Toyo M-55
- Thread starter rusty_tlc
- Start date
redthies
Renaissance Redneck
It didn't even cross my mind that the OC-CT was not available in the USA. Weird. Talking to my local truck tire guy he said the CT is hard to get in my area because they are selling so many to the oil patch trucks up north. They don't come in the size I need to run, so I'll wait for another day to try them. Like maybe in two to three years when the AT 2s wear out on the Jeep?
I will HIGHLY recommend the AT 2, but don't know if this tire will fit your needs. What draws you to the Coursers? Aside from their "Schwabiness"? And for my last comment: the center tread wearing out so much quicker than the side lugs on the M55 is probably going to cause me to never consider them again which is unfortunate because they really do work well. I'd be going with the OC-MT without a second thought if they weren't $105 more per tire than the AT 2. On a dually that's a LOT of sheckles!
I will HIGHLY recommend the AT 2, but don't know if this tire will fit your needs. What draws you to the Coursers? Aside from their "Schwabiness"? And for my last comment: the center tread wearing out so much quicker than the side lugs on the M55 is probably going to cause me to never consider them again which is unfortunate because they really do work well. I'd be going with the OC-MT without a second thought if they weren't $105 more per tire than the AT 2. On a dually that's a LOT of sheckles!
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
The AT II could work, my only caution is that even with the updated tread pattern it seems some get good longevity, but others get extremely poor, fast wear. Sounds like mostly the big, heavy truck guys that get very few miles out of the AT II, and since I want to put them on a Cummins I'm cautious.
A few things.
-I can get them at Les Schwab where I have a big credit to use.
-A 4-rib, commercial-traction tire [or aggressive A/T] is my-kind-of-tire.
-The Courser C/T is essentially a Cooper S/T (no MAXX), a tire I've run and liked before.
-Tread is slightly narrower than average in the 275/70R18 size I would buy.
Yep, I've measured that stone guard center tread that connects the center tread ribs on the M55 before but don't have that data at my fingertips. That feature [surely good for some users/circumstance] makes a tire with deep tread depth everywhere else, have shallow tread in the center. I'm repeating myself, but that stone guard and the slightly lacking void at the outer lugs have always made it hard for me to love the M55, though I want to.
After a 19 month hiatus I might finally be back to telling a story about Toyo M/T experiences two years ago on my blog. There are many things to like about Toyo tires in general (quality, round, balance easily). Briefly, the wear on the last set of Toyo M/T I tried was ridiculous. The rest of the nitty-gritty I'll save for RoadTraveler, maybe get to it next month, but my F-350 was devouring the tread.
Back to the M55...
Surely it is a good tread design, its been around for many years and Toyo still sells plenty of them for certain applications. While I love a good commercial traction tire (tread & construction) I'd argue the M55 is not much of an "enthusiast" tire, and maybe that's one of the reasons we find the center stone guard/shallow tread unacceptable.
Others love the M55.
Last edited:
redthies
Renaissance Redneck
The truck tire shop I spoke with said one of his customers is running them on a fleet of dually flatdeck construction trucks and is "swears by them". He is apparently VERY fussy about tires too. I only got a year on the M55s before being 1/16" of an inch off the center lugs which will not be optimal when the snow hits. I hope to beat that with the new tires. I'm a 11,500 lb rig when the camper is on, so that should put the AT 2s to the test.
Erik N
Adventurer
I am headed out to the W coast in a few weeks for a fishing trip. I will pay attention to see if they pull.
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
I'd be very tempted to buy a set of those C/T tires if they were available in the U.S.! Looks like my kind of tread.
Me too, sounds like my kind of guy.
Two thirty-seconds of tread depth in the centers is just not enough tread for going into winter, agreed.
11.5K is a nice load for sure.
Toyo AT II instead of M55?
Coincidentally, today I met a guy with a 2012 Dodge/Ram/Cummins that modified it immediately when new, it had 25,200 miles on it today. He had the Toyo AT II in 285/75R18 on the truck, with a leveling kit and aftermarket wheels. He pulls heavy trailers, but also said he rotates religiously.
Knowing his mileage and looking at the tires, his tread was not gone but also not deep. I measured with all I had, a lined file on my multitool pocket knife. I also took iPhone pictures to confirm the line I was using to measure. Once home, I used a tread gauge to confirm measurement. It was approx. 8 to 9/32", it looked like 8/32" remaining, and my eye is pretty good, but I'm using a range to be as fair as possible.
Being optimistic, after starting with the full 17/32" and possibly still having 9/32" after 25,000 miles = 8/32" of consumed tread = 3,125 miles per 1/32. Three thousand or more per 1/32" is acceptable or even good, though of course I'd like more; deep thread does work.
If the tread was down to 8/32" then he had consumed 9/32" of tread depth = 2,777 per 1/32 or tread.
This is getting into the pretty poor wear territory in my opinion. Of course in recent years I've been spoiled with great miles-per-1/32" from ******** Cepek FC-II tires.
I'm still willing to try the AT II, but sure wish those Toyo C/Ts could be had down here... all C/T sizes some with 18 or 19/32" of tread, as they should.
M55
Back on topic, I'm thinking the M55s are less and less attractive. The Mastercraft C/T, or something else, might get my attention.
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
Thanks for the clarification, I mistakenly thought he was already running the Toyo C/T.
Ben in Nevada
New member
I recently switched from KM2 to M55. Although I only have a few hundred miles on the M55, I think I can make some useful comparisons between the two tires because my KM2 were not worn out before switching them. The KM2 had about 13,000 miles on them, and I swapped them out primarily because I was concerned about accumulating sidewall damage. They had some scary-looking cuts in them, although they did not ever actually fail. I do a lot of backcountry travel solo and it is not a practical risk to drive on four damaged tires. I made some comparison photographs using my spare tire which had zero miles on it.
I chose the M55 primarily because I chose the 255/85R16 size and the choices in this size are limited. While there are a handful of tires in this size, there is not really anything better for offroad driving than the KM2 except possibly the Toyo M55 and Open Country M/T. The Cooper and Maxxis are not tough enough. Interco's LTB in 34x10.50 is close in size, but comes with significant tradeoffs. Although I was satisfied with the KM2 (having gone through two sets), I wanted to try something other than a mud tire. I was tempted to try the Duratrac in 285/75, but decided that for my driving, the size was more critical than the tread design. Although the wider tires may offer better lateral stability in handling, I don't expect my vehicle to handle especially well, and I believe the taller, narrow tires offer more traction. I also know the 255/85 fit my fender wells better. As it is, I only have a few millimeters of clearance between the inner sidewall and fender well when fully flexed. I already have wheel spacers installed. Going to 285's would result in less suspension flex and less ground clearance. Going to larger tires would involve cutting doors and re-working the plate-steel rear bumper. The 255/85 is the best size for my vehicle and slight variations in tire design are not going to make up the difference when going to a less compatible size.
I live and drive primarily in northern Nevada and the Eastern Sierra Nevada mountains of California. We don't have much mud or for very long. This is hard rock country. We have snow, but it does not remain on the roads for long like it does in the north and east. Off road, the snow is very deep. With the little 33's, I am more limited by ground clearance than by tire tread design. Nevertheless, I was hoping to gain three minor advantages switching from KM2 to M55: reduced road noise, improved snow performance, and improved ice performance. The tradeoff would be reduced mud performance. I was concerned about the sidewalls being stiff and loosing some traction at low pressures since my application is not typical for the M55. My vehicle is a relatively light-weight Land Rover at about 5400-6000 lbs. It is not the typical 8000-9000 one ton commercial fleet pickup.
I drive this vehicle offroad or on the highway to the trail. I don't commute to work, and I don't really go anywhere else. I have another car if I need to drive to the airport in Reno or something. For most of my driving, tire noise is not a concern. I don't go fast enough that you can even hear the tires. On the highway, I don't need mud tires interrupting conversation, but the KM2 are not a loud tire at all. What I found with the M55 is they are not quieter. Although I have more noise from gears than I do from the tires, the M55 are not quieter than the KM2. They're not noisier either, but about the same. So the only advantage I can hope for now is better snow and ice performance. Although the tread life should be considerably longer as well, I don't expect to wear out the treads before the sidewalls are gone. The E-rated M55 are reported to have tough sidewalls, but I don't expect them to last much longer than KM2.
.
Some people reported the M55 being heavy. They may be in the larger sizes, but for 255/85R16, the specification is only a few pounds heavier. I weighed them mounted on my wheels. The wheel and zero-mile KM2 was 80 pounds. The wheel and new M55 was 83 pounds -- three pounds difference. And the KM2's wheel had fewer balancing weights on it. I have the M-speed rated M-55's which are a couple pounds lighter than the Q-rated tires. This is not an issue on the Land Rover which cannot go 100mph the way I have it configured.
.
The first place I drove the M55 was the Rubicon trail. It's just around the other side of the lake and I had a three-day trip planned with a site at Dirty Dozen reserved. Unfortunately, it was cut short by the King Fire that resulted in the trail being evacuated. I still managed to try the M55 on a few obstacles. After we had to evacuate, I headed down to the hills between Deer Valley and Hermit Valley in Stanislaus County and had more time on trails and some obstacles. I also had more highway time coming over Ebbett's pass and through Alpine county back into Nevada.
.
I typically ran the KM2 around 12-14 psi off road. I lost a bead once at 12 psi on a rock at full lock , so I tried the M55 at 14 psi to be safe. The Rover was loaded with supplies and 4 people and a large dog for 3 days so it was probably about 6000 pounds. I didn't have a problem getting good deformation and traction at all. I can see that maybe they're a little stiffer, but they could still be dropped another couple psi without an issue. You can see them working in this video at 14 psi.
[video=vimeo;106735091]https://vimeo.com/106735091[/video]
I see the M55 as one of the best choices in 255/85R16. In other sizes, there's more choices. The KM2 would have been a better bargain. They are $100 less expensive per tire. For a highway user, I am sure they will get more miles from the M55, but for my use, the snow and ice performance are the only clear advantage I can hope for. Nevertheless, off road they are not disappointing at all. I don't see a disadvantage compared to the KM2 except possibly in mud -- and the KM2 was not an awesome mud tire anyway. I'm happy with the M55 and I expect to get even happier as fall and winter set in over the next couple months. I don't expect any of my trail companions to swap to the M55. They'd have to give up their 37's and 40's. For a narrow 33, I don't see what more one could expect.
I chose the M55 primarily because I chose the 255/85R16 size and the choices in this size are limited. While there are a handful of tires in this size, there is not really anything better for offroad driving than the KM2 except possibly the Toyo M55 and Open Country M/T. The Cooper and Maxxis are not tough enough. Interco's LTB in 34x10.50 is close in size, but comes with significant tradeoffs. Although I was satisfied with the KM2 (having gone through two sets), I wanted to try something other than a mud tire. I was tempted to try the Duratrac in 285/75, but decided that for my driving, the size was more critical than the tread design. Although the wider tires may offer better lateral stability in handling, I don't expect my vehicle to handle especially well, and I believe the taller, narrow tires offer more traction. I also know the 255/85 fit my fender wells better. As it is, I only have a few millimeters of clearance between the inner sidewall and fender well when fully flexed. I already have wheel spacers installed. Going to 285's would result in less suspension flex and less ground clearance. Going to larger tires would involve cutting doors and re-working the plate-steel rear bumper. The 255/85 is the best size for my vehicle and slight variations in tire design are not going to make up the difference when going to a less compatible size.
I live and drive primarily in northern Nevada and the Eastern Sierra Nevada mountains of California. We don't have much mud or for very long. This is hard rock country. We have snow, but it does not remain on the roads for long like it does in the north and east. Off road, the snow is very deep. With the little 33's, I am more limited by ground clearance than by tire tread design. Nevertheless, I was hoping to gain three minor advantages switching from KM2 to M55: reduced road noise, improved snow performance, and improved ice performance. The tradeoff would be reduced mud performance. I was concerned about the sidewalls being stiff and loosing some traction at low pressures since my application is not typical for the M55. My vehicle is a relatively light-weight Land Rover at about 5400-6000 lbs. It is not the typical 8000-9000 one ton commercial fleet pickup.
I drive this vehicle offroad or on the highway to the trail. I don't commute to work, and I don't really go anywhere else. I have another car if I need to drive to the airport in Reno or something. For most of my driving, tire noise is not a concern. I don't go fast enough that you can even hear the tires. On the highway, I don't need mud tires interrupting conversation, but the KM2 are not a loud tire at all. What I found with the M55 is they are not quieter. Although I have more noise from gears than I do from the tires, the M55 are not quieter than the KM2. They're not noisier either, but about the same. So the only advantage I can hope for now is better snow and ice performance. Although the tread life should be considerably longer as well, I don't expect to wear out the treads before the sidewalls are gone. The E-rated M55 are reported to have tough sidewalls, but I don't expect them to last much longer than KM2.
.
Some people reported the M55 being heavy. They may be in the larger sizes, but for 255/85R16, the specification is only a few pounds heavier. I weighed them mounted on my wheels. The wheel and zero-mile KM2 was 80 pounds. The wheel and new M55 was 83 pounds -- three pounds difference. And the KM2's wheel had fewer balancing weights on it. I have the M-speed rated M-55's which are a couple pounds lighter than the Q-rated tires. This is not an issue on the Land Rover which cannot go 100mph the way I have it configured.
.
The first place I drove the M55 was the Rubicon trail. It's just around the other side of the lake and I had a three-day trip planned with a site at Dirty Dozen reserved. Unfortunately, it was cut short by the King Fire that resulted in the trail being evacuated. I still managed to try the M55 on a few obstacles. After we had to evacuate, I headed down to the hills between Deer Valley and Hermit Valley in Stanislaus County and had more time on trails and some obstacles. I also had more highway time coming over Ebbett's pass and through Alpine county back into Nevada.
.
I typically ran the KM2 around 12-14 psi off road. I lost a bead once at 12 psi on a rock at full lock , so I tried the M55 at 14 psi to be safe. The Rover was loaded with supplies and 4 people and a large dog for 3 days so it was probably about 6000 pounds. I didn't have a problem getting good deformation and traction at all. I can see that maybe they're a little stiffer, but they could still be dropped another couple psi without an issue. You can see them working in this video at 14 psi.
[video=vimeo;106735091]https://vimeo.com/106735091[/video]
I see the M55 as one of the best choices in 255/85R16. In other sizes, there's more choices. The KM2 would have been a better bargain. They are $100 less expensive per tire. For a highway user, I am sure they will get more miles from the M55, but for my use, the snow and ice performance are the only clear advantage I can hope for. Nevertheless, off road they are not disappointing at all. I don't see a disadvantage compared to the KM2 except possibly in mud -- and the KM2 was not an awesome mud tire anyway. I'm happy with the M55 and I expect to get even happier as fall and winter set in over the next couple months. I don't expect any of my trail companions to swap to the M55. They'd have to give up their 37's and 40's. For a narrow 33, I don't see what more one could expect.
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
Welcome to ExPo.
Good observations and sharing. I don't know if you read many posts here before contributing, but there are many fans and much information here about the excellent 255/85R16 size.
James
Erik N
Adventurer
I always liked the way the sidewalls work on those tires. You can see from the flex pattern that there is plenty of beef to them. They don't "balloon" out up to the rim edge, like some other tires do, making me think they are probably more durable.
Last edited:
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
siping the centers
Several years ago I had my tire dealer sipe (cut) several sets of tires I purchased from them. These added edges certainly helped with traction, though depending on the platform and use I think they can also reduce tread life.
Thinking about the center tread blocks and the solid/rock guard, one way to overcome this limitation/feature of the M55 tread would be to sipe the two center tread ribs to allow the tread to flex and grip more. Of course the 'stone guard', solid center tread rib would be largely compromised for that purpose, but the tires would provide better traction in many conditions, including ice.
Though I'm a fan of tire siping, in recent years I decided that it's much better to buy tires that already have superior siping from the factory, the ******** Cepek Fun Country is one example. Adding sipes at the point-of-sale is expensive, and not only provides another biting edge for added traction, but also can lead to tread blocks that are more easily cut, chipped, or ripped from the tire.
Several years ago I had my tire dealer sipe (cut) several sets of tires I purchased from them. These added edges certainly helped with traction, though depending on the platform and use I think they can also reduce tread life.
Thinking about the center tread blocks and the solid/rock guard, one way to overcome this limitation/feature of the M55 tread would be to sipe the two center tread ribs to allow the tread to flex and grip more. Of course the 'stone guard', solid center tread rib would be largely compromised for that purpose, but the tires would provide better traction in many conditions, including ice.
Though I'm a fan of tire siping, in recent years I decided that it's much better to buy tires that already have superior siping from the factory, the ******** Cepek Fun Country is one example. Adding sipes at the point-of-sale is expensive, and not only provides another biting edge for added traction, but also can lead to tread blocks that are more easily cut, chipped, or ripped from the tire.
Erik N
Adventurer
Although Toyo may call it a "stone guard", I suspect it it there to reduce tread squirm as well, making for truer handling under heavy loads.
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
Agreed. As well as adding a solid ribbon of tread down the center to wear better/longer as the tread gets shallow.
Everything about the M55 design still makes sense for its target audience, I'm just not confident the enthusiast in me wants to run another set because of the design compromises. There are some very good, competitive tread options these days.