BFG A/T or M/T

[Reece04]

I need some advice, I am going to have to replace my tires soon and I am torn. I currently have BFG A/T 33X12.5R15, I can't decide between the MT or go with the trusted AT. I have 30K on them and they will probably last another 3 or 4K. I take several trips into the snow during the winter and I don't want to get stuck, during the warmer parts of the year I do a lot of highway driving to get up to flagstaff or the White Mtns.

My other consideration is if I want to stick with the 12.5 or move to 10.5 for a narrower tire and tighter turning radius.

"Let the Food Fight Begin!"

 

[007]

I have 33x10.5 M/T's on my 2001 Tacoma and 33x11.5 A/T's on my 2006 Tacoma. My wife and I take both trucks out wheeling sometimes because we can load them both with firewood when we get done. I get to use both sets of tires through the same stuff. When it gets really technical I end up driving each truck so I'm constantly noticing the difference in those tires.

The only mistake you could make in this choice would be not getting a 10 or 10.5 inch tire. I like the 10.5 over the 11.5 width drastically, and I would never go back to a 12.5" tire.

On any thing other than ice, packed snow and smooth wet rocks, the M/T has a little better traction. With that comes a little more vibration and noise. The M/T is actually pathetic on ice I might add. The A/T is good at everything but not the best in certain kinds of mud and deeper snow. An extremely large A/T on a lighter vehicle that could float on snow would probably do great on deep snow compared to the same size M/T. Since I have a practical tire size limitation I must dig through the snow to terra firma and the M/T sometimes out performs the A/T in this regard. Some types of snow and any ice the A/T shines because the rubber compound is better suited to stick to it. Something to do with the carbon black content.

Anyway I wish I had gone with the 10" A/T instead of the 11.5" A 10" tire steers so much better and takes less effort to roll down the road. You get a big tire that feels like a stock tire. In most situations I think a 10" tire has better traction than a 12.5. That may not make sense but I would put money on it if somebody was going to do some real testing.

Overall I prefer the M/t for summer and the a/t for winter. I've read where people like the Cooper STT because its good at both.

 

[Fireman78]

I recently upgraded the tires on my Power Wagon from the stock 285/70/R17 (33's) BFG AT's to 35's BFG KM2's. Of course I am speaking from a full size truck, not a Toyota, but the differences are pretty big. I went back and forth for MONTHS about upgrading. You have to weigh the pros and cons for sure. It may even keep you up at night! Anyhow, I am off road a lot, and I am on NO road a lot, just doing my side job in the forestry work. I need tough, unstoppable off road tires, period. The KM2's do the job in fine style. Comparing some of roads that I have drivin lately before and after the switch, I can attest that a few spots that I used to need 4x4 in, Ino longer need with the KM2's. The tread is very aggresive, w/o it being too too much for on road as well. Noise isn't bad, over 65 ish there is a hum, but it's not that bad. I have also noticed that sand driving is better with these new tires, could be the width, I suppose, that is helping with that. (Went from 10.5 to 12.5). My gas mileage went down a hair also, which is definatly a drag. Also they were more expensive. Over all I am very happy with my choice. These tires are unstoppable off road. After all-- thats why we have trucks right?

 

[MoGas]

We run BFG AT/KOs on both Cruisers. Mine are 285/70-16 (33) and hers are 31x10.50-15 I have had BFG MTs on vehicles before and just prefer the AT for our purposes. The MTs, while wearing well, get to a point when they get hard and noisy. The ATs also will get hard, but they don't get noisy. I have only ever run BFGs, except my old Jeep in the 80's had Desert Duelers and on my old Datsun 720 king cab 4x4 I had Buckshot Radial Mudders, so I can't comment too much on other brands. I will second that the MTs are horrid on ice and packed snow, and the ATs are much more responsive on ice or packed snow. If the snow is > than hub deep or there is a good amount of mud where I am, I'll just chain up.

My neighbor has Goodyear MT/Rs on his 80. I'll ask him to opine tomorrow.

Dave

 

[cruiser guy]

The narrower the tire the less rolling resistance and better mileage.

 

[IggyB]

I've had both BFG MT's and AT's on my S-10, Xterra and Frontier. The only place the MT's shine is deep snow and mud. The AT, with or without chains work well for everything else.

I too am a believer in narrower tire, having gone from 32-11.50/15 to 235-85/16(basically a 32-9.50/15).

Also, the 33-12.50/15 is rated for 2225 lb @ 35 psi. Once you load up the truck, it is either just under or well over the weight rating of the tires. The 33-10.50/15 is rated for 2620 lb @ 50 psi which may be a better match to the truck.

 

[roadkill]

there is lots of info to wade thru in this well written piece on tire width.
http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html

 

[Guinness44]

MT or AT. Just learned some are, some arent M & S compound. Called BFG, got great info (like the 285/75/16 E will come out with M & S compound in December. Had to go with D, need shoes now). That tire is running on the Ram, which is a DD, but we got a 2 mile dirtroad and arroyos to the house.
Very rare do we run in snow, but if we do, that truck needs all the help.
Now to the MT, were running it on the wagon. For over 12K miles, they wear VERY evenly, BUT we rotated the first time at 1500 miles, and then every 3K miles. AND are running centramatics, and keeping a very close eye on the alignement. Then we were at the AMG grounds, lots of mud: The same trucks shoed with the ATs that got stuck in that mud, had no problems shoed with MTs. Seems like BFGs balance better than MTRs for us, and ride smoother.

 

[tdesanto]

M & S compound?

Could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with this.

 

[gearbox]

I think he means Mud & Snow, which is a Department of Transportation designation/specification. Some roads might have DOT requirements like "M&S tires or chains required beyond this point"

To the original poster, I suggest you rethink the BFG brand because you'll save a few hundred dollars and have equally good tires going with another brand like Cooper, Maxxis, Nitto, or Toyo..

 

[93BLAZER]

Bfg Mt

I run 265/75/16 BFG MT's on my 93 full size Blazer. I cant say anything bad about them. Granted, I have about 2000 miles on them thus far but see a dramatic improvement on dirt (and obvilusly mud). I see that they dig in a lot more. I have not been in snow or ice with them yet. But they have seen a lot of high county rim mud. There are places that my buddies with BFG AT's need 4x4 but I just walked right through it. Granted driving style mught account for it, but I see a remarkable differance from BFG AT vs MT.

Two points though. It seems the AT's are better in the sand. HOWEVER, when you air down (as you should be in the sand) I dont see THAT much of a differance just a slight edge to the AT's.

Also,

Im worried about wear. My rig see's more concrete that dirt. But the ride is remakably smooth and pretty quiet.

Look on CL for a good deal on BFG MT's. I found 4 BRAND NEW BFG MT's for $300!! Drove down to Maricopa and grabbed them up at 2 in the morning.

Im sold on BFG mt's.

 

[Funrover]

Here is my 2 cents. My BFG A/T's have always been great, lasting, and quiet. In snow they have never disappointed me. I have had MT's and in snow I was all over the road. I will never return to MT's Between the noise, ride quality and lack of control in snow/ice.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I was on MTs exclusively since about 2002-2006 and am also now back on A/Ts exclusively for all types of driving and wheeling. Some M/Ts are much better than others but I experimented with both and eventually gave up on them.

The loss of off road performance of the A/Ts is not that bad, and the benefit in mud and snow specifically is reason #1 for me. Nothing more stupid looking than a big 4WD that can't get up a hill even in 4WD because it has mud terrains. That, and a million other reasons to go back to A/Ts including noise/wear etc. The only other way I was able to pull it off with the massive quantites of snow we have was to have two cars, which was basically my technique. My 2WD Saab was way better than my 4WD Toyota in the snow with MTs, oddly.

 

[MoGas]

I am 99.6789543% sure that all BFG A/Ts or M/Ts carry the M+S designation.

I don't think the E load has the Severe Snow rating. That is why I went with the D rated BFG AT/KO. Mine is a DD and we get alot of snow here.

Dave

 

[madizell]

My BGF AT 235x85x16's are E rated and also have the ice and snow emblem, as do my 265x75x16 D range tires.