Tire dilemma: Falken SL vs E

Just got a new 23 ORP last week. I want to ditch the stock Duellers as I plan to do a lot of exploring in the national forests here in the Cascades.

I went to the local tire shop. I want to buy local and all we have is a Point S and a Les Schwab (Not a fan of their tires). Point S guy told me he thought the Falken was the best for an all terrain that will also work in the snow. He said he'd get me whatever I wanted of course. I want the stock size as I'm just getting my feet wet in the off roading stuff. The Falken doesn't come in a C rated tire in the stock size. He told me that the E rated Falken is about the same weight as the SL, has a deeper tread and will last longer. To him it was a no brainer to get the E ($50-75 more per tire, I can't remember. I'm not super worried about price at this point). He seemed pretty sincere and I don't think he was trying to hard sell me or anything. He said he thinks the E is a better way to go. I told him to go ahead and order them.

Of course I get home and start going down the rabbit hole of the internet on tires. I admit, I really don't know shit so I just want to make sure I'm not going to get something that I'm going to regret. I looked up the Falken Wild Peaks on their website and it says that they don't recommend E rated tires for a 4Runner. I called their office, and they told me that, indeed, they don't recommend them but some people choose to get them anyways. Are they just covering their asses? Is it silly for me to get E rated tires? This car won't be my daily driver but I do plan on taking lots of trips with it that will involve lots of highway driving.

Am I overthinking this? I can still change my mind. I don't plan on doing anything crazy, but I'd like to go lots of places that I wouldn't dare try in my Honda Ridgeline that I"m replacing as my adventure vehicle.

 

If I had to choose between SL (standard load) and an E rated tire, I would go with the E-rated tire for off-roading with extra weight such as camping gear. Ride on road will be stiffer, but to me, the extra sidewall protection is priceless when off-roading

 

I'm very happy with my E-rated Wildpeaks. The balance is good, they're quiet on the highway but tough and grippy on the trail. My AZ buddies were adamant that I go for E and I'm glad I did. The weight is only negative - they take a bite out of the acceleration.

 

I wish they made a C rated, but, alas, they don't in the stock size.

 

Thanks! That is good feedback. I'm not experienced enough to know what I really need yet, but I do like to err on the side of caution. They look awesome.

 

If your not going to be offroad that much a e rated tire is overkill.

E rated tires are heavy and kill mpg/performance/ and add extra wear and tear.

If its your daily driver id go sl rated.

 

I went with the SL rated wildpeaks on my new ORP in Feb and have no regrets - they seem plenty tough so far and I didn't want the extra weight/stiffness/cost. I'm not a hardcore off-roader by any means, but do spend a fair bit of time on forest roads and occasional mild 4WD roads to get to trailheads in CO/NM. Sounds like a simialar use case to yours, and so far they have been great. They are great in the snow as well.

 

X2

Even the SL Wildpeaks are fairly heavy for their size, my theory is that a SL is really the equivalent of what other brands would call a C.

You could stack a 4Runner on top of your 4Runner and still not get near the weight rating of an E load.

 

They are pretty decent in snow. But tires like Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac perform better in snow. All have their own prod and cons. But You can't go wrong with either.

Not sure if you be interested in size LT275/70R17 Load C. With ORP wheels I doubt there would be rubbing issues. If you downgrade to TRD Pro wheels you might get rubbing issues.

I would highly suggest not trust tire shop guys as there is no possible way they remember all tire specs. Best way is to check on Falken website, they have a pdf with all the specs.

For sure Load E is the best for offroad against punctures from sharp rocks and what not. But with my experience in Load E with BFG KO2 I didn't like the firm ride on pavement and had to sell them soon and get Load C tires. But this may not be valid to Falken as they got 2 ply side wall in Load E AT3Ws vs KO2 Load E got 3ply side wall. So Falken on road comfort may not be as bad as KO2 Load E.

 

Interesting that the C load tires seem to weigh more than the E. The 275 C is heavier than the 265E in the Falken. The Toyo C rated 265 weighs more than the E rated Falken.

Analysis paralysis!

 

My c rated goodyear territory weigh in at 46lbs. One of the reasons I got them.

Maxxis razr at are xl rated and are 40lbs(265 70 17) I've heard nothing but good things about them. They are also 3peak snow rated tires. And are pretty cheap. Id check them out.

 

go with a 285/70/17 in a c load.

 

Since my first set of Falken Wildpeaks on a Cherokee a few years ago, I have not used any other brand. The first thing I do when I buy a new truck is change out the tires for Falkens. I have used them on Grand Cherokee, Gladiator Mojave, Explorer, and currently on my 4Runner TRD Pro. I have wildpeak AT3 285/70/17 on it. The ride is good. Not to noisy and seem to hold the road well. Hoping for some snow this year so I can test them on the 4Runner as this is my second winter and last year we got three flurries and that was it. Hope this helps.

 

agreed all of my 4Runners had Falkens on them.

this about 1 foot of snow, it went through it like it was only 1”. Lol!

 

no issues for me in my hunting property

 

Do you have anything besides vigorous assertion to back this up?

 

I've had significant issues with stone drilling on Load C here in Colorado (3 instances with slow leaks on BFG KO2 285 70/R17s). I switched over to E and haven't had an issue since

 

I claim that the extra material that results in extra weight creates a non-zero difference in puncture resistance and durability. You claim that it doesn't. Which makes more sense? Are there different laws of physics for that extra material that make it indistinguishable from nothing?

 

Lol? If you're not accepting anecdotal evidence, why are you offering it?

 

One thing to consider is that the SL's will make for a nicer ride on pavement. Consider how much of your driving will legitimately be out on trails or forest service roads, and how many of those trails are really gonna be that intense. I'd bet that SL's are a better choice for 95% of us.

 

Ha I hear ya. Go spend some time in a less developed country where people have to make do with a lot less. It'll make you question how much you really need. I've seen 20-30 year old completely stock Hilux's and Landcruisers with cheap tires on terrain that I would not be willing to drive in my much-more-capable 4Runner.

 

yep 285’s with 2” front and 1.5” rear lift. No rubbing and still have all mudflaps on as well

 

im running stock upper and lower control arms.

not sure of the exact alignments specs offhand, but I can try to did them up from my paperwork tomorrow.

 

OK, here's the update:

They called me last night and said the tires were in. I was hemming and hawing, thinking about canceling the order after spending the better part of a day agonizing over it. First world problems and all that. I went ahead this morning and had the stock size Wild Peaks in E installed. I talked to the manager of the tire store this morning, who is a good dude. I bring my work vehicles there for tires all the time. He told me he recommended the E load because the tread life would be much better. He showed me how much deeper the tread was than the SL tire. He says that with all the chip-seal roads we have here, based on his experience the E load hold up better. He didn't think that I would notice much of a difference in driving. He also said that if I didn't like them, he would take them back and get me whatever I wanted as long as I let him know relatively quickly, and if I wanted to change my mind before he installed them it would be no big deal. That seemed pretty fair to me. All of my research led me to believe that the Wild Peak was what I was looking for. Good snow and wet performance, especially. So, I went for it.

I drove at least 100 miles today, on the highway, on pot-holed somewhat paved forest roads, and then up some logging roads. I noticed no extra road noise. The truck definitely handled a little differently, but not in a bad way. I don't know how much of it was psychosomatic. Gas mileage was just as shitty as before

I don't know why there aren't more stock size tires in a C. So far I'm happy with my choice. I'll give it a week and see how it goes. In the future this rig will not be my daily driver but right now I'm in the honeymoon phase. That being said, if it were my daily driver I'd have probably chosen a different tire, or a different vehicle altogether for that matter. I drive 20,000 miles a year, and my wife does as well. That's life in Podunk.

I do find it interesting that a lot of the people I've read on the forums who seem so adamant about weight end up putting bigger tires on their rigs and lifting them. If I were trying to stuff a giant tire on mine I would probably be more concerned as well, but I'm going to leave my truck stock for awhile until I figure out what my eventual needs are.

Oh, and I got my first pin-stripes today! I definitely bought the thing to use for its intended purpose.

Heres a picture with the new shoes, and I looked at the sidewall and they are made in Japan. Not that it matters, but I think that's kind of cool.

 

Ok. Couldnt find the sheets, but 3.6 or 4 degrees is sticking in my head for some reason.

 

Look at the tread depth on the Maxxis Razr (12/32"). That's one of the shallowest tread depths you can get on a tire. That's why they are lighter and cheaper. The Faulken Wild Peaks I'm looking at have 18/32" of tread. That's an additional 3/16" (0.1875") of tread so yes, they are heavier. In terms of useful tread, the rule of thumb is you replace a tire when it only has 2/32" of tread remaining. For the Razr's, that works out to 0.3125" of usable tread. The Wildpeaks have a full half inch of usable tread. That means that they have 60% more tread than the Razr's. So unless the Razr tires are less than half the cost of the Wildpeaks you're not getting a very good deal.

 

Your comparing sl rated and e rated tires. Of course the e rated tires have more tread.

If your compare the sl rated tires, falkens have 14/32. So not much difference.

 

I was referencing the 275/70R17 load range C Falkens. This is what I'm considering getting.