New Falken AT tire (A/T3W)

[Decipher]

If I am not wrong: the E Load Falken 285/70/17 is listed at 59lbs per tire. The P metric/SL is listed at 51Lbs. The P/SL 285/70/17 Ridge Grappler is 49lbs. The C load RG is 55lbs.

In my opinion, there was a noticeable difference in acceleration and stiffness going from the E load Falken to the SL Ridge Grapplers. I am not sure if there will be a noticeable difference for someone going from a 55lbs C load Ridge Grappler to an 59lbs E load Falken or vice versa. If discount will allow it - trial and error may be the remedy.

Thanks for posting up those weights! Going from C Grapplers (55 lbs) to E AT3W (59 lbs) is only a 4 lbs increase. Even if I go down to SL, I’m seeing a 4 lbs decrease in weight. At that point it all is probably negligible and not super noticeable. I’m thinking the rolling resistance is probably better on the Falkens so I’m waiting to see if I notice anything there. My RGs have absolutely killed my MPGs and it’s likely from rolling resistance since I came into them from KO2s in C.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thai]

Thanks for posting up those weights! Going from C Grapplers (55 lbs) to E AT3W (59 lbs) is only a 4 lbs increase. Even if I go down to SL, I’m seeing a 4 lbs decrease in weight. At that point it all is probably negligible and not super noticeable. I’m thinking the rolling resistance is probably better on the Falkens so I’m waiting to see if I notice anything there. My RGs have absolutely killed my MPGs and it’s likely from rolling resistance since I came into them from KO2s in C.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just fun fact......2020 Tacoma TRD PRO rim weight 4.188 lbs less than 2019's. Yet, Toyota and FOX had to re-tune the entire suspension.

Toyota on 2020 Tacoma TRD PRO: "A new 16-inch wheel is added to the mix, which is 4.188 lbs. lighter than the previous version. To complement the changes, TRD updated the tuning of the Fox 2.5-inch internal bypass shocks and front and rear springs. Goodyear Wrangler All-Terrain Kevlar-reinforced tires stand up to rough terrain."

So, 4 lbs can be significant to your 4runner (if you have stock suspension).....even if you don't feel it. (And this is why i want to keep any new tire weight as close to stock as possible, which means no LT tire for me.)

 

[Decipher]

Just fun fact......2020 Tacoma TRD PRO rim weight 4.188 lbs less than 2019's. Yet, Toyota and FOX had to re-tune the entire suspension.

Toyota on 2020 Tacoma TRD PRO: "A new 16-inch wheel is added to the mix, which is 4.188 lbs. lighter than the previous version. To complement the changes, TRD updated the tuning of the Fox 2.5-inch internal bypass shocks and front and rear springs. Goodyear Wrangler All-Terrain Kevlar-reinforced tires stand up to rough terrain."

So, 4 lbs can be significant to your 4runner (if you have stock suspension).....even if you don't feel it. (And this is why i want to keep any new tire weight as close to stock as possible, which means no LT tire for me.)

This is a great point, although the reasoning for adjusting the suspension for unsprung weight escapes me.

I did some soul searching and changed my order to SL. If Falken would just release the damn C loads it would be a no brainer but almost 10 lbs per tire just doesn’t make sense for my lame Illinois and Midwest wheeling. Appreciate all the insight! Just never felt settled on a 10-ply tire for my needs. I hope I won’t regret it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thai]

This is a great point, although the reasoning for adjusting the suspension for unsprung weight escapes me.

I did some soul searching and changed my order to SL. If Falken would just release the damn C loads it would be a no brainer but almost 10 lbs per tire just doesn’t make sense for my lame Illinois and Midwest wheeling. Appreciate all the insight! Just never felt settled on a 10-ply tire for my needs. I hope I won’t regret it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remember when Edmunds did pickup test...Honda Ridgeline vs. Tacoma vs. Nissan full size? In that test, both Tacoma (with TRD package; Bilstein) and Nissan REAR AXLE shocks leaked badly over washboard. Toyota and Nissan FRONT shocks were OK. In contrast, the Ridgeline all 4 shocks were OK. Everyone was claiming how much better Ridgeline suspension design was........well, not really.......the conclusion was expected, at least by me.

My conclusion is that the solid rear axle and bigger/heavier tires of the Tacoma and Nissan represent much heavier UNSPRUNG weight than the Honda's independent rear suspension and its highway tires. The much higher unsprung weight + washboards = shock failure.

So, unsprung weight IMO is an often overlooked aspect of a truck suspension. Unsprung weight is well-known in sports cars (i used to own M3 and this was HUGE)...but SUV/truck owners often overlook it when picking aftermarket tires/rims. Picking a heavy tire (LT for example that is 10-15 lbs heavier than stock) may lead to premature failure of the suspension (likely shocks first)....and of course, affects ride quality/handling/control (e.g. hitting bumpstop often).

And this is why just 4 lbs difference in wheel weight causes Toyota/FOX to retune their suspension to keep same ride quality and maybe keep same durability to its suspension.

Just my 100% over-analyzing crazy thoughts.... :noidea:

 

[Anand]

Just my 100% over-analyzing crazy thoughts.... :noidea:

Well at least I can agree with part of this post completely...

 

[Thai]

Well at least I can agree with part of this post completely...

So, you don't think that unsprung weight is important? Why do you think both Tacoma and Nissan trucks REAR shocks fail while Ridgeline did not? Because Honda knows how to design an off-road truck?

So, Toyota and FOX retuning their suspension due to 4.188 lbs difference in wheel weight is just for fun?

Did you know that stock shocks on the 4runner (in past, not sure about now) differ with different rim sizes?

But hey, if you have something to explain these things, then i am for it! I do want to upgrade my tires on my GX...and if unsprung weight is not important for durability of my electronic shocks, then that is more relief for me!

 

[tacoyota]

I have E rated tires and are looking at either falkens or cooper at3 4S or XLT in P rating. I want to step up to 285s and go P metric to save on weight to help offset the additional height and rolling resistance. Hmm decisions decisions.

 

[Decipher]

I’ve been kicking around the XLT too, but it’s only available in E for a 285. Ugh.

Why can’t more people make a C? It’s always the extreme except for a select few compromises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MAST4R]

Remember when Edmunds did pickup test...Honda Ridgeline vs. Tacoma vs. Nissan full size? In that test, both Tacoma (with TRD package; Bilstein) and Nissan REAR AXLE shocks leaked badly over washboard. Toyota and Nissan FRONT shocks were OK. In contrast, the Ridgeline all 4 shocks were OK. Everyone was claiming how much better Ridgeline suspension design was........well, not really.......the conclusion was expected, at least by me.

My conclusion is that the solid rear axle and bigger/heavier tires of the Tacoma and Nissan represent much heavier UNSPRUNG weight than the Honda's independent rear suspension and its highway tires. The much higher unsprung weight + washboards = shock failure.

So, unsprung weight IMO is an often overlooked aspect of a truck suspension. Unsprung weight is well-known in sports cars (i used to own M3 and this was HUGE)...but SUV/truck owners often overlook it when picking aftermarket tires/rims. Picking a heavy tire (LT for example that is 10-15 lbs heavier than stock) may lead to premature failure of the suspension (likely shocks first)....and of course, affects ride quality/handling/control (e.g. hitting bumpstop often).

And this is why just 4 lbs difference in wheel weight causes Toyota/FOX to retune their suspension to keep same ride quality and maybe keep same durability to its suspension.

Just my 100% over-analyzing crazy thoughts.... :noidea:

I totally agree on wheel/tire weight being very important for all sorts of reasons, including safety, and also that generally people do not seem to care much about unsprung weight in offroad applications though it hurts there as well.

However, I am also curious about the rear shocks of that Nissan. Toyota and Subaru OEM twin tubes may not perform great but can handle a lot of abuse, including heavy wheel/tire combos and corrugations. The stock Tacoma shocks are Billstein 4600, their most basic monotube shocks. A better shock would have survived.

Back to tires, have you looked at the Nokian Rotiiva AT? In P-metric, it is only 37lb, should be great in rain and snow, being Nokian, and they claim to have some sidewall protection feature as well. No idea about your OEM tires but the stock 4R tire is 40lb.

 

[Thai]

I totally agree on wheel/tire weight being very important for all sorts of reasons, including safety, and also that generally people do not seem to care much about unsprung weight in offroad applications though it hurts there as well.

However, I am also curious about the rear shocks of that Nissan. Toyota and Subaru OEM twin tubes may not perform great but can handle a lot of abuse, including heavy wheel/tire combos and corrugations. The stock Tacoma shocks are Billstein 4600, their most basic monotube shocks. A better shock would have survived.

Back to tires, have you looked at the Nokian Rotiiva AT? In P-metric, it is only 37lb, should be great in rain and snow, being Nokian, and they claim to have some sidewall protection feature as well. No idea about your OEM tires but the stock 4R tire is 40lb.

Internal Error

Nissan Titan XD Pro-4X also uses Bilstein shocks.

I cannot imagine Honda is using some fancy shocks that can outperform Bilsteins on both trucks. It's a Honda using the same suspension as the Honda Pilot.


My stock tire (265/60/18) is 38 lbs.

Dude, you may have found my next tire!!! Never thought of Nokian. Wow, that tire in stock size is even lighter than my stock Bridgestone Dueler HT!

 

[MAST4R]

Internal Error

Nissan Titan XD Pro-4X also uses Bilstein shocks.

I cannot imagine Honda is using some fancy shocks that can outperform Bilsteins on both trucks. It's a Honda using the same suspension as the Honda Pilot.


My stock tire (265/60/18) is 38 lbs.

Dude, you may have found my next tire!!! Never thought of Nokian. Wow, that tire in stock size is even lighter than my stock Bridgestone Dueler HT!

Not that the twin tubes would outperform the Billsteins but that they would outlast them, especially when on an independent suspension vs solid axle. I just don't read much about any low-pressure OEM twin tube failures. They may ride poorly at times but seem to recover after being pushed (or fail gracefully) whereas high pressure shocks may fail more quickly and abruptly when pushed beyond what they can take. That's my conclusion from what I have read about all sorts of shocks.

To me this explains why people do on occasion complain that OEM or Dobinsons twin tubes can leak: presumably they are charged higher than OEM twin tubes and when internal pressures get beyond the limits of the shock, rubber seals harden and fail.

The Nokian may be great for many parts of the country.

 

[Thai]

Not that the twin tubes would outperform the Billsteins but that they would outlast them, especially when on an independent suspension vs solid axle. I just don't read much about any low-pressure OEM twin tube failures. They may ride poorly at times but seem to recover after being pushed (or fail gracefully) whereas high pressure shocks may fail more quickly and abruptly when pushed beyond what they can take. That's my conclusion from what I have read about all sorts of shocks.

My only problem i have with that is.......why didn't the FRONT Bilsteins fail in these trucks going over same terrain? (Both trucks have IFS.)

 

[Decipher]

Thanks for the suggestion of PMs. However we both know that boobs on a boy pig would be more useful :lmao:



Falken A/T3W SL (P-rated) tires are very capable and are no more a sign of a "poser" than someone who runs a stock roof rack instead of a steel "overlanding" rack. Offroad super powers are not instantly gained from expensive gear that internet experts insist you must purchase.



Falken SL's are reliable performers in rugged terrain and feature a four ply thick sidewall created with two plies wrapping around the bead and rising back up, ending just shy of the upper sidewall tread border. Falken has stated they use this same construction for all sizes. (Drew Howlett, Product Manager---see his email below)



It is also noteworthy that a Falken SL tire in 265/70/17 has a listed 2679 lb load rating at 51 psi as well as a load index of 116, both slightly higher than the LT tire.



The Falken tire sidewall's shoulder blocks of SL (and LT) tires help to protect the tire from sharp rocks.



I ran LT Duratracs on my 4th Gen 4Runner and managed to damage a sidewall on those a few times so sidewall damage is not exclusive to P metric. The accumulated negatives of the Duratrac are what made me try the Falkens this time around.





So the main facts boil down to 6 plies at 57 pounds (270/75) to 4 plies at 46 pounds (265/70) and if you actually offroad in a manner that demands the extra plies as opposed to kowtowing to Internet Vitriol.



------------------------------------------------



"I'm responding to your inquiry on behalf of our technical team here at Falken Tire.



I would 100% agree with your initial inclination to opt for our non-LT 265/75R16 WILDPEAK AT3W with Load Index 116, which is in between a Load Range C (112 Load Index, aka 6-ply) and a Load Range D (119 Load Index, aka 8-ply), and far stronger than your OE fitment which was most likely P265/70R16 112.



I also agree the Load Range E version LT265/75R16 (123 Load Index, aka 10-ply) will be too much tire for a Tacoma, sacrificing fuel economy, and comfort as you said. The LRE version is really designed for a 3/4T truck application such as an F-250. You would actually compromise more than just comfort and fuel economy with the Load Range E version, as the contact patch would not be ideal, and could sacrifice wet and/or other traction characteristics. In fact, I always recommend our non-LT version for Tacoma owners, when asked in person or by email, and openly on TacomaWorld.com.



In terms of pure load carrying capability, our 265/75R16 116T WILDPEAK AT3W is superior to competitor offerings in p-metric P265/75R16 Load Index 112, as well as superior to competitor offerings in LT265/75R16 Load Range C Load Index 112.



To answer your question exactly, the construction of our WILDPEAK AT3W is as follows:

Sidewall: 2 -PLY POLYESTER WITH HIGH PLY TURN‐UPS

Tread: 2-PLY POLYESTER, 2 FULL STEEL WIDTH BELTS, 1 FULL POLYMIDE (NYLON) CAP PLY



As noted above, the WILDPEAK AT3W uses a 2 ply construction with high-ply turn-ups on all tire sizes, so both our LT version and non-LT 265/75R16 116T are quite robust in terms of sidewall protection and durability. Furthermore, the upper sidewall features of the tire actually protect against rocks and punctures, specifically when aired down, they're not just for looks.



Also, I have owned a Tacoma in the past and used this exact size in both non-LT and LT versions so I can speak from quite a bit of experience on this topic, I have never had any issue with the non-LT off-road around 20psi. On the other hand, if the truck is fully loaded with gear and people, I have found that 20psi is a bit too low and could cause a pinch flat or bead unseat, therefore I usually recommend no lower than 25psi in a loaded off-road application for a Tacoma. Off-road air pressure is a sensitive subject that really depends on a lot of factors such as speed, conditions, load, rim width, driving style, etc.



I know this was a lot of information, but I hope it is helpful for you in your quest for new tires for your Tacoma. If I could be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to reach me by email or cell phone below.



Thank you for considering Falken Tires!



Drew Howlett

Product Manager, Light Truck & SUV Tires

Tires For Cars, Trucks And SUVs | Falken Tire | +1.909.261.6668"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



So if your 4Runner looks like this it's obvious you won't be running SL tires



Jason Sampson's amazing SAS'ed 4Runner

For everyone else the choice can still be based on the facts of tire construction and the sort of offroading you do and not based on factless keyboard pounding.

After sifting through these posts, this was probably the most insightful and credible post (coming from Falken Rep, so all doubt removed) about my and many other’s struggle between P and LT-E. Thought I’d quote it so it was refreshed and not hundreds of posts back.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MAST4R]

Thoughts I’d quote it so it was refreshed and not hundreds of posts back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent, thanks, yes, I think that most people here drive on E-load tires in vain. But I also understand your concerns as you are out there all the time.

For me, the next half a year will be decisive. Let's see if the Wildpeaks in P with less than 9/32 can hold their own. I have zero concerns and complaints about new tires, but the first few 32nds go way too quickly and so performance and strength at lower tread depth matters. Apparently, the majority of a Wildpeak tire's "life" is spent under 9/32nds. Both my issues were at about 8.5/32nds, both on rear driver side.

My only problem i have with that is.......why didn't the FRONT Bilsteins fail in these trucks going over same terrain? (Both trucks have IFS.)

The IFS front transmits a lot less force to the shock than does the rear where the shock is at the wheel. So a front shock needs to be bigger to perform, but by the same token an undersized shock would survive better on compression, just won't perform very well on rebound. That's my non-expert understanding as of now anyway.

Basically, it seems to me that a lesser shock works better with an IS than with a solid axle. I have no clue how much that is due to geometry and how much to unsprung weight.

I have also read than IS setups are not inherently less flexible than solid axles setups, just that such is the case with SUVs and trucks (as opposed to purpose built vehicles). I think IS setups have won KOH and similar events.

 

[Decipher]

Excellent, thanks, yes, I think that most people here drive on E-load tires in vain. But I also understand your concerns as you are out there all the time.

For me, the next half a year will be decisive. Let's see if the Wildpeaks in P with less than 9/32 can hold their own. I have zero concerns and complaints about new tires, but the first few 32nds go way too quickly and so performance and strength at lower tread depth matters. Apparently, the majority of a Wildpeak tire's "life" is spent under 9/32nds. Both my issues were at about 8.5/32nds, both on rear.

Thanks! I’m really looking forward to hearing your feedback. It seems like we’ve had some good reporting with 20,000 miles or so on a set but rarely have I read much of anything beyond that. That’ll be largely beneficial to the community.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tacoyota]

I am running E rated KO2's (50% tread left at 30k miles) and looking to switch to P rated. Looking forward to get more feedback on high mileage offroad P tires

 

[MAST4R]

I am running E rated KO2's (50% tread left at 30k miles) and looking to switch to P rated. Looking forward to get more feedback on high mileage offroad P tires

Thanks for this!

My KO2s were LTD on a lighter vehicle. I put 16,000-16,500 miles on them (trip tire only) before selling the vehicle and the tires. They were wearing at about 4,000 miles per 1/32. So at roughly 50% , your tires are wearing at roughly 4,000 miles per 1/32 on average as well. Of course, much of the bottom 50% is not very useful offroad.

My KO2 wore super slowly at first, then wear got faster. Opposite with the Wildpeak.

I would not plan on getting more than 30,000 miles, maybe 35,000 miles from any tire with above average offroading in mostly AZ/UT. I think SoCal is just as harsh on the tires as much of AZ. I have a friend in Moab who uses LTE KO2s and wears them at the same rate as I do my Wildpeaks, pretty much, we both estimate replacing shortly after reaching 30,000 miles. EDIT: forgot, while we have another friend in Moab who also uses LTE KO2 and wears them much more slowly, with a lot fewer offroad miles.

If you look at John The Luck's adventure thread, his KO2s were wearing great in Canada, then he drove to SoCal, did a lot of desert miles, and had to replace the tires once back in Canada. He did complain of quickly accelerated wear with the desert driving.

All in all, I have come to terms with buying tires every 18 months or so, whether P or LT...hence price/value matters to me.

EDIT 2: with way less and much, much milder offroading I was on target to wear down a set of P255 55 18 Toyo AT IIs in 40,000-45,000 miles a while ago but I sold the vehicle when the tires had 20,000. Later, I had a set of Geolander ATS in 225 65 17 that were also going to last beyond 40,000 but they were actively used for offroad for only 1.5 years before the KO2 took that role and the Geolanders got relegated to town and dirt roads at which point their wear improved.

 

[kenwilliams0803]

I am at about 25k on mine at this point. Still all good minus the balance/out of round issues. Have not rotated them since the 1 or 2 problem tires are on the rear. Still more than half tread and fine in rain and weather. A little cupping but it’s minimal. They are a lot louder though than they were 25k ago of course.

 

[Decipher]

I am at about 25k on mine at this point. Still all good minus the balance/out of round issues. Have not rotated them since the 1 or 2 problem tires are on the rear. Still more than half tread and fine in rain and weather. A little cupping but it’s minimal. They are a lot louder though than they were 25k ago of course.

Thanks for the real world feedback on the Falkens. I only put about 10,000 miles a year on my truck so it’s going to take a while to report my experience.

Going in to get my P-285s today. I’ll post a first impression road review since my Grapplers are still new and it’ll be a great comparison. We got a TON of rain last night so we’ll see how adventurous I’m feeling about trekking out in the mud since I’ll be alone today. Full review coming and once I get a good feel for the AT3W again, I’ll post my full comprehensive comparison review of the AT3W vs KO2 vs Ridge Grappler.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Decipher]

I got my SL 285/70-17s mounted yesterday. I haven’t taken them off road yet. I won’t get a chance to do that for a day or two but I am honestly very underwhelmed at this point. The road noise is noticeably louder than the stock 265/70-17s I had a few years back. I would say they’re the same volume as the Ridge Grapplers, but the Wildpeaks are a higher pitch rather than a low hum. This makes them way more annoying. I’m really disappointed.

The road compliance is better than the Load Range C Grapplers but the Cs were never harsh or annoying. So while the ride is better it’s not that the ride was bad before. A load range C would be perfect for this tire and reaffirms my assessment that C is the perfect balance for the Runner.

They look okaaaaay. I got used to the aggressive look of the RGs so that’s just my issue at the moment as I adjust back. These better excel off road or they may be going back. The road noise is enough to make me doubt my purchase honestly. I take all things into consideration so that alone isn’t a reason to be discouraged but I can honestly tell a difference from my experience in stock size...and if they get louder? Huh. This was not expected out of a P series tire noted for its noise and ride compliance.

If these fail to impress me off road, my RGs are still in my garage and may find their way back on the truck as much as the snow performance was subpar. I don’t get a TON of snow is my rationale as I struggle with my decision.

This was not what I expected at all. To say I’m surprised is an understatement.

Lastly, the weight difference is noticeable. At 5 lbs per tire, I can feel that my Runner is working way less to get moving. Rolling resistance may also play a role but this is very noticeable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk