Your opinion on my next set of tires...

[Shahram]

Merry Xmas Shahram, nice to see you in tech my friend

Thanks, you too!

Thanks to all for your opinions...I'm still kind of torn. There's a guy locally who's selling a new set of 255 MT KM2s for a song, and that's kind of tempting. On the other hand, I do like the look and a little extra clearance of the 315s, but I am definitely not going to re-gear. And there is always sticking with the tried and true size I have now. I've gotten an incredible amount of performance out of the ATs that I've had, and the 285s handled perfectly, so other than just wanting a change, there's no reason to switch there.

I don't know...thanks again, though!

 

[bpassmore]

The KM2 are great tires buddy. very quiet (for an MT) and extremely capable.

 

[tblume]

100K, are you $hizitting me? that may be the all time record my friend!

based solely on your experience with the AT's I'd get another set in 255/85 for a change of look and feel;

I like the way my 255's work and handle (no CC bushies) and for the price break I got 5 for the price of 4 305/75's in MT at sears. no gear change here either, but I drive MUCH slower than my gramms, no lie. I think my highway MPG lost maybe 1 per, corrected using the GPS and calculator, MT though, so I expected worse after the highway tread 305's that the PO had.

 

[ThaiCruiser]

I will throw in Yokohama Geolandar M/T. I've been VERY satisfied with them so far. Quieter then BFG KM and also the aggressive look. Only downside that most people do not like is that they are directional tires, which requires proper tire rotation.

I'll never change to anything else for my Cruiser.

 

[snowcamo80]

I will throw in Yokohama Geolandar M/T. I've been VERY satisfied with them so far. Quieter then BFG KM and also the aggressive look. Only downside that most people do not like is that they are directional tires, which requires proper tire rotation.

I'll never change to anything else for my Cruiser.

Doesn't the Geolander only come in C Load rating for both 285s and 315s. And I wasn't sure how thick the sidewalls were: 2 ply or 3 ply. These were the sticking points for me before I got the KOs. As for being directional and having a flat, if you need to get home, I wouldn't care as long I got home safe. I would just stick a AT with the correct tire size as a spare. Proper rotation is one of the PMs anyways.

But a good one to look at for the price is the Firestone MTs which are actually based on Bridgestone Technology. 3 plys and D load rating. Cheaper than the Toyos, KM2s, or GY.

 

[gotmud]

...From my observation, wouldn't run Revo's on a rig that will see sharp rock, have seen many cut. Here most put them in the "glass sidewalls" category. ...

I'm running 315 KM2's now, but had a set of Revos previous. They were great on the highway as others have mentioned. They also did quite well on several rocky trails. I never punctured one despite the sidewalls looking like shredded wheat. I did however put a nice slash in a KM2 last month on an innocuous looking rock. Luck of the draw I suppose, but I would have bought another set of Revos if they made them in a 35". YMMV

 

[ThaiCruiser]

Doesn't the Geolander only come in C Load rating for both 285s and 315s. And I wasn't sure how thick the sidewalls were: 2 ply or 3 ply. These were the sticking points for me before I got the KOs. As for being directional and having a flat, if you need to get home, I wouldn't care as long I got home safe. I would just stick a AT with the correct tire size as a spare. Proper rotation is one of the PMs anyways.

But a good one to look at for the price is the Firestone MTs which are actually based on Bridgestone Technology. 3 plys and D load rating. Cheaper than the Toyos, KM2s, or GY.

Yes, they have C load rating and 2 ply sidewall. My truck is used in expedition purpose, not rock crawling. So, it's not a problem.

The tire compound is also softer. But that also means less longevity.

 

[sprocket3]

I will throw in Yokohama Geolandar M/T. I've been VERY satisfied with them so far. Quieter then BFG KM and also the aggressive look. Only downside that most people do not like is that they are directional tires, which requires proper tire rotation.

I'll never change to anything else for my Cruiser.

I have the geolanders from about 3 years ago. I think there is a newer version out. They are nice on the highway but seem soft in tread on the rocks. They chunk pretty easy. I also had a small stick go through the sidewall and toast one. I was very surprised that a stick that small made it through.

 

[ThaiCruiser]

I have the geolanders from about 3 years ago. I think there is a newer version out. They are nice on the highway but seem soft in tread on the rocks. They chunk pretty easy. I also had a small stick go through the sidewall and toast one. I was very surprised that a stick that small made it through.

Yeah, mine is the M/T+, the new version you mentioned about with a new, stronger sidewall design.

Those people must've heard your complains.

 

[Ebag333]

Yeah, mine is the M/T+, the new version you mentioned about with a new, stronger sidewall design.

Those people must've heard your complains.

Interesting. Those complaints where why I didn't even consider the geolander.

I think I still would have ended up with the Grabber's, but the Geolander was actually one of the first AT's that caught my eye. Too many "AT" labeled tires are just road tires with slightly more aggressive tread.....


It's especially ironic because the Grabber AT's (not the AT2's) had tons of complaints about them. I did read that the AT2's were redesigned, and have been exceptional.

 

[Shahram]

After even more fretting and rationalizing and internal debate...a decision has been reached.

BFG MTs in 255/85/16. A 33.3" tall, 10" wide mud tire, compensating for lack of width by a more aggressive tread pattern. I'd buy the same size in an AT/KO, if they made one...

Why didn't I go up to 315's?

A) I don't plan on re-gearing.
B) On-road efficiency. My Cruiser sees a lot of road miles. My off-road miles are preceded and followed by as much as ten times as much distance on the road, getting to and from the trail, as well as daily driving.
C) Braking is affected by the larger unsprung weight. The Cruiser doesn't brake that well to begin with. And I see a lot of traffic at highway speed in this truck. Every foot of braking distance counts.
D) The aging suspension and drive components on my Cruiser don't need the additional punishment of a larger tire. They get so much of a beating on the trail, there seems no reason, other than a couple inches clearance, to subject them to increased weight and stress in every other condition.
E) Expeditions West made a very compelling article, advocating tall and skinny vs. wide tires for most "expedition" uses.

 

[bpassmore]

very cool. good decision based on your needs.

 

[sailor]

I agonized over this one as well and went with the AT/KO 295 75 16 over the Goodyear MTR or the Toyo MT. Same reasons- Lots of on road as a d/d with some road trips and light off roading. Future plans include a spring trip to Death Valley/ Mojave and Moab/ Arches. Glad to hear of your tire longevity. Great thread!

 

[Shahram]

Okay, so I went with the BFG MT KM2s in 255/85/16. I have yet to use them in the dirt, maybe this weekend, but as for on-road performance, this is what I've noticed...

Pros:

--I seem to have a slight jump in mpg, maybe 1-2 mpg in total.
--Cruiser definitely seems more peppy, in terms of acceleration.
--Seems to be braking faster.

Cons:

--Deflection, overall feeling of stability is noticeably affected. Hard braking, while stopping times have decreased, feels more squirrelly. Sudden turns or lane changes can give you an ass-pucker, as the truck feels overall less grounded with the thinner wheel track. My friend described it as "floaty".

And here's how they look:

I don't have the KM2 spare on there yet. I'll be getting one soon.

 

[romey]

nice new shoes! the tall skinnies always look at home in a flareless/step bar'less 80. (i can just imagine what 33x9.5x15's will look on my 80...a tad thinner than those)hmm, with those con's i'm debating where i should just grab the 10.5s instead..and then seeing how that affects mileage compared to 9.5s...

 

[Shahram]

Offroad review of BFG MT KM2 255/85/16

Okay, so I had a chance to hit some dirt with these things this weekend, and...

I must reiterate that these tires are borderline scary at highway speeds. With a stiff cross wind, they can be downright dangerous. After much consideration, we have upgraded the highway handling from "floaty" to "squirrelly as f**k!" If you get these tires for a lifted 80, that you may load with camping gear, be prepared to be relegated to 65 and under speeds in optimal conditions, 55 in a cross wind or weather of any kind. Anything over 65 is scary, even in optimal conditions. If you load your 80 high, with roof rack, etc., don't bother. I try keep my COG very low, keeping all my gear well under the window line, strapped down, and all liquids and coolers centered between the axles. I can't imagine what these tires would feel like with a roof tent or jerry cans on a roof rack!

And now for the dirt review...

First impressions: Very grabby if a little bouncy on hard pack desert dirt/gravel road, even at street PSI. Very forgiving, jelly-like feel on hard sand and scree. Blended nicely with heavy duty springs, added a good amount of cushion to suspension. Did well in mild, firm mud. Totally useless in wet, sloppy, loose sand, but what wouldn't be?

Very nice in hard rock, deformed well, sidewalls held up nicely and side lugs traversed up the sides of wet stone with ease. I am very satisfied with the offroad handling of these tires. My buddy and I agreed, they are very well suited to desert use. Conditions were damp, so a lot of the sand was well packed. My opinion may change in more dry conditions or softer, looser sand.

And again, here's how they look...

 

[bpassmore]

I love these tires. If i wasn't selling my 80 i would still have them running...

i am selling my 315/75 version of these. I did not not notice that floating with the 315s.

you rig looks good with those shoes.

 

[FirstToy]

aw man I can't believe you got duped into the skinny tire hype. are you going to keep them now that the on-road character sucks donkey doo?

I think 285's would be perfect for your (my) terrain and use. 315s would be acceptable but eventually you would want to regear I think.
your truck looks good w/ the bullbar. recent upgrade?

 

[Shahram]

aw man I can't believe you got duped into the skinny tire hype. are you going to keep them now that the on-road character sucks donkey doo?

Yeah. I'm gonna play with psi levels, and see if that doesn't help some. I drive painfully slow to begin with, so keeping it under 65 mph isn't an inconvenience for me. And, I have to admit, the off-road handling was really nice.

I think 285's would be perfect for your (my) terrain and use. 315s would be acceptable but eventually you would want to regear I think.
your truck looks good w/ the bullbar. recent upgrade?

Yeah, the idea of re-gearing wasn't so appealing to me.

No, I've had the ARB bumper for a few years. Another mod that has recently proven itself worth its weight in gold.

 

[uHu]

What's the status on the 255/85 "experiment"?
What PSI do you run on the HW? (Suppose it would have to be somewhere above 50 psi)