PDA

View Full Version : Deciding on tires


azcromntic
11-28-2012, 06:57 PM
So I've been reading all over the place about tires. It's down to two options for me: Firestone Destination M/T (FDMT) or the BFG KM2.

The FDMT's are probably a better tire for what I drive on but only come in 285/75/16 (don't come in 255/85/16).

The KM2's come in 255/85/16 and are cheaper for 5 tires.

Now, I don't officially know if I should even consider 255/85/16 but that size gets me to 33" and is a lighter tire than a 285/75/16.

I'm taking a poll on those who drive in Colorado, because I'm in Colorado, about their experience with those two tires (and possibly sizes) to try and find a reason to go one way or the other.

Please post your experience.

Thanks. Also, I'm getting new tires because the ones on it are like 7 years old and one of them has a gash on the sidewall (recently found).

farnhamstj
11-28-2012, 08:43 PM
What truck and how heavy are they going on and where do you like to drive? DD? I prefer AT tires and find they take me everywhere I need to go in CO and UT.
Running BGF AT 295.75.16D on a heavily loaded rig.
285.75.16 is a more common size, better choice if you travel a bunch.

Mud tires look good but just aren't necessary in CO and don't preform well in snow. IMO.

AxleIke
11-29-2012, 10:11 AM
Yeah, I agree with Farnham. The truck they are going on makes a big difference.

Certainly both tires will be louder than an AT tire on road, if road noise is a consideration.

There have been reports that the KM2's wear faster than other MT's on the market, though again, that depends a lot on driving style and on the rig they are under.

That said, I try to avoid Firestone products due to their terrible customer service, but that is solely a personal preference, and not really relevant to the longevity and drive ability of the tire, unless that sort of thing matters to you.

If you were running the tire under an 80 or 100 series LC, I might go for the 285 over the 255 because they are a big, heavy truck, and the lateral stability is going to be better with the narrower tire, and they both have the gumption to push the tire.

If you have a lighter rig with a small motor, go with the 255's, as they'll be easier to push around.

As a totally separate issue, I find that an AT tire has been completely satisfactory for me for Colorado, and, in fact, if I were recommending a tire to someone for a nicer, road driven truck that sees only moderate trails, I'd recommend an AT tire.

I ran AT's on my old 4runner for years, and they went up French creek, Chinamans, all over Moab, etc... with zero issues. What usually held me back was not wanting body damage. I never found the tires lacking except in deep snow.

4Mogger
11-29-2012, 10:20 AM
I have run 4 sets of the MTR-KM2's in the 285 size. They are a great tire and do just fine on the highway. Noise doesn't bother me in a 4x4 it is just one of the compromises. What the KM2's do well is resist chunking and flats. The carcass is tough. If you get them, don't run pressures at or near maximum for load carrying capacity unless you need it. The higher pressures make them more susceptible to flats and they wear fine at lower pressures. I air for a flat contact patch. The biggest thing is to keep them rotated and balanced. I go with a 5000 mile maximum and criss/cross rotate them. Doing this, I get 40K miles on a heavy (F250) truck.
One word of caution, when they begin to wear out, they seem to stop wearing the tread. I was once tempted to get every mile possible out of a set and they just kept going and going and I eventually had a blowout. Again, this was not the fault of the tire, but mine for being cheap.

FJBRADY
11-29-2012, 11:08 AM
Boggers.....Timztoy loves his!:bolt:

Uncle Ben
11-29-2012, 12:16 PM
I won't bag on KM2's as I know there is others on here that like them. I will tell you that for my needs on my dual purpose type rig they were the worse winter tire I have ever owned. So much in fact that I gave them away! They were great on rocks and loose dirt and in fact really excelled over most tires in that environment! They did wear decent and they balanced very well. They were somewhat moderate to loud in the noise factor after they established a wear pattern. My personal opinion is if you want a radial tire on a trail rig that has decent dry street manors they are great. If you drive your rig in the winter on snow packed or icy roads they are not for you! I have not personally tried the Firestones but I would if they came in my size! Everyone who has them (that I know) would and will buy them again. Firestone does suck on warranty and short of a law suit has a strong reputation of not standing behind their tires.

corsair23
11-29-2012, 12:22 PM
I know at least one person that had the KM2s and hated them and got rid of them. Noisy and poor performance as I recall including in the snow. I think Romer had the Firestone MTs on his 80 so he might be able to provide a good review (or he might already have - search here and on MUD).

In general I also agree with Farnham and Isaac re: an AT tire. That said, I've been running the Toyo MTs for 6 years now I think. I love the tire. They are heavy (my 285s were heavier than a buddy's 315 Baja MTZs) and louder than an AT which is a downside. But, if you sipe them it quiets them down and makes them decent snow tires IMO. I got almost 40K miles out of my first set and never had any chunking issues due to the siping (can't say the same for my MT/Rs). Price point is not a strong suit either though :( - maybe my next set will be an AT tire like the DuraTrac which seem to be pretty popular lately.

FJBRADY
11-29-2012, 12:39 PM
If you are going with a Mud terrain tire I recommend getting them siped for road use in the winter to handle icy conditions. Did that with my MTR's on the FJ Cruiser and the KM2's on a Chrysler product and no problems at all.

AxleIke
11-29-2012, 02:26 PM
I know at least one person that had the KM2s and hated them and got rid of them. Noisy and poor performance as I recall including in the snow. I think Romer had the Firestone MTs on his 80 so he might be able to provide a good review (or he might already have - search here and on MUD).

In general I also agree with Farnham and Isaac re: an AT tire. That said, I've been running the Toyo MTs for 6 years now I think. I love the tire. They are heavy (my 285s were heavier than a buddy's 315 Baja MTZs) and louder than an AT which is a downside. But, if you sipe them it quiets them down and makes them decent snow tires IMO. I got almost 40K miles out of my first set and never had any chunking issues due to the siping (can't say the same for my MT/Rs). Price point is not a strong suit either though :( - maybe my next set will be an AT tire like the DuraTrac which seem to be pretty popular lately.

Uh oh. Don't get UB started on Toyos!!!

AxleIke
11-29-2012, 02:28 PM
I have run 4 sets of the MTR-KM2's in the 285 size. They are a great tire and do just fine on the highway. Noise doesn't bother me in a 4x4 it is just one of the compromises. What the KM2's do well is resist chunking and flats. The carcass is tough. If you get them, don't run pressures at or near maximum for load carrying capacity unless you need it. The higher pressures make them more susceptible to flats and they wear fine at lower pressures. I air for a flat contact patch. The biggest thing is to keep them rotated and balanced. I go with a 5000 mile maximum and criss/cross rotate them. Doing this, I get 40K miles on a heavy (F250) truck.
One word of caution, when they begin to wear out, they seem to stop wearing the tread. I was once tempted to get every mile possible out of a set and they just kept going and going and I eventually had a blowout. Again, this was not the fault of the tire, but mine for being cheap.

That is a good point, I didn't consider the MTR as an additional choice. I'm running the newer MTR's now, and I do like them. I haven't had them in the snow much, but they seem to be wearing well.

They are a little noisy once they wear in, but do very well offroad.

I found them similarly priced to the KM2, but they, like the firestones, do not come in a 255 85.

azcromntic
11-29-2012, 02:58 PM
They are going on an 80 Series. I don't have any "armor" ... yet so it's still stock as far as weight.

A co-worker bought the Wrangler MTR with kevlar. Those are like $300 more for 5. Not sure if they come in 255 or not. I might consider those but that's spendy.

I'm more concerned about the 255 or 285 issue. Seems like with 265/75/16 my rig wanders a bit. I was hoping someone with an 80 had 255's on it and could tell me how it is vs. 265's.

Mud posts I've read say "..I have 255 and it's fine..." and then a discussion of how rigid the sidewalls are and all that. I'm fairly certain KM2's have at least 3 ply sidewall so they're probably rigid enough.

I might go AT but part of the reason I haven't is because other than the Duratrac I don't see any AT's that look that good. Hey, I can have my cake and eat it too right? For some reason I associate Duratrac with Walmart and I don't like Wallyworld so much.

So if I went with Duratrac what should I get?

Uncle Ben
11-29-2012, 03:08 PM
Uh oh. Don't get UB started on Toyos!!!

Toyos are good for breaking your buddys foot!

AxleIke
11-29-2012, 04:29 PM
Toyos are good for breaking your buddys foot!

True! But they do make one heckuva slip and slide!

AxleIke
11-29-2012, 04:43 PM
They are going on an 80 Series. I don't have any "armor" ... yet so it's still stock as far as weight.

A co-worker bought the Wrangler MTR with kevlar. Those are like $300 more for 5. Not sure if they come in 255 or not. I might consider those but that's spendy.

I'm more concerned about the 255 or 285 issue. Seems like with 265/75/16 my rig wanders a bit. I was hoping someone with an 80 had 255's on it and could tell me how it is vs. 265's.

Mud posts I've read say "..I have 255 and it's fine..." and then a discussion of how rigid the sidewalls are and all that. I'm fairly certain KM2's have at least 3 ply sidewall so they're probably rigid enough.

I might go AT but part of the reason I haven't is because other than the Duratrac I don't see any AT's that look that good. Hey, I can have my cake and eat it too right? For some reason I associate Duratrac with Walmart and I don't like Wallyworld so much.

So if I went with Duratrac what should I get?

Yes, the MT's, IMO, look better as well.

Duratrac doesn't come in 255 from anywhere I've seen. I'd be all over that.

The MTR is showing as 5 bucks cheaper a tire than the KM2s on Tirerack for the 285 :confused:. That was a similar difference for the 265's I'm running on my truck. Not sure who quoted you at 300 bucks more for the MTRs.

Sidewalls are a big thing for me. I ran BFG AT's forever because they have a 3 ply sidewall, as do the KM2's. I switched to the MTR because it has 2 rubber plus a Kevlar ply, for a total of 3 but supposedly stronger than the BFG setup.

E rated Duratracs also have a 3 ply.

UB swears by the Truxxus MT's from Interco. They seem to be a great tire, but I've never gone that route due to the 2 ply sidewall. However, they seem to work great for him in winter and in the rocks on his whale, I mean, 80. :D

coax
11-29-2012, 05:22 PM
I'll throw another option out there (that I have no personal experience with). Thats the hankook dynapro MT. Its almost a hybrid mt/at. Its gotten some good reviews for offroad/mud and one of my buddies has gotten a ton of miles out of his set. They typically come in at a lower price than the other MT's (about 50/tire less than the km2 & mt/r's). As for style, some like the looks of them, others hate it. I run snow tires in the winter and I think if I were to get summer tires again I'd go the hankook route. Not available in a 255 though.

If you have wandering with 265's I'd be looking at some other causes? Abnormally worn tires or other components? Caster in spec? It came stock with 275's so I can't imagine that going 1cm narrower than where you are now will greatly improve the wandering.

fwiw

Uncle Ben
11-29-2012, 05:31 PM
UB swears by the Truxxus MT's from Interco. They seem to be a great tire, but I've never gone that route due to the 2 ply sidewall. However, they seem to work great for him in winter and in the rocks on his whale, I mean, 80. :D

The "swears" part is accurate! :rolleyes: Trxus MT's are quiet and have phenomenal traction on all surfaces. They are also true size. The new ones do balance (and hold balance) better than the old ones but they are not for daily drivers! They are very expensive (because they are still made in the US) but they are a 30k max tire if you're lucky! I have not seen a sidewall failure but I have heard of some. I now run them on the 80 full time as I don't daily drive it. Chains not required - ever!

wesintl
11-29-2012, 05:41 PM
when is the last time you bought them? are they still available in that size?

azcromntic
11-29-2012, 05:58 PM
Thanks all for the replies!!

I did some more research. I went to an online tire store and searched for size 255/85/16 and only one tire came up. The KM2's. I think Cooper sells the ST in 255 also but I don't know anything about that tire.

If I go with 285 I'll most likely stick with my Firestone choice. I might be going against some wise advice about the service though so I'll have to keep that in mind. If I don't to Firestone Destination MT then I could go with the Duratracs load E with 3 ply.

I also saw some Pro Comp MT today which I had never heard of. I'll have to look those up.

But the real question is why would I choose 285 over 255? Or...vice versa.

Jacket
11-29-2012, 06:21 PM
I seem to recall a "255 thread" over on expeditionportal.com that would be a good resource if you wanted to find all your brand options in that size. I think the Cooper ST is the only "AT-type" tire available as a 255/85, and then you've got KM2's, Trxus MT's, Maxxis Bighorns, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

As for "why" 255's over 285's? I think the main advantages are that the tire is taller (around .5"), has less rolling resistance for better mileage, smaller contact patch for better traction on rocks and it has less/no rubbing in some applications (like 4Runners and pickups) where the 285 will rub. And the tall/skinny gives it kind of a retro/utilitarian look.

I ran 255's on my 80 for a bit, and also ran them on my Tacoma before that. Personally I think for an 80 the 285's are a better choice. More tire brand options, the size fills out the fender better, it doesn't rub, and the perceived advantages I listed above for 255's aren't significant enough to warrant the change.

One other consideration - the 255's are pretty narrow for a stock FZJ80 rim (16x8), so you might have to consider a 16x7 rim for the "optimal" configuration. I know they will "fit" on a 16x8, but they'll fit better on a 16x7.

My 2 cents....

corsair23
11-29-2012, 08:42 PM
I agree with Matt re: needing a wider tire on an 80 for filling out the wheel well area. I always thought my LX looked a little whimpy once lifted with the 285s...Stock lift height it was ok...I'll admit one of the reasons I went to 315s on my LX was for the look :hill:

azcromntic
11-29-2012, 09:30 PM
When I got home tonight, after looking at all the images of the KM2, I could kind of imagine what the KM2 would look like on my 80. I don't think I'd like it as much as the firestoner or the Duratrac. So that puts me to the 285/75.

I'll have to check out those other tires though on that expedition page. I never read anything good about the big horns and one of the others you mentioned. I've heard good things about trxus so I'll probably look those up before I make a final decision.

kbahus
11-29-2012, 10:45 PM
I lurk quite a bit on here but can't help but comment. I have had both Duratrac's and KM2's on my 80 and swear by the Duratrac for all around use. Load range E in the 285/75 variety has been great in all conditions from crawling to heavy winter use, you simply can't find a better tire for Colorado. KM2's work great offroad but are straight scary in winter conditions, got rid of mine this fall and went back to Duratrac's for this reason. Also 255's just don't look right on an 80 in my opinion, you will be happy with a 285/75R16.

azcromntic
11-29-2012, 11:03 PM
Well, I've decided. I'm going with the firestoner's. Second place is the Duratracs. Anyone know when the next Firestone sale is for MT's?

Corbet
11-29-2012, 11:26 PM
Late to the party but 295/75r16 is what size I ran when my truck was stock for the most part. Rubbed just a tad under full stuff but I liked them a lot. They looked OK after the lift but I soon swapped them out for 315's. I think the wider tire is helpful to the stability of the big heavy 80 series. But I've never personally gone down the 255 route.

Inukshuk
11-30-2012, 01:09 AM
But the real question is why would I choose 285 over 255? Or...vice versa.

I just got the 285 Duratrac. I really like them and my truck handles totally different - better - than it did on BFG At's and Nitto TG's.

What I see on the Duratrac is that its a 285 but the tread width is much more like a 255. That would explain in part its excellent snow reputation and its slightly bad sidewall reputation. Narrower tread for good snow grip, and the sidewalls seem to hang out there.

nakman
11-30-2012, 03:58 PM
another vote for 285's on an 80 over the 255's.

azcromntic
11-30-2012, 05:02 PM
Big-O................253.99/tire.....Duratrac..........with $60 mail in rebate.
Discount Tire......239.00/tire.....Duratrac..........$60 mail in rebate.
Firestone...........244.00/tire.....Destination MT
Tire World prices not listed (guess won't go there)
Goodyear Tire....285/tire.......Duratrac..........$60 mail in rebate

rockrod
11-30-2012, 05:07 PM
I did the 315 bfg KM2s and I will not do them again.

Not a big fan of this particular tire.

Telly
12-05-2012, 10:12 PM
I did the 315 bfg KM2s and I will not do them again.

Not a big fan of this particular tire.

I felt the need to express my opinion. I ran the same 315 KM2 on my 80. Loved them in Moab but that was about it. They where terrible in ice/snow. Sipping them helped but it would not recommend them for a daily driver. Sold them and bought 315 Hankook Dynapro's. Huge difference on road and exceptable on the rocks. The BFG's did look damn cool though :cool:

azcromntic
12-07-2012, 06:44 PM
Well, as of about 10 a.m. tomorrow I will have some new shoes. Well, if the gash in the sidewall checks out to be safe on my existing tire then I won't be buying any. During the phone call to see if they had the tires I want I asked them about the gash. I measured with a penny and the gash is about 1/8" deep and about 2" long right on the side.

He said they'd look at it but most likely something has cut the sidewall pretty much through the rubber. I could not see any "threads" in the cut so I doubt it is all the way into the ply's. The tire holds air fine. He also said a good bump on a gash like that would probably do the tire in. Of course he wants to make a tire sale as much as I want to get different tires so who's arguing?

So, if I get the new ones, then I'll have some tires up for sale for cheap. A set of 3 plus a different brand spare that has never been run. 265/75/16.

nuclearlemon
12-08-2012, 09:26 AM
i'll ditto duratracs. i find them to be a fine tire and they weren't expensive. bfg has a notorious compound that is nice and sticky until you get halfway through, then it gets hard, which is why everyone hates it in the cold. of course, it's also why they last forever.

azcromntic
12-08-2012, 02:02 PM
Too late. Duratracs were more expensive here. I was able to get about $300 off on these.

http://mygarden.us/images/mud/lc-front.jpg
http://mygarden.us/images/mud/lc-side.jpg
http://mygarden.us/images/mud/lc-rear.jpg
http://mygarden.us/images/mud/tires-out.jpg
http://mygarden.us/images/mud/tire-closeup.jpg

Squishy!
12-08-2012, 04:38 PM
Destination mt? I have heard good things about them. SeldomSeen ran them on his pickup and they ran for a long time on that light truck. Good find!

azcromntic
12-08-2012, 11:20 PM
I drove some miles in them today to see how loud they are and how the worn out 80 Series handles them. I can tell a slight difference in the "power feel" of the vehicle. Not too bad. At speeds over about 50 they start to whine a little. No more than the uneven old tires I had on there; they were just as noisy.

I need to go on some trails now. Nah, I'm still not that confident in my driving skills so I'd better stick with the easier stuff for now. It'd be fun though to get out and drive after doing a bunch of work on this thing.

First time I went out there were all kinds of "issues". The 80 made it but I had my 1 year old, my 7 year old and my wife with me that time. It was snowing, I had no map, we were on the trail for the first time and we were with a bunch of people we didn't know.

At the time I didn't really know what to think or if I could trust anything. I thought about that pretty hard about all that. I don't want to go overboard on fixing this thing but I want to know it is reliable; not just for me but also for people I'm with.

Anyway. Yeah, Destination M/T's. They're bigger than I thought they'd be and more aggressive than they look in the pics. If not then I guess I'll take a hit on these and pony up a little more for my second choice, Duratracs. I have to do another mod now though; raise up the spare bracket so the spare doesn't stick out so bad. I went with 285/75/16.

azcromntic
12-10-2012, 02:10 PM
So when I was researching tires I saw an mpg conversion ratio for 285/75/16 tires. I think it was .97. Can anyone verify that or was that one of those things like "chemlight batteries" or "box of map grid squares"?

nakman
12-10-2012, 02:14 PM
So when I was researching tires I saw an mpg conversion ratio for 285/75/16 tires. I think it was .97. Can anyone verify that or was that one of those things like "chemlight batteries" or "box of map grid squares"?

You have the stock gearing still, correct? Then yes, .97... or as I would do it the inverse, 1.03. So at 200 miles add 6, at 250 add 7 or 8, 300 add 9, etc.

(Odometer miles * 1.03)/gallons = MPG.

coax
12-10-2012, 02:27 PM
I think its closer to 5.1 percent difference, so x 1.05 for mileage.

nakman
12-10-2012, 04:29 PM
Stock tires on an 80 are 265 75, right?

265 75 r16 works out to 31.65" diameter. (265*.75*2*.03937) + 16

285 75 r16 works out to 32.83" diameter. (285*.75*2*.03937) + 16

32.83/31.65=1.037. Ok call it 1.04 :)

OilHammer
12-10-2012, 04:44 PM
You have the stock gearing still, correct? Then yes, .97... or as I would do it the inverse, 1.03. So at 200 miles add 6, at 250 add 7 or 8, 300 add 9, etc.

(Odometer miles * 1.03)/gallons = MPG.

Well, now that's interesting. I hadn't really thought about the mileage difference with taller tires. I did go up a size, but I really figured it was a wash since you are effectively burning more fuel getting up and going than with taller gears. I picked up a ScanGauge II about a month ago and have been playing around with it. Around town, I'm in the single digits a lot for avg mpg. If I blend it with hwy and some town, I can get 14 on the gauge, but my best ever was Saturday. My house to Cracker Barrel was 16mpg avg. That's on aggressive Duratracs with a lift, but I don't have all the armor on the 80 like most of you guys do.

azcromntic
12-10-2012, 04:56 PM
1.04 is about right on the money. Before putting on the new tires I was avg'ing 11.58. I drove 23 miles with my old tires on and then after I had the new tires installed I drove another 103.2 miles (130.2 total). I used 1.04 and filled up with 11.826 gallons for an mpg of 11.45.

I'll have to write that number down somewhere inside my 80 so I don't forget. Or, I could just start keeping track of it like I used to but with the new tires on it. It wouldn't be "converted" but I don't really need it to be.

I think my old mpg was 11.58...maybe it was 11.85. Anyway, thanks!

I went up from 265/75/16 to 285/75/16.

coax
12-10-2012, 05:02 PM
Stock tires on an 80 are 265 75, right?

265 75 r16 works out to 31.65" diameter. (265*.75*2*.03937) + 16

285 75 r16 works out to 32.83" diameter. (285*.75*2*.03937) + 16

32.83/31.65=1.037. Ok call it 1.04 :)

Afaik stock tires are 275/70/16 which is about a 1/2 smaller than the 265's. Thats probably where the math is different. I need all the gas mileage numbers stacked in my favor when driving a heavy pig! :lmao: Though I would guess its all academic really due to manufacturer variance, tire wear (could be almost up to 3/4 of an inch), etc. :cheers:

265 75 r16 works out to 31.65" diameter. (265*.75*2*.03937) + 16 ] * pi = 99.43" circumference.
275 70 r16 works out to 31.15" diameter. (275*.75*2*.03937) + 16 ] * pi = 97.86"
285 75 r16 works out to 32.83" diameter. (285*.75*2*.03937) + 16 ] * pi = 103.1"