Are "Expensive" Tires Even Worth It?

[jhackathorne]

Because noisy tires typically look badass, and for MOST, that's reason enough lol.

Corrected that for you! LOL.

Sponsored

 

[JeepinJason33]

This might be cynical... but as we know it's a pain in the ass to adapt our vehicles to properly fit true 37s. Other trucks that don't have such voluminous wheel arches, it's a pain to properly fit 35s or even 33s. If BFG found themselves making a set of tires that end up consistently undersize, OEMs might find it simpler to spec these undersize tires while still showing off "33s" and "35s" and "37s" in their marketing. And a lot of buyers (the ones that don't hang out on forums and obsess about little details like this) will just keep replacing them with the same tire

I haven't owned either myself but I've seen some reports that the LRC KO2s are smaller than the LRD KO2s. And it's the LRC version that's specced by OEMs on the F150 Raptor (in 37" form), XR Wrangler (in 35) etc. Again this is just hearsay so if anyone has direct evidence, please share?

This is a good point that I never thought about. However, some vehicles are getting the Goodyear Wranglers and they are closer to posted size. I don't think BFG has a different model for Ford than they do for Jeep.

 

[azwjowner]

I haven't owned either myself but I've seen some reports that the LRC KO2s are smaller than the LRD KO2s. And it's the LRC version that's specced by OEMs on the F150 Raptor (in 37" form), XR Wrangler (in 35) etc. Again this is just hearsay so if anyone has direct evidence, please share?

If you look up the specs for the 37s in C and D, they are both listed as 569 revolutions per mile. Revolutions per mile is the true height on a loaded vehicle that can be used to compare. When you look this way, it seems to me that BFG are no more than a quarter inch smaller than most other tire brands, so I think the "small" myth is just that.

 

[JeepinJason33]

If you look up the specs for the 37s in C and D, they are both listed as 569 revolutions per mile. Revolutions per mile is the true height on a loaded vehicle that can be used to compare. When you look this way, it seems to me that BFG are no more than a quarter inch smaller than most other tire brands, so I think the "small" myth is just that.

Listed and true height spread out over 569 revolutions seems a bit irrelevant. The height is what most people are going for to help with clearance under the pumpkin. The fact is, BFG is more than a quarter inch off and that is well documented. You are correct, over a mile, it is not that big of a difference. However, 1/2"-3/4" over a rock can be the difference between hitting it and clearing it.

 

[azwjowner]

Listed and true height spread out over 569 revolutions seems a bit irrelevant. The height is what most people are going for to help with clearance under the pumpkin. The fact is, BFG is more than a quarter inch off and that is well documented. You are correct, over a mile, it is not that big of a difference. However, 1/2"-3/4" over a rock can be the difference between hitting it and clearing it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean that the revolutions per mile is the published spec for the true height under load on the vehicle. I didn't mean to suggest that one should focus on a mile distance. Rather, you can do the conversion. Height = (5280*12)/X/3.1415, where X is revolutions per mile.

My point is that when you look on the manufacturer websites or Tire Rack, where revolutions per mile is published, and you convert to the height in inches, you'll see that all the tire manufacturers publish a "true" height that is in the same ballpark as BFG. BFG isn't unusually small at all, although they are on the smaller side of the range for sure. Go look up all the other all terrain tires and do the math. (And a quarter inch in height is only 1/8" under the axle).

 

[thestein13]

Does Michelin make a 33” or 35” all terrain tire? Haven’t heard about it.

Yes, Michelin makes the BFGoodrich KO2.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean that the revolutions per mile is the published spec for the true height under load on the vehicle. I didn't mean to suggest that one should focus on a mile distance. Rather, you can do the conversion. Height = (5280*12)/X/3.1415, where X is revolutions per mile.

My point is that when you look on the manufacturer websites or Tire Rack, where revolutions per mile is published, and you convert to the height in inches, you'll see that all the tire manufacturers publish a "true" height that is in the same ballpark as BFG. BFG isn't unusually small at all, although they are on the smaller side of the range for sure. Go look up all the other all terrain tires and do the math. (And a quarter inch in height is only 1/8" under the axle).

Yep, from what I found online, the Kanati's are 550RPM, ergo:

5280*12 = 63360

63360/550 = 115.2

115.2/3.1415 = 36.67

I am leaning really hard towards them so I may have the actual load height soon enough.

 

[azwjowner]

Yep, from what I found online, the Kanati's are 550RPM, ergo:

5280*12 = 63360

63360/550 = 115.2

115.2/3.1415 = 36.67

I am leaning really hard towards them so I may have the actual load height soon enough.

Yes, those are definitely an inch larger than the "name brands" (BFG, Nitto, Cooper, etc.). Interco is the same way.

 

[dragoneggs]

Yes, Michelin makes the BFGoodrich KO2.

Sort of… Michelin is the parent company of BFG acquiring them in 1990.

 

[Santana74]

This is my experience more or less in a nutshell. They started out great, but exponentially have been circling the drain as time and miles are stacked on. Maybe I am being unreasonable to expect a tire like this to last more than 40K miles...

While "I am that guy" who will spend money to try something new that may not be mainstream and share that here (as I have done many times on various things), I am questioning the sanity of paying $2500-3,000 for a set of tires that will last about as long as a $1700-$2000 set.

My needle is leaning towards the Kanati Trail Hogs (37x12.5x17 - LRE) given the good experience I had with them in 315/70/17.

A few reviews on the Kanati's:

I have been researching these. March is when I should be able to get my Jeep lifted. Probably going with 35s, but I rather have 37s. We will see.

 

[JeepinJason33]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean that the revolutions per mile is the published spec for the true height under load on the vehicle. I didn't mean to suggest that one should focus on a mile distance. Rather, you can do the conversion. Height = (5280*12)/X/3.1415, where X is revolutions per mile.

My point is that when you look on the manufacturer websites or Tire Rack, where revolutions per mile is published, and you convert to the height in inches, you'll see that all the tire manufacturers publish a "true" height that is in the same ballpark as BFG. BFG isn't unusually small at all, although they are on the smaller side of the range for sure. Go look up all the other all terrain tires and do the math. (And a quarter inch in height is only 1/8" under the axle).

Undertand your point, but the fact is that they are significantly under the posted size. You seem to be going off of posted numbers. The posted numbers are what we are disputing. I have had several sets of various BFG tires and they all measure smaller than the factory numbers. My most recent KM3 37"s measured out between 35.5 and 35.8, nearly an inch and a half shorter than 37". Divide that by 2 and you have 1/2-3/4" under the axle.

 

[DGT]

Undertand your point, but the fact is that they are significantly under the posted size. You seem to be going off of posted numbers. The posted numbers are what we are disputing. I have had several sets of various BFG tires and they all measure smaller than the factory numbers. My most recent KM3 37"s measured out between 35.5 and 35.8, nearly an inch and a half shorter than 37". Divide that by 2 and you have 1/2-3/4" under the axle.

OK, all the banter made me curious. I just went out in blizzard conditions to the garage to measure my 37" KM3's. Under 3100 lb front axle weight, and at 24 psi, they measure 35.125" tall.

I'll add I love these tires so far, they are performing great offroad and on-road, no noise yet (6k miles/6 months). And they were ridiculously expensive.

 

[azwjowner]

Undertand your point, but the fact is that they are significantly under the posted size. You seem to be going off of posted numbers. The posted numbers are what we are disputing. I have had several sets of various BFG tires and they all measure smaller than the factory numbers. My most recent KM3 37"s measured out between 35.5 and 35.8, nearly an inch and a half shorter than 37". Divide that by 2 and you have 1/2-3/4" under the axle.

I'm saying the posted size is the revolutions per mile number. That's why they post it -- the nominal size of 37s is never the size of a tire under load. The factory publishes the sizes (revolutions per mile) that it will be on your vehicle, and your measurements match those factory numbers.

 

[CarbonSteel]

OK, all the banter made me curious. I just went out in blizzard conditions to the garage to measure my 37" KM3's. Under 3100 lb front axle weight, and at 24 psi, they measure 35.125" tall.

This is what would expect for a BFG so you are in line with mine (but K02).

 

[dougywarren]

So many factors at play here. If your JL is your daily driver and you live in a climate with a lot of rain, snow, or ice, or other hazards like a lot of debris from construction, ect, more expensive tires usually equal safer. Reading unbiased reviews, talking with tire stores, and personal trail and error experience will usually help finding something you like more, like quieter, better handling, off-road traction, ect. Personally, the best quality tire I've ever run was Michelin. But I've also seen my dad have a lot of issues with Continental tires on his Audi's, and my fiancé's father works in the car biz, and he gets cheaper tires for his whole family, but he looks for the best rubber compound for the price, rather than brand. I've tried the Falken Wildpeak AT3W and K02 so far on my 4xe Saraha and I like them both. The Falken's are a bit quieter, especially in the rain, but the K02s feel like they absorb bumps and things better. Both have been great off-road so far for moderate traiLs.

Sponsored