What Tyres

[reb78]

I wouldnt touch Goodyears after using them on mums discovery. Dreadful tyres that make the car shake and rattle over slightly bumpy road. They are well known for it in disco circles. Tyre change fixed it, it wasnt the car setup. 18inch rims didnt help, 16s were even better still.

[reb78]

13 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Do they go like the old BFG’s though? As in hard. Rather than wear out. We have a set of 31.10.50’s. Loads of tread after too many miles to count. But bloody useless in the wet, they are like running ski’s on each corner. 

In their prime they weren’t very good off road either. Not compared to mild MT’s. 

The new pattern does look better though. 

The old tyres I have just taken off look like they should be as you describe, but they handled fine to be honest. Their performance in the snow suprised me as I thought I would struggle with them this year, but no.

The new ones have a chunkier sidewall which looks better even if it isnt really functional for my uses. The tread seems to have more sipes cut in - not to the degree of a proper winter tyre, but that may make a difference with grip.

[Mo Murphy]

I can only speak as I find CD but my experience is actual and neither anecdotal nor observed and experienced over a wide range of road types and off road conditions.

Mo

[paime]

A few options then! Anyone got any pics of the 235s on their wagon? Performance is one thing but my dear Daisy needs to be looking good, too!

[simonpelly]

There are similar discussions on this thread along with some images which may be useful.

https://forums.lr4x4.com/topic/105972-tyre-size-choice-23585-vs-25585/

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, paime said:

A few options then! Anyone got any pics of the 235s on their wagon? Performance is one thing but my dear Daisy needs to be looking good, too!

235/85R16 is a standard fitment. So just hit Google. 

The 235 generally works out fractionally taller than. A 265/75R16. But less chunky. As a rule the 235 performs better in most UK off road situations. And will have less rolling resistance and the ability to return slightly better mpg. 

Its a good size. And lots of choice. 

[Retroanaconda]

I use BFG ATs on mine and have done for a while now - I find them good enough off road for my uses without compromising noise or fuel economy on the road. I don’t seek out deep mud and so don’t need the more aggressive AT treads. They do lose grip in the wet as they get older, this is a price of longevity I think.

They last well, although not as long for me as others have had out of them. I figure because of the sort of roads I’m driving on - i.e. fast windy ones. Got 72k out of the last set in the two years they were fitted, the current set have also been on around two years and are just over half worn at 62k so going on for the same longevity.

[simonpelly]

There was a tyre review in October edition of LRM.

Anybody got a set of Davanti Terratoura A/Ts? These seemed to come across well in the article. Just never heard of them before. That said, my experience of tyre choice is very limited.

Simon...

[paime]

Just found someone else's landy in my work car park with 235/85/16s and i quite like the look of them. It'll save me a couple of ££s as well. Everywhere website i go to says the Goodyear MT/R tyres are exempt from tyre labelling so i can't assess how economical or noisy they are. What's that all about? 

[landroversforever]

1 minute ago, paime said:

Just found someone else's landy in my work car park with 235/85/16s and i quite like the look of them. It'll save me a couple of ££s as well. Everywhere website i go to says the Goodyear MT/R tyres are exempt from tyre labelling so i can't assess how economical or noisy they are. What's that all about? 

Maybe because they've been around for a long time? 

[Snagger]

There are a few things to be wary of with fatter tyres:

a) you may have to adjust the steering lock and put up with a bigger turn radius to avoid the tyre fouling the suspension;

b) increased fuel consumption and reduced speed;

c) heavier, more vague steering;

d) increased loads on steering components, wheel bearings, stub axles and suspension that may need more maintenance;

e) reduced performance in many off road conditions;

f) reduced grip on snowy, icy or wet roads;

g) increased aquaplaning on wet road.

Otherwise they’re great. 🙄. They do have their place, but they really only benefit off-road toys that do more extreme mud, jungle, bog or deep snow.  I suspect a lot are fitted because of the aesthetic.  Taller tyres can be of more benefit as dropping their air pressure gets a big footprint where flotation is needed (eg sand) without creating more drag from a wide dispersion of material (width of the track carved into the surface), but can be pumped back up and avoid the onroad issues.  You just need to be mindful of gearing ratios and potentially reduced braking effect in the dry.

 

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

4 hours ago, paime said:

Everywhere website i go to says the Goodyear MT/R tyres are exempt from tyre labelling so i can't assess how economical or noisy they are. What's that all about? 

Personally I'd totally ignore the EU tyre rating system. It really tells you nothing useful about the tyre. And may well end up causing you to not buy a good tyre for no real reason.

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

There are a few things to be wary of with fatter tyres:

a) you may have to adjust the steering lock and put up with a bigger turn radius to avoid the tyre fouling the suspension;

b) increased fuel consumption and reduced speed;

c) heavier, more vague steering;

d) increased loads on steering components, wheel bearings, stub axles and suspension that may need more maintenance;

e) reduced performance in many off road conditions;

f) reduced grip on snowy, icy or wet roads;

g) increased aquaplaning on wet road.

Otherwise they’re great. 🙄. They do have their place, but they really only benefit off-road toys that do more extreme mud, jungle, bog or deep snow.  I suspect a lot are fitted because of the aesthetic.  Taller tyres can be of more benefit as dropping their air pressure gets a big footprint where flotation is needed (eg sand) without creating more drag from a wide dispersion of material (width of the track carved into the surface), but can be pumped back up and avoid the onroad issues.  You just need to be mindful of gearing ratios and potentially reduced braking effect in the dry.

 

 

Interesting tyre review here I watched earlier.

 

It basically showed that the MT tyres performed pretty much as well as all of the AT's in the wet and similar in the dry. But a lot better in the mud. It was only hard "dirt" the AT out performed the MT. And we don't really get such surfaces in the UK. The 'bigger' tyre also seemed to perform better on tarmac than the same tread and smaller.

[Nonimouse]

I've steered away form BFG for over twenty years. To much money for what you actually get. I'm no fan of Cooper either (apart from the AT3 which is brilliant) as I've had loads of issues with side wall cracking on them.

I reckon for the money Maxxis and Hancook are unbeatable. I run Hankook RTO3's on the Disco now,  a mud tyre that is quiet, superb in the claggy stuff, superb on the road, lasts a long old time and doesn't break the bank

[Snagger]

2 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Interesting tyre review here I watched earlier.

 

It basically showed that the MT tyres performed pretty much as well as all of the AT's in the wet and similar in the dry. But a lot better in the mud. It was only hard "dirt" the AT out performed the MT. And we don't really get such surfaces in the UK. The 'bigger' tyre also seemed to perform better on tarmac than the same tread and smaller.

I saw on a trip around the Alps that everyone but one car had BFG ATs.  The exception had BFG MTs.  It was the only one to scrabble and slip on the shale tracks or the big log see-saw, even thought it had ETC.  They’re better in mud, for certain, reputed to grip better on wet grass, and almost certainly better over rocks, but no way are they better on “dirt” or tarmac, be it wet, dry or snowy.  Choice of tyre are important, and correct choice will vary depending on region, climate and use, but anyone who says MTs behave as well on road is lying.

[Snagger]

52 minutes ago, Nonimouse said:

I've steered away form BFG for over twenty years. To much money for what you actually get. I'm no fan of Cooper either (apart from the AT3 which is brilliant) as I've had loads of issues with side wall cracking on them.

I reckon for the money Maxxis and Hancook are unbeatable. I run Hankook RTO3's on the Disco now,  a mud tyre that is quiet, superb in the claggy stuff, superb on the road, lasts a long old time and doesn't break the bank

I’ve been very pleased with my BFG AT KOs.  I don’t go far off road, but they did fantastically around the mountain tracks and trails (dry grass, shallow sand, shale, loose rocks, gravel and so on), not slipping once.  The second hand Hankook ATs currently on my RRC haven’t been tried off road, but I did drive them in the same winter conditions as the BFG ATs I previously had on that car and they were a bit slippery where the BFGs couldn’t be forced to skid.  It’s interesting how different peoples’ experiences can be of the same tyre, and must be down to local variables and driving style.

[Ed Poore]

It may be more than just local variables and driving style. My father and I have always been a fan of the BFGs because we've never had less than 60k out of a set - and that 60k I got out of KM2s were slashed to kingdom come from off-road and had worn down the tread significantly (OK I'll admit I've they've still got ~8mm of tread of them)...

However when I got a new set and was at the local tyre place swapping them over we noticed that they'd quietly reduced the ply rating on the sidewalls. The first set I had must have been some of the very first KM2s in the country (they were of that age) and I got some of the last KM2s before the KM3s came out and they'd dropped from 10 to 8 ply on the sidewalls.

So not every tyre is made equal shall we say...

[Snagger]

That’s interesting - I thought they’d annotate them differently for such a significant change.

[Ed Poore]

They did have the plys on the side wall but in plain black slightly raised lettering so it was on the tyres but not obvious to say the least.

[Chicken Drumstick]

6 hours ago, Snagger said:

I saw on a trip around the Alps that everyone but one car had BFG ATs.  The exception had BFG MTs.  It was the only one to scrabble and slip on the shale tracks or the big log see-saw, even thought it had ETC.  They’re better in mud, for certain, reputed to grip better on wet grass, and almost certainly better over rocks, but no way are they better on “dirt” or tarmac, be it wet, dry or snowy.  Choice of tyre are important, and correct choice will vary depending on region, climate and use, but anyone who says MTs behave as well on road is lying.

Lol. Watch the video

[Chicken Drumstick]

6 hours ago, Snagger said:

I’ve been very pleased with my BFG AT KOs.  I don’t go far off road, but they did fantastically around the mountain tracks and trails (dry grass, shallow sand, shale, loose rocks, gravel and so on), not slipping once.  The second hand Hankook ATs currently on my RRC haven’t been tried off road, but I did drive them in the same winter conditions as the BFG ATs I previously had on that car and they were a bit slippery where the BFGs couldn’t be forced to skid.  It’s interesting how different peoples’ experiences can be of the same tyre, and must be down to local variables and driving style.

I agree about local variables. And driving styles. 

 

I have some vids of the original BFG AT’s somewhere vs MT’s. But it was all over off road terrain such as mud, wet grass and snow covered mud. 

As for MT’s though. I don’t really consider something like the KM03 to be much more than an AT in many regards. When I talk MT’s I mean something like this:

Edited October 11, 2019 by Chicken Drumstick

[Troll Hunter]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned General Grabber AT² .  I used these from 2009 to 2016 and covered ~150,000 km and they still have 4+mm tread.  Yes, it was mainly on tarmac,, but did include a significant dirt road mileage.  They are 265/75/R16s and I must admit that although they carry the winter tyre motif, 3 peaks and a snow flake, I did not like them in snow and ice.  For proper winter driving I'v been using Michelin Alpine winter tyres.  But going back to tyres for 3 season use I'll very happily be buying GG AT² again.

Mike

[reb78]

They dont make the AT2 anymore - it was a nice tyre though. The AT3 has replaced it (somehow via the AT which we still have on all four corners of the D2 and back of the D3). We have the AT3 on the front of the D3 and they seem good. Neither of the discos are used in challenging conditions as much as the 110 - partly because I dont mind the odd dink on the 110 but also because I still have more faith in the BFGs on the 110.

[Snagger]

13 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Lol. Watch the video

I watched half.  It’s rubbish - all subjective opinion and nobody drives like that on or off road except on comp safari!  I’m sorry, but don’t believe that MTs outperform ATs on wet road or gravel.

[Snagger]

13 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I agree about local variables. And driving styles. 

 

I have some vids of the original BFG AT’s somewhere vs MT’s. But it was all over off road terrain such as mud, wet grass and snow covered mud. 

As for MT’s though. I don’t really consider something like the KM03 to be much more than an AT in many regards. When I talk MT’s I mean something like this:

That’s a pretty extreme tyre, in all honesty.  Should be good in deep, clay rich mud and on rocks, but will be lethal on wet roads.