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

[jim65wagon]

I'm waiting to see what you're opinion is on these. Not that I'm looking for a tire, at the moment, just more curious for your thoughts. Having seen them on Mark's truck and knowing he loves them, but never having driven on them. I think you'd love them too!

 

[Redline]

Yep, it's just that little thing called money. I'm trying not to buy now and pay later

Just buy the FCIIs already. You're gonna be very happy with them.

 

[Redline]

KM2 instead?

I probably will/would like the FCII, except for one thing... size matters. The 285 is shorter and wider than the 255, which is generally not an advantage (tires, people, you name it).

I have owned a couple sets of 285s before and never liked their width; even on my old F350. I think they will 'look' good on the 4Runner, even work well in most situations, but the fuel economy loss is going to be about 2-MPG on the highway on trips. (Last night I came around to this known fact, the same old dilemma regarding the 285's width.)

For this reason I again started thinking about the KM2 in 255/85. They are load-range-E, which is a negative in my book, but they make them in 'the size'. Icing on the cake is that at my local Discount Tire a set of 255 KM2 will be $150.00 less than the FCII.

No decision yet, maybe in a few weeks.

Just buy the FCIIs already. You're gonna be very happy with them.

 

[redthies]

I ran both the Cepeks and Mickey T mts in 35-12.50. The Cepeks were on my 05 dodge cummins and the MTs on my 03 Tundra. The MTs would be my choice of those two. There isn't a huge difference in noise level and I felt they provided a bit better ride and traction. The cepeks wore faster, but were on a heavier truck.

 

[Hilldweller]

Hilldweller,
These Goodyear MT/R Kevlars are load range "E". Aren't thay a little stiff for something as light as a Jeep?

Keith

I switched from "C" tires that gave me the harshest ride I've ever had --- but the OE wheels were 18". So, by comparison, the 33's on 16's are like butter...

The MTR Kevlars are (by far) the best all around tire I've ever had. Period.
In-town mpg dropped by 1; trail mpg improved by 2 ---- I'm guessing that this is due partly to tire circumference and partly to improved traction (bld's not needed).
Every other tire I've ever had on every truck has been a disappointment in one way or another; this is the first one has performed perfectly.
Now I'm just waiting to see their life span.
:coffeedrink:

 

[Haggis]

I probably will/would like the FCII, except for one thing... size matters. The 285 is shorter and wider than the 255, which is generally not an advantage (tires, people, you name it).

I have owned a couple sets of 285s before and never liked their width; even on my old F350. I think they will 'look' good on the 4Runner, even work well in most situations, but the fuel economy loss is going to be about 2-MPG on the highway on trips. (Last night I came around to this known fact, the same old dilemma regarding the 285's width.)

For this reason I again started thinking about the KM2 in 255/85. They are load-range-E, which is a negative in my book, but they make them in 'the size'. Icing on the cake is that at my local Discount Tire a set of 255 KM2 will be $150.00 less than the FCII.

No decision yet, maybe in a few weeks.

When Jim and I threw the lift on my Tundra, we did alot of comparisions between his setup and mine. Since his 255/85/16 Copper STs were all but new and my Dean 285/75/16s were new we broke out the measuring tools. The 255s were only 1/4" taller and the contact patch of the tread was only 3/4" narrower. Not that much really in a real world situation and one that is subject to variation depending on the tire pressure being run. As I went from a 265/70/17 to the 285/75/16s and only saw a decrease of 1 mpg (17.5 mpg stock average; 16.5 mpg lifted average) I doubt you would experience a drop as much as 2 mpg by going 285. But that might be affected by what gearing is in a particular vehicle.

I would like to see others run the FCIIs and hear they're thoughts just to backup my experiences with these tires.

 

[Redline]

Interesting that the "contact patch" was only 3/4" narrower (I'm noting that you are specifying the contact patch).

The Cooper ST/Dean SXT is a very narrow 255/85, with a stated tread width of 7.2" (measurements back this up).

I don't know about the Dean SXT in 285/75 (maybe they are also super narrow but I didn't think so) but many 285/75R16 tires have a tread width of about 9.2". A two inch wider tread face, 4-inches overall is a lot of air to move and certainly some added rolling resistance.

Most 255/85 have a tread width very close to 7.75-8-inches, so the difference is not as dramatic.

When Jim and I threw the lift on my Tundra, we did alot of comparisions between his setup and mine. Since his 255/85/16 Copper STs were all but new and my Dean 285/75/16s were new we broke out the measuring tools. The 255s were only 1/4" taller and the contact patch of the tread was only 3/4" narrower. Not that much really in a real world situation and one that is subject to variation depending on the tire pressure being run. As I went from a 265/70/17 to the 285/75/16s and only saw a decrease of 1 mpg (17.5 mpg stock average; 16.5 mpg lifted average) I doubt you would experience a drop as much as 2 mpg by going 285. But that might be affected by what gearing is in a particular vehicle.

I would like to see others run the FCIIs and hear they're thoughts just to backup my experiences with these tires.

 

[Redline]

Not buying 285s soon

After much thought I have decided not to buy any of the tires discussed here. The ******** Cepek FCII tires still interest me as an all around/cross over tread, however some preliminary testing indicates that 285/75R16 is still not the ideal size for my 4Runner, maybe later. For now I still prefer the 255/85R16 size, and a set of BFG KM2s will be my next new tire.

 

[Redline]

Slow down partner, back-up, take another look... :sombrero:

Some preliminary testing leads me to conclude that while I'm very interested in the tread design of the BFG KM2, they will not work well on my 4Runner (similar tracking issue that I had with Toyo MT in 255/85; can't figure it out... alignment is to spec.).

So the ******** Cepek Fun Country II in 285/75R16 is back in the running. Found a better price on them from OnlineTires.com that my local Discount Tire might match. Might have a set in a week or two!

In addition to all the positive info here on the FCII, Four Wheeler Magazine's recent tire issue had a review of the FCII. The only negative the author relayed was of noise for such and all-terrain/low-void tire. His snow/ice comments seemed to echo those here of excellent winter traction.

The TireRack.com has had the FCII for a few months and now a couple guys have added their reviews- again great comments about wear and traction.

After much thought I have decided not to buy any of the tires discussed here. The ******** Cepek FCII tires still interest me as an all around/cross over tread, however some preliminary testing indicates that 285/75R16 is still not the ideal size for my 4Runner, maybe later. For now I still prefer the 255/85R16 size, and a set of BFG KM2s will be my next new tire.

 

[Redline]

Cooper Tire Engineer notes

A few months have gone by, so before my memory fades any more, time to pull out my notes and share a few comments.

Cut/Chip Resistant Tread - Harder or Softer?

Since I was speaking with a Cooper Engineer, these notes directly relate to the Cooper S/T-C I was asking about (and relevant to this thread). But I think it's safe to say the information is valid for many consumer tires. There is much misinformation about whether chip resistant treads are harder or softer. This even comes from seemingly knowledgeable individuals including a customer service woman at Cooper and a guy at Mickey Thompson (don't know his title). Both told me that their Chip Resistant tread compounds were harder...

My Local Les Schwab Guys Were Right

The Cooper Tire Engineer clarified why their may be some confusion about softer or harder chip resistant compounds. He said that some special 'race' compounds for the Baja 1000 are harder, but that most consumer chip resistant treads, including the Cooper S/T-C, are made with a slightly softer compound. The softer compound allows the tread to conform to an obstacle, with less contact pressure, less tearing, better element compliancy on ice. They will also wear faster.

Fun Country II

I quizzed him a bit specifically about this tire.

-LT285/75R16 = 2-ply sidewall, with 6-ply tread (2-steel, 2-poly, 1-steel).
-thinks the tread design will be around a while as the updated FCII is fairly new (noted Mickey Thompson may have some new treads coming out soon)
-a relatively low-noise tread (tread noise over a wide frequency range spectrum, no high peaks in certain frequencies).
-Full Depth siping of tread. 'Seagull' shaped sipes help with traction.

The FCII is ‘slightly’ more aggressive than the MT ATZ, which appears to be at the outer lugs, a ‘hybrid’ tread design as they like to call it. Also, the FCII is quieter than the MT MTZ, no surprise there.

Snip......

I really like the Fun Country II tread. I had a long conversation with a tire engineer at Cooper on Thursday. Some of what he shared was a little 'over my head' but I understood much of his answers and comments and took notes.

snip.....

Cheers

 

[DaPir8]

255 Tracking issues?

Redline,

Bravo on your in "depth" and analytical approach to tire selection. Please keep up the good work. Very informative.

I too am considering the 255/85R16 size in BFG KM2's for my 2008 Xterra or 285 size in DC FCII, MT MTZ and even the Firestone Desti MT.

In addition, the 255's are downright cheaper than the equivalent in 285 in Hawaii by as much as $30-$40 a rubber.

I have been following this thread for a while but was unable to find your issues with the 255 in search.

What exactly was this "tracking" issue you ran into? Does the vehicle drift or pull or worse become overly twitchy?

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience. Dapir8

 

[R_Lefebvre]

The Cooper Tire Engineer clarified why their may be some confusion about softer or harder chip resistant compounds. He said that some special 'race' compounds for the Baja 1000 are harder, but that most consumer chip resistant treads, including the Cooper S/T-C, are made with a slightly softer compound. The softer compound allows the tread to conform to an obstacle, with less contact pressure, less tearing, better element compliancy on ice. They will also wear faster.

That's interesting. Did he comment why the winter traction rating on the ST-C is lower than the winter traction rating on the ST? Winter traction usually gets better with a softer compound. Also, the wear rating on both is the same.

FWIW, my S/T-C's are still wearing very well. I have about 30,000km on them, and still *lots* of tread. Way more than 50%, I think more like 80%.

 

[redthies]

So I sit here reading this thread while trying to decide on new rubber for my 92 F350 crewcab. This truck will be used to tow my offroad pop-up to Mexico with the box filled with the gear for a year or more of adventure. I am looking
for a tire that will be aggresive enough to take off road and still give 40,000 miles or more. It seems as though most of the talk here is about traction. What are the best choices based on longevity?
I also ran the DC FCIIs on my 05 Dodge 3500 and must be the only person on the planet who thought they wore out too quickly (35,000km or 20,000 miles) and were less than spectacular in snow. We get quite a wet snow here in the coastal mtns of BC and under moderate throttle from the cummins my truck would be going sideways! I can only assume that they would be better in dry snow. They sure look like a great snow tread.
I would really appreciate some input from people on what might last longer on a heavy tow rig that is still good off highway. I want to stick with a 315 75 16 as anything shorter than that and my revs are too high on the freeway. Thanks for any insight.:sombrero:

 

[Redline]

Sorry to hear you didn't get good wear out of your FCII treads, most posts I've read have reported very good wear. Though generally speaking, heavy-duty diesel pickup torque can be very hard on tires.

All the positive snow/ice comments aside, I can see the FCII may not being a great wet snow/slush tire as its center is just not that high void. We have wet snow/slush here on the Sierra Nevada roadways in winter, and a high void (and narrow) M/T does well to cut through and evacuate the wet stuff, just like mud. Less void, often not as good for the slush berms.

Your tire desires are a tall order, as long wear and high void (and weight) often don't go together.

So I sit here reading this thread while trying to decide on new rubber for my 92 F350 crewcab. This truck will be used to tow my offroad pop-up to Mexico with the box filled with the gear for a year or more of adventure. I am looking
for a tire that will be aggresive enough to take off road and still give 40,000 miles or more. It seems as though most of the talk here is about traction. What are the best choices based on longevity?
I also ran the DC FCIIs on my 05 Dodge 3500 and must be the only person on the planet who thought they wore out too quickly (35,000km or 20,000 miles) and were less than spectacular in snow. We get quite a wet snow here in the coastal mtns of BC and under moderate throttle from the cummins my truck would be going sideways! I can only assume that they would be better in dry snow. They sure look like a great snow tread.
I would really appreciate some input from people on what might last longer on a heavy tow rig that is still good off highway. I want to stick with a 315 75 16 as anything shorter than that and my revs are too high on the freeway. Thanks for any insight.:sombrero:

 

[Redline]

Good catch.

I specifically asked him about this, having noted the same, lower snow/winter traction rating for the S/T-C on Cooper's website. He said that the sliding scale chart was not correct, that the softer compound would grip 'better' on the ice/snow, and that he would talk to the marketing people.

The last time I checked Cooper's site this had not been changed.

That's interesting. Did he comment why the winter traction rating on the ST-C is lower than the winter traction rating on the ST? Winter traction usually gets better with a softer compound. Also, the wear rating on both is the same.

FWIW, my S/T-C's are still wearing very well. I have about 30,000km on them, and still *lots* of tread. Way more than 50%, I think more like 80%.