbs).
• Rear calculation converting from stock: P275/60r18 at 32 PSI = 2326 lbs nominal load rating. Derate for light truck/SUV use: 2326 / 1.1 = 2114 lbs actual load rating. Lowest pressure for LT275/65r18 corresponding to load >= 2114 lbs is 40 PSI (2130 lbs).

I am curious to see if the lower pressure notably impacts comfort or performance. I will update again once I have some meaningful cold/snow performance to share.

View attachment 3449686

This tool HERE is handy for converting pressures for the same load rating when going from P to E for other folks out there.

Example for my particular tire specs