KO2 with TRD Pro Wheels in Gray?

Anybody running KO2s with TRD Pro Wheels in Gray that could post a photo?

 

That seems like a really odd request, but I have some pics from back when I used to run those garbage tires.

 

Haha, sorry you didn't like the KO2s. Those pics are awesome though. Thanks for posting them. What size tires? Lift?

 

275s, no lift.

 

Thanks. I hadn't seen your other thread when I first posted. Lot of great information. Not sure if you have already answered this, but I noticed you replaced the E KO2 with E Nitto Ridge Grappler. No issues running E rated? I've seen some regrets on other forums. I'm running D on a GJC currently but a lot of 4Runner forums suggest C vs E.

 

Just for perspective let’s look at some facts and opinions so you can try to make your own informed decision.

My best friend and I both run basically the same tires - I have 255/80/17 he has 255/75/18, same overall width and diameter but he has 18s and I have 17s, we both use E rated LT tires. The load index of a tire is the maximum amount of load (weight) a tire can safety support.

2011 4Runner (factory spec’d for P tires)
Curb Weight: 4,675 lbs
Gross Weight: 6,300 lbs
Max Payload: 1,625 lbs
Max Towing: 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
Max Payload: 2,793 lbs
Max Towing: 13,000 lbs hitch (17,100 lbs gooseneck)

His curb weight (vehicle just sitting there) is more than 1,400 heavier the 4Runners gross weight (vehicle, crammed full of crap loaded up and weighed down to its maximum capacity). Those 2 vehicles should not be running the same tire load rating. 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, all to (maybe) gain a little bit of puncture resistance? There is no direct 1 to 1 correlation between sidewall puncture resistance and side wall strength for load carrying capacity. That’s ridiculous when you look at the big picture. It’s a poor choice all around.

It’s hard to to make up a scenario that will truly justify running E rated LT tires on a 4Runner. I run E rated because the tires I wanted in the size I wanted, are only available in an E rating. So that meant run different sized tires, or go with the E. The reason I try to justify it to myself is that it *should* be more puncture resistant, I can swap out and/or repair a flat, but I reeeealy don’t want to. Dealing with a flat sucks and if I can avoid that at expense of a small change in comfort, that’s a trade off I’m willing to make, because I’m lazy. Another big factor for me was the suspension, I spent a lot of money for a very high quality suspension that is custom tuned and valved to my specific vehicle setup. E rated tires WILL have a harsher ride, however I don’t run an off the shelf or cheap suspension generically valved as a one size fits all. I’m ok with relying on my suspension to provide the comfort, I’d be less inclined to do so with a set of Bilsteins or something. As for the rest of the negatives - I’m not really concerned with fuel economy, just fuel range, and that can be addressed with cans. Acceleration, braking, handling, etc... I drive like an old man, I’m slow and gentle with vehicle inputs and I drive defensively on road plus I don’t have a need to daily drive it anymore, it has very little effect on me.

Everyone’s counter point will be that E rated is more durability and won’t flat as easy. And while they aren’t wrong, the load rating IS a defined value based on how many pounds of weight it can safely support. There is no defined value for puncture resistance. It stands to reason that a thicker tire carcass will 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 test to measure puncture resistance. The cord construction method plays a huge roll determining puncture resistance as well. The cord material and the pattern used will effect if its more likely to tear, break, or puncture etc. that stuff is typically designed around the type of tire more than the load rating of the tire.

 

First time I'm going to disagree with you. I really like the KO2, I haven't had any issues on wet roads or spinning a tire on the TN clay.

275 KO2 with the Eibach Stage 1. I ran them on stock for about 6 months before the lift.

 

Here’s mine. No regrets, BFGs in a 275 only come in E load. I have the Bilstein 6112/5160 setup with Wheelers T13 springs. Set for a 2” lift.

 

I know you weren't asking me, but I might recommend sticking to load range "C" if possible. If I've noticed any pattern, it's that the people who have had the most complaints about those tires have run load range "E." I'm not sure, but I thought I read that the rubber compounds are different, which could explain the handful of people who have had bad experiences.

I could also see how the interlocking tread pattern could have a tendency to hydroplane in deep water, but I didn't experience any hydroplaning. I tend to drive slow in the rain, though.

Otherwise, I have no idea why some guys have hated them. I loved mine, and know numerous folks running them with nothing but good feedback. I ran load range "C", 265/70/17.