New Shoes...

[crawler#976]

Some of you may know I had made an error after purchasing my 1998 Taco in June of '05.

[scuffing toe in dirt w/ head down, looking slightly embarassed = on]

I "saved" $60.00 and bought a set of 31/10.5-15 BFG M/T KO's instead of GoodYear MT/R's.

[scuffing toe in dirt w/ head down, looking slightly embarassed = off]

24,000 miles later I stumbled into a set of 4 slightly used (800 miles!) MT/R's!

It seems a gentleman purchased a set for a stock TJ that came with 30/9.50-15's on it, and didn't like the change in fuel economy and loss of power.

I'd planned on going up one size, but I couldn't pass up the deal...sold my BFG's including a new BFG spare for $300.00, bought the 4 GoodYear's and a new off brand AT for a spare for $400.00! Discount Tire also allowed me to purchase the road hazard certificates for the used MT/R's, so I'm set for a couple more years...

Mark

 

[jeffryscott]

what didn't you like about the BFG's? And what makes the MT/R's so much better?

I had an old set of MT/Rs on my Suzuki and will soon be getting BFG MTs for the 4Runner. I know both are loved/hated, just curious about your experience with them ...

Jeff

 

[Nullifier]

Some of you may know I had made an error after purchasing my 1998 Taco in June of '05.

[scuffing toe in dirt w/ head down, looking slightly embarassed = on]

I "saved" $60.00 and bought a set of 31/10.5-15 BFG M/T KO's instead of GoodYear MT/R's.

[scuffing toe in dirt w/ head down, looking slightly embarassed = off]

24,000 miles later I stumbled into a set of 4 slightly used (800 miles!) MT/R's!

It seems a gentleman purchased a set for a stock TJ that came with 30/9.50-15's on it, and didn't like the change in fuel economy and loss of power.

I'd planned on going up one size, but I couldn't pass up the deal...sold my BFG's including a new BFG spare for $300.00, bought the 4 GoodYear's and a new off brand AT for a spare for $400.00! Discount Tire also allowed me to purchase the road hazard certificates for the used MT/R's, so I'm set for a couple more years...

Mark

A little dramatic don't ya think :mixed-smiley-030:

 

[crawler#976]

A little dramatic don't ya think :mixed-smiley-030:

Yup :sombrero:

what didn't you like about the BFG's? And what makes the MT/R's so much better?

I had an old set of MT/Rs on my Suzuki and will soon be getting BFG MTs for the 4Runner. I know both are loved/hated, just curious about your experience with them ...

Jeff

Remember, my primary wheelin' activites are perhaps more robust than most. I have a moderately well built crawler as well as my two light duty Tacoma's. The BFG M/T's were a total failure on the SAS'd '87 BPOS trail rig, and didn't fair all that well on my '98 either.


1. Tread compound is too hard - leads to tread chunking, slicing. I actually tore off two entire lugs down to the cords on the trail rig, one entire lug on the '98 Tacoma. But, the harder compound should translate to longer street wear.

2. Sidewalls are weak, prone to cuts, puntures.

3. Out of roundness

4. Poor balancing.

5. Cupping - I always have the truck aligned after buying new tires to prevent it, but with IFS, the BFG's were cupping even tho the tires were rotated every 3000 to 3500 miles.

On the '98 Tacoma even repeated Road Force balancing could not cure the out of roundness problems that lead to shaking at highway speeds. The factory rims were repeatedly checked for runout, and were shown to be true. Discount Tire had to replace one tire that would not come down from 60+ Lbs of Road Force variation.

The MT/R's (I have three sets now - 31/10.5-15, 265/75-16, and 35/12.5/15) all came in at under 30 Lbs - most below 15. They still have some out of roundness, but it's not nearly as bad as the BFG's.

The MT/R's have shown no signs of cupping on the '05 Tacoma in the first 25,000 miles- guess we'll see how the do on the '98.

Traction -

In dry conditions I'll definately give the edge to the GoodYear's. I live in the Southwest, and travel almost exclusively in the AZ, NM, CO, and UT area.

In pure mud I'll give the BFG's the nod, but if aired down sufficiently, the MT/R's do fine.

In snow/ice I give the edge to the MT/R's again - softer compound and more edges work well on ice, and at low pressures they clean out fine.

Durability -

Of the 5 BFG M/T's I put on the trail rig in 2001, 3 were warrenteed for either cuts or tread failure. It took 8 BFG tires to go 14K miles. I switched to MT/R's after that and it only 4 MT/R's to go 19K. The second set of MT/R's I bought in 2004 are still on the truck, and since I no longer trailer the rig, it still sees some street time. They are chewed up pretty badly now, but the only use the rig sees is off highway or driving to and from a trail. They still have better than 50% tread left, at least in the center...

Mark

 

[DaveInDenver]

Mark, did you ever make a note of where the BFG tires were made? I ask only because I've had both ATs and MTs in a couple of different sizes and had an issue on a trip (the Grand Canyon trip) that required some time at the Discount in Flagstaff. Anyway, the set was a US made 30x9.50 ATs that had two of the tires go south at somewhere around 8K miles. One was presumably my fault, it picked up something on the road to Toroweap and needed a plug. The other started getting a bubble in the tread. Discount replaced both under road hazard and the new ones happened to be Japanese made. Those two lasted way beyond the original fronts and are still to my knowledge still in use (I sold that set of tires when I went to 33x9.50). I don't know if there's truly any correlation, but an observation.

PS: Just an aside, I'd like to try other tires but Goodyear doesn't make the tall and skinny tires. So I stick with 33x9.50 or 33x10.5 MTs and ATs. I'd like to try the Swamper offerings one of these times, too. But a 33x12.50 is too wide for my tastes. I think the weight of my truck (~4400 empty, about ~5000 fully loaded) is too low to really get a good tire patch on the 12.50 and 13.50 kinda tires. I'm just really satisfied with the 10.50 width. Also, things might be different when I get around to doing a proper lift of some sort on the front. The 33x9.50 stuff nicely (just a bit of rub on full lock) and the 10.50 is snug. The 12.50 width rubs badly on my fenders.

 

[crawler#976]

Dave, I never even considered that aspect of the BFG's...really makes me curious to know what's made where...

 

[devinsixtyseven]

I think the weight of my truck (~4400 empty, about ~5000 fully loaded) is too low to really get a good tire patch on the 12.50 and 13.50 kinda tires.

That statement's got me intrigued. Do you mean you're concerned about the light weight of your truck leading to poor tire wear either from over- or underinflation from trying to match the weight to the profile of the tire? (I hope that made sense!)

 

[DaveInDenver]

That statement's got me intrigued. Do you mean you're concerned about the light weight of your truck leading to poor tire wear either from over- or underinflation from trying to match the weight to the profile of the tire? (I hope that made sense!)

Oh, not so much wear as traction. I feel wide tires need to be aired down too much off pavement. I prefer not to have to go to 10 psi all the time, rather be able to stay above 15 or 20, up to even 25 psi, in mixed driving that might have pavement or high speed sections. No airing up and down or driving with a light touch on nearly flat tires at 35 MPH. I think overly wide tires require too low of a pressure, which then abuses the sidewalls. Just my opinion. But now that you mention it, I get very little cupping at 32 psi on my 33x10.50 AT tires, even with the torsion bars cranked up. My next set will be MTs, which are more prone to cupping and would be a better test.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

Oh, not so much wear as traction. I feel wide tires need to be aired down too much off pavement. I prefer not to have to go to 10 psi all the time, rather be able to stay above 15 or 20, up to even 25 psi, in mixed driving that might have pavement or high speed sections. No airing up and down or driving with a light touch on nearly flat tires at 35 MPH. I think overly wide tires require too low of a pressure, which then abuses the sidewalls. Just my opinion. But now that you mention it, I get very little cupping at 32 psi on my 33x10.50 AT tires, even with the torsion bars cranked up. My next set will be MTs, which are more prone to cupping and would be a better test.

I started doing a chalk test when I got 35x12.5s. What I've found so far is with careful attention to tire pressure I seem to be getting good wear...little cupping.

As a side note, your truck's current weight is about the same as my truck's curb weight--about 4500 pounds. I'd think our tire pressures at any given size would be similar, and they are--I ran my 285/75/16s at IIRC 32/30 and actually found they wore too much in the center. I've never had a problem with cupping, on those tires or the current 35x12.5s.

With the 35x12.5 and a chalk test, the low-speed even wear starts around 31/29, but that's actually too much pressure for high speed DD, or so says the tread wear pattern. It was still wearing more in the center than anywhere else--good on BFG to include those little triangular wear indicators between the tread blocks--so I've been running 29/27 for a while now. The wear pattern is more even, and the ride is softer. As a matter of fact those numbers are still very close to the manufacturer's recommended pressure for my truck on the stock 265/70/16 tires...at least in the front. They printed a high pressure in the rear for carrying loads, but the new trucks are closer to the 2psi split that I found with the chalk and an unloaded bed.

FWIW cupping is usually a combination of alignment, suspension and then tire pressure. If there's anything wrong with alignment or suspension, an otherwise quality tire can end up cupped.

Here's another thought, I don't know about its merit tho. The sidewall flexes more as you increase the load, so you increase the pressure to keep the sidewall from flexing too much. As you decrease the load, you can let some air out to keep the contact patch flat. As the load goes to zero, the tire should be completely unloaded and will take the shape it had from the manufacturer, which should be flat across the tread, not rounded. I remember reading somewhere that a tire only becomes unable to support the vehicle below five or six psi, and Arctic Trucks has a great writeup on low pressure testing and a shot of a tire at 3psi along with a look at the contact patch at different pressures. It seems to me that as long as the pressure is adequate to keep a good sidewall profile and a flat tread pattern on the contact patch, it doesn't matter how your pressure compares to another tire or another vehicle/tire combo--it only needs to be the right pressure for that tire on that particular vehicle, to keep consistent tread wear and minimize wear in the sidewall.

Thoughts?

 

[Wanderlusty]

I think this is a really interesting discussion. I have always heard so much about 'airing down'...often to levels that I found surprising. Sub 15...and sometimes even sub 10 lbs.

I have to claim ignorance to some of the places that you folks in the west have wheeled, specifically 'slickrock' and such...

However, around here, I have wheeled everything from mud to dirt to gravel and rock. Rocky river beds. A bit of everything.

I have never aired down, but even on the street I ran a little low. Maybe mid 20's on my 33X12.50 BFG AT's. I am not yet a convert on the importance of airing down, as over numerous types of terrain, I never even started to lose traction. I am leaving room for the fact that I could do some trails on some surfaces I have not wheeled on and simply get schooled, but at least at this point I am left scratching my head wondering if it is 'neccessary' or just something people do.

On the BFG's...I wish I could take a look at the BFG's right now (they are on the vehicle I traded....) and see where they were made.

When I last saw them, they had 41K miles on them, and despite me looking to replace them, I would not have been surprised to see 50K or more out of them. They wore very evenly and never punctured, even over some of the rock beds around here that have..'pointy?'...rocks in them.

I COULD tell that they felt a little out of balance, giving me a little shake on asphalt at certain speeds...but I always just lived with it.

On my current truck, I am probably going to go the narrow and tall route. While we have mud around here, the worst of it is stuff you would have to deliberately search out for "Mud-dawggin" and that is not what I am into, so the tall and narrow will not only serve me well on what I do here, but when I travel too.

I am also probably going to run two sets on this truck too. Some M/T's for wheeling or trips that will have me off road, and some A/T's or even milder for every day.

I hear a lot of good things about the Toyos, and I believe they use a very similar compound and makeup to the GY MT-R's. However, most of their sizes tend towards the wider side and prices I have seen....exceed my 'allowance'....

Anyway, I readily admit to a less scientific and more seat of the pants approach to this stuff, but I love reading the more studied observations on the topic. Please carry on...

 

[DaveInDenver]

I have never aired down, but even on the street I ran a little low. Maybe mid 20's on my 33X12.50 BFG AT's. I am not yet a convert on the importance of airing down, as over numerous types of terrain, I never even started to lose traction. I am leaving room for the fact that I could do some trails on some surfaces I have not wheeled on and simply get schooled, but at least at this point I am left scratching my head wondering if it is 'neccessary' or just something people do.

I have my doubts that you got less traction aired down, but real world observation is worth a 1000 times any arm chair theory. My experience is that airing down is not optional, but truly a requirement for successful off highway travel. The ride is MUCH better, traction is better. I, like Sean, found that low to mid 30 psi is about the right daily pressure for my truck and that's just simply much too high off road. My ideal 4wd pressure seems to be about 16 to 18 psi (the setting on my tire deflators is 18 anyway), a bit higher on smoother trails and a bit lower on straight up rock crawls.

I'm sure you have plenty of experience off highway, but I have to ask if you've been trained by or watched "experts" driving in 4x4? Aired down tires work best at slow speeds, careful wheel placement, etc. If you hit everything at warp speed, like they show in TV commercials, then I'd guess squishy tires would probably be a problem. Thing is that while 90% of trails probably can be done at street pressure, lower pressure softens the ride (a BIG plus to my wife) and lets you slow down more, reducing shock to the drivetrain and your butt. It's just like 4-low, lockers and all that. Most things don't need lockers and a lot of trails can be done in 4-high even, but by using proper techniques you just make things easier on yourself.

 

[erin]

Not to mention lessening trail impact. I can see not airing down as much back east though, different terrain, but like you said, out here it does make a big difference. I think the biggest improvement is ride quality and grip, but thats on our lovely rocks covered in dust, so most of your traction comes from conforming to the trail, not actually the lugs biting as well. Plus, I think it helps reduce tire damage as well, allowing them to give a little more when encountering sharp objects, rather than resisting deformation.
Just my 2cents

 

[Wanderlusty]

Oh, when I get to wheel out west, I am sure I will have a whole plate full of crow to eat...

I am not heavy on the gas pedal, generally try to take obstacles as slow as I can...save for mud....which I try to avoid unless there is no other way.

I can't say what kind of traction I would get aired down, I have never tried it. I just know I have never felt impeded by not having aired down. But comparing east terrain to west terrain...may not be the best way to for me to formulate a solid opinion on the matter.

I head off road as often as I can, but my off road experience is limited to a Jeep TJ....which is as point and shoot as offroading gets. It perhaps makes it too easy.

I will have to see how the longer wheelbase of the Taco changes how I wheel. And I also will be trying a different tire. The TJ had 12.5 fatties on them, the Taco, I want to go slim...for performance and aesthetics.

I will admit that many, perhaps most members on this board have spent more time off highway than I have, but I have still had a go at a lot of different kinds of terrain.

Still a LOT for me to learn, though.

 

[crawler#976]

Hey Fat Man (or as I'm called by my mexican freinds "Hey Gordo")

Do you have any sand dunes near by?

Sand is perhaps the best medium for demonstrating of the benifits airing down. Snow is similar, but sand is a sure thing!

Try to climb a sand hill at street pressure - see how far you get, mark the spot, then air down to 10 or 12 PSI and try it again!

Stick to the up hill stuff - you can "generally" back out with out a problem...

In 2003 I went to Johnson Valley BLM OHV area north of Palm Springs, CA. There are some large drifted dunes on the northwest side of the hills - 400 to 500 feet high. At 5 PSI I was able to use my 109:1 gearing and crawl a dune - took me about 20 minutes tho. I tried it at 15 PSI and only got 50 feet up before the truck dug itself in.

 

[kcowyo]

Thing is that while 90% of trails probably can be done at street pressure, lower pressure softens the ride (a BIG plus to my wife) and lets you slow down more, reducing shock to the drivetrain and your butt.

That was the first thing I noticed when airing down, the effect of trail impact in the cab. Much less recoil and getting bounced around by trail ruts. The "chirping" noise on slick rock is always amusing too.