Thread 28612842

I need to replace my BF Goodrich GeoDrive 235/65 R17 tires on my SUV with something chunkier for rough gravel roads and snow and ice - I live in the eastern US and take my car into the mountains for hiking a lot. I don't really want dedicated winter tires because then I would need to put back new tires in the spring and the current tires suck and I just want to get rid of them. I mean they are OK but they struggle a bit on rougher roads with looser gravel and in heavy rain. I want a tire that's good in the rain snow and ice and on dirt roads with some rocks in them - but hopefully not TOO noisy on the highway cuz it does spend a lot of time on the highway too. So I guess something in a very aggressive all terrain or maybe a less aggressive mud and snow?
I've had Falken Wildpeaks before and those were perfectly adequate. I think they make multiple variations of that some more extreme than others so maybe just a chunkier version of the one I've had on other cars?

>>28612842 (OP)
Nokian Outpost nAT

>>28612860
looks good to me
comes in the right size
thanks
I guess I am looking for a "chunkier" all terrain tire then, I don't really understand what a "mud and snow" class tires would do differently (other than have a far more aggressive tread), and do better in mud
I did notice even the Falken Wildpeaks were just ok in mud.

>>28612880
Pretty much every tire for sale has the M+S mud and snow rating. I've seen it on tires that would be extremely dangerous in mud or snow so take that rating with a grain of salt. Most AT's like the Wildpeaks, nAT's, K03's, etc aren't great in pure mud situations. You need a MT or a mud tire for that but those are useless at anything but mud. If you're going with AT's in the winter make sure they have the triple snowflake or whatever symbol. I have yet to try mine in the snow but I've heard good things.

>>28612887
My understanding is that the triple snowflake, in reality, means a 10% improvement on the braking in packed snow test so it's kinda a meme.
>Most AT's like the Wildpeaks, nAT's, K03's, etc aren't great in pure mud situations
I don't really do pure mud I mean I guess I've just been lucky and never really explored when it was that wet but I don't have a rear locker and that might be a bad idea.
I am hoping to do Cherohala Skyway in the snow.

I guess I meant MT not M+S. It's all kind of confusing to me.

>>28612888
A lot of tires with the snowflake rating actually suck in winter conditions. I would mostly want it for travel reasons. A lot of the highways around here require that rating or they turn you around when the weather gets bad.

>>28612842 (OP)
So basically, a durable tyre with good snow and wet performance?
That rules out basically all mud terrains since they're kinda actually ass in winter conditions - the tread blocks don't hold on to the snow which is the key for traction; snow on snow contact is huge grip.
I'd suggest destination a/t2's, dueler a/t ascents, scorpion xtm at, or baja boss a/t.

>>28612893
>A lot of the highways around here require that rating
this won't leave the east coast, I don't think they do that here

>>28612895
>destination a/t2's
those don't look chunky enough
>dueler a/t ascents
don't come in the right size
>scorpion xtm at
ditto
>baja boss a/t
ditto
I guess my tires are too narrow for most all terrain fits?

>>28612905
the firestones have all the objective numbers you want, they're just more optimized for performance rather than looks as you say (which is why mallcrawlers all buy nittos for their pavement princesses since they have huge treadblocks in cool looking patterns; nitto understands the assignment)

235/65 R17 is a 29 inch wheel size, which is basically non-existent for at/truck tyres yeah (30+ generally)
you'd have more options with 16 inch rims ironically, both larger and smaller

>>28612914
I do not care at all about performance I enjoy driving below the speed limit.
>pavement princesses
I wish, it's not like I'm intentionally taking it off roading, it's just that some of the more interesting hikes are often found off of shitty roads and I don't want to be stopped from exploring this winter by forest roads that are not maintained for winter.

>235/65 R17 is a 29 inch wheel size, which is basically non-existent for at/truck tyres yeah (30+ generally)
so its both too narrow and too short a tire?
At least that Nokian has it. And I bet Falken has something if that doesn't work.

>>28612914
>nitto understands the assignment
I assume you mean the "grappler" I think I've seen those - I will admit sometimes I do admire people who have chunky tires cuz I really really hate being on a steep loose gravel road

Then again. sometimes I can hear jeeps on the highway from the tire slap - and I don't want that.
I also haven't figured out a solution for someone spatially retarded (seriously) like myself to air down and up tires. I've heard that makes a difference, tried it once and it made almost no difference (in feel). But I don't want to carry around something bulky and I have no idea what I am doing working on cars.

>>28612919
>I do not care at all about performance
What are you saying, do you want something that has good snow traction or not?
Look up the tread patterns on commercial truck tyres designed for on and off-road use (eg, https://www.continental-tires.com/us/en/b2b/truck/applications/construction/), and you'll see they all look pedestrian as fuck. Because that's what actually works.
The dirty little secret is that most 'all terrain' tyres sold for the retail market are designed based on an aesthetic first, and then that aesthetic is tuned for function, not the other way around.

>>28612930
>What are you saying, do you want something that has good snow traction or not?
yeah, but I don't want a "performance" tire designed to go high speeds like Blizzaks or something
I don't care how it looks

>>28612935
okay, then I suggest destination a/t2's since they come in your size without needing to fit new rims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hwYCc6YvYM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVSHMnkf0gY

>>28612937
but what about
>>28612860
those seem nice
I bet yours are more expensive
+ its not just snow
I want a tire for rougher dirt roads and I THINK a chunkier tread helps with that

>>28612842 (OP)
This thread again. Are you going to create them once a month?

>>28612943
you can always count on nokian to make a good snow tyre, so they're a fine choice too
tyres are the single most important variable in a vehicle's behavior and a difference of 20 or 30 bucks in price is really nothing compared to the difference of getting something that will work well or not
that being said the firestones are about 200 per on tire rack, which is below average for a top quality tyre in that class
dunno how else to explain it but i've been talking in terms of objective performance the whole time so far, and objectively speaking the destinations have above average traction in dirt compared to many other all-terrain tyres, amongst other strengths
though that is rarely a real mobility limitation either in most cases; you can get stuck in snow or mud, slide off a road in rain, but dry hardpack is generally easy street
unless you are driving a rally racer, then shaving seconds off your stage time with better gravel traction becomes relevant
specially made rally tyres in small car sizes are expensive, i wonder how many people have gotten the idea to use lift kits on their drift pissles so they can fit truck tyres on them...
sorry, got kinda side-tracked there, but yeah

>>28612958
people have very specific use cases for their tires
in my case I don't want a dedicated winter tire because
a) it doesn't snow THAT much here and the tires spend a good chunk of time in a place without much snow - the snow is more on excursions deep into the mountains
b) the current tires suck so I don't want to put them back on in spring so I'd have to pay again for an all terrrain tire come spring in addition to a winter tire's cost
>that being said the firestones are about 200 per on tire rack
looks like the nokian are about 215, so just 80 more bucks for what looks to be very puncture resistant - that appeals to me
but I remember my falken wildpeaks being a bit more expensive than that (1000 for 4 of them) I wonder why?

>>28612961
Ok I looked it up Falken seems to sell two styles of all terrain - trail and 4W which is a bit more aggressive I think - and the trail is the same price as the Nokian but the 4W is a bit more expensive.

The new at4w's are actually a good example of how the 3pms stamp is not nothing, but is also a fairly low bar to hurdle, since they tend to consistently lag at the back of the pack in snow traction compared to many other tyres in the same market segment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWeFF9E60zI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNcbWbdKsQE

Incidentally, the Cooper Discoverer Road+Trail AT is another option in that size; though I personally have a bias against Cooper due to past quality control issues.

>>28612970
Wait so I don't want the AT4W? Which one is better? I had a good experience with Falken AT trails.
This tested the K02 - I've seen the tread on the K03 and it looks useful - doesn't come in my size
bet its more expensive anyways

toyo comes in the right size but seems a bit more expensive

I'd just like to interject for a moment, to point out that if you fit 18 inch rims, you can get a 235/60 DWS06+, the only tire you'll ever need, that matches the 29 inch stock wheel diameter.

>>28612979
that is not for dirt roads
also, I would want smaller rims not bigger ones
I prefer comfy ride
but I feel like messing with wheels is a whole othr ballgame

>>28612974


The Tire Rack guys tested the KO3's, which are known to have good snow traction, but the previously mentioned Dueler A/T Ascents and Discoverer R+T AT's were even better, top echelon in the segment at that, and didn't have the BFG's weaknesses on wet roads either, also being top echelon in that.

>>28612984
>Discoverer R+T AT's
but you gave me that whole thing about "past quality control" to spook me
:(
the Toyo Open Country get great reviews on Tire Rack
but I guess nobody has compared the Nokian, they seem fine to me?
I liked the rain traction in the Falkens compared to the previous shitty bridgestone all seasons I had they had SO much more grip in the rain - was more confidence inducing.

>>28612981
Changing rims is pretty much the same thing in practice as changing tyres; that is you need to remove the rims to change the tyres anyways, so the question of using different rims is basically just a question of expense rather than difficulty.
Any given car model will usually have a range of fitments they can come with from the factory, and as long as your tyre and rim combination matches the overall diameter of a stock fitment, and is equal or lesser width to the max width stock fitment, you can just send it plug and play without any significant changes to chassis adjustment.
It is of course when you have fitmets with larger differences in overall diameter that you need to start thinking about steering geometry and speedometer calibration and such, offsets to fit wider tyres, and so on.

>>28612988
I've never changed a tire let alone a rim. I'm spatially retarded and its a miracle I can drive on a dirt road without dying so far.
I guess in an ideal world I would want wheels that can fit taller tires, right, for better dirt road performance and maybe more grip on steep roads?
>about steering geometry
my car has advanced ADAS systems that would probably be fucked up by that and I wouldn't want to mess. I mean, if I don't have money for separate winter and summer tires, I don't have money for new rims anyways. But it's interesting to think about.
But even within the size-fitting AT options there seems to be a number of choices to sift through.

Is that a fuckin gook Hyundai or Kia product? Are you that fuckin poor or dumb to buy that crap?

>>28613001
It was still a lot of money (used). I really like the advanced ADAS system that allows hands free driving with no camera watching me and all I have to do is tug the steering wheel once a minute. I have a feeling newer versions won't be as permissive.

>>28612985


Yes the a/t trail is great in wet, and the at4w's have surprisingly good wet grip for how heavily built they are; not the best or anything, but surprisingly good - which helps put into perspective how good some of the ones that are best are.
Yeah nokian is good company and they certainly seem like they should perform well, but I haven't seen anyone test them in a major comparison yet either, so that's why tend to keep my recommendations to things I know for sure have good performance over many other options in the market, like the destinations or dueler ascents.
Also speaking to an earlier question, but airing down tyres is basically something you do in situations where you need a larger contact patch/greater traction, like crawling up a steep hill, where it can make a big difference. Won't necessarily make a difference in snow or mud though.

>>28613006
>but airing down tyres is basically something you do in situations where you need a larger contact patch/greater traction, like crawling up a steep hill
the things I don't like the most are the steep bits where there's also twists - paved or gravel
I can lock the center diff - and that makes a big difference but I don't like the ones that are so steep you can't see over it and you just have to gun it in first gear to get around a switchback - I wonder if airing down would make a difference on those - they have been my terrifying nemesis thusfar
>Won't necessarily make a difference in snow or mud though.
well, ive heard it gives a smoother ride on roads with rough loose gravel surfacing
but the system would have to be idiotproof for me to be able to use it, if I have to hook up the car terminals to power it - ehhh too much

>>28613006
>Also speaking to an earlier question, but airing down tyres is basically something you do in situations where you need a larger contact patch/greater traction, like crawling up a steep hill, where it can make a big difference. Won't necessarily make a difference in snow or mud though.
Retard

>>28613043
Yes, depending on the texture (loose vs packed snow, thick vs thin layers), it can actually make it worse even, which I didn't mention.

>>28613051
Still retarded

>>28613005
How poor are you?

>>28615513
very

Oh hey, the guy with the fake car and his fake "stock" full body skid plates that don't exist asking more bullshit questions about tires.
I guess it has been a week since last episode.

>>28616315
>Oh hey, let me just bump his thread

>>28616315
the skid plates are real

>>28612842 (OP)
You're not gonna get one tire that does it all. Get a second set of wheels and run good mixed surface tires and good winter tires.

>>28616764
Show them

>>28616787
look on that video where they take the kia on the off road course and look under the body, and you can see where the underbody is not exposed

>>28616779
but then I need to buy TWO sets of tires for TWICE as much money

>>28616802
And they will last longer as you're not using them in conditions they weren't made for.

>>28616809
honestly the biggest reason I wanted them is cuz sometimes the access roads to trails are just rock soup - and really I haven't yet encountered roads like that in current travels, but hey just in case and also to not get rocks fucking up my parts - I've had issues with oil pans leaking, steering fluid getting fucked up, differential breaking, control arms twisting - all cuz of lack of skid plates I reckon.

>>28616802
>look on that video where they take the kia on the off road course and look under the body, and you can see where the underbody is not exposed
The video shows the opposite of what you describe.
Also, aren't you claiming to own one? Why not just show "your" skid plates that are "totally not imaginary"?