"All weather" tires in place of winter tires

when I had to back around the last switchback at HBM with some well used Nokians on a Golf I knew it was time for new rubber

Livin' on the edge is fun, eh?

Chains go in the bed this weekend, just in case I run into deep fresh snow hunting with the family over the next month. I've so far been very impressed with these KO2 though.
The taco gets its haks on next week; swapping the blizzaks onto the wagon tomorrow. So the quiver is loaded regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCMtnHound

Going into winter with 5yr old BFG All-Terrain A/T KO2 all seasons. 52000km, 50% wear so far. Been happy with them on the chevy 1500 for the last few yrs. Some true 4X4 work, but mostly family excursions 60/40 hwy/good gravel road. Anyone got complaints or comments to offer for the back half of tread life?

---

Yes, I do. They fucking suck. They get hard and slicker than fuck. Worse than anything I've ever put on a vehicle in 30 years. Including dry/wet/any dirt/mud, anything conditions.

Yes, I do. They fucking suck.

I have the Falken Wildpeak AT3W on my 1st gen Tundra and like them a lot. Had K02's, which I hated due to the harsh ride and sold them with less than 2K miles.

Alrighty then, guess they are like any other all season snowflake, and change compound with >1/3 wear. It was a toss-up between a new airbags update, or fresh rubber. Rubber wins. :fmicon:

I am buying a set of Firestone WeatherGrip for our4WD Explorer. They are 3PMSF rated and have a five year 65,000 mile tread life warranty.

Are 2Funky and I the only people who don't have traction issues with KO2's? Knock on wood mine have been awesome so far, aside from riding on the stiff side.

Great discussion on tire width versus height. Thanks for the input, Jamal, that was informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

Are 2Funky and I the only people who don't have traction issues with KO2's? Knock on wood mine have been awesome so far, aside from riding on the stiff side.

Great discussion on tire width versus height. Thanks for the input, Jamal, that was informative.

---

I've had probably 8 pairs of KO2's and no problems yet. Drive around the mountains in CO year round and haven't had any traction problems, or durability issues. I'm currently in a F150 and used to have a Tacoma. Commute over mountain passes, frequently in snowstorms, on a daily basis every winter for 20+ years.

Yeah but do you keep up with Fred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bosco

I have the Falken Wildpeak AT3W on my 1st gen Tundra and like them a lot. Had K02's, which I hated due to the harsh ride and sold them with less than 2K miles.

---

Yeah I have the Falkens on my 2015 Tundra. I like them.

No issues with KO2 here either, that's what I'll be putting on the new (to me) 4R before winter.

Why is it so hard to find LT C rated tires? E rated are significantly heavier and people talk about how E rated tires are too stiff of a ride if you aren't towing.

But C offers toughness over P and usually has 30-40% more tread depth.

I roll with nokians in winter but the Goodyear ultra terrain e rated 3PMSF is a really nice tire I’ve been running on my sequoia. Much better ride than my last e rated tire. Pretty sure this tire is exclusive to discount tire

So I have all season Conti cross contact on the MDX and it did fine in the parking lot in 1-2 feet. On a slope I made it 15 feet and done. Yah needed the hakkas


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Why is it so hard to find LT C rated tires? E rated are significantly heavier and people talk about how E rated tires are too stiff of a ride if you aren't towing.

But C offers toughness over P and usually has 30-40% more tread depth.

---

Comes down to demand. But there is more demand developing. More so for fitments in the 15"-16' range and more along the lines of HT and not AT applications. Driven by that Amazon effect for commercial delivery vans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Why is it so hard to find LT C rated tires? E rated are significantly heavier and people talk about how E rated tires are too stiff of a ride if you aren't towing.

But C offers toughness over P and usually has 30-40% more tread depth.

---

My $0.02 is that C load rated AT tires are kind of the worst of both worlds. If they're properly inflated, they're damn near as harsh as an E/10 Ply tire, but are only marginally stronger than P metric tires, and are often almost as heavy as a 10 ply. Remember that with LT (C/D/E) rated tires, they don't achieve their stated load rating until they are inflated to their max PSI (50, 65 and 80 respectively), whereas P metric tires achieve their load rating at 32 PSI.

Most of the C rated tires that fit a 4Runner have load ratings in the 110-115 range, which means you're going to be rolling around at somewhere between 43 and 46 PSI if you want to match the load rating of the stock tires at 32 PSI. That's going to be just as harsh as a properly inflated E rated tire, which would be at 40-42 PSI.

FWIW, after doing a fair amount of FS road driving/ "off roading" in Colorado when I lived in Basalt, I would only run an E rated AT tire. The trails there are rocky, and you live in the mountains too, so it isn't like you're road tripping to Ouray from Dallas before you get offroad.

That being said, now that I putter around Pugetopolis on pavement the vast majority of the time, I may end up going with a C rated Nokian Rotiiva AT Plus when my KO2's wear out/dry rot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

My $0.02 is that C load rated AT tires are kind of the worst of both worlds. If they're properly inflated, they're damn near as harsh as an E/10 Ply tire, but are only marginally stronger than P metric tires, and are often almost as heavy as a 10 ply. Remember that with LT (C/D/E) rated tires, they don't achieve their stated load rating until they are inflated to their max PSI (50, 65 and 80 respectively), whereas P metric tires achieve their load rating at 32 PSI.

Most of the C rated tires that fit a 4Runner have load ratings in the 110-115 range, which means you're going to be rolling around at somewhere between 43 and 46 PSI if you want to match the load rating of the stock tires at 32 PSI. That's going to be just as harsh as a properly inflated E rated tire, which would be at 40-42 PSI.

FWIW, after doing a fair amount of FS road driving/ "off roading" in Colorado when I lived in Basalt, I would only run an E rated AT tire. The trails there are rocky, and you live in the mountains too, so it isn't like you're road tripping to Ouray from Dallas before you get offroad.

That being said, now that I putter around Pugetopolis on pavement the vast majority of the time, I may end up going with a C rated Nokian Rotiiva AT Plus when my KO2's wear out/dry rot.

---

Great post.

I'll throw out the Chalk Test, too, for determining correct tire pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

My $0.02 is that C load rated AT tires are kind of the worst of both worlds. If they're properly inflated, they're damn near as harsh as an E/10 Ply tire, but are only marginally stronger than P metric tires, and are often almost as heavy as a 10 ply. Remember that with LT (C/D/E) rated tires, they don't achieve their stated load rating until they are inflated to their max PSI (50, 65 and 80 respectively), whereas P metric tires achieve their load rating at 32 PSI.

Most of the C rated tires that fit a 4Runner have load ratings in the 110-115 range, which means you're going to be rolling around at somewhere between 43 and 46 PSI if you want to match the load rating of the stock tires at 32 PSI. That's going to be just as harsh as a properly inflated E rated tire, which would be at 40-42 PSI.

---

That's the general idea but that is not quite how p-metric tires are rated. Also, p-metric tires get de-rated by 10% when used on an SUV/truck.

Couple of links to explain:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret....jsp?techid=70

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret...jsp?techid=195

I believe C-rated tires have largely disappeared because of the switch to passenger tires on most suv/cross over/ half-tons has reduced demand. Consumers want a quiet highway ride and don't put any real stress on their tires / manufacturers get better mpg numbers. Folks who want LT tires seem ok with just up-rating to D or E. I always liked C-rated tires and found them to be much more durable than passenger tires. I have found passenger rated tires are not sufficient for suv/light trucks seeing harder use.

Using chalk test, observing tread wear, etc, never found I had to go up more than 5 or so psi for a midsize suv, so approximately 40 psi (remember passenger tires get de-rated 10%). Would increase psi even more for heavy towing / loads / sustained cross country drives. Now I currently run LT E on full size SUV/truck as that is all they seem to make now but would prefer a D or maybe even a C option.

Just got new C-rated KO2s put on our 4Runner at Costco last week. OEM size (265/70/17). Old tires were E-rated Cooper ATWs.

Holy shit I'd forgotten what non-E-rated tires are like on a light truck. Way softer. (Haven't checked the pressure yet.) The regained throttle and brake response versus the heavier tires is noticeable.

FWIW, the ATWs lasted 60k and I liked them. Not to the wear bars at replacement, but starting to get low enough last season that their traction was concerning/annoying. Went with KO2s at Costco due to cost, lighter rating that's more appropriate for our usage (snow, pavement, towing tent trailer, and relatively mellow offroad in summer), and spouse (her daily driver) likes to be able to get them rotated while shopping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldblue

Also, p-metric tires get de-rated by 10% when used on an SUV/truck.

---

Well aware of that. Even with the de-rating taken into account, you're going to be airing those C rated tires way up to match the load capacity of the (yes, even de-rated) 116P rated tires that came on my truck.

I'm not a fan of the chalk test, personally. Determining the contact patch when you're stationary doesn't tell you enough about that contact patch in a dynamic situation (i.e. actually driving down the road) to draw any informed conclusions about what pressure is best. I would argue an IR thermometer would be a more valuable tool than some chalk. The temp difference between my KO2's at 35 PSI and 42 PSI is pretty damn dramatic, even after only 15 or 20 miles of driving in moderate temps.

And in the name of some levity around these parts: putting stock size tires on a Toyota truck makes the baby Jesus cry, LightRanger. ;)

Again, sort of...

A 4runner doesn't need anywhere near a 116 rated tire to carry the load required. It's nice that it comes stock but is unnecessary based on the weight/load capacity of the 4runner. Accordingly, when you run a C rated tire on a 4runner you only need to support the load required. Doesn't mean you need to match the 116 rating of the oem tire. For example a Caddy Escalade ESV comes stock with 111 rated tires and its a heavy beast.

As far as tire pressure goes: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret...jsp?techid=196

So, temp and pressure rise are expected. Again match your load to your tire pressure and nothing to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

Well aware of that. Even with the de-rating taken into account, you're going to be airing those C rated tires way up to match the load capacity of the (yes, even de-rated) 116P rated tires that came on my truck.

I'm not a fan of the chalk test, personally. Determining the contact patch when you're stationary doesn't tell you enough about that contact patch in a dynamic situation (i.e. actually driving down the road) to draw any informed conclusions about what pressure is best. I would argue an IR thermometer would be a more valuable tool than some chalk. The temp difference between my KO2's at 35 PSI and 42 PSI is pretty damn dramatic, even after only 15 or 20 miles of driving in moderate temps.

And in the name of some levity around these parts: putting stock size tires on a Toyota truck makes the baby Jesus cry, LightRanger. ;)

---

So, no, you cannot run an E tire at a lower pressure than a C rated tire. May need to change "not wrong just an asshole";)

Here is the link: https://www.toyotires.com/media/2125...s_20170203.pdf.

Page 20 shows any LT tire of the same size at a given pressure has the same load rating. So a C, D, or E tire has the same LR at 40PSI.

Some really good info in that link if you want to geek out on what tire pressure to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

Most of the C rated tires that fit a 4Runner have load ratings in the 110-115 range, which means you're going to be rolling around at somewhere between 43 and 46 PSI if you want to match the load rating of the stock tires at 32 PSI. That's going to be just as harsh as a properly inflated E rated tire, which would be at 40-42 PSI.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

And in the name of some levity around these parts: putting stock size tires on a Toyota truck makes the baby Jesus cry, LightRanger. ;)

---

Hah. I hear you.

Would go taller and narrower for snow traction, but harder to find models in that 255 size and Costco only does OEM sizes.

Pushing 90k now. Probably going to do the Bilstein 5100 swap in the next 30k. Likely set the front a bit higher than stock, but not a ton. Either .75 or 1.5.

But, honestly, I don't think I'd significantly lift a DD ever again. Last vehicle I owned in the category was a lifted Jeep and always had issues with the suspension. Mileage goes to shit. Don't use the full capabilities enough (compared to when I was in HS and college). Etc. I could see doing it to a third or fourth vehicle, but we're only a two-vehicle family right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldblue

So, no, you cannot run an E tire at a lower pressure than a C rated tire. May need to change "not wrong just an asshole";)

Here is the link: https://www.toyotires.com/media/2125...s_20170203.pdf.

Page 20 shows any LT tire of the same size at a given pressure has the same load rating. So a C, D, or E tire has the same LR at 40PSI.

Some really good info in that link if you want to geek out on what tire pressure to run.

---

That link was super interesting!

I run P rated tires on my 1/2 ton and have always thought about running load range C tires but after looking at that chart I'd need to run 45 psi minimum to get the same load capacity. Seems like a harsher ride with heavier tires that will likely affect my mileage noticeably, no?

Other than the fact that the LT tires usually have a deeper tread depth, is there really much advantage to running them if I'm never towing more than 2 or 3000 pounds?

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

Interesting link I found when researching tires that came on my truck.
Didn’t have time to dig too far in yet.

https://www.vehicletire.com/Consumer-Complaint

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

That link was super interesting!

I run P rated tires on my 1/2 ton and have always thought about running load range C tires but after looking at that chart I'd need to run 45 psi minimum to get the same load capacity. Seems like a harsher ride with heavier tires that will likely affect my mileage noticeably, no?

Other than the fact that the LT tires usually have a deeper tread depth, is there really much advantage to running them if I'm never towing more than 2 or 3000 pounds?

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

---

LT sidewalls tend to be tougher than P-metric (often due to an additional ply of material). I can't say for sure how much, but I can verify that OEM P-metric tires and rocky USFS roads can be a bad mix.

Attachment 298818

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

Cooper makes some sizes of the ATW tire model as C rated....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum

LT sidewalls tend to be tougher than P-metric (often due to an additional ply of material). I can't say for sure how much, but I can verify that OEM P-metric tires and rocky USFS roads can be a bad mix.

Attachment 298818

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

---

C or E rated in that photo?

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

I dunno I figured

more plys

is like

more plys

FWIW, The snow rated Pathfinder AT at Discount Tire is supposedly made by Hankook. I was about to pull the trigger on AT2's because they were a smoother upgrade from the ATMs, but was told the Pathfinder was basically right in between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

C or E rated in that photo?

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

---

Those are the factory "all-terrain" P-metric tires with less than 1,500 miles on them. I had been planning to run them down before springing for better AT tires, but I had enough time changing that tire at 10,000 feet to contemplate how lucky I was that the weather was good.

I'm now running E-rated both summer and winter.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Cooper makes some sizes of the ATW tire model as C rated....

---

Looks like they're calling it the AT3 4S now.

Weird change in load range on the chart too. Says "XL" and "STD."

When I bought ours, I believe it was only available in p-rated and e-rated. They may have since added some C sizes, but definitely wasn't available in 265/70/17 four years ago.

Put 45k on my Hakas on a '17 Taco...Nice not to have to schedule a tire swap each season...granted, I live in Summit, didnt do a ton of off road and dont go to Denver much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Looks like they're calling it the AT3 4S now.

Weird change in load range on the chart too. Says "XL" and "STD."

When I bought ours, I believe it was only available in p-rated and e-rated. They may have since added some C sizes, but definitely wasn't available in 265/70/17 four years ago.

---

XL are P rated tires with stronger sidewalls that can take higher pressures.

https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tiretec....jsp?techid=55

My truck came with 20" wheels with XL rated tires but when I downsized to 17s they're STD.

I'm not sure but I think lower profile tires are sometimes built to take higher pressures so you don't pinch on the rim.

Edit: looks like that last statement isn't accurate... that cooper tires link has XL rated tires on high and low ratio sidewalls.

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Hah. I hear you.

Would go taller and narrower for snow traction, but harder to find models in that 255 size and Costco only does OEM sizes.

Pushing 90k now. Probably going to do the Bilstein 5100 swap in the next 30k. Likely set the front a bit higher than stock, but not a ton. Either .75 or 1.5.

But, honestly, I don't think I'd significantly lift a DD ever again. Last vehicle I owned in the category was a lifted Jeep and always had issues with the suspension. Mileage goes to shit. Don't use the full capabilities enough (compared to when I was in HS and college). Etc. I could see doing it to a third or fourth vehicle, but we're only a two-vehicle family right now.

---

Guessing you have a 5th gen? I know 4th gens came stock with 265/65/R17.

I'm in the midst of gathering supplies to do the FJ spring + 5100s on mine. Springs were supposed to get here today (but alas, fuck you UPS). Agree re lifts and DD driveability, I'm only going 2-3" with 265/70/R17.

Yeah. 2013.

The 5100-FJ Spring lift is small enough to not totally fuck up your driveline. So that's helpful.

Old Jeep was 4.5". Eventually lost the rear drive shaft. That was special. Drove to the shop in 4WD with the rear shaft removed. Brother bought off me and did the slip yoke eliminator and CV driveshaft mod that I should've done in the first place.

That wasn't the only issue though. Just the one that comes to mind now.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

Guessing you have a 5th gen? I know 4th gens came stock with 265/65/R17.

I'm in the midst of gathering supplies to do the FJ spring + 5100s on mine. Springs were supposed to get here today (but alas, fuck you UPS). Agree re lifts and DD driveability, I'm only going 2-3" with 265/70/R17.

---

I did the FJ stock springs + 5100s on my 4th Gen. Fit 255/75/17 tires on stock wheels, which is about as tall as you can use and still fit the spare in the stock location. It rode and handled much better than stock. Stock front springs felt very soft, FJ springs are stiffer.

FWIW, if you want the rear level, you will need to add a spacer on one side - can't remember which side. IIRC I had to buy a set of two, in 1" thickness. I may have the other one somewhere still.

OK super tire nerds... what cold tire pressure for snow tires vs whats on the door jam? What reference temp for measuring cold inflation pressure? Conversion factor for narrowing/sizing changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

OK super tire nerds... what cold tire pressure for snow tires vs whats on the door jam? What reference temp for measuring cold inflation pressure? Conversion factor for narrowing/sizing changes?

---

Not a real expert by any means, but the instructors at a winter driving program I completed a few years ago recommended door jam spec once tires were up to temperature. They recommended that to me and I go taller and narrower on my winter set up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

OK super tire nerds... what cold tire pressure for snow tires vs whats on the door jam? What reference temp for measuring cold inflation pressure? Conversion factor for narrowing/sizing changes?

---

Actually run them higher. 30 on summers and 35 on winters to get soft tread grabbing


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums