BFG AT vs. General Grabber AT2

[speedgoat]

I'm torn between getting the BFG All Terrain's or the General Grabber AT2. I plan to keep the stock 265/70/16 size because I don't want to sacrifice fuel economy (otherwise I would go right to a 265/75/16 Goodyear duratrac).


My biggest priority is probably snow handling as I drive to the mountain 20+ times per winter, but both tires have the snow flake. Also I really want to maintain my gas mileage. I get 18 city and 20+ highway now with my worn out Michelin all season tires. The bfg is load range d, the general is not lt rated in this size but really the bfg is only 4 pounds heavier. So what is your opinion on:

Will I lose MPG with one or the other over current Michelin all season tires???

Is the BFG worth the additional $250??? (General: $650, BFG: $900 per set)

 

[t4r4life]

i have that AT2 in 33s, for snow you deff want the BFG, but for everything else AT2 wins over.

 

[quicksilvr]

I'm torn between getting the BFG All Terrain's or the General Grabber AT2. I plan to keep the stock 265/70/16 size because I don't want to sacrifice fuel economy (otherwise I would go right to a 265/75/16 Goodyear duratrac).


My biggest priority is probably snow handling as I drive to the mountain 20+ times per winter, but both tires have the snow flake. Also I really want to maintain my gas mileage. I get 18 city and 20+ highway now with my worn out Michelin all season tires. The bfg is load range d, the general is not lt rated in this size but really the bfg is only 4 pounds heavier. So what is your opinion on:

Will I lose MPG with one or the other over current Michelin all season tires???

Is the BFG worth the additional $250??? (General: $650, BFG: $900 per set)

I've never even seen a 265/70R16 BFG A/T....although I know they do officially make them.

Anyway, if you are really set on the MPG thing, then do NOT go to an LT tire. The only way you won't see any drop in MPG is if you stay with a P-metric tire, but you could probably move to a p-metric 265/75. It's less about the size and more about the weight. If you do a lot of highway, a p-metric 265/75 might even boost your mpg.


And all that said, I would get 265/75 Duratracs in the C load range. Won't hurt your mpg too much and they are a big win in the snow and ice.

 

[speedgoat]

And all that said, I would get 265/75 Duratracs in the C load range. Won't hurt your mpg too much and they are a big win in the snow and ice.

Quicksilvr, thanks for the input. So I looked up the 265/75 duratrac in load range C is it is 45 lbs vs 44 lbs for the p metric 265/70 general grabber. So weight wise they are a wash, but I've always though that going to the 265/75 will automaticlly drop you down a couple of miles per gallon.

Can anyone else confirm?

 

[quicksilvr]

Quicksilvr, thanks for the input. So I looked up the 265/75 duratrac in load range C is it is 45 lbs vs 44 lbs for the p metric 265/70 general grabber. So weight wise they are a wash, but I've always though that going to the 265/75 will automaticlly drop you down a couple of miles per gallon.

Can anyone else confirm?

I've gotten good gas mileage with 265/70's, 265/75's and 285/75's. I got better gas mileage with e-rated 285's on alloy wheels than d-rated 265's on heavy steel wheels. It's all about how you drive. If you have bigger tires and you want to preserve MPG, you have to not accelerate as hard, and use your momentum better.

I got 21mpg on 265/75 Revo's driving cross country in my '99. I've gotten 21mpg on my 265/70 Michelin's cross country in my '01. And I got 19mpg on 285's in my old '96....which I think is totally acceptable and I'm not complaining.

Go duratracs, drive it easier, be happy.