Performance Overview
This radar chart shows relative performance across all test categories, with 100% representing the best performance in each category. Reference tires may have gaps where data is not available.
Dry Performance Overview
Dry Braking (M)
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
Dry Handling (s)
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Subj. Dry Handling ( Points)
Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)
Wet Performance Overview
Wet Braking (M)
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
Wet Handling (s)
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Subj. Wet Handling ( Points)
Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)
Wet Circle (s)
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds (Lower is better)
Straight Aqua (Km/H)
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Curved Aquaplaning (m/sec2)
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Snow Performance Overview
Snow Braking (M)
Snow braking in meters (Lower is better)
Snow Traction (s)
Snow acceleration time (Lower is better)
Snow Handling (s)
Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Off road Performance Overview
Gravel Handling (s)
Gravel Handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Subj. Gravel Handling ( Points)
Subjective Gravel Handling Score (Higher is better)
Dirt Handling (s)
Dirt handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Subj. Dirt Handling ( Points)
Subjective Dirt Handling Score (Higher is better)
Comfort Performance Overview
Subj. Comfort ( Points)
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
Subj. Noise ( Points)
Subjective in car noise levels (Higher is better)
Noise (dB)
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
Value Performance Overview
Rolling Resistance (kg / t)
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Overall Findings
Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:
| Position | Tyre | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Firestone Destination AT2 | 97.1% | |
| 2 | Continental TerrainContact AT | 97.1% |
| 3 | Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure | 96.2% |
| 4 | Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus | 95.1% |
| 5 | Yokohama Geolandar AT G015 | 95% |
| 6 | Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain | 94.5% |
| 7 | Toyo Open Country AT III | 94.3% |
| 8 | BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA | 93.1% |
| 9 | Nitto Terra Grappler G2 | 90.2% |
Test Winner
Nitto Terra Grappler G2
90.2%
Not sure what was available to you at the time of testing, but in the 275/65 r18 the firestones come in 114 and 116 load index. It appears you tested the 114, which doesn't match the 116 for all the other tires. My OCD does wonder if the 116 would have changed its results slightly. Perhaps the extra stiffness, would have decreased wet performance, or increase rolling resistance. Perhaps not, who knows.
I can't remember now but I know we'd have tried our hardest to match, so it must have been availability.
There's a non-zero chance that the 114 and 116 are the same tire built to 116 with different sidewall plates. That's the way the market is heading.
You know, The fact that there's only a $6 difference in cost on tire rack between the 114 and 116 really implies that it's mostly marketing
Ok so I'm an engineer who likes tires (a crazy person) and what I found was fascinating. What you tested with was the north american P-Metric (P275/65/r18 114), whats new to the market us the eurometric (275/65/r18 116). I did a deep dive and found out they do the calculation and load inflation charts differently. Long story short a Pmetric 114 is more robust then a eurometric 114 (would be equivalent to a 115.5 if it existed ). If you check at tire rack, discount tire, consumer reports or others they'll tell you euro metric is stronger, and its ok to go to euro metric from pmetric, but it's not true, it's the opposite. Just very confusing.
The pmetric establishes a tires rating by how much it can hold at 35psi, so a 114 rated tires has to hold 2601lbs at 35psi. The euro metric establishes tire rating at 36 psi, so a 114 rated tire has to hold 2601 at 36 psi. It needs more pressure to hold to same load. So if you look at any given pressure in the pressure tables (22,26,35 etc..) The pmetric tire has a higher load capacity.
So unless your adjusting pressure and not using was on the door, your safer going from a eurometric to a stronger pmetric (same load rating) and NOT the visa versa.
Clear example, if your car uses 32psi, 275/65/r18. At that pressure a Pmetric 114 tire has a capacity of 2502, a euro metric 116 rated only has a capacity of 2491 ( eurometric 114 is 2348).
The advice on the big sites is incorrect, please do a video on this the world should know lol ( not sure how many would care, but still!)
P.S. To your point behind the green curtain manufactures are probably using the same tire for both ratings and slapping different sidewall plates.
P.P.S. I dont want to post links here and get flagged, but I have links for all articles and load inflation charts.
Feel free to post some links, sounds interesting, top level of nerding!
The brands I've spoken to in the past that have the same AT product line for NA and EU are the very same tyre, so the assumption would be they're all just tested to the tougher test of the two. Due to EU rolling resistance and noise targets, most of the north american products are not legal in the EU so there's a split product range.
That makes sense for them to do that, there's so much overlap why not use the more rigid spec and simplify the manufacturing lines.
So here is Consumer Reports , Tire Rack and Discount Tire all incorrectly saying the same thing, that the euro metric is more robust. Here are the inflation tables for both P-Metric and Euro Metric showing that isn't exactly true (Toyo posted the table otherwise you'd have to purchase the spec, thank you Toyo!)
Costco only sales the P-Metric version of the firestones 275-65-r18 with a 114 rating. Tire Rack sales both versions for just $6 difference. It's funny that if your vehicle OEM was euro 115 no big tire shop would install the p-metric 114.
XL tires is even more wonky
Any nerds googling this in the future out of confusion, I hope this thread clears things and gives you peace!!
I've still not got my head around why we have XL tires instead of just having higher load rated tires.
Thanks for sharing the links and PDF, very interesting. It seems most of the comparisons are comparing different load indexes between P and EU, where naturally the higher number does seem to win (even if the calculations are a little different.) I need to spend some more time reading that PDF.
Barrys Tire Tech is a blog site run by a retired tire engineer it's a treasure trove of information, but the site is clearly made in the 1990s. He references your work a bit, he's also responsive to emails. I learned a lot from his site. Here's what I learned:
To increase the load capacity of a tire, you have to change the size, increase the sidewall thickness or increase the recommended pressure. There are performance implications for all choices.
The industry decided that the pressure at which a passengers tires load capacity is rated is 35 ( 36 in the EU ). Likely they can handle high loads/pressures but that's the industry rated pressure.
For a given tire size, LT tires significant increase thickness and weight to achieve higher load capacities.
For a given tire size, XL tires accomplish this by rating the tire at 42psi (instead of 35/36), with requires minimal changes to tire structure to allow higher pressures. Since tires have tremendous safety factors on pressure, it could already handle higher pressures. For example, P245/50R19 comes in 100 rating and XL 104. For all overlapping pressures they have the exact same load capacity (XL is not stronger). Except when you get over 36, because SL tires are only rated to 35/36. They are probably selling the same tire for both SL and XL nowadays.
For any given size there generally is no option to have a higher load rated tire. Once you choose a standard (e.g. EU or NA standard), there's only one load rating for that tire size. It's just where the industry landed.
So, if you've chosen a tire size and want more load capacity the cheaper route is the XL options, otherwise you will have to go with a different tire size or an LT option.
Lastly, I noticed that tire sizes with XL options don't have LT options (I did not check all sizes)
P.S. For you ever finds this on google, I'm not a tire engineer (I'm an ME and slightly obsessive), I just find tires fascinating, and this is what I've learned. Throw stones
P.P.S. One of the first tyre review videos I watched, you were weighing the front seats of a BMW car comparison (I forget which) and adding weights to compensate for the difference. I loved it, definitely slightly crazy person like me.
I'm not sure how geeky you are but I fed the pdf into notebook lm and this is the podcast about it https://notebooklm.google.c...
Pretty impressive, I'm not sure how right it is though, I'm only 5 minutes in and not paying a lot of attention currently.
Impressive how irrelevant the Nitto seems here, being low performance across the board. I see tons of Nitto ads, but a lot of the marketing is features like two sidewall style designs.
This was enjoyable to read and has helped me decide what tire tire to go next with confidence that fits my needs. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it. I've just published a new version too!
Needed a highway tire as control. How do they compare on highway?
Next time for sure
Great test! I would love to see one now for highway all season tires for a similarly sized vehicle. With tires like the Michelin Defender LTS. I bet highway tires will better suite most drivers, yet I can not find a comprehensive comparison like you did with this all terrain test.
I would like to do that too! Working on it :)
Hello - thanks for another great review!
With the addition of snow results, you got me interested in maybe going for a mild AT tire for my Forester (since I anyway plan on changing the OE summer tires that come with it). I anyway wanted to buy an AS tire (Michelin CC2 or Conti AllSeasonContact 2), and although the measurements in your tests are not directly comparable, they suggest that mild AT tires are not much worse in any of the 3 surface condition types (dry/wet/snow) you test in. Of course, if you ever do a test like that, it will be highly appreciated. :)
However, I am still not sure about this, as my share of offroad driving would be a mere 5%, 10% tops. Is there an AT tire which is basically a regular PC AS tire, with just a bit more of offroad capability? I know previously BFG had Urban Terrain (the same tire as Kleber Citilander), but I don't know if any of these is still produced, and how well they compare to modern AS tires.
Any advice on this or a link to some testing that might help would be highly appreciated. :) Aside from that - just keep up with the great work!
I think the closest would be the Firestone, but I expect an all season tire to cope much better in cold wet conditions than any AT tire.
I run the Conti from this test as a summer tire and the CC2 as a winter where I live (Salt lake)
I see. I was hoping to get a tire I can leave on the car for the whole year, and then change in 2-3 years tops. So far, CC2 was my first choice (the regular model, not the SUV one - if there is actually any difference - as it's not offered in 225/60 R17 size), I am just unsure if it would get damaged/pierced through during some light off-roading (forest and village roads, no heavy rock-climbing or anything).
The Firestone Destination AT2 is not offered in Europe (I live in Serbia), as well as Nokian Outpost nAT/APT, we only have the BFGoodrich Trail Terrain (actually, their whole offer - there's a very good BFG importer/distributor here), which also seem as an AT overkill for me. It's good they're good in wintry conditions (we do get some snow each year), but the results from your testing (the braking in wet and dry, especially) make it a no go, considering my driving profile (mostly on tarmac).
I have a couple more months to decide, it will also depend on the availability (for instance, I don't see Conti AllSeasonContact 2 at all in the size I need)...
Sadly EU tyres are not very puncture resistant due to rolling resistance regulations so I would be hesitant to take them offroad.
Yeah, I also found about that while researching, and decided to definitely go with a mild-AT tire. It will most probably be either Geolandar AT G015 (where the fuel economy does concern me a little bit, although I don't know how much would that actually reflect in the real world usage), or Bridgestone Dueler AT002, which is quite new, so not many reviews or impressions are available.
There are also some tires that confuse me, a bit... For instance: Geolandar CV 4S G061 is marketed "just" as an AS tire (or, all-weather), and although it's a part of the Geolandar family (meant for SUVs and off-roading), there's absolutely no mention of it being capable for any kind of off-road, aside from noting that it has a nylon layer for additional protection. Also, the thread pattern looks a bit AT-ish, but that's not reassuring enough.
Finally, it's a pity that some of the EU-available tires just don't come in 225/60 R17 size, such as Cooper Discoverer AT3 4S or Falken WildPeak AT3WA - that would give me a lot of great options.
The G015 is still a great option, and I agree with your assumption that the CV4S should be able to take some mild offroading given it's a geolander.
Maybe you could do a test where you compare the tires across the ranges of Yokohama, similarly to what you did with the Nokian, or General in here:
https://www.tire-reviews.co...
:D
In all seriousness, it's a pity that the chance of seeing these two compared (Geolandar AT G015 vs Geolandar CV 4S G061) is almost zero... But still, I'll try to find a comparison, or at least a testimony of CV 4S's usability for mild offroading (having in mind it's probably better on-road than its AT sibling). If there isn't one - G015 it is.
P.S. I've even sent an email to Yokohama (through the contact form on their European site), but of course, they haven't replied...
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I see the tests are conducted on a vehicle with a thundering V8 under the bonnet. Considering you are clearly british, a land where V8 pickups are rare, perhaps a fairer test might be when driving something that brits are more likely to own, such as a sluggish 4 cylinder diesel. If these tests are to be considered truly subjective, then perhaps using a vehicle suited to the target audience.
I'm in the market for all terrain tyres, and whilst your article has been helpful, I'm still concerned about making the right choice here at the base if the highlands in Scotland
Cheers
Steve
These are american market tyres and this was a test intended for the us market. Plus, Raptors are fun.
You don't learn much about the limit of a tyre in a sluggish diesel!
If this was intended for the US market, then where can we find the test for the UK/European market?
I'm not sure anyone has ever done one for the UK market as it's such a niche segment. Some of these tires have European versions, i'm pretty sure the Conti is sold by a different name but is the same tire.
Jon,
Do you have any experience with either the General Grabber AT3, Falken Wildpeak AT3WA or Toyo Open Country AT Plus? Looking for something better on road then BFG KO2 without sacrificing loads of off-road performance.
Unfortunately none of the tyres in the test available in my size and load index.
Thanks.
Just the General, which was very positive. The Falken is really well regarded though. I'd not rush to the Toyo.
I have a 4runner as a daily driver. Every weekend i do good amount of sand driving over dunes. I have currently Geolander AT G015. What All Terrain tire would u suggest for me?
Hi - great review!
Regarding rolling resistance, what do you mean by a 13% measured difference translating to 3% real world difference? Is the 3% the overall change in fuel consumption, or something else?
Most articles I've found indicate that a 10% change in rolling resistance translates to about 1% change in mileage. Though, I'm sure that's significantly affected by how much an individual vehicle's drag is due to rolling resistance vs. wind drag.
3% would be the overall change in fuel consumption based on the data I've seen, however as you correctly point out there are many factors involved in calculating the % the tyre adds compared to the rest of the vehicle so a single figure does not work for all vehicle types.
Hi. Great comparison. One question: Was it the PC (Passenger Car) or the LT Light Truck) version of the Geolandar A/T G015 tyre that was used in this test? Thanks.
All tires were PC :)
These tests are really great, however I would like to see a couple more tests if possible?
1. Wet Grass, 2. Mud or soft soil (not deep mud). 3. Sand.
These are seemly the surfaces that I get stuck in with my van. After driving 300km through rain or mixed conditions :)
I've tested wet grass before, sadly it's really not the most consistent test so I don't go out of my way to do it if I'm short of time. I didn't feel the data was that great.
I'm not sure anyone who's managed to find a way of testing soft soil consistently yet sadly.
Sand is one I really want to do as you can be more consistent, but it takes a lot of prep. Working on it though :)
I've read your detailed test with interest. I am looking for tyres for my heavy motorhome, that works well on roads and deals with deep mud in exits from fields at dog agility meetings. My Toyos worked well but are no longer available, so I'm searching here. We are not talking fast cornering here, just safety comfort and dependable recovery at ends of meetings.
I'm afraid that's so far out of my experience I wouldn't know where to start. I guess if there's deep mud you'll need at least a more aggressive all terrain tire than these, but when you get to that end of the spectrum you're going to be giving up comfort.
I need some AT capability, 3 peak rating, good road manners and low rolling resistance to replace the sad OEM Conti tires to perform better as my work truck. I was all but sold on the BFG Trail Terrain T/As but thanks to your review I will be hunting for the Firestones. Looks like I might have to up-size slightly to get them, which is something I was contemplating do in anyway.... THANKS!
I would be interested to snow test them and also endurance test. You can't work out too much by feel, but I would guess with BFG being BFG they would have higher endurance offroad.
Great information, thanks. I am ready for new tires on my 4wd chev Silverado 1500 and in my small town the dealer suggested Sailun Terramax AT 3 PMS. I done some research and no really bad reviews, what is your opinion and others if you have experience with these. 85% highway and 15% approximate logging road type use for year around in Canada.
We've no direct experience with that tyre, however other Sailun products usually test poorly when compared to a premium tyre. It might perform well for the price point but we expect it to be behind the more known brands in overall performance.
Thank you for doing this test, comprehensive AT tests are few and far between and yours are always appreciated.
You intimated in the video that you were unable to select other popular brands, so a future test of your two top choices from this test against others including the General Grabber AT3, Falken Wildpeak AT3AW, Cooper Discoverer ATT and Michelin Latitude perhaps.
I’m reluctant to change to the Continental you recommended despite your useful findings around wet grip as the Contis fitted to my car (CrossContact LX Sport) have been frightening in the wet with two episodes of aquaplaning, whilst surrounding vehicles were not! At least 6mm of tread, moderate speed.
The other issue is tyre sizes as we are having to accept larger wheels reducing the choice of tyres available (at least in the UK). Many who would fit AT tyres now have 18-20+ inch wheels.
Thanks!
Agreed, I'd like to another test with more aggressive AT tyres such as the AT3AW, K02, Nokian Outpost AT and others!
The Continental CrossContact LX Sport is a totally different tyre to the AT, they'll have been designed by different teams with totally different design goals so don't let one put you off another. That said, the Conti certainly isn't the best AT in aquaplaning performance in this test, but I think all the tyres should perform better than the LX Sport just by virtue of their tread patterns.
Would be good to have a control tyre included in your future test of a representative OE road tyre for the on road bits to give an understanding of what trade offs / gains would be had moving from one category to another.
Btw awesome work as always. Highly valuable info you’re giving out.
That was the plan actually but sadly it couldn't be realized. You might find this test interesting though.
https://www.tire-reviews.co...