BFG K02 vs Falken AT3W Actual Weights

[Colorado S14]

Good morning,
Planning for my next set of tires and interested in the AT3Ws, I am currently running the K02s. I am trying to be weight conscious and want to go with a 285 next. In comparing the listed weights of the two tires on the manufacturer websites I see, what I assume to be, goofy numbers on the Falken site. They list the following for the AT3W:

Size_____________Load Range______Weight
LT285/70R17_________C____________62.8
LT285/70R17_________E____________58.9

Whereas BFG lists:

Size_____________Load Range______Weight
LT285/70R17_________C____________51.4
LT285/70R17_________E____________57.9

Now, it seems impossible to me that the E range Falken is lighter than their own C range tire. Maybe someone fat fingered a 62 and meant to type a 52 when putting this list together? If that is the case, can someone confirm the weight of a 285 C load AT3W?

Thanks!

 

[MAST4R]

Good morning,
Planning for my next set of tires and interested in the AT3Ws, I am currently running the K02s. I am trying to be weight conscious and want to go with a 285 next. In comparing the listed weights of the two tires on the manufacturer websites I see, what I assume to be, goofy numbers on the Falken site. They list the following for the AT3W:

Size_____________Load Range______Weight
LT285/70R17_________C____________62.8
LT285/70R17_________E____________58.9

Whereas BFG lists:

Size_____________Load Range______Weight
LT285/70R17_________C____________51.4
LT285/70R17_________E____________57.9

Now, it seems impossible to me that the E range Falken is lighter than their own C range tire. Maybe someone fat fingered a 62 and meant to type a 52 when putting this list together? If that is the case, can someone confirm the weight of a 285 C load AT3W?

Thanks!

I cannot answer your specific question but having transitioned from LTD KO2 to SL AT3W I can say this:

The Wildpeaks are great but they are heavy because, from what I understand, they use old-school steel belts as opposed to lightweight (high-strength steel). This lowers the cost. They cost nothing in my 265 P metric size.

The SL 265 70 17 is 45.2 on my bathroom scales.

Second, from what I gather, only a few tires have a "proper" C range as most makers seem to use the same molds or whatever to produce them all. This may explain why C load Wildpeak are very heavy. They are super heavy in 275 or I would be running those. KO2s and Duratracs and maybe Cooper AT3 are the only tires where the C load seems to really be what it should be.

Finally, if you feel you have to have LT (I run P metric in AZ which is worse for tires than CO), KO2s maybe the better option. LTC KO2 gives you an extra casing ply and LTD/E KO2 adds an extra sidewall ply.

The P Wildpeaks are very strong and per Falken themselves their LTC is not stronger than their SL for offroad purposes (I asked by email). But they are not as strong as LTD/E KO2.


The main issues with P metric Wildpeaks are:
1/ It wears much faster than LT metric Wildpeaks
2/ Airing down on steep climbs and/or sharp rocks may result in bad experiences.

The main pros of P metric Wildpeaks are:
1/ Very strong when run at 28 psi or higher despite being SL
2/ Great everywhere and no need to air down in rocks for either traction or comfort (only for deep sand).
3/ Super cheap in 265