Mudless "mud terrains" for expedition driving?

[ashooter]

I hashed some of this out in the Cooper S/T 255/85 thread, and have gotten a LOT of good input from Redline and 24HOURSOFNEVADA (thanks!), but thought I'd start a new thread with some of my ideas/observations and maybe help somebody else through their decision on tires.

I had decided that I definitely could use a little more ground clearance than 265's give me. My plan to eventually move up to 255/85's has been in the works for a year or more, which is why I ditched the "blingish" 16x8 chromed alloys that came with the truck when I bought it and got some 16x7 steelies. The question I had was "WHICH 255's to get?"

The question I had was: Should I go with an "all-terrain" type tire like a Cooper S/T or Toyo M-55, or should I go with a more aggressive tire like a BFG KM or Maxxis Bighorn?

Here's the kind of terrain I drive in on a regular basis:

And here's what my tires looked like after the first "boonie trip":

Not actually damaged, but from the rub marks on the sidewalls I'm thinking that long-term, something like a BFG KM will hold up better than something like the Cooper S/T, due to the BFG having thicker rubber farther up the sidewall than the Cooper. I'd really like to go with the Cooper because I think it will ride better on the highway, but the BFG seems like it will take the abuse better over the long haul... plus they have a LOT better warranty, and a higher speed rating (if that means anything).

The Toyo M-55 is out, simply because of the price - $250+ per tire. If it wasn't for that, it would probably be a near perfect choice.

Anybody have any other thoughts?

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Cooper ST-C?

 

[ashooter]

Cooper ST-C?

Yeah, that's probably what I'd go with if I was going to stick with a 265. I DON'T want 285's and I really DO want 255/85's. The Cooper S/T in that size has a tread width of about 7.2" and overall sidewall width of a little over 10", so I'm thinking their sidewalls would be even more vulnerable than these Revos. The Revos seem to handle it well and stick to everything I've had them on, I just worry about long-term durability for this type of stuff on a pretty regular basis.

I'm a pretty low-speed driver, so I don't abuse stuff (stuff costs money), and I'm not crawling off through the brush/boulders pushing the truck to it's limits... So I don't need a Creepy-Crawler, but I don't want to be stuck out on the ranch with a ripped sidewall on a good-street-okay-ranch tire. I need a good-ranch-okay-street tire. I had been thinking a mud-terrain would be overkill for me, but judging from the rub marks on the sides of these Revos, I think the BFG KM ought to be as good as it gets for what I'm doing.

 

[madizell]

I don't see anything wrong with or unusual about the tires you have. Did the sidewalls fail? Were they slashed or what? I just see some stone contact which is probably not to be avoided. Most radial tires are not adequately protected in the sidewall, and the side ribs most of the tires sport today don't do much in terms of traction or protection. Mostly they are for marketing. If you want better sidewall endurance, look for a good 4 ply bias tire instead of the usual 2 or 3 ply radial.

The Revo is more of a highway tire in my opinion, but if they provide the traction you need for the terrain you travel in, what's to fault?

 

[ashooter]

I don't see anything wrong with or unusual about the tires you have. Did the sidewalls fail? Were they slashed or what? ...<snip>...

The Revo is more of a highway tire in my opinion, but if they provide the traction you need for the terrain you travel in, what's to fault?

Nothing is wrong with the Revos at all - no cuts or sidewall failure (yet). I can just see/feel that they're not really optimal for driving in this kind of country. I agree 100% that the Revos are more of a highway tire that performs pretty well out in the boonies. All I'm saying is that I want a "boonie tire" that performs pretty well on the highway - hence my plan to upgrade to 255/85-16 BFG KM's pretty soon.

 

[Spikepretorius]

or Maxxis Bighorn?

Bighorns are nice hey. You won't be disappointed.
Teensy bit of road noise but other than that they are bloody marvelous.

 

[SOAZ]

I hashed some of this out in the Cooper S/T 255/85 thread, and have gotten a LOT of good input from Redline and 24HOURSOFNEVADA (thanks!), but thought I'd start a new thread with some of my ideas/observations and maybe help somebody else through their decision on tires.

I had decided that I definitely could use a little more ground clearance than 265's give me. My plan to eventually move up to 255/85's has been in the works for a year or more, which is why I ditched the "blingish" 16x8 chromed alloys that came with the truck when I bought it and got some 16x7 steelies. The question I had was "WHICH 255's to get?"

The question I had was: Should I go with an "all-terrain" type tire like a Cooper S/T or Toyo M-55, or should I go with a more aggressive tire like a BFG KM or Maxxis Bighorn?

Here's the kind of terrain I drive in on a regular basis:


And here's what my tires looked like after the first "boonie trip":



Not actually damaged, but from the rub marks on the sidewalls I'm thinking that long-term, something like a BFG KM will hold up better than something like the Cooper S/T, due to the BFG having thicker rubber farther up the sidewall than the Cooper. I'd really like to go with the Cooper because I think it will ride better on the highway, but the BFG seems like it will take the abuse better over the long haul... plus they have a LOT better warranty, and a higher speed rating (if that means anything).

The Toyo M-55 is out, simply because of the price - $250+ per tire. If it wasn't for that, it would probably be a near perfect choice.

Anybody have any other thoughts?

I thought I'd comment in case it helps. I wish I was into taking pictures back when I had BFG Muds and AT's. The thing I noticed was that my AT's almost had NO chunks. They held up great.
Problem of course is that they don't come in the magical size.
My BFG Muds, had chunks missing all over. I even had half of entire lugs missing by the time I finally sold them. Did they hold up a little better than the cooper st's, yes. They are a harder compound.
Will the coopers hold up for you on the rocky desert terrain. I think so. They just don't look pretty.
Tough decision. I know. I was thinking about getting the Muds for my next tire, I just hate the idea of driving on the highway for hours on a road trip with the mud terrain shake. Its in my head, but that vibration means inefficiency so it drives me nuts.

So.... Should we start a petition for BFG to make a 255 in the AT or ..... Hmmm. Maybe even a 34x10.50x16!!!! :victory:

 

[mauricio_28]

If your priority is sturdiness, why not look into an LT tire?

I just got a set of Pirelli Scorpion ATR LT265/75R16 for my Nissan Navara. I, too, was considering the Duelers, but in the end my decision was made by the fact that the Scorpion has a comparably aggresive pattern coupled with the additional durability of an LT. As a "E" load-range tire, it is a heavier tire, but its 10-plies will give you some peace of mind. With these tires, you will certainly be "overbuilt" which is not a bad thing for expedition-type usage. Just a thought.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I took it for granted we were already talking about LT's. I don't think you should consider anything else if you're off-roading.

 

[madizell]

The 255/85/16 BFG MT is a D-range LT tire. I don't know of a tire in this size that is not a light truck tire.

Edit: Pirelli ATR LT tires are not warranted by the manufacturer except for uniformity during the first 2/32 of tread life, and Tire Rack does not offer a road hazard policy either.

BFG MT is warranted for 6 years for workmanship and materials. BFG does not offer a road hazard guarantee, but Tire Rack does.

The ATR is described as an all terrain tire, which definition in the industry covers a lot of turf. However, the tread design is an anti-hydroplane highway design also intended to reduce generated noise on hard surfaces. These are design criteria generally inconsistent with superior off road performance on all for solid rock or baked dirt surfaces. I can't find a statement regarding number of plies, but if it has 10, it is the only radial I have ever seen (perhaps short of highway maintenance gravel haulers) with such a heavy carcass. The BFG has 3-ply sidewalls, which is one more than most radials. On the other hand, the MT also has the 3-ply construction, and experience with this tire on a full-sized Bronco driven off road in Alaska was more than merely disappointing back in about 2002, as it suffered slashed sidewalls constantly over the course of one summer (I believe all tires were replaced at least once for failed sidewalls), after which the tires were replaced with bias Swampers.

 

[ashooter]

SOAZ, if BFG would make a 34x10.50x16 or a 255/85 AT, I'd buy five of 'em RIGHT NOW!!!

Vibration, chunking, and general unruliness on the highway are the only things holding me back from the KM's and making me flip-flop on an almost daily basis between the BFG KM and the Cooper S/T. If I wasn't a poor-boy, I'd just buy another set of rims and GET BOTH! But alas, children need to eat etc...

BFG KM Pros: thicker rubber from the tread blocks wrapping up the sidewall... Good warranty... long track record as a hard-core offroad tire.

BFG KM Cons: general unpleasantness on the highway, and some reports of uneven wear (chunking?)

Cooper S/T Pros: Better handling on the highway... lighter overall weight... $30 per tire lower price.

Cooper S/T Cons: Narrow tread compared to sidewall width - meaning vulnarable to cut/punctured sidewalls? No warranty for anything other than manufacturing defects... chunking.

Grrrrrrrr....... I ought to just flip a dang coin and buy something! I know the Coopers would be fine for 99% of my driving, but that other 1% is what I worry about because that's the 1% that leaves me stuck out in the boonies.


mauricio_28, yes we're talking about LT's... Out of 5 vehicles I've owned in my life, only one didn't require LT tires, and it only lived at my house for a few months before I sent it someplace else!

 

[R_Lefebvre]

You have to be careful when talking "plies", as they are still using the 6-ply, 8-ply and 10-ply nomenclature to describe C, D and E load range tires, when the constructions actually used don't have that many plies.

My tires are sold as "10 ply rated" but I think they only have 3. They are load range E.

 

[madizell]

You have to be careful when talking "plies", as they are still using the 6-ply, 8-ply and 10-ply nomenclature to describe C, D and E load range tires, when the constructions actually used don't have that many plies.

My tires are sold as "10 ply rated" but I think they only have 3. They are load range E.

Just so.

 

[Guinness44]

A/T, or M/T. We were going to get the BFG AT. (They last a little longer, are quieter, etc.) BUT what I saw at an event, that was kind of muddy: All the trucks with the ATs had a lot of trouble, as the MT shoed ones kept on going.
So it rains here once in a while, and that fine dust turns to mud, be it just one inch, deep, the AT will turn into a huge doughnut, the MT keeps on going.
The MT does great so far (desertdriving, rockcrawling in Moab, blacktop.....)

 

[Spikepretorius]

Modern MT tyres are great for normal driving. There's a misconception. It's remarkable how many guys have cold feet before going to MT's because of issues that were a problem with older technology. Go to a good set of modern MT's and you'll love them and wonder what the hoohaa was all about.