BFG tire question

[kyleb]

does anyone know what the difference between these two tires are?:
31-1050R-15/C1 RWL
31-1050R-15C1 109S W

It looks to me like they are both the same size and both load range C. There is a fifty dollar difference in price though.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
-Kyle

 

[techno]

Those descriptions are slightly different from whats on the BFG web site, but I suspect you may be comparing different tread patterns (eg, Mud Terrain with an All Terrain), hence the $$ difference.

 

[kyleb]

I got those descriptions from the discount tire website.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that they are both All-Terrians.
-Kyle

 

[techno]

I cant find any BFG tire with the 31-1050R-15C1 109S W description you posted, and I've certainly never seen an All Terrain with a white wall as the 'W' would indicate.
Post the link you saw it on.

 

[kyleb]

here is the link from discount tire's website. I've looked at BFG's website and they are not listed...weird.

http://www.discounttire.com/dtcs/fi...c=38985&typ=Truck/SUV&rd=15&ar=1050&tc=MTAVL5

I'm not considering buying them, but just am curious what the difference is.

-Kyle

 

[brad6841]

I believe the RWL stands for Raised White Lettering, but as for the 109S W, as techno said I'm not really sure...

 

[techno]

I give up! It is a little strange, here is a link to what looks like the same company (Discount Tire vs Discount Tire Direct) but the 109S W doesnt appear.
http://www.discounttiredirect.com/d...CategoryDetailBrnd.do?tpc=MTAVL5&tp=Truck/SUV
...who knows....???

 

[brad6841]

Maybe the 109 is the speed rating....as for the S and the W, I still don't know. Maybe the S is for Speed and the W is for White Lettering. Maybe it's a model BFG discontinued and they're trying to get rid of them....

 

[techno]

109 (2271lb/1030kg) is the load rating, S (112mph/180kmh) is the speed rating. Click on the Reading The Tire Size links in any of those two web sites for the definitions.
Why some descriptions include load ratings and some dont, i dont know. The tire industry pisses me off with the way they define their products. Metric and inch units and all these codes. Personaly I wish they would settle with using the metric system but even that still uses inches for wheel diameter. Its pretty crazy really.
But as for this thread, I suspect the 'cheaper' tire was probably an error or a discontinued item.

 

[brad6841]

Personaly I wish they would settle with using the metric system but even that still uses inches for wheel diameter. Its pretty crazy really.

Amen to that...:yesyes:

 

[Uneek]

No doubt. I think rims are almost measured entirely in inches (diameter, width, backspacing), yet tires (except for some that are just 31x10.5x15) incorporate both English and Metric systems. And why use aspect ratio? Why not just give the sidewall height in mm just to have people convert back and forth to get their overall wheel diameter. :

Oh wells, I guess by using both systems in tires it's trully an international standard to apease the UK and the US and rest of the world that use the Metric system.

 

[Bala de Plata]

But as for this thread, I suspect the 'cheaper' tire was probably an error or a discontinued item.

This is most likely the correct answer. When I was looking to get some new tires, I found two at's in the same size and identical nearly in specs but there was a price difference. Only summit racing listed this "other" tire and only a phone call to bfg tech sprt clarified that the other tire was discontinued and last manufactured in 03. They advised not buying the tire as they have been laying around for at least 4 years. Tire companies still try to sell them and hey, maybe there isnt wrong, but I didnt want to deal with a old tire. So, probably the same thing on these.