Maxxis Bighorn MT-762 tires

[FourByLand]

James,

I have put maybe 2000 miles on these tires since Moab since we only use it for desert exploration and the trips have slowed down (3-4 Death Valley trips) since the little guys was born.

With that I will say they are holding up very well and wearing very even. On this last DV trip (Easter 2010) I hit a boulder Slicing the tire and bending the rim. I continued on until camp hammered the rim straight.

Drove out of the park and down the highway; once home I pulled the truck into the driveway. Woke up the next morning and had a flat.

I have nothing but good things to say about these tires.

 

[Fargo]

Sorry if their is a newer Bighorn thread out there, I didn't see it so I'm reviving this old thread. So is everyone still liking the Bighorns in the 255/85/16? I am seriously considering this tire size for my Jeep Unlimited. I am mostly on road but I want the looks of an offroad tire and I want the reliablity when I do get offroad. I am pretty much down to the Maxxis Bighorn, the BFG KM2 or the Cooper ST in the 255/85. I have also considered the Trxus but I don't know much about them and from what I have heard about other Interco tires they seem like a lower quality tire. I may also go with a 285/75/16 just so I can run the Cooper STT. But to keep on topic what are your current thoughts on the Bighorns and any comparisons to the tires I mentioned above?

 

[Redline]

255/85r16

It's good to keep some threads alive, most related information in one thread instead of several makes it easy to find in the future. I think much of my reply below can be found in other related tire threads:

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12879

Bighorns

I'm certainly still a fan of the Maxxis Bighorns, particularly because they are offered in 255/85R16D. Buy them for their looks and/or performance if you like, but be aware they may wear a little on the fast side. It's a nice compound for traction but I think they are soft and not a particularly long wearing tire. For a mud-terrain tread I love them, and my car likes them to. Depending on the on-road conditions you have, you may find other tires with better traction when it's wet/icy, because of more/deeper siping. Not necessarily other M/T tires, but other designs that might be better all around on-road rubber.

Cooper S/T

The Cooper S/T is a lighter tire with less void (but still quite a bit) and a harder tread compound with a reputation for longer wear. The harder compound may cut/chip more easily that the softer Maxxis Bighorn depending on your off-highway surfaces and driving style, but that's part of the tread wear trade off. (However my siped Bighorns are cut more than my S/Ts because of the aftermarket siping and type of use they were subjected to.)

I know the tread is long, but there is lots of information about the Cooper S/T in the specific thread on this tire. I don't think it's the most rugged tire, probably average to slightly below average because it currently only has a 4-ply tread in the 255/85 size. You should also note (see the other threads for pics) that the thread face is very narrow, even for a 255/85, and tapers in noticeably from the sidewall. I still like this tire, still have a set, and was considering giving them a spin for a one-thousand mile winter road trip this past weekend.

KM2

I've run a couple sets of the BFG KM2s, not for tons of miles, but I do like the tread pattern and carcass flex even if my 4Runner does not (alignment challenges). The KM2 also has a very narrow tread surface for a 255/85, though they don’t appear as narrow as the Cooper S/T because they have beefy sidewall lugs that the S/T does not.

Others

None of these tires are the 'toughest' in the 255/85 size, that title probably belongs to the Toyo M/T followed by the Toyo M55, followed my the Maxxis Bravo (an all-season LT tire). But you didn't say you wanted the 'toughest' tire which is a good thing, the toughest tire is not necessarily the best tire. For example the Toyo M/T can be a stiff, poorly flexing tire unless on a heavy vehicle or aired-down very low. They are also expensive.

 

[Fargo]

Redline, Thank you for your brief overview. I have read many (maybe all) of your tires reviews. I appreciate that you are comparing new tires to new tires in so much of your reviews. I am putting the tires on a 2005 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (LJ) so although I do want a tough tire, I really prefer a load range C or D to provide a better ride. That is why I am not considering the Toyo (along with price) and have limited interest in the KM2 as well. I believe they would just be too stiff of a side wall. I am getting very tired of the stiff ride of my load range E MTRs (stock 245s) Since I believe you also had an LJ at one time which tire did you find worked best for that Jeep. I am about 90% on road with 10% offroad when I take it on a trip to the mountains once a year.

I wish Goodyear made the Duratrac in a 255/85/16. I think that would be the perfect tire for me. Its got rugged good looks along with an AT style tread.

 

[Redline]

Load-Range, Sidewalls, etc.

As you noted, new or newish tires make a big difference. Comparing well worn treads to new tires with deep tread is like comparing apples & oranges.

Aspect Ratios

I did own a 2005 LJ and ran 245/75, 265/75, 285/75, but mostly 255/85R16 tires on the Jeep. Like you, I also prefer something less than a LR E tire for ride and flexibility (performance/traction). The traditional load-range of a 255/85 is "D", which is perfect in my opinion for most utility vehicles focused on overland travel. The Toyo M/T is truly stiff, but the KM2 is remarkably flexible and rides well for a LR E tire. I'm not trying to push you to the KM2, just being fair, the tire does have some attributes.

Part of the reason the stock 245s on your Wrangler are firm is not only because they are a LR E, but also because of the limited sidewall height. Though they have an aspect ratio of 75 (assuming you have 245/75R16?), the total height of the sidewall is quite low and therefore doesn't absorb shock as well as one that’s physically taller. I have noted this many times when testing 245/75, 265/75, 285/75, 255/85 tires. I started to really take note of this when I had a set of Toyo M/T tires in both 285/75 & 265/75 mounted and balanced on two sets of stock wheels for my LJ. Same tire, both newish with most of the tread remaining, run with the same PSI, but the 285s rode softer over little bumps in the road. Neither was soft or forgiving, and since you like a less firm ride I too would steer clear of the Toyo M/T.

Which Tire

I really like the Maxxis Bighorn, I've owned two sets and they have all balanced well for such a heavy truck tire (heavy for a 255/85). In fact the excellent balancing pushed me to buy and try a set of Maxxis Bravo A/Ts, which also balanced well. With most of your miles on-highway (like most of us) I really think you should consider something that will wear longer than a Bighorn if that's at all important to you. I haven't run KM2s long enough to collect wear data, but treated similarly I think they will wear longer than Bighorns.

The above mentioned Bravo A/T (Bravo thread) will be a much quieter, better wearing tire, but it's also not even close to an M/T, not even an A/T. The Cooper S/T or the Dean SXT M/T (same tire) is possibly a very good choice for a nice void ratio with good wear potential. They are LR D and they ride nice too. There are lots of picture posted here on The Portal comparing the different treads of a few 255/85 tires, but you need to see the Cooper S/T in person to decide if they are the right tire for you.

 

[Fargo]

Thanks for the info. Maybe I need to keep the KM2 in mind if it is a soft load range E. I have seriously considered the Cooper ST as well. In all honesty the biggest thing against the Coopers is the bland looking sidewall. The lug spacing is ok and I wish they were a little wider, but the biggest drawback is the looks of them. The bighorns on the other hand look good. At least in the pictures I've seen. I am a little concerned about how long they will wear, but at the rate I am going I will probably get about 60,000 miles out of my MTRs (245/75/16) so my Jeep seems to be pretty good on tires. The fact that the Bighorns are soft says to me that they should be a decent winter tire once I sipe them as well. I have heard that the ST and the KM2s are both pretty poor winter tires. Although siping helps both of them as well.

So I am glad to hear that your still a fan of the Bighorns. I am also glad to here that the KM2s might not be as bad as I fear. Since nobody in the area carries the Bighorns, I think I can actually get the KM2s cheaper. So I will consider them more seriously again. Since BFG is a better known name than Maxxis I tend to think they might be a better tire. But, then again, good name recognition does not always mean better.

Not to completely hijack the Bighorn thread, but did the 255s work considerably better than the 285s on your LJ? We can continue this in PMs or I can start another thread if we need to.

 

[Redline]

I’ll respond via PM for the LJ specific question.

Sounds like you are easy on tires if you can squeeze 60k out of the stock MT/Rs. The driver can make as big a difference as the vehicle when it come to tire wear.

Sipe

My second set of Bighorns sit mounted and ready to use when when I need them, currently they have very few miles on them. The first set I ran for several thousand before pulling them and putting them on my F350. This first set was siped and are the set I really have most of my experience with. I found the traction to be excellent with siped Bighorns. On rocks, on-road, winter, mud, they were very good all around. They do show a little cutting as aftermarket siping with generally increase the potential for cutting/chipping. Other than this possible negative (off highway wear because of sipes) I agree that siping a set of Bighorns will be good for winter traction.

I have no experience with the KM2 in winter conditions. I would agree with your statement that name recognition does not always mean a better product. The KM2 AND the Bighorn are both quality products. My experience is biased toward the Bighorn. First because I like the way mine have balanced. Second I like the size (wider/typical 255/85, not too narrow). Third, load-range D. The KM2 does have better sidewall lugs/tread, the Bighorn is an older design.

You have not mentioned noise, but the Bighorn is a mud-terrain tire. It's about average for noise, quieter when new, the louder, maybe a little less and more pleasant than the original MT/Rs you are running.

 

[Fargo]

I’ll respond via PM for the LJ specific question.

Sounds like you are easy on tires if you can squeeze 60k out of the stock MT/Rs. The driver can make as big a difference as the vehicle when it come to tire wear.

Sipe

My second set of Bighorns sit mounted and ready to use when when I need them, currently they have very few miles on them. The first set I ran for several thousand before pulling them and putting them on my F350. This first set was siped and are the set I really have most of my experience with. I found the traction to be excellent with siped Bighorns. On rocks, on-road, winter, mud, they were very good all around. They do show a little cutting as aftermarket siping with generally increase the potential for cutting/chipping. Other than this possible negative (off highway wear because of sipes) I agree that siping a set of Bighorns will be good for winter traction.

I have no experience with the KM2 in winter conditions. I would agree with your statement that name recognition does not always mean a better product. The KM2 AND the Bighorn are both quality products. My experience is biased toward the Bighorn. First because I like the way mine have balanced. Second I like the size (wider/typical 255/85, not too narrow). Third, load-range D. The KM2 does have better sidewall lugs/tread, the Bighorn is an older design.

You have not mentioned noise, but the Bighorn is a mud-terrain tire. It's about average for noise, quieter when new, the louder, maybe a little less and more pleasant than the original MT/Rs you are running.

Noise is factor but a not a major concern. So far I haven't complained about the noise of my factory MTRs. But a quieter tire would be appreciated. More and more I am starting to like the Bighorns from what you said. Especially the part about balancing well. That is important in a tire. I also like that they are a softer rubber and would be a good winter tire. Although I would be disappointed if I couldn't get 40,000 miles out of them. I think the biggest drawback of the Bighorn is the 2ply side wall. Are these sidewalls sufficiently strong enough for rock crawler or driving in forest with tree branches. Those trees seem to be the hardest on tires.

 

[Redline]

40K seems like a lot of miles for a Maxxis Bighorn. Depending on how low you let the tread get, you might expect more like 30k. I can't remember if it's posted in this thread how many miles per 1/32" I have obtained out of my Bighorns, but I want to say 2k?
Edit: Post #41 says 2k per 1/32", so if that's close, then they would be down to min. legal tread (2/32") at 34k. 2/32" is not enough to drive on in my book.

Yes, I have had very good balancing results with 255/85 Bighorns.

2-ply sidewalls = normal. The sidewalls have been strong enough for me, but any tire can be popped. If you want a (possibly) tougher tire I suggest the KM2, or certainly the toughest, the Toyo M/T.

But you also said you wanted a nice ride of a LR D. It's an old problem, one tire won't be all things, you will have to pick what's most important to you.

Picture is of a stack of 4 Bighorns and 4 Cooper S/T, both 255/85. Shows how much narrower the Cooper are in this size.

Noise is factor but a not a major concern. So far I haven't complained about the noise of my factory MTRs. But a quieter tire would be appreciated. More and more I am starting to like the Bighorns from what you said. Especially the part about balancing well. That is important in a tire. I also like that they are a softer rubber and would be a good winter tire. Although I would be disappointed if I couldn't get 40,000 miles out of them. I think the biggest drawback of the Bighorn is the 2ply side wall. Are these sidewalls sufficiently strong enough for rock crawler or driving in forest with tree branches. Those trees seem to be the hardest on tires.

 

[sasaholic]

If you want a (possibly) tougher tire I suggest the KM2,

definetly not tougher in my book. ive cut all 4 or my km2's almost all the way through so far and i have about 18,000 miles on them. some cuts are through the whole lugs and some are on the upper sidewalls. if i was gunna be very far from a tire shop for a tong period of time i would not be running these thires any longer.

 

[Redline]

There you go, an endorsement for the Bighorns. :victory:

definetly not tougher in my book. ive cut all 4 or my km2's almost all the way through so far and i have about 18,000 miles on them. some cuts are through the whole lugs and some are on the upper sidewalls. if i was gunna be very far from a tire shop for a tong period of time i would not be running these thires any longer.

 

[Fargo]

definetly not tougher in my book. ive cut all 4 or my km2's almost all the way through so far and i have about 18,000 miles on them. some cuts are through the whole lugs and some are on the upper sidewalls. if i was gunna be very far from a tire shop for a tong period of time i would not be running these thires any longer.

That is quite the endorsement for the Bighorns. What size KM2 do you have. I imagine if its a flotation size with a load range C it is likely weaker than the load range E. So a KM2 load range E could still be a reasonably tough tire. But I have heard a lot of stories of weak sidewalls with KM2s. I often wonder if the BFGs are over rated. I think a lot of people buy them because they look so good and everyone else is running them.

So as it is right now the Bighorns look better and better. The biggest drawback is tire wear. Weight and noise are also some consideration but it sounds like they are typical for an MT.

Its too bad the Cooper STs don't have a little more aggressive sidewall. I find the tread is decent enough but they just don't look very good. As seen in the picture, they are awefully narrow too. But that may not be all bad either. From the specs I have seen they are actually a lighter tire than my stock 245/75/16 MTRs. It looks like the Bighorns weight about 57lbs and the Cooper STs are about 48lbs. The KM2s are similar to the Bighorns at 55lbs. Being 7-9lbs lighter than the Bighorns and KM2s could have some advantages.

 

[sasaholic]

they are 35 12.5 15's C rated, but that doesnt make a difference in the fact that they cut so easy. the rubber compound is the same between load sizes so they will cut just the same. my tires literally look like ive driven over knives. ive never been a fan of bfg but i got the tires for a great price and i figured why not. like ive said on other sites i love these tires and they do great in everything, but they are just not tough enough in rocks

 

[Fargo]

Thanks. It sounds like the Bighorns are probably a better choice in sharp rocks. Can anyone compare the noise of the bighorns to something like the KM2. Similar sized tires would be preferable since tire size can make as much difference and tread design.

 

[jim65wagon]

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...