Firestone tires

[stevo]

I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with the Firestone Destination M/T. I have read alot about the BFG tires and also the Goodyear Wranglers but not much on the Firestones. Any imput would be appreciated.
Cheers, Stevo

 

[Hill Bill E.]

One of my friends is running them on his Grand Cherokee.

He really likes them. Great off road, even better in the deep snow.

Not real noisy on the highway (for a mud tread)

We (as in our Club) generally avoid mud, and run mostly trails and rocks with an annual week long trip to Moab.

So far he has been really happy with his tires. (this is also his daily driver)

HB

 

[sseaman]

I haven't run the MTs but I had the ATs on a 4Runner a coulpe years ago and they were very good tires.

 

[hill1066]

I have them on my 2002 2500 Suburban in 285/75/16. I have had them since October 2008. I have had the old style MTRs and old style BFG MTs several times (182k on the truck). Therse are load range E, the others were load range D. I drive on the beach, in the snow of West Virginia, and the mud/rocks of George Washington National Forest. My sense is that the Firestones have a harder compound than the MTRs or BFGs. I do not really like these tires. I am getting better mileage out of them (I rotate every oil change). They are fine on rocks and have done well in what little mud I have put them in. I have not liked their snow performance - they are very slippery and I have gotten stuck several times with them in ways I never did with the MTRs or the BFGs. I will not buy them again. They are inexpensive and long wearing, just do not have the all-around performance I am used to. This is the best picture I have of the tires on my truck.

 

[smbisig]

I put about 55K on a set, not one flat. Love the hell out of those tires, on road and off road.

 

[NothingClever]

I have about 10,000 miles on a set on my Toyota Tacoma under all conditions except deep mud. I agree with most posters here. The #1 one drawback of this tire is the lack of siping. Other than that, it's a great tire.
-
ADV: tough compound, E-load tire, inexpensive, good in moderate mud, quiet on the highway
-
DISADV: NOT so good in the snow or on ice or where traction is tested in the rain (speed while cornering) due to the lack of siping.
-
I'd definitely buy them again if I knew I'd be using them in a limited application. However, if you live where there's a lot of snow or ice and intend to use them all the time on a daily driver, there are better (but more expensive) options out there. To be fair, there are stud holes in the outside tread lugs so they can be adapted for routine winter use.
-

-

-

 

[78Bronco]

After the whole Ford Explorer/Firestone/Union members sabotaging tires DEBACLE I refuse to buy anything made by Firestone. Stud wholes in a mud tire is useless BTW, compound is too stiff and no siping.

 

[Pskhaat]

78Bronco: I have a different understanding of the Ford/Firestone problem as a family member works for Firestone. I'm sure there are folks out there who refuse to buy a Ford for the same reasons.

Why do you feel studs in a MT are "useless?"

That debacle aside, Firestone is supposed to be a leader in R&D.

 

[brushogger]

I've read many reports of the compund getting harder as the tires age and chunks of the tread lugs start breaking off. That's why I stayed away from them.

 

[78Bronco]

78Bronco: I have a different understanding of the Ford/Firestone problem as a family member works for Firestone. I'm sure there are folks out there who refuse to buy a Ford for the same reasons.

Why do you feel studs in a MT are "useless?"

That debacle aside, Firestone is supposed to be a leader in R&D.

Siping and a softer rubber compound matrix provide the ability to gain traction on icey surfaces. While studs do help on straight ice and bite into the road bed at speed the mud terrain tread blocks lack the ability to conform with many biting edges.

I would buy Bridgestone over Firestone any day even though they are technically the same company.