New Falken AT tire (A/T3W)
- Thread starter weeeee
- Start date
MAST4R
New member
I also find them very quiet. I am not sure why they have a reputation for noise, maybe that is true for larger sizes.
Btw, the four new ones I bought and one of my earlier ones are all made in USA.
MAST4R
New member
Decipher
New member
Worst case you get to try another tire
Haha. Story of my life...
From a noise standpoint, I’ll confirm the stock size is MUCH more quite than 33s even from the jump. The 33s have a higher pitch hum that I found annoying almost immediately and with the bad wear I experienced for unknown reasons (cupping), they’ve really become almost MT loud but higher pitched.
My MT/01s are in but I’m on vacation so they won’t go on until the end of the week. This vacation is one last hoorah for now on these tires.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Beams37
Junior Member
So ... Could NOT find 275's in stock anywhere. So, we decided to go with 265's. I want to add some pictures with stock TRDOR wheels, as everyone seems to go pro.
Pic 1: The day we bought it.
Pic 2: Right after having the WP 265's installed.
Pic 3: Up close comparison.
Pic 1: The day we bought it.
Pic 2: Right after having the WP 265's installed.
Pic 3: Up close comparison.
Attachments
Decipher
New member
Getting the Falken MT/01 installed now.
After taking a road trip vacation with the family the last few days, I couldn’t get this set of AT3Ws off quickly enough. They were so annoyingly loud at such an awful pitch that my ears were literally hurting, and I’m a career fireman around loud stuff all the time. This set has worn absolutely awful and the cupping is now visually noticeable to me.
I’ve adjusted pressures accordingly to the lower outside temps, I’ve chalk lined them to assure proper pressure, and I have unlimited alignments at a local shop so I align the truck twice a year since I off road a good deal. This set just bombed. Sad since it’s such a great tire.
Moral of the story, if you go up above stock size, I’d get a higher load rating. Don’t get the SL P-series rated tire.
Stock size is amazing in handling, noise and overall performance. SL is perfectly fine in that size. I had a great experience with those.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
After taking a road trip vacation with the family the last few days, I couldn’t get this set of AT3Ws off quickly enough. They were so annoyingly loud at such an awful pitch that my ears were literally hurting, and I’m a career fireman around loud stuff all the time. This set has worn absolutely awful and the cupping is now visually noticeable to me.
I’ve adjusted pressures accordingly to the lower outside temps, I’ve chalk lined them to assure proper pressure, and I have unlimited alignments at a local shop so I align the truck twice a year since I off road a good deal. This set just bombed. Sad since it’s such a great tire.
Moral of the story, if you go up above stock size, I’d get a higher load rating. Don’t get the SL P-series rated tire.
Stock size is amazing in handling, noise and overall performance. SL is perfectly fine in that size. I had a great experience with those.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Decipher, I have a set of the SL in 265 and they are making me crazy with the level of noise they make. I have about 15xxx on them or less and they are cupped and very, very loud on the highway. I too have had multiple road-force balancing, multiple alignments etc. However they are a good snow/wet tire for sure.
Not sure if some are just bad construction or what.
X
Not sure if some are just bad construction or what.
X
DigitalRJH
New member
Your truck looks level, and the front end looks lifted a bit, is there a 1 inch front lift on it? Looks much more level than my ORP.
Decipher
New member
Interesting...
My original set was 265s SL and I had not one complaint. I wonder if something changed somewhere. Everyone talks about how quite these are in that size especially and that was my experience too.
I’m not some noise snob. I don’t expect an aggressive AT tire to be as quite as a highway tire and I’m sure you expect the same. The cupping is my major concern and makes me feel like somethings wrong beyond the truck.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Beams37
Junior Member
Nope. Stock as can be.
DigitalRJH
New member
Do you have KDSS? I read somewhere that the KDSS trucks have more rake.
Beams37
Junior Member
Nope. LOL
Decipher
New member
I got my Falken MT/01s on and while I’m not going to pollute this AT3W thread with info on those, I will say the departure to an MT from my annoying loud and cupping AT3Ws has been better than expected from an on-road standpoint. They’re amazing. I’ll be opening an ongoing review thread on them.
Teaser pic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Teaser pic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Attachments
Last edited:
DeltaWhiskey
New member
Had my Wildpeak AT3W 265’s installed today, bought them on Jan. 22nd for $90.15 each on a Walmart price match. First 100 miles I’m shocked how smooth and quiet they are, and the look is way more appropriate for an off road model. Anxious to get my lift installed and get out on some trails
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bruin1md
New member
What about comparing the C load LT Falkens 275/70/17 vs the C load KO2's?
I didn't care for the poor wet traction/poor hydroplaning resistance of my C load 285 KO2's I had on my GX460. I'm moving to the desert soon and am debating between the Falkens: either the LT C load 275/70/17 or going up in size and getting the P metric 285/70/17 (will keep my TRD Pro stock for now and am concerned about whether the 285's will fit w/o rub issues). Option C of course is to just keep my stock Terra Grapplers on and wait.
Gas mileage stinks on the TRD Pro, presumably b/c of the heavy roof basket, but I'm not worried about the added weight of the C load Falkens at 275's. I want the best combo of puncture resistance, wet traction when needed, on/off road manners, and wear.........hence why I think the C load 275's might be the best options
MAST4R
New member
Per Falken, the SL and the C load AT3W are equally strong in terms of offroading, I have that in an email from them. That a heavier tire should be more puncture resistant is merely an assumption. Who knows who is right? Nobody on this forum has demonstrated to know for sure.
Comparing C-load AT3W to C-load KO2 should be straightforward.
The C-load KO2 gives you an extra tread ply though no extra sidewall ply. This is an objective advantage when running faster in the desert especially at street pressures. I have had one minor puncture in such circumstances in 2,940 offroad miles with the AT3W. But we also have plenty of desert including challenging and exposed trails with no issues.
On road, the C-load AT3W may be better in rain but its extra 10lb or so will make for worse acceleration and longer braking distances thereby making it hard to call the LTC AT3W safer in AZ or SoCAL.
Personally, if I am to have a tire north of 50lb, I will want one with a 3-ply sidewall. I am just not a fan of heavy tires that don't go all the way.
There are LTC MT tires in 255 75 17 that have a 3-ply sidewall, including the Destination MT2 at 49lb. It is just that the price premium from 114 to 200 (plus the cost of a proper spare, even if used), is not yet worth it for me.
Last edited:
The SL tires actually have a better load rating than most brands C load. The Wildpeaks 2 sidewall plys are rolled over, and run up the sidewall for a 4 layer type sidewall. I believe if something is going to puncture your sidewall it’s going to regardless. Got rid of my KO2 E for a Wildpeak SL and won’t look back. They’ve been great on and off road.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bruin1md
New member
If I understand you correctly, you had a good/great experience with the stock 265/70/17 AT3W's in the P rated version of the tire, but then went up in size (I'm assuming to 285/70/17, also as the SL), and had a not so great experience in terms of road noise and cupping after several thousand miles. Is that right?
