Hard Finding C Range Tires

[JB.]

Well these are the kinds of things that have made this tire browsing the past few months confusing. ...P rated I thought was NOT for load carrying capacity, and the tread depth thing about E tires I thought was debunked.

The endless contradictions bugged me, too, when I was tire shopping which is why I decided to use only primary sources of information.

I didn't want to confuse your search by bringing up P-metric tires, but you can read this if you want to know why they carry more load. If there is a technical point you absolutely feel you must reach certainty on, you can ask this tire engineer. If you do, I suggest wording the inquiry carefully as a general question is likely to be met with a blanket caution against using LT tires on a vehicle that came stock with P type.

For road use, Ps are generally a better choice. Once going off-pavement gets thrown into the mix, only the end user is in position to decide which tire is most appropriate. LT tires typically have deeper tread than P, but it can vary within load ranges, sometimes consistent across the range and sometimes going the opposite direction of expectation within ranges. The differences in tread depths and the trends they follow can easily be seen by looking at tire specs on Tire Rack.

 

[bluecollarjock]

The endless contradictions bugged me, too, when I was tire shopping which is why I decided to use only primary sources of information.

I didn't want to confuse your search by bringing up P-metric tires, but you can read this if you want to know why they carry more load. If there is a technical point you absolutely feel you must reach certainty on, you can ask this tire engineer. If you do, I suggest wording the inquiry carefully as a general question is likely to be met with a blanket caution against using LT tires on a vehicle that came stock with P type.

For road use, Ps are generally a better choice. Once going off-pavement gets thrown into the mix, only the end user is in position to decide which tire is most appropriate. LT tires typically have deeper tread than P, but it can vary within load ranges, sometimes consistent across the range and sometimes going the opposite direction of expectation within ranges. The differences in tread depths and the trends they follow can easily be seen by looking at tire specs on Tire Rack.

Well JB, you seem to have more patience than me in figuring this stuff out. If I am mostly on the highway BUT I daydream that I will eventually have sliders, skid, and get to use my rear locker....I do not want to be way out in the boonies wheeling or on a hunting trip and have a P rated tire not hold up.

I may never wheel as much as I want to, but if I do get to wheel this Yota some and it involves airing down and climbing rocks etc, I do not want to take chances.

Seeing you get out on the trails more often than most, and you got an E should it be safe to assume you believe using a P tire off road is a gamble? I want sidewall strength, I do not care about load capacity

 

[JB.]

Seeing you get out on the trails more often than most, and you got an E should it be safe to assume you believe using a P tire off road is a gamble? I want sidewall strength, I do not care about load capacity

If I had unlimited resources, it's an experiment I would relish doing. I made a thread along those lines, once, attempting to gather information but of course it wasn't close to being enough.

I tend to think airing down is such an important part of the equation that it's very possible P type ATs could handle the volume and type of offroading I do. The underlying statistical failure rate that is suggested to me by my personal experience seems to be so low that even a 100 or 200% increase would still be small enough to be acceptable.

Ultimately, it comes down to peace of mind. When I'm in a section where I wonder if I have enough tire even as is, I'm glad to have gone the LT route. Other times I wonder, but absent the ability to really find out the answer, it's LTs for me.

 

[bluecollarjock]

If I had unlimited resources, it's an experiment I would relish doing. I made a thread along those lines, once, attempting to gather information but of course it wasn't close to being enough.

I tend to think airing down is such an important part of the equation that it's very possible P type ATs could handle the volume and type of offroading I do. The underlying statistical failure rate that is suggested to me by my personal experience seems to be so low that even a 100 or 200% increase would still be small enough to be acceptable.

Ultimately, it comes down to peace of mind. When I'm in a section where I wonder if I have enough tire even as is, I'm glad to have gone the LT route. Other times I wonder, but absent the ability to really find out the answer, it's LTs for me.

yea I will be going one of the C loads or the Revo or Grabber E range once I pull trigger. I am a worry wort, if I end up way in boonies and have P rated I will not enjoy the trip as much because it will be in the back of my mind. And last time I was up at Cleghorn last summer wheeling my Jeep, there was a few different stock type vehicles with stock looking tires stranded on the side of freaking hill climbs with tires that were demolished. One was a 4runner, but some generic brand mild AT looking tire, did not stop to see load rating but the group looked like lots of stock vehicles not set up properly. Then to have a guy break down in middle of hill climb that put the rest of us in danger needing to go around him on a gnarly hill...and then further down the trail another partial trail blockage from guys with I think Sequoias or some other street looking Lexus SUV, paint pinstripes from trees down both sides, and hearing them try to go down certain sections the undercarriage smashing off the bottom, wonder what the hell people are thinking taking stock luxury vehicles or even stock good 4x4s like a 3rd gen 4runner but on street tires on trails the rest of us have 33s-35s aired down with lockers. I want peace of mind when I am far out in woods.

 

[zopperman]

C rated 265/75/16 duratracs. They are pretty quiet, especially for how aggressive they are

 

[bluecollarjock]

I do like the looks of the Dura Trac, but just google Dura Trac and you will get numerous threads on various off road forums of guys losing tires on the trail. Makes me too nervous to get them especially since they are more expensive than the Revo/Grabber/Cooper/Kelly.

To be fair there are other threads where the Dura Tracs hold up well for people...more internet confusion....but just between Jeep and Yota forums there is enough feedback that makes me hesitant, especially considering their price range. I did not even look up their weight, but if they are similar to the Kelly Safari they might be in the 50+ pound range.

If it is true the Kelly Safari TSR is on the same carcass, please let us know in this thread because I will scratch them off the list if so. Hard to tell with magazine reviews because I know they get the tires for free and get to keep them on their personal vehicles, so I've never read a magazine tire review bashing durability of a tire. I am sure they want to keep the freebies coming! hah I would!

 

[Canazes9]

I do like the looks of the Dura Trac, but just google Dura Trac and you will get numerous threads on various off road forums of guys losing tires on the trail. Makes me too nervous to get them especially since they are more expensive than the Revo/Grabber/Cooper/Kelly.

To be fair there are other threads where the Dura Tracs hold up well for people...more internet confusion....but just between Jeep and Yota forums there is enough feedback that makes me hesitant, especially considering their price range. I did not even look up their weight, but if they are similar to the Kelly Safari they might be in the 50+ pound range.

If it is true the Kelly Safari TSR is on the same carcass, please let us know in this thread because I will scratch them off the list if so. Hard to tell with magazine reviews because I know they get the tires for free and get to keep them on their personal vehicles, so I've never read a magazine tire review bashing durability of a tire. I am sure they want to keep the freebies coming! hah I would!

Hmmmm

You say one of the lightest aggressive AT's on the market is known to have weaker sidewalls?

Shocking!

David

 

[bluecollarjock]

Hmmmm

You say one of the lightest aggressive AT's on the market is known to have weaker sidewalls?

Shocking!

David

I do not know for sure, just commenting on lots of threads I have seen even before I was in the market for tires. When they first came out they looked super cool, then primarily on Jeep forums I would see posts about busted sidewalls.

Its 44 pounds...so yea I guess it is light...so is it safe to say that despite being close in weight, that the Revo and Grabber AT2 in E load would have stronger sidewalls?

 

[Canazes9]

I do not know for sure, just commenting on lots of threads I have seen even before I was in the market for tires. When they first came out they looked super cool, then primarily on Jeep forums I would see posts about busted sidewalls.

Its 44 pounds...so yea I guess it is light...so is it safe to say that despite being close in weight, that the Revo and Grabber AT2 in E load would have stronger sidewalls?

Comparing 265/70r17 only. The Revo's has tread depth of 15/32", identical diameter slightly narrower tread width compared to the Duratrac w/ 18/32" tread. The Duratrac has thicker (heavier) tread, wider (heavier) tread pattern and weighs 2 pounds less per tire. There is no free lunch, that weight savings comes from somewhere - the tire carcass on the Duratrac is lighter and weaker all around (not just the sidewalls).

Compare the Duratrac to the Goodyear Wrangler MT/R w/ Kevlar - a tire that Goodyear advertises as a "tough" MT. The MT/R weighs 55 pounds per tire, 11 pounds more than the Duratrac. Admittedly, the MT/R is a wider/taller tire and that's some of the weigh difference, but a lot of it is construction.

I'm not bashing Duratrac's either - it's a compromise, and a compromise that a lot of people find ideal.


If you want a tire that has tough sidewalls, you want an E rated tire. If you want a tough tire that isn't real heavy you are going to have to compromise and get a thinner, less aggressive tread pattern. If you must have a thick aggressive tread pattern and a tough tire, then it's going to be heavy....

David

 

[bluecollarjock]

Thanks. Well you guys have pretty much changed my mind, I was dead set on C range but just as likely to go with the E range Revo or Grabber when it is all said and done.

I am only hoping, wishing and daydreaming to do more road trips, go wheeling, camping, and hunting in the 4runner....but if I actually make any of those daydreams true I do not want to be stranded in the boonies from a busted sidewall. And the beautiful thing seems to be the Revo and Grabber are far cheaper than the Dura Trac and other more name brand aggressive off road treads.

The only C range tire I might consider is the Cooper S/T still as the Kelly is super heavy...but the Cooper tread does not look highway friendly....I imagine the Revo or Grabber could do what I need it to do, and with a rear locker that will give me a little cheating advantage too even if the tires are not hard core off road tread.

This thread has been an eye opener and I am thankful guys

 

[JB.]

It sounds to me like you may want to shop in person so you can physically inspect the sidewalls. That's the only way to truly know the thickness. Just keep in mind that all thickness aren't created equal. The Revo sidewall didn't seem very thick to me but the load rating at least guarantees a high fabric strength.

Trying to zero in on the perfect tire is hard. Narrowing the field is a lot easier. Given your emphasis on sidewall strength without excess weight, what you probably want to avoid is a tire that combines thin sidewall rubber with a load C rating.

 

[bluecollarjock]

well slowly this is making sense thanks to this thread...the Kelly Safari TSR is heavy for a C range, but I think a magazine article said its because the sidewalls are super thick rubber...but 54 pounds or so seems heavy compared to the E Revo and Grabber...

When I get ready to pull trigger I will read up on the Grabber AT2. You guys have me convinced the Revo will be fine if I go with it. If I can find good reviews on the Grabber I might just go between those two tires because I want to save money. Really hoping to get financially back on track soon and get sliders, skids, and rear bumper. Probably Savage since I could go drop it off and get them to install all of it in one shot. So cheaper the tire the better to save cash for other things.

I stopped at 4 Wheel Parts, they did not have any of the tires we are talking about. Many shops around here are big on the Hankook and Falken right now. I honestly did not even look to see what their offerings are in this size. I do not like the look of the Falken for some reason hah, not a practical decision point but I do want something that looks kinda cool. The Revo and Grabber are good looking.

Wonder why BFG bailed on the C and D range? I have beat the living snot out of BFG ATs over the years, I mean really immature abuse growing up in my K5 Blazer from burnouts on pavement to serious abuse in the woods and mud, never blew a tire. The BFG ATs in C range currently on my Yota are old, but have plenty of tread. They have dry rot and 3 of the valve stems have popped out on me in the past year because of dry rot. The one time I did not know it was a tire because a rear blew but felt more like my front end was wandering all over the road. I got a new valve stem and its been fine, even after accidentally running it flat at highway speeds for 20 miles or so. So I do think BFGs can take some serious abuse, but no more C or D load and also they cost a heck of a lot more! I was curious about the Rugged Terrain, just looked its E range is only 47 pounds. But it is expensive so less likely to sway me that way. Most Revo and Grabber reviews I am reading are favorable.

 

[bluecollarjock]

I cannot seem to find the weights for the Cooper AT3 C and E, and Cooper ATP in E. Although I originally said the AT3 seemed too mild, I may reconsider. Enough folks like it, price is right, worth a look. If the ATP is not super heavy in E it may be worth a look too. When I get ready to pull trigger I will try to go look at all the tires in person, weigh the price, the looks, and reviews I can find on Yota and Jeep forums.

 

[SlvrV8Rnnr]

Not impressed with Revos off-road

While a great great street tire and dry condition off-road tire, I have not been impressed with my Revos in the snow and especially not in the mud. I'm currently running 265/65/17 p rated tires and can't wait to take them off. I'm not into your normal off-roading but for getting to hunting and fishing spots and driving sloppy gravel roads, I've been less than pleased. And I'm not saying I go looking for trouble. Revos are a mild a/t so I know to avoid certain bad situations.

 

[JB.]

I cannot seem to find the weights for the Cooper AT3 C and E, and Cooper ATP in E. Although I originally said the AT3 seemed too mild, I may reconsider. Enough folks like it, price is right, worth a look. If the ATP is not super heavy in E it may be worth a look too. When I get ready to pull trigger I will try to go look at all the tires in person, weigh the price, the looks, and reviews I can find on Yota and Jeep forums.

If my email reply (which, as with most tire companies, was like pulling teeth to get) can be relied upon, the weights are 47 and 50 for 265/70/17 load C and E.

 

[bluecollarjock]

Yea why is it so hard to find the weights of some tires?? Do you think they do it on purpose? I kinda doubt it, but yea I had to email Cooper a while back to get the weight of the S/T in C, which is not so shabby.

I can see where the Revo would be potentially disappointing for some off road. If I did go with it I would not be expecting much in the woods, nor the AT3, tires like that would have me smiling more on the highway and at the gas pump I imagine. This tire choice is sort of a test of my maturity level hah. I used to get mudders for my trucks, loved them. Although I did mud a lot more back then, looking back it probably was not enough to justify that bad mileage, the poor handling in rain and snow (compared to an AT), them wearing out so fast, I swear I have gotten 60k+ miles out of BFG ATs even with wheeling, and honestly they are not horrific in mud. I put Hankook ATMs on a Silverado I built up for my dad, they do great in snow and muddy roads deer hunting and I hope last a long time. So yea, if I get Revos/AT3s it will be more for highway driving and I will suck it up on the trails if they are not so hot, and what wheeling I have done in SoCa is no mud, no snow, just dirt, gravel, and rocks.

If they were not so heavy and expensive, I would consider those new Fun Country and ATZP3 as both look like they would not be super loud on highway but are more meaty than the average AT. But again this is a maturity test, if I know I barely wheel the 4runner and when I do it will be mild, something like the Grabber AT2 would be way cheaper to purchase, may last longer than those more expensive aggressive tires, and could do me just fine with the kind of wheeling I do and be fine in snow, rain, and not noisy on the road.

 

[oljedi11950]

275/70/17 c lt at3

 

[paddlenbike]

I had a set of BFG A/T KO's that I just loved and when it came time for new tires, I was disappointed to learn that BFG stopped making the load range D tires I had and went to E's only. I felt that the load range D's were stiffer than I needed, load range E's have extremely stiff sidewalls and high load capacity to support 1 ton trucks towing trailers. After a bunch of research, I decided that I would draw the line at load range D. In the end, I chose load range C Cooper Discoverer S/Ts. They are slightly more aggressive than the BFGs and slightly noisier, but they are 50lbs even in my tire size vs 56 lbs each for the BFGs. I know some people can't tell a difference in ride quality between different load ranges, but I sure noticed.

Long story short, I slightly prefer the BFGs, IF THEY MADE LOAD RANGE Cs. They don't, so I prefer the Coopers.

 

[bluecollarjock]

Thanks for input. Those Coopers look really nice, and same rims as me too!

 

[bluecollarjock]

PS-that is one super clean Yota. Wow. Looks like I would buy a used vehicle off of you!