Torn between 2 tires

[MONSTERPLOW]

Here is the Firestone transforce a/t

 

[MONSTERPLOW]

Tread side , .............

 

[95_stroker]

If these are the OEM size 20's you were talking about earlier to help improve fuel economy, you're not going to be enthused about either.


Do what you want. But if you're looking for fuel economy, an all-terrain ain't gonna git it...

I dont think he meant fuel economy when he said mileage, I think he meant wear factor. I again am assuming that since he is talking some mild off road stuff and the possibility of going with a locker that he is going to want to stay away from a highway tread.

Yanno what they say about assumptions though so maybe Tampa can clear this up for us.

 

[TampaDieselFX4]

I'm refering to MPG mileage, not wear. In other words I don't want to have tires that give me worse MPG's than the OEM tires. And I work on construction sites and do light off-road on the weekends for fun and camping.. so a SR/A is kind of out of the picture. But I totally agree with you about SR/A's for best MPG's. I'm curious if the larger, 4 LBS heavier 285/65R20 BFG Ko's would yield worse mileage than the OEM AT/S's. And then top it off they're more than 2x's the cost. That's why I'm sitting here starring at two tires.. the OEM AT/S and the 285 Ko's. But these 71 LBS 35x12.50 Procomps killed my mileage... I lost about 2-3 mpg's from the OEM AT/S's, but then again they're 11 LBS heavier, and WAY more aggressive. That's why I'm debating just going back to the OEM AT/S's and calling it good. Price, tire weight, mileage?, and tread design seem to be what I'm looking at. The BFG's would be a very expensive experiment.

 

[JLDickmon]

I'm refering to MPG mileage, not wear. In other words I don't want to have tires that give me worse MPG's than the OEM tires. And I work on construction sites and do light off-road on the weekends for fun and camping.. so a SR/A is kind of out of the picture. But I totally agree with you about SR/A's for best MPG's. I'm curious if the larger, 4 LBS heavier 285/65R20 BFG Ko's would yield worse mileage than the OEM AT/S's. And then top it off they're more than 2x's the cost. That's why I'm sitting here starring at two tires.. the OEM AT/S and the 285 Ko's. But these 71 LBS 35x12.50 Procomps killed my mileage... I lost about 2-3 mpg's from the OEM AT/S's, but then again they're 11 LBS heavier, and WAY more aggressive. That's why I'm debating just going back to the OEM AT/S's and calling it good. Price, tire weight, mileage?, and tread design seem to be what I'm looking at. The BFG's would be a very expensive experiment.

If you're looking at it from that respect, put a set of Silent Armors on it and be done...

I think they're the best tire Goodyear has offered to date; The AT/S was such a POS that there's a lot of guys out there that are never going to buy another Goodyear tire if it means driving it around on bare rims... I got to the point I wouldn't sell anything larger than a 245/75R16...
and that MT/R is the same way... if you're gonna crawl over rocks at 60 feet per minute, that's your tire. If you're gonna drive it down the road at 60 miles per hour, make sure your coffee has a lid on it.

weight has very little to do with it.. it's all in drag and rolling resistance..
factors like tread width & depth (new tires will ALWAYS cost you fuel economy becase the deeper tread flexes more), body ply denier, belt denier and bias angle.. tread density, compound hardness, addition of over-wraps, etc.. have more effect on how much (or how little) fuel economy a tire gets than anything else.. including inertia..

 

[TampaDieselFX4]

I'd love to get a set of Silent Armors in the OEM 275/65R20 size, but they don't offer it!!! Is that size coming out soon?

 

[Crumm]

The AT/S was such a POS that there's a lot of guys out there that are never going to buy another Goodyear tire if it means driving it around on bare rims...

Thats me

 

[TampaDieselFX4]

Honestly, what makes it such a "bad" tire???

 

[Crumm]

Honestly, what makes it such a "bad" tire???

I assume you are talking about the Goodyear ATS. I didn't like the traction they provided or I should say didn't provide. The rubber compound seemed to be hard as a rock which did provide long tread wear but the winter traction was terrible. I ran them on Crummy from 1998 until 2002 and they wore very well but I got tired of sliding around so I pulled them off and put them on my old 75' F250. They were on the F250 until this spring and they still have better than 50% tread but once again I got tired of the lack of traction. They are now in the back of my 76' F250 looking for a home. Want them? Free to good home

I have ran many different tires and I can honestly say that the GoodYear ATS was the worse I have ever seen.

Some of the Tires I have ran:

Toyo MT - Excellent traction, good wear, expensive.
Cooper Discoverer LT - decent traction, decent wear.
BFG All Terrain - good traction, good wear. Have ran three sets.
BFG Mud Terrain- good traction, not so good wear.
GoodYear Workhorse - poor traction - almost as bad as the ATS.
Buckshot radial - Excellent traction, Poor wear.
Remington Mud Brute - Good Traction, poor wear.
Remington Wide Brute - Good traction, Good wear.
Pathfinder AT - Decent traction, Good wear.

 

[95_stroker]

weight has very little to do with it..

Agreed, my 350 doesnt care if it rides empty or with a 1000 lbs in the bed, MPG is all pretty even.

it's all in drag and rolling resistance..

How you calculate that?