the 255/80-17 is E rated LT and it has a snowflake rating. this is directly off Falken's website.It's my understanding that the AT3W is only snow rated in NON-LT sizes.
They seemed to check all the boxes for my purposes, so I put them on my '96 Suburban K1500. (My previous tires were Cooper ATW's which were OK but uninspiring. )How are Falken tires generally in terms of quality?
I think you may be responding to my original post from 2016. Just FYI I’ve been running Wildpeaks since November 2016 and am very happy with them. I think I have 30,000+ miles on them now.They seemed to check all the boxes for my purposes, so I put them on my '96 Suburban K1500. (My previous tires were Cooper ATW's which were OK but uninspiring. )
The price for the Falkens from Discount Tire was about as good as I could find for any tire.
Not very extensive use so far, but enough to be able to say:
They have been very good in wintry driving here in Colorado.
My own driveway and its 14% grade usually gives me a convenient standardized test of winter tire performance. And our winter was VERY snowy, For reference the best snow tire I have used on this vehicle is, hands down, the Cooper M&S - pretty much a dedicated winter tire. The Falkens were close enough to get a winter "thumbs-up."
No noticeable highway noise.
No weaknesses have yet turned up with dry 4WD use, but that use has not been pushed particularly hard yet. So far, mostly just hardpacked, sandy and rocky desert conditions in SE Utah.
The tread seems to be holding up fine - no irregularities such as chunking, tearing or rock damage.
One thing that is unknown but suspicious at this point - On a recent 500 mile trip my fuel mileage was dismal (like 25% worse) compared to the same trip on prior occasions. About 410 miles of highway and about 90 miles of dirt road and mild desert 4WD (The full White Rim Road in Canyonlands NP). It was the first real measurement of fuel mileage under steady/consistent conditions since putting the tires on around the first of the year. The cause of the poor mileage is yet to be determined and may have been something other than the tires.
I wasn't responding to your specific post so much as I was just trying to add another data point and see if anyone else noticed fuel mileage issues.I think you may be responding to my original post from 2016.
I'm running these in 275/70R17 on my Sierra 1500, and overall, I'm satisfied with their performance. They're smooth on the interstate and I picked up about 1 mpg compared to the 275/70R17 Grabber ATX that I ran for ~3,000 miles. Thanks to deeper tread, they're slightly large for a 275/70R17 (32.4"), but they're heavy for a LR C tire - only 1 pound lighter than the LR E Generals they replaced. Compared to the Grabber ATX, these require more air pressure on road for confident handling. At the same 38 psi that I ran the Generals, these were squirmy through curves and turns, and according to the tread-wear, that was under-inflated on these. Now I'm at 42 psi and they're much better; I think 45 psi would probably feel perfect on road but worry that they'd be over-inflated and wear out the center tread prematurely. Everywhere but the interstate, I preferred the performance of the Generals. Most of our forest service roads in the Carolinas are gravel, and the Generals handled gravel like it was dry pavement. These Falkens are much more squirrelly on gravel roads but perform adequately off pavement.Anyone running these in 275/70R17?
I was all hell bent on the 255/80R17, but I realized I'd rather have a slightly shorter tire that fills out the wheel well a bit without spacers than a narrow tire that's very inset. I currently run pizza cutters with spacers and I'm over spacers.
Plus, the 275/70's are C-Rated, which is a nice compromise between SL rated and E-Rated tires.