Time for an update.
I finally had a tire rotation cycle that didn't involve an off-pavement trip. I was curious what the stone retention would look like. Not too bad.
-----
Lots more off-pavement travel, with more snow than usual. Very happy, no complaints, though I expect I'd be saying that about many A/Ts.
-----
It's interesting to see the difference in tread condition at similar mileages between the BFGs and the Revos (22k and 27k). It's not completely fair as the BFGs had a rougher life to that point, despite having fewer miles, but it's representative, if exaggerated, of the differences I would expect to see between a snowflake A/T with a Q-speed rating, and an S-rated A/T after a couple of desert southwest summers. From the appearance, I'd guess the initial BFG snow advantage had decreased, perhaps even disappeared, due to the tread blocks rounding and chunking, and possibly even the effect of slightly harder tread rubber from higher running temperatures. (BFG later made a change to the tire and assigned it an R speed rating.) The pressures run in both were virtually the same. As can be seen, the Revos are wearing evenly and well.
-----
Since the last post, Consumer Reports has published a large tire issue which includes the category "All Terrain Truck" where they rank 13 tires. The word truck is not a reference to the distinct tire type "Light Truck" (LT). All the tires are P-metric. The report has ten ranked categories: 1.Dry braking, 2.Wet braking, 3.Handling 4.Hydroplaning 5.Snow traction, 6.Ice braking 7.Comfort, 8.Noise, 9.Rolling resistance, 10.Tread life.
Revo 2 scored on the high side of mid-pack. Most of the tires probably come in an LT version, too, and I'm assuming a reasonably consistent carry-over from P to LT in relative performance that would result in the LT versions being arranged similarly in a separate set of rankings, though the Ps, as a group would be expected to outperform the LTs on pavement. Anyway, CR says that they assign a weight to the traction categories higher than the others but I don't really see it in the rankings. If I re-arrange, based only on traction, the rankings change, but the Revos end up about the same anyway.
One of the most noticeable things in the rankings is how much similarity there is among tires, at least when ranked with the resolution of a 5 point scale. It would be nice if CR provided access to the raw measurements but I won't complain too much. Who else compares brands in all tire categories with detailed measurements and then publishes the results? Without that, about all that's left to rely on are surveys (and anecdotes) with all the well known flaws. (Flawed because they're not predictive of how a tire will perform under controlled testing.)
Traction categories had the least variation. The most extreme examples are Wet Traction and Handling where all tires received the same rank except for one (different tires). Of the traction columns, Snow Traction and Ice Braking had the widest variation -- three ranks wide -- ranging from excellent to good, and good to poor, respectively. Not too surprising. The typical A/T tread pattern makes even the worst pretty good in the snow, but if you want great performance on the really slick stuff, go for the dedicated winter tires. The category with the largest variation is tread wear, but if price and tread wear were combined into miles per dollar, the category would be much more uniform. The most noticeable difference, overall, is price. One might guess that smaller tire companies are more enthusiastic about CRs tests than larger ones.
Not surprisingly, Revo 2 was unsurpassed in low noise but I was surprised to see it out ranked by three others in rolling resistance. I'm almost pleased to see it, though, since improved rolling resistance was the basis for my original skepticism mentioned in the first post. I don't want any traction properties to be compromised in pursuit of improved rolling resistance, and the magic triangle of tire design makes that a concern. The triangle is traction (esp. wet), rolling resistance, and tread wear. An improvement in one sacrifices one or both of the others or sacrifices an improvement that
could have been made.
Revos were ranked "excellent" (highest rank) in dry braking which works for me since I live in the desert. The snow traction rating of "very good" was one notch lower but I'm happy with that. I don't doubt the BFGs would have scored higher when new on snow and ice (at the cost of dry performance), but I'm not convinced the slight snow advantage of a tire like that is long lasting, especially in a hot climate, where eventually the effects of heat and accelerated wear may end up erasing most of the difference and possibly even result in a crossing of curves with an AT that runs cooler yet has a good snow design. LT/ATs are exempt from UTQG ratings but the speed rating is a good indicator of how hot the tire will run.
If I were buying today, the test results would have me seriously looking at a set of Kuhmo KL78s, which scored highest when I re-arranged for traction, and were nearly the least expensive tire. I'm very happy with the Revos, but I think it would be nuts to ignore the CR test results, especially where a little more performance can be had for less money.
Problem with the Kuhmos (for me) though, is that in 265/70/17 the Load E weighs 54lbs -- compared to 47 for Revo -- and the Load C is Q speed rated (which almost certainly means no cap ply). Both are deal breakers for me, the latter in particular. Load D is not offered. P-metric is a possibility, as I still can't shake the desire to find out for myself how well they can hold up off-pavement.
So with all that, there's a good chance I'd go for Revo 2 again in LT265/70/17 Load E, especially if I could negotiate another good price. The specific weight and performance characteristics appeal to me, and the shoulder lug tread voids, which clear well for an A/T, appear to be wider than the others in the group which might provide a little boost in mud and deeper snow. It seems plausible that if mud and deep snow categories were part of the CR review, Revo 2 might move up. Given the small differences in traction scores anyway, these other factors, along with price, stand out as important differentiators. I could easily see myself with another set as things stand right now.
