Someone had to do it …

I have a 2022 ORP with the pitiful stock Dunlops still mounted, and I’ve been itching to get some bona fide AT tires. I plan to stick with the stock size. So the variables are manufacturer and load range. My 4Runner sees snow just a few days a year and is never used for towing.

Regarding load range: I know many of us choose C- or E-load tires under the assumption that their sidewalls will be more cut-resistant, but I think that’s just an assumption. The ply rating for tires no longer corresponds to an actual number of plies, but instead refers to a construction that simulates the number of plies of tires now lost to antiquity. And even in those days, when a ply rating meant something, the ply rating was no guarantee of sidewall cut resistance. To my knowledge, there is not nor has there ever been any objective measure of cut resistance — the load range is only a measure of load bearing capability.

In the light of all that, I’ve been doing some research and put together a spreadsheet of (what seem to be) the most popular tires, with their available load ranges and weights, and wondering if the extra weight of the LT tires is worth it considering I will not be towing or otherwise heavily loading my vehicle.


The 45lb. Demarcation is totally arbitrary on my part.

 

Nice work, that will be helpful for someone for sure.

I have run LT tires once over maybe 9 sets going back to 2014 and I didn't care for them (weight, ride comfort, fuel MPG drop). The other 8-ish sets were all SL or comparable rated tires. I think LT are unnecessary for the 4R, even if used in rocky areas. I have never had a flat with C / SL / P rated tires and I've roamed all over the west coast and Rockies, heavily loaded; never towing though.

I have my favorite tires on your list but they are all probably pretty decent so that's more a personal preference thing. Just thought I would address your specific question of LT tires.

Edit, also I don't think the Wildpeak AT3 is available anymore...? My shop couldn't get them as recently as 3 months ago.

 

Thanks for doing the homework.

 

I'll say that I've been running SL tires on mine, and haven't had any issues when off-roading.

I'm also not convinced that a C is any stronger. For instance, I run SL Grabber ATX, and that chart shows the SL as having a 200lb greater weight rating when compared to the C.

I think having some meat on the sidewall in the form of tread blocks is probably more important than plies. That was one of the reasons I went with the ATX, it's got a decent amount of rubber on the sidewall.

 

Nice summary work and for the sake of discussion I believe all of the published tire specs come from a ‘qualitative’ perspective, hence an “x mile tread wear warranty” is the only spec that gets close to a ‘quantitative’ assessment but is still just an estimate of tred longevity. There’re just too many variables to account for tire wear (e.g., vehicle loading, ambient/tred temperature) so manufactures surely must be adding just a wee bit more tread depth to (hopefully) ensure a tire can at least make it to the warranted mileage. Coming from a career with a testing background in a number of testing standards I can honestly say that to provide more than a “puncture resistance” statement in the form of a value/number would be a futile effort. For example, there’re ASTM test standards that calls for very specific specifications of shapes/sizes, speed of penetration, etc. of a puncturing object in addition to specimen thickness/cross sectional area. It would be ridiculous to correlate test data to the variabilities of rock shapes, sharpness of a edge, even the profile shape of a ‘sharp rock’ as well as remaining tred thickness at the time of a puncture event.

So, will tire manufacturers ever be able to nail down specific numbers for such tire characteristics? Nope. The best they can do is provide some reasonable guidelines and I’m okay with that. We all have the benefit of doing our research by reading reviews and sharing knowledge gained through networking within this community to make an educated decision as to which tire will suit our needs and your spreadsheet makes this an easier task to accomplish.

It is in that spirit I think it would be beneficial, since you have two other XL rated tires on your spreadsheet, to also add in the Mickey Thompson Baja Boss AT -XL.

 

I always look at tire weight when shopping and have found it interesting that the Toyo's weigh the same (or even a little more?) in C range than in E range.
It's also interesting to me that you can get a C-range tire that doesn't weigh any more than the relatively heavy SL Falken AT4W that I'm running. Does the Falken weigh more because they beef up the sidewall to get the same cut protection? Who knows...

 

X2 on the XL load and the Baja Boss AT -XL should be added. After much research i narrowed down to the Baja Boss AT -XL and Duratrac RT - XL and ended up going with the Duratrac RT for there added Kevlar, better & narrower tread pattern for snow and my off road use. only 1lb heavier too. Seems the XL rating is a sweet spot many manufacturers miss.

Did a review on the Goodyear Duratra RT's: https://www.4runners.com/threads/new-goodyear-duratrac-rt-review.42415/#post-670421

 

Good writeup. Tracking

 

Add column for tread depth, as the higher load range version typically has deeper tread, so that affects off-road traction and longevity. Deeper tread accounts for some of the weight, too, as solid rubber weighs more.

Might as well delete/hide the load rating column as even the lightest tire exceeds the GAWR of the 4Runner.

 

Basically which of the Toyo A/T3 load rating SL; C; or E is best for driving on snow and icy conditions.
Not worried about weight. Safety first.

 

I understand what you’re saying. But I think meaningful testing could be performed. I’m reminded of gel block testing used for firearms/ammunition evaluation . The gel block is a poor simulation of animal tissues, so it’s not a solid predictor of real world performance. But it does provide a basis for comparison of one type of round to another.

 

Go with the E load, will be so heavy you will never get any wheel spin and your MPG will be so bad you will avoid driving all together. But honestly doesn't matter what load.

Probably should widen your search if looking for best for driving on snow and icy conditions with safety first in mind.

 

Per suggestions I added the Mickey Thompson Baja Boss, removed the Falken Wildpeak A/T3w (no longer available), and added a column for tread depth.

 

I hesitate to do this because I’m not very confident in the information. I added a column entitled Dirt/Wet/Snow and entered consumer ratings from TireRack.com from their Off-road, Wet, and Winter/Snow categories, for all the tires that weigh 45 pounds or less.

I included data for the BF Goodrich T/A KO2 as an example of the pitfalls of using this type of data. The KO2 is both famous and infamous on this board. Some folks swear by them and some think they’re total crap. And yet according to Tire Rack’s consumer ratings they rank at the top in all three categories. FWIW.

 

Great write up! Will be following.

 

I did some research on this on tirerack.com at one point, and the heavier tires seem to have wider tread width, sometimes by almost an inch. May not mean more protection necessarily, but it does mean you're getting something with the extra weight.

Edit: I guess 1/2" is more accurate: Falken AT4 at 8.9 vs Toyo AT3 at 8.4. there is also a slight tread depth difference, 14 vs. 13.4 / 32", but I don't think that makes as much of a difference.

 

Very good point. Like my old Duratracs, were great in the rain but my new Duratrac RT are even better, but don't necessarily review that way. I was directing the wider search directly to asking which Toyo A/T3 is best in snow icy since there will always be better choices.

Would be cool to take into account forum users rating at some point rather than just tire rack. Ether way its really great to see all the options in one place!

 

All i run is Falkens. My 2nd choice would be MT Baja Boss

 

I appreciate the work you put into this, OP.

 

So the KO3s are 9 pounds heavier each than the KO2s. I wonder how much that impacts performance and MPG?

And why are they 9lbs heavier?

 

^Load range C vs. E. The KO3 variant shown in the table has 1000 lb more weight capacity.

 

Got the grabber atx SL load too, no issues in Colorado so far

 

I absolutely agree with what you're saying. The tire world needs a UL test lab to have manufacturers send their tires to for unbiased testing with specific test hardware, controlled environment, surface details, etc...hell I'd offer to write up a detailed test plan and spec out test gear, GSE, etc. Road and Track (still does?) vehicle performance testing on a skid, G and slalom courses...

 

And that's impressive, I know you guys have real rocks out there.

If mine wasn't a DD I'd probably go E, but I commute with it and the trails are 200 miles away.

 

@Captain Spalding so after pulling all the awesome data together, what tires did you decide to go with?

Personally, I'm leaning towards the Nitto Terra Grappler G3 or Toyo Open Country AT3 (SL BSW) for my next set.

 

TireRack has no ratings for the Nittos. Have you read anything positive and unbiased?

 

Nothing I can claim that is unbiased. Hard to tell these days who is getting paid for their "review"

What I did like about them is that they have an XL load rating and are about $100 cheaper than the Toyos. Admittedly, I like the sidewall design. I also ran the G2s on a previous truck and was quite happy with them, until a bolt in the sidewall of one ended that experience.

I'm adding the Falken AT4W to my short list as well. Currently running the AT3W.

If Michelin made a AT tire in our size with an aggressive sidewall at the level of the Defenders quality, it would be a no brainer.

 

Mich Defender AT ??

 

Is there such a beast?

 

Your list has most of the tires I’m looking at on it. I need a set before my next rotation. My cooper at3s wore really uneven.
Did you look at the new Bridgestone accent AT? It’s expensive but looks good and is light. I’m really leaning towards it or the Nitto g3.
Did you notice if the heights were the same on all the tires? My coopers were 1/4” shorter than most 265s.