Tire comparisons, Owner ratings chart. What's good and what's hype

[CarbonSteel]

Vehicle = 2019 JLUR with 3.6L, ZF8, & 5.13 Gearing
Empty Weight = 5700 pounds
Lift = 3.5" MC Game Changer
Shocks = 2.5" Fox DSC
Wheels = Icon Alpha; 17x8.5 with 0 offset/4.75" backspace

Tire = BF Goodrich KO2 A/T
Size = 37x12.50x17
Load Range = C
Inflated diameter (Unloaded) = 35.75" (@31 PSI)
Inflated diameter (Loaded) = 35.375" (@31 PSI)
Tread Depth = 15/32" (0 miles)
Tread Depth = 12/32" (35K miles)
Maintenance = 5 tire rotation and balance every 5K miles (more frequent balancing needed as they wear)

Experience:

On-Road (Good--when new):

- They will not stay balanced as they wear (at least not for long), more and more weight is needed to balance them and they do not stay balanced as long as other tires have. Rebalancing has been needed between rotations (Discount Tire - Road Force)
- They begin to lose their grip in the rain and snow after about 20-25K miles. I had to drive from Denver to Colorado Springs during the last big snowstorm (speed was greatly reduced due to the conditions) and they are all over the place. They have a 3 peak snow rating, but as they wear effectiveness is reduced on the highway and they will slide in the rain much faster than other tires.
- They are quiet; probably the quietest tire I have had except for Michelin LTX AT2's on my trucks.

Off-road (Jack of all trades and master of none--except maybe powdery snow):

- They work reasonably well in the snow, I have gone through really deep powdery snow and they handled it just fine.
- Loose, deep dry sand will typically find you close to stuck more often than not, wet sand is managed reasonably well.
- Thick clay based mud will find you stuck and flexing your winch muscles. The tread design does not clear sticky mud and you will find they become 4 slicks with zero grip in short order.
- Watery mud is cleared reasonably well, but they are no match for a true M/T.
- They handle rocks "ok", but they will slip and drag you out of your line on side angled inclines and declines.

Noise = 10 (even after 35K miles)
Wear = 9 (even with the weight of my JLUR)
Ride = 7 (9 at first; 4 after 35K miles)
Dry = 9 (even after 35K miles)
Wet = 6 (7 new; 4 after 35K miles)
Snow = 6 (8 off-road--even after 35K miles; 4 on-road after 35K miles)
Mud = 4 (2 in clay/heavy mud; 5 in all other mud)
Sand = 6 (4 in deep dry sand; 8 in wet sand)
Trail = 6 (they can slip in rocks on inclines and declines)
Look = 5 (nothing aggressive or sexy here)
Overall = 6.8
Would I buy again? = No (as a jack of all trades and master of none (except noise and perhaps wear) they are too expensive for what you are getting)

Sponsored

 

[Shots]

Updated

 

[CarbonSteel]

Updated

@Shots - is there a link to a spreadsheet? I think I missed it somewhere.

 

[Shots]

I posted a copy of it a few posts ago (on the last page). It's not on a server or anything though, I just update it on my pc.

 

[Old Jeeper]

View attachment 703858

On my quest for tires I've come across multiple threads that become tire debates. There are a lot of threads but not a lot of ways to compare one to another. I hope this thread/chart will serve as an easy reference tool to help people compare tires without having to read a thread for every tire they want to look at. It may also help them find a tire they didn't realize they might be interested in. To do this, I need your help.

I made the above chart based on actual user experience. I also added ratings from vendor/manufacturer on common tires discussed (some aren't rated yet). I will also add tires if someone reviews one that isn't on the list.

To contribute to the chart simply post what tire you want to rate, along with your ratings in the same order as the chart (Tire, Noise, Ride, Dry, Wet, Snow, Trail, Look, Overall). If you haven't driven in a condition, such as snow for you southerners, simply put a "0" or "x" for that rating.
For example someone from Florida wants to rate the Duratrac but they've never had them in the snow. They could post "Duratrac 9, 9, 10, 9, x, 8, 7, 9" and I'll add their rating in.

To clarify my categories. 1 is the worst 10 is the best.
Noise = I'm talking about road noise. How loud are they when you're driving?
Ride = How do they feel? Shhhh don't tell, but Jeeps drive on the road too, not just the trail. How does this tire feel on the road?
Dry = Do they corner well, do the stop well, do they spin easily when you accelerate?
Wet = This is the same question as dry, but when the ground is wet.
Snow = This lumps light snow, deep snow, slush and ice together. How does the tire handle in winter conditions.
Trail = This lumps all off-road use together. Rocks, dirt, sand, mud, etc. I know some tires are specific to different off-road conditions, but this chart is simplified. Just give it an overall trail rating on your experience.
Look = How do you like the look of the tire/tread? Are they aggressive enough looking, are they boring?
Overall = You're overall take on the tire. It doesn't have to be an average of your ratings. You may love the tire, despite it falling short in some categories.
Wear = Do they wear out fast/unevenly or do they wear like iron? Do the tread blocks chip off on the edges or do they hold up well to abuse. How is this tire in regards to durability.

That's it. Post up your ratings, and I'll continue to update the chart. Obviously we can have discussion about various tires throughout the thread too. Hopefully this goes as planned, and it will become a great tool.

EDIT/ADDITION:
Upon popular request, I added a category to the chart for wear. Same 1-10 scale, but you can rate how they've held up for you.

I do need to ask, where do the metrics come from. Correct me I am wrong the last column says "Reviews". What does that number represent? How reviews by how many people? If so where do we review that and add our Opinion(?)...

Not trying to question, trying to understand metrics... In my toolbox, I am also a Certified Test Engineer, always wondering how we establish the Metrics to arrive at the answer. That is just a chunk of my engineering background.

 

[3TV]

37x12.50R-17 Toyo MT
Noise = 7
Ride = 7
Dry = 8
Wet = 8
Snow = 8
Trail = 10
Look = 10
Overall = 9
Wear = 8

37x12.50R-17 Cooper STT Pro
Noise = 8
Ride = 8
Dry = 8
Wet = 8
Snow = 7
Trail = 9
Look = 7
Overall = 8
Wear = X

37x12.50R-17 Goodyear Wrangler MTR
Noise = 6
Ride = 5
Dry = 8
Wet = 7
Snow = 7
Trail = 7
Look = 6
Overall = 6
Wear = 5

35x12.50R-17 BFG KO2
Noise = 9
Ride = 9
Dry = 9
Wet = 8
Snow = 6
Trail = 6
Look = 5
Overall = 7
Wear = 8

 

[Shots]

Well as a Mechanical Engineer, I understand the desire to understand what you're looking at and the drive to know how it was derived.

This chart is a bit of an evolution since it's inception nearly 4 years ago. I started out by putting together a chart using reviews from various sources, such as the manufacturer's site. Not wanting to rely on hype and/or false claims from manufacturers and sales companies, I enlisted the help of my fellow Jeepers.
As reviews came in from actual consumers, I weeded out the ratings that were based on published data. This thread has been going long enough that I have been able to make the chat solely using reviews from this forum.

The "reviews" column is simply the number of people who have reviewed that particular tire. So if I'm shopping for a tires, and I am using the chart to help me decide which tire I might like I can consider how many people reviewed a tire. For example, high marks on the BFG KO2 by 9 people is a pretty good indication that the tire might be pretty good. However, high marks on the Maxxis Creepy Crawler with only 1 review could mean it's a good tire, or it could just be that one person likes it while others may not.
That column wasn't one of the original categories but I added it to help give some insight into the reliability of the individual reviews.
That said I realize statistical analysis of such small sample sizes (between 1-9) is pretty small, and there is a lot of room for error. However, at least this small sample size is directly from people who drive a JL, and it's easier to sort through than reading hours of threads, and provides a direct comparison.

Also worth noting that the comments about a specific tire can be made in this thread. That way you only have to read through one thread rather than searching tons of them and not knowing if it's the same opinion on a new thread or a new opinion.

 

[CarbonSteel]

I posted a copy of it a few posts ago (on the last page). It's not on a server or anything though, I just update it on my pc.

Found it; you may want to convert it to Google Sheets which would make it very easy to share. I did the same for the Tire Comparison sheets I created.

The one thing that is hard to do with a sheet like this (not a criticism at all) and indeed even the websites like TIre Rack do not do it (well) is to have the values be weighted to give a better rating.

For example, should "Looks" have the same importance as "Wear Rates"? Probably not and a straight average will not give any preference to one or the other.

 

[COJeeper]

This is really good info and pretty helpful for someone interested in purchasing new rubber. The only problem with it is the data may not be accurate. In order to have accurate data, there needs to be a baseline to apply towards all other tests and that baseline needs to be identical across the board for all testers therefore creating an objective comparison between the tires. Otherwise, you have a subjective opinion of those reviewing which will be different from a different reviewers opinion. For example, a lot of people say the KO2s suck, I think they're amazing! I could have bicycle tires on my vehicle and then put on something else and suddenly it gets 10s across the board.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the time taken by all reviewers and data compiler to put this together because in general, it should be pretty accurate.

 

[Old Jeeper]

Well as a Mechanical Engineer, I understand the desire to understand what you're looking at and the drive to know how it was derived.

This chart is a bit of an evolution since it's inception nearly 4 years ago. I started out by putting together a chart using reviews from various sources, such as the manufacturer's site. Not wanting to rely on hype and/or false claims from manufacturers and sales companies, I enlisted the help of my fellow Jeepers.
As reviews came in from actual consumers, I weeded out the ratings that were based on published data. This thread has been going long enough that I have been able to make the chat solely using reviews from this forum.

The "reviews" column is simply the number of people who have reviewed that particular tire. So if I'm shopping for a tires, and I am using the chart to help me decide which tire I might like I can consider how many people reviewed a tire. For example, high marks on the BFG KO2 by 9 people is a pretty good indication that the tire might be pretty good. However, high marks on the Maxxis Creepy Crawler with only 1 review could mean it's a good tire, or it could just be that one person likes it while others may not.
That column wasn't one of the original categories but I added it to help give some insight into the reliability of the individual reviews.
That said I realize statistical analysis of such small sample sizes (between 1-9) is pretty small, and there is a lot of room for error. However, at least this small sample size is directly from people who drive a JL, and it's easier to sort through than reading hours of threads, and provides a direct comparison.

Also worth noting that the comments about a specific tire can be made in this thread. That way you only have to read through one thread rather than searching tons of them and not knowing if it's the same opinion on a new thread or a new opinion.

GOT it.

Allow me to make a suggestion: You add a column where all cells (for a certain tire) are added up and divided by the columns. This gives an Index based on all comments for that tire.

37 x 12.50R-17 BFG KM2 Total 70k miles

Noise = 5
Ride = 8
Dry = 10
Wet = 7
Snow = 9
Trail = 10
Look = 9
Overall = 9
Wear = 7

35 x 12.50R-17 Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac 522 mi, FIRST impression

Noise = 6
Ride = 9
Dry = 8
Wet = 7
Snow = X
Trail = 7
Look = 8
Overall = 8
Wear = X

I think you may want to add some data about the rater: I will provide:

Jeep owner for 55 years. SWB Jeeps with 100k+ miles total miles approx 250, owned 18-20 total Jeeps: M151 A1/A2, CJ, YJ, TJ & LJ Rs JKR, JLR

Offroad history: 65-2002 mud, sand, rice paddies, dirt> Europe, Asia, Alaska-Florida, Maine to California and Hawaii.

2002-2010, ROCKS, 12 or more trips to Moab, Mexico, and across SW US, from Tx to California. Mostly 7+ trails

Extensive Overlanding

My frames of reference have a lot of depth. 2 sets of GY MTRs, 5 sets of BFG KM2s post-2002

 

[Shots]

...The one thing that is hard to do with a sheet like this (not a criticism at all) and indeed even the websites like TIre Rack do not do it (well) is to have the values be weighted to give a better rating.

For example, should "Looks" have the same importance as "Wear Rates"? Probably not and a straight average will not give any preference to one or the other.

It's an interesting concept, and actually not too difficult to do with Exel (it is a very powerful program). However, giving weight to any one category is subjective in itself. For example, I live in N.E. Ohio, and snow ratings are very important to me. I would go as far as to say they're one of the top 3 things I consider. However, someone in Eagle Pass TX. will likely never touch snow with their tires so snow ratings would likely be dead last. How then do you objectively decide what category should carry the most weight?
You would almost have to make the chart interactive and allow the user to organize the categories by importance to them for the weighted values. Although this is possible, it would require much more effort to set up, and a site to host is. I would venture to guess, we could probably host it here, but I have no interest in putting in the hours required to set it up even if we could.
If someone would like to take on that challenge, I will gladly post a link to your interactive chart on page 1 along with the jpg.

Additionally, the "overall" rating is a user defined value, just like all the other categories. It is NOT an average of all of the categories. Thus any weight given to each column would not have any bearings on the overall value. I will add a note to the first post to clear any confusion what "overall" is since it's importance has come up before.

This is really good info and pretty helpful for someone interested in purchasing new rubber. The only problem with it is the data may not be accurate. In order to have accurate data, there needs to be a baseline to apply towards all other tests and that baseline needs to be identical across the board for all testers therefore creating an objective comparison between the tires. Otherwise, you have a subjective opinion of those reviewing which will be different from a different reviewers opinion. For example, a lot of people say the KO2s suck, I think they're amazing! I could have bicycle tires on my vehicle and then put on something else and suddenly it gets 10s across the board.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the time taken by all reviewers and data compiler to put this together because in general, it should be pretty accurate.

You are absolutely correct that this is a subjective chart. That was the entire point. The idea was to gather opinions from people who are actually using the tires and drive the actual vehicle we intent to put them on.
This is no different than reading through the various pages of this (or any) forum with people discussing various modifications. None of the threads are based on any scientific data. They're all based on the posting person's experience with the product. Which in itself is good. For example a tire may test far superior to another tire when traversing a skid pad with 1/4" of standing water. However that same tire may be complete trash when the skid pad is damp. An objective opinion can tell you that tire is trash when it's wet even though a test may show otherwise. Real world environments cover many more variables that we experience with a product than a lab test will address.

The purpose of this chart was not to give an empirical analysis of various features.
Unfortunately there is no way to accurately complete such a chart without access to all of the tires, mounting them all on the same test vehicle, and using the same size to eliminate variables.
I'd be more than happy to test them all and publish the results along with test parameters. The problems is that tires aren't cheap, and I'm not buying them for testing. If tire companies want to start sending me free tires to test I'd be glad to test and review them.

All that said. Yes this is subjective and that was exactly the point. Real people, real use, real opinions. That is also why I added the "reviews" column to let the reader know how many opinions were involved in the average. You may think the KO2 is great (and I agree) but if we're the only 2 while 50 others say they're junk, maybe we're the weird ones. Of course, based on the chart we're not alone in our opinion that they're good tires.

 

[Shots]

Don, you seem to have given that KM2 a 58 for Ride. That's one seriously nice riding tire.

Obviously you fat fingered it. Since the last number was five, I'm going to assume you were going from the five to eight and caught both. On this assumption, I used the 8. If you meant 5, let me know and I'll correct it.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Although this is possible, it would require much more effort to set up, and a site to host is. I would venture to guess, we could probably host it here, but I have no interest in putting in the hours required to set it up even if we could.

Google would be your "host", just need to copy it to Sheets and set permissions on it. The same could be done with sharing out of OneDrive.

I totally get the time investment part. I did a lot of work on the 3 sheets I made (mostly for my own use to help make a decision) and afterwards I shared it, but have not kept it updated.

Only so much time in the day...

 

[Old Jeeper]

Don, you seem to have given that KM2 a 58 for Ride. That's one seriously nice riding tire.

Obviously you fat fingered it. Since the last number was five, I'm going to assume you were going from the five to eight and caught both. On this assumption, I used the 8. If you meant 5, let me know and I'll correct it.

Yes I meant to make it an 8. Hard for me to post, got 4 dogs and wife in my office and always something to take me away from the keyboard.

I did dwell upon the 8 rating for the KM2. WHY? Being the psi-fantic I am, I ran my KM2s at 16 psi on the street and 3-5 psi on the trail.

When I post psi at 16 on the street the barage of 'Impossible' etc I sometimes need to lock the thread the haters say it cannot be done.

At 16 psi its a comfortable ride. Pump it up to 37 psi and the ride is as rough as fresh cob in the outhouse.

Now we get into 16 psi Vs 37 psi and they guy rates ride at 3 and I rate at 8. The answer is: I understand how to arrive at the psi for any given tire on any given vehicle. Whereas most either go by door jam psi or the sidewall psi. I don't I base my psi upon the footprint of the tire aka the Contact patch.

Lets look at this with an eye for reality:

What you see below are the dual ties on my F 450. This the moment I picked up the truck and drove around to the side entrance of the dealer to order a part. NOTE the Black and White of the tire. I had driven thur a very shallow spot of water. The black > wet, white > dry. IOW I do not have a full contact patch.

Tires were inflated to 110 psi by the make-ready team. They go the info from the sidewall. Max load and psi data. 3620 lbs and 110 psi.

Only that is not the weight of my truck.

Actual psi I adjust to 75 psi all the way around.

Tires here are at 110 psi way beyond the required.

CAT Scale; Front axle divided by 2, rear axle divided by 4, refer to weight = psi chart

Do the math and you end up with a psi of 70-75 psi, NOT 110 that was on the sidewall

TAKE AWAY: Perception is reality and unless you can put objective metrics against it its perception only...

 

[Shots]

Absolutely. I've seen guys running their tires at max psi even though they aren't going anywhere near the max payload. Harshening the ride for no reason at that point.

I had KM2's for a bit. IIRC I was running at roughly 28 psi with them. Not quite a rough as riding at 36, but surely rougher than 16. I never tried them that low, but I didn't think they were took rough anyway. Noise on the other hand..... dang those things were loud.

Sponsored