Maxxis Bighorn MT-762 tires

[sasaholic]

Not to get offtrack here, but wouldn't sidewall thickness be somewhat more important than the number of plies in the sidewall?

I mean if you have a 2ply sidewall that's 1/4" thick wouldn't that be better than a 3ply that's 1/8" thick?

Not that anyone goes around measuring sidewall thickness...

to an extent yes. i had a set of e rated mickey thompson mtz's and and the sidewalls were close to if not 3/4 inch thick. i loved those damn tires, but they were EXPENSIVE

 

[Fargo]

Not to get offtrack here, but wouldn't sidewall thickness be somewhat more important than the number of plies in the sidewall?

I mean if you have a 2ply sidewall that's 1/4" thick wouldn't that be better than a 3ply that's 1/8" thick?

Not that anyone goes around measuring sidewall thickness...

I would guess not necessarily, but thicker rubber would be stronger than thinner rubber if all else was equal. I don't know much about tire construction but it would seem to me that the plys kind of hold things together. Kind of like rebar in concrete. If you didn't have any plies then the rubber wouldn't have much strength, but adding plies holds the rubber together. But how much more strength you gain from each additional set of plies I don't know. I also don't know if their is any kind of standard spacing or requirements set fort to be considered a ply. What I am saying is a 3 ply with cords 1/2" apart would be weaker than a 2ply with cords only 1/4" apart. But this is all just speculation. I have no idea.

It would seem to me that the thickness of the rubber, the number of plys and the spacing and direction each ply runs will all work together to determine how tough the sidewall is. I think these all have to be taken into consideration in designing the tire. Of course it would also seem to me that it would also make a difference if the tire was designed for the plies to carry the weight of an extra heavy load or if they are designed to distribute the weight of a side impact. For example a commercial tire may have a 3 ply sidewall designed for a one ton truck to carry heavy loads and pull heavy trailers. On the other hand a 3 ply tire like the MTR may be designed more for side impact resistance and not for carrying or towing loads. I would imagine that making a stronger sidewall for one application would also improve the other, but it would seem to me that you could design a sidewall for more specific applications. I don't know though. I am just thinking out loud. Probably creating more questions than answers. I think this could be the subject of a long thread in itself.

 

[Redline]

It does seem logical doesn't it? 3 thinner plies are not necessarily better than 2 thicker plies?

I have no data to back-up this theory but I've heard people question this many times. I would like to know how true this 'can' be. Probably need to talk with a willing tire engineer. Certainly some 3-ply sidewall tires are stiffer/stronger.

To keep this related to the 2-ply sidewall Bighorns-

As has been noted many times, the Maxxis Bighorn is a good, stout tire. It is one of the heavier 255/85 tires I have tested and weighed. This tells me that there is 'something' more in the structure of the tire.

Back when the original BFG KM 255/85 was much closer in size/dimensions to the Bighorn, the KM weighed several pounds less. There was obviously less of something inside the BFG MT compared to the Bighorn. (My memory is 57-lb Bighorn, 51-lb BFG KM, or something close to that.) The difference is less now with the KM2 in 255/85.

Makes us wonder, how are they different and why?

Not to get offtrack here, but wouldn't sidewall thickness be somewhat more important than the number of plies in the sidewall?

I mean if you have a 2ply sidewall that's 1/4" thick wouldn't that be better than a 3ply that's 1/8" thick?

Not that anyone goes around measuring sidewall thickness...

 

[Chris Sandstorm Fj]

Hey Redline,

Quick question:

I traded my Fj in last week for an 07 4Runner limited.

I already invested in 16" TRDs..but the 4Runner Limited's come with larger brakes, as you know, 16s don't fit.

Did you have any rubbing with your 255/85/16 big horns? reason I ask is, I have 2 options, use my 16s with spacers or get 17s..I am considering getting 17 inch rims and 285/70/17s (11.7) but curious if these will rub and result in my needing spacers anyway, which would bring me back to just keeping my 16s and using spacers.

Thanks for any help you can lend my way.

 

[Redline]

Congratulations on the 4th Gen!

You already had the TRD wheels for your FCJ?

Does the 4Runner have suspension modifications? I'm going to assume so as you surely know that 255s or 285s won't fit if the car is not lifted. So with an appropriate suspension lift:

I can get a little rubbing with any 33" tire (255/85 & 285/75) when I push the car very hard (think bottoming out the suspension, or almost bottoming) which is both rare and harder driving than most will routinely do. The rubbing is worse with a wider tire like a 285, but not terrible. The rear/lower parts of the front wheel openings are where I get most of the rubbing, when I have it, when the car is pushed hard.

With my current ******** Cepek F-C II 285/75R16 I also get a little rubbing at maximum steering wheel lock with the FJC TRD wheels, not objectionable but these tires are only 11.3" wide.

I still like the Bighorns very much though I have not been driving on mine lately, I'm saving them for when I need them.

Will wheel spacers push out the tire/wheel enough to allow you to run 16" wheels?
I've run spacers on my off-highway trailers, but I'm not wild about the idea on a car/truck.
Won't the added width of the spacer and moving everything further out create a clearance problem at the outer edge of the wheel opening/fender under compression?

You are also considering 285/70R17 Bighorns and they are 11.7" wide?

Although I love 16" wheels, I think I would prefer the 17" wheel idea, even if the 17" Bighorns are a bit wide for a 285. You want or need a mud tire?

Hey Redline,

Quick question:

I traded my Fj in last week for an 07 4Runner limited.

I already invested in 16" TRDs..but the 4Runner Limited's come with larger brakes, as you know, 16s don't fit.

Did you have any rubbing with your 255/85/16 big horns? reason I ask is, I have 2 options, use my 16s with spacers or get 17s..I am considering getting 17 inch rims and 285/70/17s (11.7) but curious if these will rub and result in my needing spacers anyway, which would bring me back to just keeping my 16s and using spacers.

Thanks for any help you can lend my way.

 

[Chris Sandstorm Fj]

Congratulations on the 4th Gen!

You already had the TDR wheels for your FCJ?

Does the 4Runner have suspension modifications? I'm going to assume so as you surely know that 255s or 285s won't fit if the car is not lifted. So with an appropriate suspension lift:

I can get a little rubbing with any 33" tire (255/85 & 285/75) when I push the car very hard (think bottoming out the suspension, or almost bottoming) which is both rare and harder driving than most will routinely do. The rubbing is worse with a wider tire like a 285, but not terrible. The rear/lower parts of the front wheel openings are where I get most of the rubbing, when I have it, when the car is pushed hard.

With my current ******** Cepek F-C II 285/75R16 I also get a little rubbing at maximum steering wheel lock with the FJC TRD wheels, not objectionable but these tires are only 11.3" wide.

I still like the Bighorns very much though I have not been driving on mine lately, I'm saving them for when I need them.

Will wheel spacers push out the tire/wheel enough to allow you to run 16" wheels?
I've run spacers on my off-highway trailers, but I'm not wild about the idea on a car/truck.
Won't the added width of the spacer and moving everything further out create a clearance problem at the outer edge of the wheel opening/fender under compression?

You are also considering 285/70R17 Bighorns and they are 11.7" wide?

Although I love 16" wheels, I think I would prefer the 17" wheel idea, even if the 17" Bighorns are a bit wide for a 285. You want or need a mud tire?

Thanks for the thoughts,

Yep I have the wheels from the FJC. I removed the lift from the FJC before I traded it. I really wanted to do 255/85s but now with 17s seeming to be the best option, I will most likely go with the 285 and pick up some 17s.

I am not a fan of spacers either.

 

[NCtrail4R]

I'm in the market for an aggressive AT or an MT with better road manners and the Bighorns look to fit the bill at a decent price.

Can someone compare the on road manners of the Bighorns compared to Toyos, KM2s, Duratracs or even the Kelly Safari TSRs, or other tires that fall into this category?

Had a set of Dunlop Rover Maxx Tractions on my last truck and they offered a great balance of road and offroad. Wish I could pick up another set, but they're no longer available.

 

[Redline]

The Bighorns are a good but somewhat fast wearing tire, probably faster wearing than all the others you listed. Grip is good to above average for the type of tire.

From memory and experience, comparing the Bighorn to the Toyo MT and KM2 in 255/85R16:

KM2 were the lightest and flex well with normal/limited air removed. I think BFG’s flex zones in the read really work.

Toyo MT were the heaviest, balanced well, but are stiff and not very flexible until lots of air is let out.

Bighorns are heavy/stout, balance well, good flex, a little fast wearing.

Road manners is a broad category. Assuming all are equally well balanced, the Toyo is likely the smoothest rolling down the road, with second place being a tough call between the KM2 and Bighorn. I have more saddle time with the Bighorns than the other two so it’s easier to comment. My memory is that at slower speeds coming up to a stop, the lugs on the KM2 were more noticeable (could be felt) than those of the Bighorn. All are are fairly civilized mud-terrain tires but mud tires none the less.

I'll comment on the other treads in the other tire thread you started.

 

[Sal-XK]

I love my Bighornes and have nothing but great things to say about them. I have to air down to about 16PSI with my 5k LBS XK to get them to flex real good. Traction off road is awesome especially aired down there perfect on the rocks. I have some mud time with them I try to avoid mud but they cleaned them selves out real nice. Mine have about 12k on them and there wearing even and track straight as an arrow as well. I have some chunking but not much and considering the amount of abuse I put them threw its really not bad. I would recommend them to anyone especially for the price.

 

[Fargo]

... I really wanted to do 255/85s but now with 17s seeming to be the best option, I will most likely go with the 285 and pick up some 17s.

I am not a fan of spacers either.

BFG makes the KM2 in a 255/80/17 if you want to stay tall and narrow. That should be the same size as a 255/8R16.

 

[FourByLand]

Got a pretty good sidewall cut and haven't inspected it thoroughly yet but loosely looking for a replacement spare. Where have all the Maxxis Bighorns gone?

Thinking the flat came from the rock pulling the rim at the bead and not the sidewall cut but will need to pull it apart to know for sure.

 

[Fargo]

New Bighorn

Has anyone seen the new 764 Bighorn? Is it avialable in the USA?

http://www.maxxistyres.com.au/tyredetails.php?id=43&cat=4

 

[Redline]

Interesting. Looks like a nice redesign with the center tread intended to look similar to the Toyo MT.

 

[NCtrail4R]

Any updates on the new 764 Bighorns for the US? About to pull the trigger on a set of Bighorns, but may hold off if the new design will be available as a 255/85.

 

[Redline]

I suggest you call Maxxis and ask them when the new Bighorn will be available in all sizes.