Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T Load Range

[QUOTE=These Baja Boss were noticeably heavier than the stock Duellers at first too. Don't even notice now. I have a diseased right leg that just has to try and stand up at all times. Leadfootitis. Thats my pedal commander.

Did you notice much difference in gas mileage going to the XL Baja? About due to replace my Toyo AT3's. Toyo's been great but considering the XL Baja. Do a lot of running in Michigan's copper country, get into some of the old sharp mine rock tailings when metal detecting and running the old railroad grades and two tracks looking for some of the 1800's mines. Can get some good snow there when I'm up during deer season too. Never had a flat with the Toyo's but have had two on my Chevy 2500 truck running E-load tires in the same areas. Not side wall damage though.

 

@roc

For perspective, if it helps, I went from Dueler H/T's to running 55lb Mickey Thompson Baja ATZ LT285/70R17 load E hybrid tread all terrains (plus 29lb Mickey Wheels) and my mileage isn't crazy:

cheers

 

@roc

I don't manually track MPGs since my thought is "it takes what it takes." But. I checked the Display Info Screen for ya and it says this; Average 17.5mpg at an average speed of 36mph and since refuel 253 miles with an average of 16.7mpg.

I tend to drive, neighborhoods excluded, 15-20mph over the speed limit(which is everybody here) and I take corners like its a sports car. A LOT of time the truck is idling for 30 or more minutes at the local fried chicken joint. An average commute is 9 miles. Approx 2 of that is residential below 20mph, 6 would be around 65mph, the rest is inching through said drive-thrus. I've only used 87 non-ethanol from the same station and occasionally run 5gal of stored gas through it. Stored gas is treated with Pri-G. Maybe thats useful.

Sounds like some cool scenery you're exploring. Very jelly. What you're rolling over is very different than what I experience. It doesn't snow here. Good news though. If you're sticking with sizes under 315s the Mickey's are 3 peak rated.

 

Hey guys! I've done some pretty extensive research since I last posted and I think I've found clarification on a few things. I'll start with the basics that I think everyone already knows, but just covering all bases. Things will get progressively more interesting as you read on, if you choose to do so. And please do let me know if something doesn't look right to you. I seek only to understand like the rest of you.

LT vs. non-LT - Simply put, LT (light truck) tires are those with B load ranges and up (B, C, D, E, F and so on). Anything other than that, such as an SL (standard load) or XL (extra load) tire, is not an LT tire and typically has a smaller load carrying capacity than an LT tire.

Load Rating - This gives you the max load the tire can handle at a given psi. You need both the max load and the max psi, as one without the other means nothing. Then you compare it to the actual load on one tire. For simplicity sake, lets say the actual load on a single tire is 1/4 the curb weight of the vehicle. So in our case, without adding all the steel bumpers and skids and what not, that's 4750 lbf / 4 = 1188 lbf. I'm using the general term "load rating" here, but there are two ways the tire's load capacity is communicated - "Load Range" and "Load Index". These both give the same information, but in different ways, and load index is more specific. Load range indicates the max load-carrying pressure a tire can withstand. You would need to go to look at the load index or the manufacturer's site to see the actual max load the tire can handle at that PSI. Load index gives the actual load the tire can handle, but you would need to look at the load range or the manufacturer's site to see the corresponding max pressure. Links to charts below for typical ranges and indices. Note that these are typical, but manufacturers do stray from these numbers sometimes. Once you know the tire's max load at the PSI you plan to run (not necessarily the max load of the tire given as this is only at the tire's max pressure, sometimes up to 80 psi), you compare it to that 1188 lbf above, or whatever your vehicle weight / 4 is, and if the max load is the same or higher, you're solid. Now, there is factor of safety, or margin to think about as well. If the max load is 1.5 or 2 times the actual load, that's obviously better than if it's exactly at the actual load. However, in my opinion, you are still probably fine if you're right at it, as the manufacturer has already built factors of safety into their design. They know the average joe is not going to analyze the factor of safety... they're just going to make sure their actual load is at or under the max load and call it a day.

https://www.tirerack.com/upgrade-garage/what-are-load-ranges-ply-ratings?gclid=CjwKCAjw5_GmBhBIEiwA5QSMxJDIfQnVrCWKUo808Y0YSuz4D6-cVefwliY2hNXZQ-03JzS6mfhKmhoCrtUQAvD_BwE&ef_id=CjwKCAjw5_GmBhBIEiwA5QSMxJDIfQnVrCWKUo808Y0YSuz4D6-cVefwliY2hNXZQ-03JzS6mfhKmhoCrtUQAvD_BwE:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!3756!3!354820920374!e!!g!!tire load range chart&gclsrc=aw.ds

https://www.tirerack.com/upgrade-garage/what-is-load-index?gclid=CjwKCAjw5_GmBhBIEiwA5QSMxDQreej8NAAu-SBScg8dz0hhsLvDAa_mpe15GGYhTBd-ej4pHY-cjxoCaJoQAvD_BwE&ef_id=CjwKCAjw5_GmBhBIEiwA5QSMxDQreej8NAAu-SBScg8dz0hhsLvDAa_mpe15GGYhTBd-ej4pHY-cjxoCaJoQAvD_BwE:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!3756!3!354820920365!e!!g!!tire load index chart&gclsrc=aw.ds

Wheel Load / Tire Pressure Relationship - P = F / A, where P is pressure (psi, which is lbf/in^2), F is force (lbf) and A is area (in^2). If you take the force that gravity exerts on one wheel and divide it by the internal pressure of the tire, you get the area of the contact patch of that tire on level, flat ground. Note that to do this accurately, you need to use absolute pressure (psia). When we talk about tires, or measure our tire pressure with a tire gauge, we are talking about and measuring gauge pressure (psig). Basically just about any tire gauge is calibrated so that it reads 0 psi at atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi), so you need to add 14.7 to the pressure you read on the gauge to get the actual pressure in the tire. You may have never heard this before because there is really no need to think about it unless you are trying to figure out the contact area. The recommended and max pressures that are given by manufacturers are already in psig.

Now, the reason why there are minimum and maximum pressures for tires is because tires are designed to operate while keeping a certain shape and contact area. Too little pressure and the force of gravity is going to push down and deform the tire, making your lower sidewall bulge out. This causes a lot of internal friction within the tire material when it rotates at road speeds, which turns to heat, and heat is the enemy of tires. Too MUCH pressure, and you start decreasing the contact patch of the tire and it no longer provides the traction that it was designed to provide on the road. And at some point, if you keep adding more and more pressure, it's going to rupture or come off the bead.

By looking at P = F / A, you can also see that if you hold the area constant, pressure and load relate to one another linearly. So, if you take the MAX load and the MAX PSI given by the manufacturer, you can extrapolate to find the max load at any PSI. To illustrate this, I have plotted pressure vs. load for 4 tires below from 15 - 80 psig. The Toyo Open Country AT III comes in SL, C, and E for the 265/70R17 size, so I chose to use that tire to keep it as controlled as possible. I also added in the Mickey Thompson Baja Boss AT since it is what I started this thread about, and so we can compare the "XL" load range to the others. Note that I did account for gauge vs. absolute pressure in my calculations, but I am showing gauge on the x axis of the graph since it is what we are familiar with. Here are the results:



Here are my observations from this:

1. Let's focus on the two pressures that we are most interested in, 35 psig for road use, and 15 psig for off-road. At both of these pressures, the data shows the opposite of what everyone seems to think, which is that the higher the load range, the higher the max allowable load. At both of these pressures, and at any pressure in between, E has the lowest maximum allowable load, followed by C, then XL, and lastly surprisingly the SL has the highest allowable load at those pressures.

2. Point 1 focused on two specific pressures. Now looking at the graph as a whole, you can see that load E is clearly an outlier and has the overall MAX allowable load and MAX allowable pressure. So that is why people talk about needing an E rated tire if you are carrying really heavy loads. But that only comes into affect if each one of your tires is carrying about 2500 lbf each. That means the total weight of your 4Runner is 10,000 lbf at that point, and you are carrying 5250 lbf additional weight over the curb weight!!! I bet none of you have a winch and fancy steel bumpers and rooftop tent that weigh THAT much!!!

3. All four of these tires can easily carry the weight of a 4Runner, even down to some pretty low pressures. The SL and XL can carry the load of the 4Runner down to 15 psig and even a tad lower without bead locks, though it probably isn't a good idea in the real world as your vehicle experiences more load than it does from just static weight on level ground. For the C, it looks like you don't want to go any lower than 16 psig without bead locks, and same for the E at about 20 psig.

4. Note that the max PSI for the SL and XL are different than they traditionally are as shown in the charts I linked above. Usually an SL tire has a max pressure around 35 psig, but Toyo shows a max of 44 psig for this tire. Same kind of deal with the Mickey Thompson XL. Typically an XL has a max of 41 psig, and this tire's is 50 psig. That is why the SL, XL, and C on my graph seem to be all over the place.

Final Thoughts: Now, in the real world I know that other factors come into play. All of the above is based on static weight on level ground, and obviously that is not the case most of the time. Some other factors also probably come into play that might make the force vs. pressure relationship not so linear. But those factors are hard to model, so all we have to work with are assumptions to simplify it down to a level we can understand. After this, I can conclusively say that from a load carrying standpoint, the load range you are using does not matter on our 4Runners. At least not in 265/70R17. And if you think about it, that's not surprising as these trucks come with an SL street tire on them!! And I've already hit more rocky trails with them than I probably should have with no problems. Now there may be other reasons to use one load range over the other. A higher load range likely has better puncture resistance, for example, since it is constructed in a more heavy-duty manner. But I have a hunch that if you are using any reputable all-terrain tire with good tread depth, and especially if it has a beefy sidewall, you are going to be just fine. There are also plenty of reasons NOT to use a higher load range, such as the significant added weight, or the difficulty with balancing, or, as some of you have mentioned, the higher the load range, the more rigid the tire. Therefore, it is going to have a harsher ride quality and the tire is not going to flex and float like you want it to off road.

As for the Baja Boss in XL, my only hold backs are that some of the features on this tire are not available on the non-LT sizes, like "Extreme Sidebiters", the "Powerply", and the "TI compound". With that being said, I've never even heard of any of those on any other tire so they are probably just marketing gimmicks. The XL still has the 3PMSF rating, 60,000 mile warranty, and it's only 44 lbs! I also saw a picture online today of an actual one of these in the XL load range, in 265/70R17, and it still appears to have a pretty beefy tread pattern and sidewall. I might just go for it!

 

Holy shit! I gotta start reading the fine print. Was under the impression the entire line had "Power Ply." Oh well, still digging these tires.

And yeah, these tires do look the biznass. The trail bunnies at the local concrete crawling spot might not act impressed, but their boyfriends are givin' mean side-eye.

 

Going to give those Baja's a try here soon.

 

Thanks for that epic post! Informative and enlightening.

If I may comment on your observations:

1. Inverse relationship of rating and allowable load at a given pressure. This not too surprising and many folks who run E load tires will report running a pressure in the mid-40’s.

2. I don’t typically hear about people choosing E load tires for load carrying ability (maybe you’ll find the odd guy who want to tow more than he should.) The overwhelming majority of those running E’s do so for perceived puncture resistance, and more specifically sidewall cuts.

3. Yes. SL and XL rated tires are adequate to carry the load of all but the most expeditionary 4Runners. And people buy C and E rated tires because they feel they are more durable. There’s no way to know whether the concern with sidewall cuts with SL/XL tires is justified or paranoia, which is too bad because the use of heavier tires comes with all the trade-offs you mentioned.

I can repair the average tread puncture with ease. I’ve done it enough times that I don’t even bother dismounting the wheel. But sidewall cuts are a huge pain in the butt. And the solution to that problem shouldn’t require adding 30 pounds of unsprung weight in tires with needlessly high load ratings that can only be described as overkill.

My angst is not directed at you. My beef is with the tire companies. I need a tire appropriate to the weight of my vehicle with adequate sidewall cut resistance for off-roading. How about skipping the stupid sidewall sculpting and put the weight savings into sidewall reinforcement? And while we’re dreaming it would be nice to see an industry-wide sidewall-cut-resistance rating, as that seems to be of concern to many who buy and use all-terrain tires./rant

 

I 100% agree with you. I don’t design tires, nor am I an expert in how tires are built, but I know the basics. You would think in this world of advanced technology and material science that we live in, there should be a way to make tires stronger without just adding more mass to them. And like you said, there’s really no way for us to know if there is a relationship between load range and puncture resistance, or if that’s just speculation. Common sense tells you it would help. My guess is that it probably does to some extent but probably not proportionally to the amount of mass you’re adding. I’ve seen no indication that the load range scale is supposed to have anything to do with puncture resistance. Just how much load it can carry.

It seems to me that E is way overkill. You can also see that the max loads/pressures for SL, XL and C are relatively close together compared to E which makes a pretty drastic jump up.

I do like there to be some tread on the sidewall (if you can even call it tread at that point). It could just be in my head, but I feel like it helps with sidewall protection and also helps pull you forward when you’re crawling along and your tire is sort of wedged up against the side of a rock, if that makes sense.

 

Haha I can see it both ways. I can envision the sidewall details protecting the sidewall, but I can also see them increasing the chance of a tear by giving the rock or branch something to grab a hold of.

 

Yes I suppose I could see it going that way too. My only experience was running these load C tires on my jeep and they were super super tough and just gripped onto anything they came in contact with. Really really great tires. I really wish cooper made them in 265/70R17.


They have this one in 265 and C but it doesn't seem like the same thing at all.

 

I really, really wanted the Baja Bosses but they didn't offer the size I needed which was 255/80/17. I got their sister company equivalent, the Cooper Discoverer ST Maxx in said size though. Very happy so far. Only knock is not great in clay-like mud. But not a lot is.

 

So my understanding is that the XL is an eXtended Load tire, at 35psi it carries the same weight as the SL but has a higher max pressure and can carry more weight at that higher pressure.

And thanks for the chart, I'm gonna try to remember where it is when people start talking about running 35psi in their LT tires (because the chart shows very well that an LT tire needs MORE pressure to carry the SAME weight as a p-rated tire. The thing not considered here is that in a truck application (which I guess begs the question as to whether the 4Runner fits that classification...I mean it is about as heavy as my crew cab F150 was) you have to derate the p-rated tires. I usually point to this when trying to explain the differences between passenger tires and LT tires: https://www.toyotires.com/media/pxcjubjs/application_of_load_inflation_tables_20200723.pdf

FWIW, I run a load range E Toyo, stock size at 42psi (because the 275's were on national backorder when my 4runner showed up at the dealer). I don't find the ride to be harsh (I did come from an F150 with load range E tires on 20" wheels....loved the design of the wheels, hated that they were 20's).

 

This is awesome. Especially the graph below as it confirms that I was thinking about this in the right way. Honestly I was going out on a limb and just following basic physics and I had never seen a graph like this one until I created the one above. So this tells us that if Toyo made an Open Country ATIII in XL, it most likely would have been right on top of the SL line on my graph, but just extended up to a higher max pressure and therefore a higher max load.


Where did this document come from? I mean, I see you got it from Toyo's website, but are they the ones who created it?

Interesting about having to derate by a factor of 1.1 when installing a P tire on a truck. That really makes me wonder the logic behind that though. In my mind it shouldn't have anything to do with the TYPE of vehicle, just the weight. Weight is weight, whether is is a truck, a minivan, or a fricken parade float.

I still think that XL Mickey Thompson should be fine on the 4Runner, especially since I have essentially no added load from stock condition. The more I think about it and weigh it with the other options, it seems like the best tire out there currently for my needs. On paper, at least. It's only 44 lbs, which is only 5 lbs more than the stock Dueler HT. I don't want to have to run at a higher pressure (I know it's not a big deal, but that's just personal preference), and I don't want my 4Runner to be even more sluggish and fuel thirsty than it already is, especially with my move to California coming up. I also love that "floating" feeling when aired down off road. Easier on the truck and it's occupants. And it seems like you may not get that as much with an E rated tire since it is much stiffer.

 

My best friend and I both run basically the same tires. I have 255/80/17 he has 255/75/18. They are the same overall width and diameter but he has them on 18” wheels and I have them on 17” wheels. We both use E-rated LT tires. A tire's load index is the maximum amount of load (weight) a tire can safely support. So, let’s look at weight.

2011 4Runner (factory spec’d for P tires)
Curb Weight: 4,675 lbs
Gross Weight: 6,300 lbs
Maximum Payload Capacity: 1,625 lbs
Maximum Towing Capacity (hitch): 5,000 lbs

2015 GMC Sierra Denali 2500 HD (factory spec’d for E-rated LT tires)
Curb Weight: 7,729 lbs
Gross Weight: 10,522 lbs
Maximum Payload Capacity: 2,793 lbs
Maximum Towing Capacity (hitch): 13,000 lbs
Maximum Towing Capacity (gooseneck): 17,100 lbs

His curb weight, which is an empty vehicle just sitting there, is more than 1,400 heavier than the 4Runners gross weight, which is the vehicle crammed full of stuff loaded up and weighed down to its maximum capacity. His 7,729 lb vehicle could tow a 3,000 lb gooseneck trailer carrying 3 4Runners and the E-rated tires would allow him to safely do that. Strictly by the numbers, there is no reason those 2 vehicles should be running the same tire load rating.

If we look at the very popular Falken Wildpeak AT3W tires - the P285/70/17 SL is ~50.5 lbs and the LT2285/70/17 E is ~59 lbs. With a significantly heavier and stiffer tire, you’re giving up ride quality, acceleration, braking performance, suspension performance, fuel economy, and on road handling to be able to support an amount of weight your vehicle will NEVER see, in exchange for puncture resistance. However, there is no direct 1:1 correlation between sidewall and carcass puncture resistance and the load carrying capacity of a tire.

It’s very common to hear people claim that an E-rated tire is more durable and won’t flat as easily. They aren’t necessarily wrong, but you can’t say they are right either. The load rating is a defined value based on how many pounds of weight a tire can safely support. There is no defined value for puncture resistance. It stands to reason that a thicker tire carcass *should* be less prone to puncture, however, you can’t factually state an E-rated tire is X% more resistant to punctures than a standard load passenger tire. There is no fact-based, consistent, repeatable, industry standard test to measure that so you can make an accurate comparison. The cord construction plays a huge role in determining puncture resistance. The cord material and the pattern used will affect if a tire is more likely to tear, break, or puncture. The tire’s construction changes depending on its intended use, and the intended use will have more of an impact on puncture resistance than the load rating will.

It’s hard to make up a scenario that will truly justify running E-rated LT tires on a 4Runner. I run E-rated because I wanted Nitto RidgeGrapplers and a 255/80/17 tire. That combination is only available in an E rating.
There are a few ways I attempt to justify it to myself.

1 - It *should* be more puncture resistant to some degree... maybe. I can swap out and/or repair a flat tire, but I really don’t want to.

2 - I spent a lot of money on a very high-quality suspension that is custom tuned and valved to my specific vehicle setup. E-rated tires WILL have a harsher ride, but I don’t run a cheap or off-the-shelf generically valved suspension. I’m ok with relying on my suspension to provide the comfort, I’d be less inclined to do so with a set of Bilstein 5100s or something.

3 – The 4Runner hasn’t been a daily driver in a few years so the rest of the negatives have little impact. I’m not concerned with fuel economy, just fuel range, which can be addressed with jerry cans if need be. Acceleration, braking, handling, etc... I have a lot of money and even more time into the 4Runner, I drive slow and defensive with my eyes peeled and on the lookout for the person not paying attention that is going to hit me and total it out. And with no front sway bar, I’m always smooth and gentle with all the driving inputs anyway.

All in all, I would not recommend an E-Rated LT tire for a daily driven 4Runner.

 

Great post. Thanks.

I was about to follow you down this rabbit hole and add ply ratings into the discussion as an indication of sidewall strength. But what I’ve read this morning says that ply ratings historically referred to the number of cotton plies in the carcass, and that today nobody uses cotton which has been replaced with more sophisticated materials, and that when one sees a ply rating today it doesn’t refer to an actual number of plies in the tire but rather an equivalent load carrying capacity to a tire constructed with a given number of cotton plies. So these days the ply ratings don’t carry any more information than the load rating. I remember back in the dark ages of off-road forums people would obsess about the construction of a given tire - whether the sidewall was two ply or three ply, and what the plies were made of and whether they were steel reinforced. And manufacturers made that type of information readily available in promotional materials, with cutaway illustrations describing the various plies in detail. Now that type of information is difficult or impossible to find. That’s interesting.

 

Well I ended up going with the K02’s. I actually ordered the Mickey Thompson’s at first. But then when I was talking to one of MT’s tech reps, she flat out told me that the XL load range version of this tire was not designed with off-roading in mind and was not as puncture resistant as the LT variants. She said it was for SUV’s and such that are primarily street driven but need the ability in snow and other terrains, and that if I’m off roading with it more than 5% of the time, expect to have to replace them soon. Now, I’m sure someone might chime in and say they’ve been off-roading with them with no problem, and that might be so, but to hear all that from MT themselves, it was enough of a red flag for me. Too bad they didn’t have a load range C. The E is just too heavy in my opinion.

Luckily discount tire is awesome and let me change my mind no questions asked. They had the set of K02’s there a couple hours later. I do have to say I love the raised white letters.

 

Interesting. You didn’t get the Mickey Thompson’s because an MT representative warned you away from them and got KO2’s instead.

In May of 2022 I sent an email off to BF Goodrich to ask whether they recommend load C or load E KO2’s for the 4Runner. They said neither!

Here is the exchange:

BFG:
Thanks for contacting the BFGoodrich Consumer Care Team. My name is Carley and I look forward to helping you out. You've been assigned case number 02858938. This will allow my team to quickly pull up your case details if any further questions arise.

Thank you for your interest in BFGoodrich tires! We do not recommend changing from the originally recommended size or ply rating of a tire as it can affect the performance of the tire and its compatibility with the vehicle.

We hope that this issue has been resolved or addressed to your satisfaction. If we can assist you further, please respond to this email or call us at 866-866-6605 (toll-free) between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, or between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Saturday.


We appreciate your business and thank you for choosing BFGoodrich.

Spalding:
Hi Carley. Thanks for your reply. When I asked about putting T/A KO2’s on my 2022 Toyota 4Runner TRD Off Road Premium the other day I specifically said that I wanted to stick with the stock size, and was asking whether the C or E rating would be more appropriate. I have no idea what the ply rating is on the stock Dunlop AT20 Grand Trek tires that came with my 4Runner. So I went to the BF Goodrich website and used the find tires by vehicle feature to enter in my Toyota 4Runner. Only two tires came up: the Trail Terrain T/A and the Advantage T/A Sport LT. Based on these findings and your email, am I to understand that it is BF Goodrich’s official world that T/A KO2’s are not recommended for the 4Runner? If so, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of members of online 4Runner owners’ forums who would be interested to know that. If there is a version of the T/A KO2 that is appropriate for the 4Runner please let me know which it is.

Thanks again,
[Captain Spalding]

BFG:
Hello [Captain],
I can confirm we do not recommend the All Terrain T/A KO2 for your vehicle.
Thank you,
Carley
Consumer Care
​

I wonder if putting KO2s on a 4Runner invalidates the tire warranty.

 

That seems like a classic CYA response. They'd probably rather not have customers driving at all on their tires, just using them to keep the bare wheels off the ground.

 

Well that’s weird. There are probably more 4Runners out there with KO2’s than any other tire. I feel good about my decision. I wanted to try the Mickey Thompson because I heard it handles better on snow and wet conditions, seems to have a better tread pattern (but what do I know, I was just judging on looks), and frankly to separate from the pack a little since everybody and their mom has the KO2’s. Literally the guy at discount tire was just saying how he put a set on his mom’s hummer and she loves them. The MT also was 1 lb lighter and 0.2” larger OD (huge difference, I know).

But the more I thought about it the more I wondered if there was something to this LT vs non LT thing. I think you were the one who was asking the group what the difference is in construction, if any. I was wondering the same thing. It just seems most people run LT’s and have the general opinion that they are tougher/stronger/more puncture resistant. I still don’t really know, but whatever, I’m tired of trying to figure it out lol. And I’d rather play it on the safe side. The KO2’s are tried and true, load C, LT, 45lb/tire, 3 peak badge, snow + mud badge, and has those beautiful raised white letters.

 

They told me to inflate to 50psi, which is the max listed on the sidewall.

 

This may be what you were getting at, but I think you would only need to inflate to 50 if you're running the corresponding max load which is 2470 lbs per tire. I'm running them at 35 psi and it seems to be just right.

 

They said point blank that they were not allowed to say anything else but 50psi.

Shoot, I could float to Europe on that tire pressure, and that'd include having to make my way through most of the Great Lakes system!

 

Sounds like bad customer service.

 

Not really - it's all about the lawyers. They said that they "aren't allowed" to say anything different.

 

I get it. CYA. I work in product development/technical sales. Seems like there should be a better way, where they could have knowledgeable reps actually giving people good information. They probably don't want the reps getting creative with their responses because they, in a lot of cases, are not technically minded and may say something wrong. But just "you can only run 50 psi and that's all I'm allowed to say" is ridiculous. The tire is not going to perform at its best at 50 psi in all applications. I guess BFG doesn't want to pay for knowledgeable sales reps and just wants to cover their a$$ and knows they're gong to sell tires anyway because they're BF Goodrich.

For all I know, the lady I spoke with at Mickey Thompson may not have known what she was talking about either. In the end it seems it's best to just go with the tried and true product so there are no surprises. In this case, that's what I did by going with the KO2s.

 

I am going to try the Mickey T tire on my next set. These are even more expensive than others but the positive reviews just keep coming up everywhere. On the K02's, I think discount tire gets a nice cut for pushing these. I actually have no complaints on K02s as I have them on the Taco but the Mickey T just need to be tried at least once on the 4R.
How many PhD's can we give out after this thread?

 

Well let us know how you like them when you get them. I had the same thought process as you at first. I'm sure they are still a great tire, just not for my needs. XL is not intended for off-roading according to MT, and E is too heavy for my liking since I also use my 4R as a daily and road trip vehicle. I did see the XL Baja Bosses that I originally ordered stacked up when I got to discount tire. I should have snapped a picture for you guys. They definitely don't look like the LT variants of the Bajas, and don't seem as substantial as the KO2s either. I know the KO2s are everywhere, but maybe there's a reason for that.

 

Am I the only one that thinks this sounds odd?

 

I mean, poseurs need tires too - right?

 

We're still there, but now it's the future. I think we need to set up a couple tire dumps and cut them apart and upload pictures.

or we just need a dead tire thread