So I've been doing some research on 275's... I think its absolutely BS!! That I can find 285's that are lighter than 275's. With that said...
Lets look at our options- from lightest to heaviest;

275/70/17 Cooper AT3 LT 52.0 lbs Ht: 32.17

275/70/17 BF Goodrich KO2 55.0 lbs Ht: 32.2

275/70/17 Falken Wildpeak A/T3W 57.1 lbs Ht: 32.4

275/70/17 Cooper St Maxx 59 pounds Ht: 32.17

275/70/17 Goodyear Wrangler MTR ? lbs Ht: 32.4

Please add or correct any tires I am missing..

Kumho AT51
LT275/70R17C 32.2inches 46.2lbs
I run these currently, performed much better then the stock TRD Pro tires. Niitos?

Hmmm... Good find! I didn't see these.

Cooper also makes a 275 in two off brands, Mastercraft and Hercules. C load 47lbs. Tread looks like the at3 but the sidewall is plain.

To clarify a little Goodyear MT/R’s are mud terrain not AT’s they are d rated and yes they are heavy. I have a set in 285 for summer.

I just picked up a set of Duratracs in 255/75/r17 pizza cutters for snow tires. They are SL and rate the same as C for load and are 42 pounds each. There’s no need for me to run a LT in the winter, as all I do is too->resort/vacation/work driving. I only wish they were pinned for studs, like their entire LT range.

For the snow you'd be better off with wider tires. Pizza cutters are good for crawling. I know it's a controversial subject, so to each his own.

They are >1 inch narrower than a 275/70/r17. So the term "pizza cutter" is only by comparison to what everyone usually runs around here. I have spent a lot of my life in winter mountains, I can tell you for a fact that a narrower tire performs better in sloppy wet heavy snow than a wider tire, same goes for hydroplaning. Sure, wide(r) tires are better suited to icy or hard pack conditions or snow so deep you need flotation, which is pretty much never around here considering the amount of crap they dump on the roads. If it is that bad I can always air down to 25-30.

Maybe its different in socal

Firestone Destination A/T 275/70R17 Load C is 47lbs and 32.2"

It is true: 275 70 is an awkward tire size with limited options and heavy weights. It is what it is.

People need to stop guessing width by using nominal numbers 265, 275. 285, etc and look into actual tread width measurements on the Tire Rack website. There are 265s wider than some 285s and 275s are normally narrower than my 265 Wildpeak.

Now that I have an upgraded suspension, I am considering 255 75 17 instead. The stock tire is 8.3" wide at the tread. 255 75s range from 7.5 to 8.1, normally. I would not go 7.5, but 8.1 vs 8.3 with a much more capable suspension and a 1" lift should serve me well. My 265 70 Wildpeaks are 9" wide, as much as many 285s, the much stiffer suspension plus LT sidewalls should result in a net increase in stability on road. And of course, the Limited comes with even narrower tires from the factory. As for offroad, whatever, 255 75 or 275 70, the differences are too small to be worthy of a wide vs narrow tire discussion.

A truly wide tire is 295 or 305. An actual pizza cutter for a 4R would be 235 or 245. So 305 vs 235 is totally a wide vs narrow discussion or at least 295 vs 245. Everything else is splitting hair.

As for specific tires, I would consider the Kumho in question a second tier tire at best. The Destination AT in this size is a 15 year or so model. The new Destination AT 2 was not available in that size last time I checked. There is a Nokian Rotiiva AT in that size, I believe, but it seems that the Nokian AT is not really suitable for desert rock.

Right most are e-rated, kinda frustrating. hence the weight.
The tire I listed is 7.5" (tread width) and yes an average 275/70/r17 is ~8.8". Of course, as with most things, there are outliers, not even the OT.

It is obviously, all about splitting hair. "Pizza cutter" is a relative term for narrower tire, it has no numerical value attached to it. But hey lets all be overly critical, shall we. lol God this place has gone as stale day old bread in the desert.

So instead of hinging on what I said (since we can't seem to have any light conversation) how about sticking with topic, tire weight?

Another consideration should be the tread depth you're getting at that weight. 1/32" might not be so much, but between manufacturers might see as much as 3/32" difference which top & bottom is more than 1/8". Being that the tread is the heaviest portion of the tire that can add up. C load should run up lighter than E for sure.

Hankook DynaPro AT2
LT E - 58lbs - 32.1" - 15/32

General Grabber A/TX
LT E - 59lbs - 32.2" - 16/32

Mickey T Deegan 38 All Terrain
LT E - 52lbs - 32.17" - 17/32

Cooper Discoverer AT3
LT C - 49lbs - 32.2" - 16.5/32 (Discontinued)
LT E - 52lbs - 32.2" - 16.5/32

Does anybody have any feedback on the Cooper Discoverer LT275/70R17 AT3 in load range E in comparison to Falken Wildpeak LT275/70R17 load range C? Im trying to find a tire in the 275 size that is on the lighter side that has better than other road manner but still capable enough off road. Not a lot of options in 275 like most people already know.



Cooper Discoverer LT275/70R17 AT3 E - 52lb per tire
Falken Wildpeak LT275/70R17 C - 57.1lb per tire


I understand 10ply Cooper vs 6ply Wildpeak is big difference, but will ride quality suffer that much more from the Cooper being 10ply even though its a lighter tire? And by ride quality I mean DD road comfort/handling and hit to MPGs.

For context I have a 2" lift all around from King 2.5s with SPC UCAs. So middle of the road lift and added weight. Kinda wish Cooper wouldn't of discontinued those C ratings. Feedback would be greatly appreciated, the struggle is real.

Guy maybe it doesn't snow in California?

For OP, try 265 for weight. For snow, the thinner the better. The idea of flotation unless you've got a huge lift is meaningless. You ll get high centered before you cant float on it. Thin tires best in snow..

I have been stuck on this subject of trying to justify 275's working for me as well. I gave up. Not looking for E load.

I'm going with 255 75 17 in the cooper at3. I still get about a 32" tire without the weight or mpg hit. Plus better in snow.

Unless the magic tire comes along in this thread.

Yes, any E load tire is going to be a rough ride on the truck unless you really have it aired or loaded down. Those E load (10-ply) sidewalls are really stiff, and for a daily driver that means a jarring ride. If you were loaded with a RTT, Drawers, and lots of armor for overlanding it might weigh it down enough, but lightly or moderately modded the 4Runner just isn't heavy enough for E load.
Someone posted in this tire thread that the Falkens don't use a high tensile steel, which mean the steel cords have to be thicker. It's why their tires are heavier.
Sadly there's next to naught left for C Load 275's. Firestone has them in the Destination AT line, but you only get 12/32 of tread on the LT tire, and they cost just as much as the others.
Instead of chasing a non-existent ghost in 275 C load. I've decided to make the jump to the wider selection that's available in 285. Though C load pickings are still slim, there's more of them than 275. Since you're already lifted with UCA, you might consider doing the same. Most of the 285 C loads available are lighter than the Falken 275 C.
Also consider most manufacturers have a 500 mile "Try it" period. So you could try the E load 275's and see if you can stand them before really making up your mind. I will say 500 miles sounds like a lot to some, but it goes by more quickly than you think. I also would ensure the shop you're dealing with is willing to deal with the tire manufacturer and their return policy before you jump on that train.

One word..... Truckee.