Falken AT4W’s coming. AT3W’s being discontinued.

[TRD PANTHER]

I spoke with Falken customer service today pertaining to their C load 285/70-17 AT3W, and why it was so heavy at 63#’s, and also, the poor wear on my SL tires in the same size. The representative then told me they are discontinuing the complete AT3W line and will be introducing their new AT4W’s in January.

 

[johnnygraphic]

Stay tuned for the Youtubes to explode with comparison videos and die hard believers vs haters.

Personally, I totally dig my AT3Ws. Had the SL on my 2000 4Runner and the E Load on my 2021 ORP.

 

[kenwilliams0803]

Maybe they can step it up and actually make them round.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[CRasch505]

I spoke with Falken customer service today pertaining to their C load 285/70-17 AT3W, and why it was so heavy at 63#’s, and also, the poor wear on my SL tires in the same size. The representative then told me they are discontinuing the complete AT3W line and will be introducing their new AT4W’s in January.

My understanding on the C load weight is that they have that deal with Jeep to supply 285 C loads for a bunch of their factory trims. As part of that deal, Jeep requested a heavier tire. It's stupid because I really wanted to go to 285's and Jeep guys are always selling them cheap, they just weigh too damn much.

 

[hoppyjr]

I ran the Falken A/T Trail on both an Outback and a Telluride, both worked well. When looking for a load range C tire for the T4R it was an easy choice to go BFG. I’m interested to see how these AT4W turn out.

 

[TRD PANTHER]

My understanding on the C load weight is that they have that deal with Jeep to supply 285 C loads for a bunch of their factory trims. As part of that deal, Jeep requested a heavier tire. It's stupid because I really wanted to go to 285's and Jeep guys are always selling them cheap, they just weigh too damn much.

Yes, this is true. I don’t know what advantage it was making them about 8 pounds heavier than other C load tires in the same size. IIRC, they have a deep 18/32 tread depth, which would be the only advantage.

 

[TRD PANTHER]

Maybe they can step it up and actually make them round.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I was concerned about that feedback that many members were reporting. Fortunately, I never had any balance or out of round issues with mine.

 

[TRD PANTHER]

Stay tuned for the Youtubes to explode with comparison videos and die hard believers vs haters.

Personally, I totally dig my AT3Ws. Had the SL on my 2000 4Runner and the E Load on my 2021 ORP.

I really like my AT3W’s in the SL rating except for the wear. Coming up on 24k with only 5/32 left. Aligned, balanced and rotated as required. Less than 1k miles of off road use. Smooth, fairly quiet ride, really good out 4wheeling and in water. However, off road performance started to decline slightly after 15k. I hope the new AT4W C load is ~55 pounds.

 

[kenwilliams0803]

I was concerned about that feedback that many members were reporting. Fortunately, I never had any balance or out of round issues with mine.

They were definitely an extra cause of many people's frustrations. Especially with the T4R which is very sensitive to balance and road force. Glad you got lucky.

Mine were OK tires, just impossible to keep in balance and louder than any other AT I've ever had at 20k+, even though rotated often. I run super swampers on my Jeep and I think the swampers were quiter, no joke. The Falkens did last me 50k though, and the traction was good in wet/dry/snow.

I'll be checking out alternatives next time but the 2016 Limited I just bought has brand new tires on it so I can't bring myself to throw those away yet. I'd love to hear how the latest version of the Falkens turns out.



Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Rob41]

The AT's I've got have served me well in 285/70/17 SL rating. Hopefully the new AT4's will be at least as good.

 

[honda250xtitan]

My understanding on the C load weight is that they have that deal with Jeep to supply 285 C loads for a bunch of their factory trims. As part of that deal, Jeep requested a heavier tire. It's stupid because I really wanted to go to 285's and Jeep guys are always selling them cheap, they just weigh too damn much.

my brother in law bought a set off a jeep guy. And he absolutely loves the tires. Said he didnt notice the extra weight. He drives like a grandma anyways.

 

[Argyle Edison]

FYI, there is a recall on some Wildpeaks. I haven't found time to call CS yet, but I will. I love these tires so I guess I'll have to see what happens.

Falken Wildpeak AT3W Recall

 

[EC15.]

Looks like the new AT4Ws

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=8AMlmw-iOHC5Wy3C&v=2i-QDERxETI&feature=youtu.be

 

[T4R_Canuck]

My understanding on the C load weight is that they have that deal with Jeep to supply 285 C loads for a bunch of their factory trims. As part of that deal, Jeep requested a heavier tire. It's stupid because I really wanted to go to 285's and Jeep guys are always selling them cheap, they just weigh too damn much.

I hear people complain about the weight all the time, but I have no idea why it's such a concern. I've had a set of E load for 3 years, dragged them across sharp rocks, gouged the sidewalls several times, stuck a small branch right through the sidewall and absolutely abused the heck out of them. They still balance perfect, are quiet on the highway, are pretty decent in the winter and i'll ruin them long before i've run out of tread. So, why does a couple extra pounds matter? The alternative is to run K02s which are a terrible tire when compared directly to the AT3W, or a more expensive Nitto or Yokohama.

 

[jdm-v35]

spec sheet is up on their site and wow the weights went way up. It could possibly rule out wildpeaks for my next tire choice because it is such a big difference. 285/70r17 in both c and e load are now 65lbs per tire for at4w. the at3w's were 59lbs for the E load I think. I don't see any big difference other than more aggressive sidewall.

 

[CRasch505]

spec sheet is up on their site and wow the weights went way up. It could possibly rule out wildpeaks for my next tire choice because it is such a big difference. 285/70r17 in both c and e load are now 65lbs per tire for at4w. the at3w's were 59lbs for the E load I think. I don't see any big difference other than more aggressive sidewall.

Yeah these things seem to have put on some weight. At that point I'll just buy some new AT3 C-loads off the local Jeep guys since the weight will be no different.

 

[T4R_Canuck]

spec sheet is up on their site and wow the weights went way up. It could possibly rule out wildpeaks for my next tire choice because it is such a big difference. 285/70r17 in both c and e load are now 65lbs per tire for at4w. the at3w's were 59lbs for the E load I think. I don't see any big difference other than more aggressive sidewall.

AT3W E Load: 65.4lbs *Source: Falken website

AT4W E Load: 65.4lbs *Source: Falken website

There is no change in the weight of the new AT4W vs. the outgoing AT3W.

 

[T4R_Canuck]

Yeah these things seem to have put on some weight. At that point I'll just buy some new AT3 C-loads off the local Jeep guys since the weight will be no different.

There is no change in weight between the outgoing AT3W and incoming AT4W tires.

 

[jdm-v35]

There is no change in weight between the outgoing AT3W and incoming AT4W tires.

I think they actually changed the spec sheets to now match so its decieving. The at3w also was not exactly 33", but the spec sheet on that page is now showing that. the at4w was said to be exactly 33".

The at3w specs previously listed the 285/70r17 E load as 59 lbs.

 

[T4R_Canuck]

I think they actually changed the spec sheets to now match so its decieving. The at3w also was not exactly 33", but the spec sheet on that page is now showing that. the at4w was said to be exactly 33".

The at3w specs previously listed the 285/70r17 E load as 59 lbs.

Who knows, but I highly doubt it. KO2s in E Load are 58lbs and I hear so many people complaining how the AT3Ws always weighed "so much more", so i'm confident the AT3Ws were always 64lbs.

Either way, the weight matters to nobody unless they wheel extremely hard. That extra few pounds isn't going to be the difference in any noticeable MPG loss and most certainly won't be the reason for broken axles on the trail, so its a moot point regardless.