Moby
GOLD Star
I'm just curious - if they are treating you well, why wouldn't you just another set of the AT3/W? I ask because I'm about to buy some of these myself.
Reasonably quiet All Terrain tire
- Thread starter Tiger Rag
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I'm just curious - if they are treating you well, why wouldn't you just another set of the AT3/W? I ask because I'm about to buy some of these myself.
Some observations, because I am seeing certain opinions being thrown into this thread without much in the way of facts to back them up.
LC200 GVWR 7385lb
front axle weight rating: 3595lb
rear axle weight rating: 4300lb
The gold standard KO2s come in different flavors, for example in a 285/70/17, all 3-ply sidewall "LT" construction:
C-rated, 6 ply, 2755lb max, max 50psi
E-rated, 10 ply, 3195lb max, max 80psi
An example of a 285/70/17 that comes in both P- and LT-rating, and is being discussed in this thread, is the yoko G015. I don't know how many plies are in the sidewall of these tires:
E-rated, 10 ply, 3195lb max, max 80psi
P-rated, standard load,2833lb max, max 51psi corrected number is 2575lb max.
The Falken wildpeak AT3W 285/70/17 also comes in both P- and LT- ratings, and again I don't know how many plies are in the sidewall:
E-rated, 10 ply, 3195lb max, max 80psi
C-rated, 6 ply, 2755lb max, max 50psi
P-rated, standard load,2833lb max, max 44psi corrected number is 2575lb max.
All of these tires would have a max weight per axle that exceeds the axle ratings of the LC200.
It is important that when cross-shopping/comparing different tires, we do our due diligence in looking at published max loads for the specific tire we are looking at. It is not helpful to make blanket statements about P- vs LT-rated tires without also specifying the load rating of the tire being discussed. Edit - to include myself, apparently. I neglected to include the 10% drop in rating for a p-metric tire when comparing them to LT-rated tires!
LC200 GVWR 7385lb
front axle weight rating: 3595lb
rear axle weight rating: 4300lb
The gold standard KO2s come in different flavors, for example in a 285/70/17, all 3-ply sidewall "LT" construction:
C-rated, 6 ply, 2755lb max, max 50psi
E-rated, 10 ply, 3195lb max, max 80psi
An example of a 285/70/17 that comes in both P- and LT-rating, and is being discussed in this thread, is the yoko G015. I don't know how many plies are in the sidewall of these tires:
E-rated, 10 ply, 3195lb max, max 80psi
P-rated, standard load,
The Falken wildpeak AT3W 285/70/17 also comes in both P- and LT- ratings, and again I don't know how many plies are in the sidewall:
E-rated, 10 ply, 3195lb max, max 80psi
C-rated, 6 ply, 2755lb max, max 50psi
P-rated, standard load,
All of these tires would have a max weight per axle that exceeds the axle ratings of the LC200.
It is important that when cross-shopping/comparing different tires, we do our due diligence in looking at published max loads for the specific tire we are looking at. It is not helpful to make blanket statements about P- vs LT-rated tires without also specifying the load rating of the tire being discussed. Edit - to include myself, apparently. I neglected to include the 10% drop in rating for a p-metric tire when comparing them to LT-rated tires!
Last edited:
Then you have one of my favorite tire:
MSPN
46009
Mileage Warranty
70,000
Section Width on Measuring Rim Width
12.0" on 8.5"
Overall Diameter (in)
31.4
Max Load, Single (lbs@psi)
3085 @ 50
Sidewall
Black Sidewall
Revs/Miles
661
Tire Weight (lbs)
39.0
Rim Width Range (Min/Max)
8.0-10.0
Tread Depth (in 32nds)
10.5
Tough as nails tire. Stock size. Tire weight of 39 lbs.
MICHELIN® DEFENDER® LTX® M/S 285/60R18 120H XL BSW
Check availabilityMSPN
46009
Mileage Warranty
70,000
Section Width on Measuring Rim Width
12.0" on 8.5"
Overall Diameter (in)
31.4
Max Load, Single (lbs@psi)
3085 @ 50
Sidewall
Black Sidewall
Revs/Miles
661
Tire Weight (lbs)
39.0
Rim Width Range (Min/Max)
8.0-10.0
Tread Depth (in 32nds)
10.5
Tough as nails tire. Stock size. Tire weight of 39 lbs.
I am considering these 295/70R18 116S Recon grapplers for most of my highway use. The max load seems plenty for the 200 and should offer a comfortable ride for road trips.
- Tread Depth: 13.7
- Inflated Dimensions - Overall Dia (in):34.29
- Inflated Dimensions - Overall Width (in):11.77
- Approved Rim: 7.5-(8.5)-10.0
- Maximum Load (lbs.) @ Press. (PSI):2756 @ 44
- Weight: 52.49
I believe load max weights are not comparable between P and LT. You have divide a P rating weight by 1.1, or multiply a LT weight by 1.1. Something confusing like that
You are correct! P-rated tires get their load rating reduced by 10% when mounted on a light truck. I knew that once upon a time, but forgot. I'll edit my post appropriately.
Last edited:
The noise on the Toyos is a bit overblown, IMO. You can hear them a bit more if you listen, but i don't even notice it anymore. I would not hesitate to get them again. YMMV if you are very sensitive to sounds.
I would get the Falkens again as well.
Not a jab at you @mdh384 or anything but I don't know what you're even trying to say here outside of white knighting.
I do agree with you though, theres a loooot of opinions. Let me try to make sense of some things.
Exceeding load ratings of tires isnt a real concern for anyone here. You can run practically anything if load is the only concern.
Pressures are adjusted for compliance and stability on the part of OEMs and practically mean nothing in upsizing.
That means you can also forget about the 10% adjustment. This is because you can easily meet LT load capacity, but the other inflation aspects can be disregarded and tailored around your use and preferences. No need for dogmatic assumptions.
7,500 lbs (gvwr) into 4 is 1,875 lbs a corner. And tires are all rated for static load, not dynamic forces.
You're going to be just fine no matter what you choose honestly.
Was that your point though? That each tire is a different case? Thats simply not true and this is an area severely misunderstood here.
You proved it yourself, two very different Ps in the same size get the exact same rating.
Tire loads are all practically standardized including the xl rated 50 psi ones and they all are using standardized carcasses, if not the same ones.
They just differ in weight and features with very minute differences in dimensions due to tread, manufacturing etc.
To add to that, load limit scales are not relevent to just pressure, they are relevant to pressure at volume.
And there is a ceiling for all tires, SL (44) or XL (50) or LT etc. Same regardless of size.
This is where that 26 PSI absolute horse-s*** comes from. Adjusting for a metric no one even needs to worry about, load.
P load index 111-117(x) in our case are just based on size and aspect and are standardized across sizes.
XL denotes a higher pressure limit, but i does not change a load profile at all at any equivalent pressure range as shown below for example.
Its just reinforcement for a higher pressure ceiling for what those increased forces act on the tire.
People are confusing load range and load index. Load index is like for like regardless of the tire or its rating. Contrary to the LT info below actually (well get into that).
Load ranges denote PSI limits as a function of tire construction.
And on top of that, as shown, pressure adjustments past limit in XL are for rigidity and do not increase load. It may be used when towing for example for stability.
Above you are shown two Ps, in different sizes, but exact same load limits while one is SL, the other XL. Both though are 116 ID.
The PSI load limits are identical across the board, and one is no more "strong" than the other in that regard.
Its just that the larger tire has more volume and that same volumetric pressurized air and can hold the same weight despite being a "weaker" SL construction.
Load was never an issue for anyone here. And you literally dont have to look at anything other than the LOAD ID when shopping. IE 111- 118 - 121 etc.
Just meet or exceed that and you are good. And its stamped on every tire made. Even with LTs. It's the same scale being used. And you need not apply voodoo.
The reason why the LTs are a LOWER LOAD LIMIT PER PSI, is because of heat concerns.
On top of that, for the same given volume and pressure, a thicker LT will actually carry more load despite what you see below.
These are not figures of "what the tire can support" these are figures for how much load can safely be run (heat etc taken into account) at that PSI.
LTs are in every metric stronger than Ps, no matter the amount of mental gymnastics people do here.
Do you rationally think, a thicker, stronger, more reinforced tire, in the exact same size, at the exact same PSI can actually hold less weight?
We are skipping common sense to ego boast and espouse BS that actually doesn't even apply to reality.
It goes back to what me and @TeCKis300 are harping on constantly, this chart is being severely misused and misunderstood.
Even as far as having bogus claims of 35 PSI minimums that are completely unsubstantiated.
One more thing with the pressures not being equivalent here has to do with rebound. An equal LT at equal pressure with a P will not rebound the same way.
And that means the thicker carcass resists compliance and the compound gives less thus dissipating less force and generating heat whereas the P will give allowing the air to compress inside the tire instead of the tire flexing and heating up.
Running an LT and adjusting for some imaginative ignorant equivalence using a load safety metric is an exercise in futility.
You will literally skid all over the road with some of these Es at 40-42 PSI. It's just dumb, and 50% of people here run them according to these flawed ideas.
This also makes it a pain in the ass to read tire reviews. (horrible in the wet)... Were you at an obscene PSI? Probably so.
Different makes and model tires has literally nothing to do with it...
And more importantly, anyone running 26 PSI please for the love of god, don't do this. It's actually life threateningly dangerous.
Its the only reason i really bother anymore to talk about this subject. Some people just listen to the forum like gospel.
Theres a handful of actual engineers here, and they are also wrong about things often.
I personally don't believe in running ANY upsized P tire on this truck. It just doesn't make sense outside of only Wet/Winter grip considerations.
In order to provide the rigidity and stability you need with that length of a 2 ply toilet paper sidewall, you are running pressures that destroy all the comfort and compliance advantages that tire has to offer. Show me one OEM that does something like an 8" 2 ply sidewall P from factory. You don't see it for a reason. And if you do it aint at no 26 PSI LOAD CAPACITY chart pressure, i can guarantee that. This is all nonsense from the forum @Tiger Rag .
Would you rather listen to a bogus understanding or someone who has run your exact tire and its exact LT equivalent?
This was said to me from the head of Toyo Engineering and R&D "Any P for P tire swap, MUST BE run at MINIMUM door jamb pressure or higher."
And I'll add to that that any LT swap you do will far exceed the load handling of any P you replaced as long as its bigger, at practically any usable pressure.
Despite what you see above.
But ain't nobody going to listen anyway... Just a bunch of accidents waiting to happen on both extremes of this misunderstanding.
Also chalk test don't really work as accurately well with this weight class of rig that we own.
There is just too much variance in PSI that will still deform the contact patch due to the shear weight on the axle.
Its going to work but it will be a very coarse adjustment window for you.
I do agree with you though, theres a loooot of opinions. Let me try to make sense of some things.
Exceeding load ratings of tires isnt a real concern for anyone here. You can run practically anything if load is the only concern.
Pressures are adjusted for compliance and stability on the part of OEMs and practically mean nothing in upsizing.
That means you can also forget about the 10% adjustment. This is because you can easily meet LT load capacity, but the other inflation aspects can be disregarded and tailored around your use and preferences. No need for dogmatic assumptions.
7,500 lbs (gvwr) into 4 is 1,875 lbs a corner. And tires are all rated for static load, not dynamic forces.
You're going to be just fine no matter what you choose honestly.
Was that your point though? That each tire is a different case? Thats simply not true and this is an area severely misunderstood here.
You proved it yourself, two very different Ps in the same size get the exact same rating.
Tire loads are all practically standardized including the xl rated 50 psi ones and they all are using standardized carcasses, if not the same ones.
They just differ in weight and features with very minute differences in dimensions due to tread, manufacturing etc.
To add to that, load limit scales are not relevent to just pressure, they are relevant to pressure at volume.
And there is a ceiling for all tires, SL (44) or XL (50) or LT etc. Same regardless of size.
This is where that 26 PSI absolute horse-s*** comes from. Adjusting for a metric no one even needs to worry about, load.
P load index 111-117(x) in our case are just based on size and aspect and are standardized across sizes.
XL denotes a higher pressure limit, but i does not change a load profile at all at any equivalent pressure range as shown below for example.
Its just reinforcement for a higher pressure ceiling for what those increased forces act on the tire.
People are confusing load range and load index. Load index is like for like regardless of the tire or its rating. Contrary to the LT info below actually (well get into that).
Load ranges denote PSI limits as a function of tire construction.
And on top of that, as shown, pressure adjustments past limit in XL are for rigidity and do not increase load. It may be used when towing for example for stability.
Above you are shown two Ps, in different sizes, but exact same load limits while one is SL, the other XL. Both though are 116 ID.
The PSI load limits are identical across the board, and one is no more "strong" than the other in that regard.
Its just that the larger tire has more volume and that same volumetric pressurized air and can hold the same weight despite being a "weaker" SL construction.
Load was never an issue for anyone here. And you literally dont have to look at anything other than the LOAD ID when shopping. IE 111- 118 - 121 etc.
Just meet or exceed that and you are good. And its stamped on every tire made. Even with LTs. It's the same scale being used. And you need not apply voodoo.
The reason why the LTs are a LOWER LOAD LIMIT PER PSI, is because of heat concerns.
On top of that, for the same given volume and pressure, a thicker LT will actually carry more load despite what you see below.
These are not figures of "what the tire can support" these are figures for how much load can safely be run (heat etc taken into account) at that PSI.
LTs are in every metric stronger than Ps, no matter the amount of mental gymnastics people do here.
Do you rationally think, a thicker, stronger, more reinforced tire, in the exact same size, at the exact same PSI can actually hold less weight?
We are skipping common sense to ego boast and espouse BS that actually doesn't even apply to reality.
It goes back to what me and @TeCKis300 are harping on constantly, this chart is being severely misused and misunderstood.
Even as far as having bogus claims of 35 PSI minimums that are completely unsubstantiated.
One more thing with the pressures not being equivalent here has to do with rebound. An equal LT at equal pressure with a P will not rebound the same way.
And that means the thicker carcass resists compliance and the compound gives less thus dissipating less force and generating heat whereas the P will give allowing the air to compress inside the tire instead of the tire flexing and heating up.
Running an LT and adjusting for some imaginative ignorant equivalence using a load safety metric is an exercise in futility.
You will literally skid all over the road with some of these Es at 40-42 PSI. It's just dumb, and 50% of people here run them according to these flawed ideas.
This also makes it a pain in the ass to read tire reviews. (horrible in the wet)... Were you at an obscene PSI? Probably so.
Different makes and model tires has literally nothing to do with it...
And more importantly, anyone running 26 PSI please for the love of god, don't do this. It's actually life threateningly dangerous.
Its the only reason i really bother anymore to talk about this subject. Some people just listen to the forum like gospel.
Theres a handful of actual engineers here, and they are also wrong about things often.
I personally don't believe in running ANY upsized P tire on this truck. It just doesn't make sense outside of only Wet/Winter grip considerations.
In order to provide the rigidity and stability you need with that length of a 2 ply toilet paper sidewall, you are running pressures that destroy all the comfort and compliance advantages that tire has to offer. Show me one OEM that does something like an 8" 2 ply sidewall P from factory. You don't see it for a reason. And if you do it aint at no 26 PSI LOAD CAPACITY chart pressure, i can guarantee that. This is all nonsense from the forum @Tiger Rag .
Would you rather listen to a bogus understanding or someone who has run your exact tire and its exact LT equivalent?
This was said to me from the head of Toyo Engineering and R&D "Any P for P tire swap, MUST BE run at MINIMUM door jamb pressure or higher."
And I'll add to that that any LT swap you do will far exceed the load handling of any P you replaced as long as its bigger, at practically any usable pressure.
Despite what you see above.
But ain't nobody going to listen anyway... Just a bunch of accidents waiting to happen on both extremes of this misunderstanding.
Also chalk test don't really work as accurately well with this weight class of rig that we own.
There is just too much variance in PSI that will still deform the contact patch due to the shear weight on the axle.
Its going to work but it will be a very coarse adjustment window for you.
Last edited:
I can appreciate the passion but you’re speaking as though you’re an expert. Didn’t you just buy p rated toyos about a year ago?
Did a few on road seat of the pants tests? Called a few tires companies and bought something different? Have you off roaded either?
No im on the same tire in LT did you not read? And I called the guy who made them.
Whats your point actually though? Oh thats right nothing.
Last edited:
Oops. Looks like you forgot, you did run p285 toyos a year ago.
Thread 'unOfficial Stance Thread'
unOfficial Stance Thread - https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/unofficial-stance-thread.1261743/
My point is to highlight you’re a rook, rook.
Sinister
SILVER Star
Thread shut down in 5….4….3….2…….
There is a mute/block function where you’ll never see people that seem Irritating again.
- Thread starter
- #115
Could you please not post on this thread anymore? You have had nothing to add but insults. It's not helpful. Thank you.
We're also way off topic. My original question was regarding the quietest AT tire.
Sinister
SILVER Star
It’s Not irritating at all, just finding the humor in it and I’ve been around long enough to know this thread is heading for the black hand smack down.
Eh, who knows. Seems like mostly just one individual going off the rails. Largely productive thread otherwise.
Running 285/65/18 KO2s load range E and happy with how quiet they are. IMO, what might be considered loud to some, may be quite acceptable to others. Short of using a decibel meter, this is subjective and opinions will vary.
There is always the Apple Watch…..
I probably will. Just a case of "but maybe this other option is even better...."
In all likelihood, 285/60r20 Falken's are what I will be getting. I'm a little curious to see if there's much difference in driving vs the 275/65r20's I have right now.
