285/75R16 ******** Cepek FC II, Mickey Thompson MTZ/ATZ, Cooper S/T-C

[Redline]

Looking for input on these treads and this size. First some groundwork.

I have been giving serious thought to testing a set of 285/75R16 tires on my '06 4Runner. Those who have read some of my tire posts know that I'm a big proponent of the LT255/85R16 size. But there are so many more treads available in 285/75R16 which opens a few doors. LT265/75R16s are not being considered, I have owned/used a few sets before but they are too short for my applications. I'm looking for a slightly less aggressive tire than my Maxxis Bighorns. I love the Bighorns, but a little less noise for road or overland trips that include lots of highway travel is desired. I have not given up on the Bighorns they will stay in the fleet.

On the negative side is that clearance may be a problem because of the added width (height is about the same or less than 255s). Also the added width will increase rolling resistance which will reduce fuel economy (how much is not known) and may induce some edge tracking from ruts in the road. How livable these differences will be on this platform is unknown. Weight is about the same compared to my heavy Maxxis Bighorns so this is not a concern. I have used 285s on my (sold) ‘05 Rubicon and my '96 F350, both briefly because I prefer a narrower tire. The 4Runner is about 1,000-lbs heavier than the Jeep and maybe it will like them better. The 4Runner also has much better engine power, gearing, and brakes. Even if they do fit with minimal rubbing and I like them there will be little clearance for tire chains, so I might need to run 255s when I need chains. If I don't like 285s this time I will use them on my F350 or sell them. We'll see.

No comments/recommendations needed on the BFG AT

Not because these are not great tires, but there are many threads and much information available for them here and other places. I may even buy and test a set in 285/75 because they are simply the best overall choice for a multi-terrain tire, but this decision will be easy if I decide to go with a tire this conservative (less void).

I didn't plan it this way but I believe all the tires I'm considering listed below use the same casing from Cooper. This is called a “green tire” according to my local independent tire dealer, a casing that is used for many tires only the tread being different.

Rationale for each tread

******** Cepek Fun Country II

This tire has appeal because it is uncommon/different, and has less void than the S/T-C and MTZ. I hope this means that it is relatively quiet. The moderate center tread is complemented by open outer lugs that should help the tire do better than a tire with less void (BFG AT?) when there is slush or moderate mud to tackle.
The “D C” side lugs hopefully provide some added sidewall protection over the almost naked Cooper S/T-C, particularly when aired down.

******** Cepek tires recently became available from the TireRack.com. There is a Tire Rack warehouse nearby so I can buy these relatively inexpensively for $204.00 each plus tax, but will not have to pay shipping.

I'm really hoping for lots of input from Haggis as I know he ran a couple sets of the FC II on his Dodge.

Cooper S/T-C

Though the Cooper S/T & S/T-C is more aggressive than the FCII, more similar to the Mickey Thompson MTZ, it is a tread that both me and my 4Runner like as I have a set in 255/85 that I use as my street/all-terrain/winter tire. There is plenty of info here on The Portal about this tread. In short I like it because it is a moderate mud tread with less road noise than a full-on MT and offers good wear potential.

Why this tire if I already have a set in 255/85? Because in 255/85 the ST tread is VERY narrow compared to the section width, which is not the case in other sizes like the 285/75R16. There is a perceived vulnerability to the sidewalls, particularly if aired down to 15-PSI in the 255/85 size. The S/T & S/T-C in 285 have a very traditional section width of 11.3-inches and a tread width of 9.2-inches (about the same on MTZ, FCII, and BFG AT).

Also, the Cooper is available in a cut/chip resistant compound in 285, this is a big draw to this tire. I like to play on the rocks occasionally and there are plenty of gravel roads where I travel in the Nevada's outback. Neither the MTZ or FCII specs say anything about having a chip resistant compound so I think they are not.

“My price” for these from my local independent dealer is about 183.00 per tire for the S/T-C, a very good deal.

Downsides may be the noise and the fact that there are no beefy sidewall lugs like on the MTZ or FCII (or many other modern tires).

Mickey Thompson MTZ/ATZ

Initially I was only considering the MTZ, but while drafting this thread thought I should take another look at the ATZ and decided to throw it into the mix. Pierre's input on the MTZ from Australia is helpful and interesting, but like the ******** Cepek Fun Country, this tire isn't as popular in North America. From the forums I have searched it seems quite popular in Aussie land.

Mickey Thompson's are harder for me to source locally for a good price and if I chose a Mickey Thompson they would likely be purchased mail order. I did just see that 4WheelParts offers a “No Questions Asked” road hazard warranty that includes free tire replacement for the first 50% of tread life for non-repairable flats for normal on/off-highway use. I'm not one to buy extended warranties but most ‘road hazard' warranties exclude off-highway use (or try to). The price for this warranty from 4WheelParts is $130.00 for a set of four tires in 285/75R16.

The Coopers and ******** Cepeks come with 20/32” of tread. The Mickey Thompson ATZ has 20/32”, but the MTZ has ‘only' 18.5/32”. Not a deal breaker but I like deeper tread, who doesn't ☺ Also, all of these tires are load-range-D, which I prefer over load-range-E. I have yet to learn how many tread plies each of these tires have.

What say you?

 

[Redline]

Contact Pressure

One more thing...

When running a wider tire than usual on a particular platform, running one that has more void with less rubber touching the ground compared to a more conservative AT, is favorable. There is potentially more traction because of greater 'contact pressure', the same wight on fewer tread blocks. This favors the Cooper S/T-C or the MTZ.

 

[bigreen505]

No experience specific to the tires you mentioned, but just some general comments.

First, Cooper tires seem to be wide and short. A 285 is, as you stated, 11.3 wide and 9.2 tread, but smaller diameter. I don't have exact numbers, but if you really care I could pull my spare and measure. If I had to guess I would say the actual diameter, mounted on a 7" rim, is no more than 32.5, possibly smaller. The tire is noticeably shorter than a 33x10.5 BFG MT (orig., not sure about KM2) or a MTR (33.1 according to Good Year, but I have not done a roll out test to confirm - currently unmounted). Whether this is good, bad, or just a fact is up to you.

Second, Cooper sidewalls are soft. I found I am very happy with the flex at 18-20 psi (lots of flex), where the MTRs are about 15 psi for the same or slightly less flex and the BFGs at 15 psi are still very stiff. As you are well aware, soft does not mean weak as I have never punctured a Cooper sidewall. This soft sidewall is noticeable on road as the Coopers tend to wander more than others. Now, I am running the 285s on a 7" rim which creates some undesirable tread bulge and I have to run about 28-30 psi to get full tread contact (chalk test).

Lastly, look for info and opinions on the MTZ on the FJ Cruiser Forum as it seems to be a very common tire on FJ Cruisers. I don't know if this is more a function of the tire or the sizes available, just an observation.

Also, as another observation, Cooper rubber starts very soft and grippy, and gets very hard by about 20,000 miles. This is most noticeable on snow and rocks.

 

[Redline]

No experience specific to the tires you mentioned, but just some general comments.

First, Cooper tires seem to be wide and short. A 285 is, as you stated, 11.3 wide and 9.2 tread, but smaller diameter. I don't have exact numbers, but if you really care I could pull my spare and measure. If I had to guess I would say the actual diameter, mounted on a 7" rim, is no more than 32.5, possibly smaller. The tire is noticeably shorter than a 33x10.5 BFG MT (orig., not sure about KM2) or a MTR (33.1 according to Good Year, but I have not done a roll out test to confirm - currently unmounted). Whether this is good, bad, or just a fact is up to you.

Well most 285s are about 32.8 inches unloaded so 32.5 on the truck sounds about right.

The ******** Cepek Fun Country IIs are listed as the same, but then I think they use the same casing.

Second, Cooper sidewalls are soft. I found I am very happy with the flex at 18-20 psi (lots of flex), where the MTRs are about 15 psi for the same or slightly less flex and the BFGs at 15 psi are still very stiff. As you are well aware, soft does not mean weak as I have never punctured a Cooper sidewall. This soft sidewall is noticeable on road as the Coopers tend to wander more than others. Now, I am running the 285s on a 7" rim which creates some undesirable tread bulge and I have to run about 28-30 psi to get full tread contact (chalk test).

Yep, I'm not sure if they are weak or not, but they surely are soft on the STs that I have. I also like the ride and flex they offer, and think this would probably be the case with the other treads as well. Haggis???

I have put a couple sets of 285s on 7-inch Ford wheels on my F350 and I really don't care for it. Luckily for me on the 4Runner I would be using 7.5-inch Toyota TRD wheels, just wide enough for a 285s but nice and tight for bead retention & airing down.

Lastly, look for info and opinions on the MTZ on the FJ Cruiser Forum as it seems to be a very common tire on FJ Cruisers. I don't know if this is more a function of the tire or the sizes available, just an observation.

Also, as another observation, Cooper rubber starts very soft and grippy, and gets very hard by about 20,000 miles. This is most noticeable on snow and rocks.

Interesting about the tread becoming hard after 20k, but I guess this helps with wear?

I have searched and read the threads on the FJC forum and there does seem to be plenty of positive endorsements there. Of course there are many concerned about clearing the wider 285s and chopping on their body mounts to make them fit & not rub. At the end of Friday night, up late reading forums I was reminding myself why I run the much easier to clear 255s

 

[Hilux_Max]

There is a bit of variance in width when it comes to the 285/75x16 tyre range.....I see via the manufacturers that the MTZ is a norrower 285 at 11.3 inches, the Maxxis Bighorns are 11.6 inches and my Silverstones are in reality almost 12 inches wide(even thou their website states 11.3)

I know you wouldnt consider the last two but just trying to make a point...if width clearance may be an issue, than a narrower version of the 285 might be the way.

Yes, the MTZ is very popular here in australia but personally I think they are slightly over rated. Not saying they are a bad tyre, they are better from all reports than my silverstones, but my silverstone are better offroad.

I have seen a friend not have any sideways grip in wet mud with his MTZ's and slid into a deep boghole that almost rolled his vehicle...this did not impress me one little bit.

each to their own. I prefer an aggressive tyre whereas many people prefer AT tyres. I think by your explanation, the new MTR's sounds like your type of tyre, slightly less aggressive than the Bighorn.

 

[bigreen505]

Well most 285s are about 32.8 inches unloaded so 32.5 on the truck sounds about right.

Should have clarified, that was mounted, but unloaded. I think the Coopers are a bit on the short side and the MTRs are on the big side. What surprised me was the BFG is claimed as a 32.7 tire and it was noticeably taller. Again, comparing mounted tires off the vehicle, both mounted to 7" wide rims. This was my experience with Cooper floatation tires as well -- I think my 31's measured in right about 30". However, the "short" problem doesn't seem to effect the 255 size, which is bummer for me.

 

[jim65wagon]

Redline, I did notice the ST's got harder as the mileage went up, but no more so the the "standard" of the BFG AT. Less wet road traction than when new. Running slightly less tire pressure or, less throttle pressure works for on road issues. I know some people only run their tires for a few thousand miles and will never notice this, but I try to run mine as long as they are safe (and that is not necessarily all the way to the legal limit of tread depth)

Also, and I know it's officially a Mud Tire and it's the same casing as the Cooper family, but have you considered the Pro Comp Xtreme MT? (Although I am loathe to put anything with the word Xtreme on my truck) They look on the milder side of the MTs (quiet) and the voids look more highway rain friendly than the MTZ's....

 

[Redline]

I'm with you Jim, I kinda don't like the "Xtreme" name, but I should consider them too.

snip....

Also, and I know it's officially a Mud Tire and it's the same casing as the Cooper family, but have you considered the Pro Comp Xtreme MT? (Although I am loathe to put anything with the word Xtreme on my truck) They look on the milder side of the MTs (quiet) and the voids look more highway rain friendly than the MTZ's....

 

[Haggis]

On my Dodges, I've run three types of tires. BFG ATs, ProComp MTs and the DC FCIIs. Of the three the DC FCIIs were the hands down winner. While the BFGs were good tires, tracion in mud and wet field conditions was horrible. The ProComp Mts were the best in the PA slop but wore terribly (only got 38,000 mile out of them) and were down right scary in the winter time. No traction at all on packed snow and ice.

The DC FCIIs were a great all around tire. The first set I got 52,000 miles out of them and probably could have got another 5000 miles if I had chosen to run them to the end off their full tread life. They are fairly quiet, though there is a nice road hum that gets a little louder the more they wear. they are quite round and didn't need much weight to balance. Traction in the winter is the best of any tire I've ever had mounted on any of my trucks. And with the winters we get here, that means alot. Without a doubt the best icy condition tires ever. Siping goes all the way, unlike some tires that are only siped for half of their tread life (think Pro Comp). They wore evenly and handled nicely. Even though mine were 33x12.5x17s, the sidewalls never felt squishy and traffic maneuvers in my 6500 lbs truck felt controlled and drama free. Handling and road manners are much better with the FCIIs than the BFGs or PC MTs. Traction on rock (wet or dry) is great, even on the shale hillsides of our part of the woods. In the mud the tires work well for an all terrian tire, way better than the BFG Ats by a long shot. Wet sloppy mud is where they are the best, but thick clay like muck or veg filled topsoil needs extra wheelspeed to clean them. They worked great on the beach. Aired down they had a great contact patch. I usually aired them down to 20 lbs when trail riding and ran them at 38 lbs when daily driving. If hauling heavily I'd bump them up to 45 lbs. Remember these tires were on a truck that was constantly towing heavy loads and hauling more than it probably should and they held up great. Never cut a sidewall even on the sharp shale we have here and never once had any issue with the FCIIs other than the occasional road nail puncture (I hate roofing nails). They are excellent on wet conditions. The first set was mounted on the stock 17x8 rims and the second set were on 17x9 rims. I saw little to no difference on tread wear or useability between the two sizes of rims.

I would not hesitate to put another set on any of my rigs. On the other hand I'd never buy another set fo BFGs even though they use to be my tire of choice. My FCIIs could go from weeklong work chores to weekend romps through the woods, mud, snow and fun of the PA backwoods without a hiccup and handle everything thrown at them. Though not the "popular" kid in high school, I really think these FCIIs are the best all around tire out there. Though I really like my Dean SXTs too. If it wasn't for the extra cost I'd be putting a set of FCIIs on our new to us Tundra, but my tire guy has too good a deal on the Deans to pass up.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

For the comments on Coopers being soft... Which which tire and which load rating are you talking about? I know the posting is generally about S/T-C, but I'm not sure that's what some of the responses are talking about? Also, which load range?

I have the S/T-C's in a Load E, and I find the sidewalls vastly stiffer than the Goodyear Wrangler Territory in a Load Range C I just bought for my trailer.

 

[Redline]

Jim and I are both referring to our Cooper S/Ts in 255/85... load-range-D

For a possible new purchase I'm specifically thinking of Cooper S/T-C 285/75, load-range-D also.

For the comments on Coopers being soft... Which which tire and which load rating are you talking about? I know the posting is generally about S/T-C, but I'm not sure that's what some of the responses are talking about? Also, which load range?

I have the S/T-C's in a Load E, and I find the sidewalls vastly stiffer than the Goodyear Wrangler Territory in a Load Range C I just bought for my trailer.

 

[1speed]

I ran the MTZ in a 285/75/16 for a while. I found them a lot quieter than the MTR's that came on the Jeep. They worked well in sand and Florida mud (wet sand). I sold them to a guy that put them on a 1/2 ton Chevy and he is very happy with them.

 

[bigreen505]

For the comments on Coopers being soft... Which which tire and which load rating are you talking about? I know the posting is generally about S/T-C, but I'm not sure that's what some of the responses are talking about? Also, which load range?

I have the S/T-C's in a Load E, and I find the sidewalls vastly stiffer than the Goodyear Wrangler Territory in a Load Range C I just bought for my trailer.

Not sure whether that comment was aimed at me, but in my experience all Coopers have relatively soft sidewalls. I have run different tires and sizes, load ratings of C, D and E. Again, not a negative, just an observation.

Redline - have you considered a Nokian Vatiiva MT? I think it is the same tire as the MTZ, in much the same way the Vatiiva AT is a Cooper ATR.

 

[Redline]

Interesting tire, I had never seen that tread before. Think I might like something more readily available though.

snip........

Redline - have you considered a Nokian Vatiiva MT? I think it is the same tire as the MTZ, in much the same way the Vatiiva AT is a Cooper ATR.

 

[Redline]

That is a pretty strong recommendation, particularly regarding the snow/ice traction.

The road 'hum' noise - do you know if it is louder or quieter than the Cooper S/T? Or your new Dean SXT? I think the Dean SXT may be a bit quieter than the Cooper S/T?

We all know that the most popular guy in High School was often not the smartest... And I like to "Think Different" (use a Mac computer too The Fun Country is certainly a different choice when it comes to a versatile AT.

On my Dodges, I've run three types of tires. BFG ATs, ProComp MTs and the DC FCIIs. Of the three the DC FCIIs were the hands down winner. While the BFGs were good tires, tracion in mud and wet field conditions was horrible. The ProComp Mts were the best in the PA slop but wore terribly (only got 38,000 mile out of them) and were down right scary in the winter time. No traction at all on packed snow and ice.

The DC FCIIs were a great all around tire. The first set I got 52,000 miles out of them and probably could have got another 5000 miles if I had chosen to run them to the end off their full tread life. They are fairly quiet, though there is a nice road hum that gets a little louder the more they wear. they are quite round and didn't need much weight to balance. Traction in the winter is the best of any tire I've ever had mounted on any of my trucks. And with the winters we get here, that means alot. Without a doubt the best icy condition tires ever. Siping goes all the way, unlike some tires that are only siped for half of their tread life (think Pro Comp). They wore evenly and handled nicely. Even though mine were 33x12.5x17s, the sidewalls never felt squishy and traffic maneuvers in my 6500 lbs truck felt controlled and drama free. Handling and road manners are much better with the FCIIs than the BFGs or PC MTs. Traction on rock (wet or dry) is great, even on the shale hillsides of our part of the woods. In the mud the tires work well for an all terrian tire, way better than the BFG Ats by a long shot. Wet sloppy mud is where they are the best, but thick clay like muck or veg filled topsoil needs extra wheelspeed to clean them. They worked great on the beach. Aired down they had a great contact patch. I usually aired them down to 20 lbs when trail riding and ran them at 38 lbs when daily driving. If hauling heavily I'd bump them up to 45 lbs. Remember these tires were on a truck that was constantly towing heavy loads and hauling more than it probably should and they held up great. Never cut a sidewall even on the sharp shale we have here and never once had any issue with the FCIIs other than the occasional road nail puncture (I hate roofing nails). They are excellent on wet conditions. The first set was mounted on the stock 17x8 rims and the second set were on 17x9 rims. I saw little to no difference on tread wear or useability between the two sizes of rims.

I would not hesitate to put another set on any of my rigs. On the other hand I'd never buy another set fo BFGs even though they use to be my tire of choice. My FCIIs could go from weeklong work chores to weekend romps through the woods, mud, snow and fun of the PA backwoods without a hiccup and handle everything thrown at them. Though not the "popular" kid in high school, I really think these FCIIs are the best all around tire out there. Though I really like my Dean SXTs too. If it wasn't for the extra cost I'd be putting a set of FCIIs on our new to us Tundra, but my tire guy has too good a deal on the Deans to pass up.