Adjust Result Weighting
The overall scores below are calculated using our weighting system based on the test methodology. You can adjust the weightings below to explore how different priorities affect the results.
Test Results Data
BEST
Good
Average
Below Average
Cells are colour-coded from green (best) to red (worst). The Total Score reflects the weighted sum of all categories. A ★ marks the best tyre in each test.
| # | Tyre | Total Score | Dry | Wet | Snow | Off road | Comfort | Value | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braking M | Handling s | Subj. Dry Handling Points | % | Braking M | Handling s | Subj. Wet Handling Points | Circle s | Straight Aqua Km/H | Curved Aquaplaning m/sec2 | % | Braking M | Traction s | Handling s | % | Gravel Handling s | Subj. Gravel Handling Points | Dirt Handling s | Subj. Dirt Handling Points | % | Subj. Comfort Points | Subj. Noise Points | Noise dB | % | Rolling Resistance kg / t | % | |||
| 1 | Firestone Destination AT2 | 97.1% | 45.2 | 69.06 | 90 | 94.7% | 58.55 2 | 81.59 2 | 90 | 13.3 ★ | 85.9 2 | 3.63 2 | 98.8% | 45.5 2 | 5.07 2 | 97.73 2 | 91.9% | 61.77 2 | 95 3 | 57.91 3 | 95 2 | 97% | 95 2 | 95 | 72.8 2 | 95.8% | 8.42 ★ | 100% |
| 2 | Continental TerrainContact AT | 97.1% | 41.6 ★ | 68.6 3 | 95 2 | 99.6% | 58 ★ | 81.33 ★ | 100 ★ | 13.39 2 | 84.4 | 3.12 | 98.8% | 47.84 3 | 5.66 | 102.56 | 85.8% | 62.73 | 85 | 58 | 95 2 | 94.1% | 95 2 | 100 ★ | 71.9 ★ | 98% | 9.67 | 87.1% |
| 3 | Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure | 96.2% | 42.4 3 | 68.32 ★ | 100 ★ | 99% | 59.6 3 | 82.48 | 100 ★ | 13.39 2 | 81.1 | 2.93 | 96.4% | 49.97 | 6.93 | 111.23 | 77.2% | 62.73 | 90 | 57.76 2 | 95 2 | 95.4% | 90 | 100 ★ | 73 3 | 95.7% | 9.49 | 88.7% |
| 4 | Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus | 95.1% | 43.4 | 68.41 2 | 95 2 | 97.4% | 62.95 | 84.3 | 100 ★ | 13.7 | 83.8 | 3.4 3 | 94.5% | 51.11 | 6.26 | 111.18 | 79% | 63.16 | 90 | 58.26 | 95 2 | 95% | 90 | 90 | 78.1 | 90.4% | 8.89 3 | 94.7% |
| 5 | Yokohama Geolandar AT G015 | 95% | 44 | 68.99 | 90 | 96.1% | 60.45 | 82.28 3 | 85 | 13.53 | 85.4 3 | 3.34 | 96.3% | 51.55 | 6.07 | 101.77 3 | 82.3% | 62.47 | 85 | 58.41 | 90 | 92.7% | 100 ★ | 95 | 73.2 | 97.6% | 9.56 | 88.1% |
| 6 | Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain | 94.5% | 42.3 2 | 68.63 | 95 2 | 98.7% | 63.25 | 83.78 | 80 | 13.69 | 86.5 ★ | 3.73 ★ | 94.4% | 62.12 3 | 95 3 | 58.55 | 95 2 | 80 | 85 | 76.7 | 96.6% | 9.49 | ||||||
| 7 | Toyo Open Country AT III | 94.3% | 43.6 | 68.63 | 90 | 96.8% | 62.65 | 84.56 | 80 | 13.77 | 82.7 | 3.1 | 93% | 50.59 | 5.61 3 | 102.45 | 84.6% | 62.12 3 | 100 ★ | 58.37 | 95 2 | 97.9% | 85 | 90 | 75.3 | 89.1% | 9.27 | 90.8% |
| 8 | BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA | 93.1% | 46.6 | 69.33 | 90 | 93% | 68.5 | 86.02 | 85 | 13.91 | 83.1 | 2.77 | 88.9% | 39.08 ★ | 4.57 ★ | 97.4 ★ | 100% | 61.6 ★ | 100 ★ | 56.86 ★ | 100 ★ | 100% | 90 | 100 ★ | 73.5 | 95.6% | 8.86 2 | 95% |
| 9 | Nitto Terra Grappler G2 | 90.2% | 43.7 | 69.34 | 95 2 | 96.5% | 74.05 | 88.67 | 70 | 14.43 | 82.9 | 3.17 | 84.9% | 64.06 | 85 | 57.95 | 90 | 85 | 95 | 77.3 | 92.3% | 9.77 | ||||||
Scroll for more
Dry
95%
Wet
99%
Snow
92%
Off road
97%
Comfort
96%
Value
100%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
45.2 M
Dry Handling
69.06 s
Subj. Dry Handling
90 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
58.55 M
2
Wet Handling
81.59 s
2
Subj. Wet Handling
90 Points
Wet Circle
13.3 s
★
Straight Aqua
85.9 Km/H
2
Curved Aquaplaning
3.63 m/sec2
2
Snow
Snow Braking
45.5 M
2
Snow Traction
5.07 s
2
Snow Handling
97.73 s
2
Off road
Gravel Handling
61.77 s
2
Subj. Gravel Handling
95 Points
3
Dirt Handling
57.91 s
3
Subj. Dirt Handling
95 Points
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
95 Points
2
Subj. Noise
95 Points
Noise
72.8 dB
2
Value
Rolling Resistance
8.42 kg / t
★
Dry
100%
Wet
99%
Snow
86%
Off road
94%
Comfort
98%
Value
87%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
41.6 M
★
Dry Handling
68.6 s
3
Subj. Dry Handling
95 Points
2
Wet
Wet Braking
58 M
★
Wet Handling
81.33 s
★
Subj. Wet Handling
100 Points
★
Wet Circle
13.39 s
2
Straight Aqua
84.4 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.12 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking
47.84 M
3
Snow Traction
5.66 s
Snow Handling
102.56 s
Off road
Gravel Handling
62.73 s
Subj. Gravel Handling
85 Points
Dirt Handling
58 s
Subj. Dirt Handling
95 Points
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
95 Points
2
Subj. Noise
100 Points
★
Noise
71.9 dB
★
Value
Rolling Resistance
9.67 kg / t
Dry
99%
Wet
96%
Snow
77%
Off road
95%
Comfort
96%
Value
89%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
42.4 M
3
Dry Handling
68.32 s
★
Subj. Dry Handling
100 Points
★
Wet
Wet Braking
59.6 M
3
Wet Handling
82.48 s
Subj. Wet Handling
100 Points
★
Wet Circle
13.39 s
2
Straight Aqua
81.1 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.93 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking
49.97 M
Snow Traction
6.93 s
Snow Handling
111.23 s
Off road
Gravel Handling
62.73 s
Subj. Gravel Handling
90 Points
Dirt Handling
57.76 s
2
Subj. Dirt Handling
95 Points
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
90 Points
Subj. Noise
100 Points
★
Noise
73 dB
3
Value
Rolling Resistance
9.49 kg / t
Dry
97%
Wet
95%
Snow
79%
Off road
95%
Comfort
90%
Value
95%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
43.4 M
Dry Handling
68.41 s
2
Subj. Dry Handling
95 Points
2
Wet
Wet Braking
62.95 M
Wet Handling
84.3 s
Subj. Wet Handling
100 Points
★
Wet Circle
13.7 s
Straight Aqua
83.8 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.4 m/sec2
3
Snow
Snow Braking
51.11 M
Snow Traction
6.26 s
Snow Handling
111.18 s
Off road
Gravel Handling
63.16 s
Subj. Gravel Handling
90 Points
Dirt Handling
58.26 s
Subj. Dirt Handling
95 Points
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
90 Points
Subj. Noise
90 Points
Noise
78.1 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
8.89 kg / t
3
Dry
96%
Wet
96%
Snow
82%
Off road
93%
Comfort
98%
Value
88%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
44 M
Dry Handling
68.99 s
Subj. Dry Handling
90 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
60.45 M
Wet Handling
82.28 s
3
Subj. Wet Handling
85 Points
Wet Circle
13.53 s
Straight Aqua
85.4 Km/H
3
Curved Aquaplaning
3.34 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking
51.55 M
Snow Traction
6.07 s
Snow Handling
101.77 s
3
Off road
Gravel Handling
62.47 s
Subj. Gravel Handling
85 Points
Dirt Handling
58.41 s
Subj. Dirt Handling
90 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
100 Points
★
Subj. Noise
95 Points
Noise
73.2 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
9.56 kg / t
Dry
99%
Wet
94%
Off road
97%
Comfort
85%
Value
89%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
42.3 M
2
Dry Handling
68.63 s
Subj. Dry Handling
95 Points
2
Wet
Wet Braking
63.25 M
Wet Handling
83.78 s
Subj. Wet Handling
80 Points
Wet Circle
13.69 s
Straight Aqua
86.5 Km/H
★
Curved Aquaplaning
3.73 m/sec2
★
Off road
Gravel Handling
62.12 s
3
Subj. Gravel Handling
95 Points
3
Dirt Handling
58.55 s
Subj. Dirt Handling
95 Points
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
80 Points
Subj. Noise
85 Points
Noise
76.7 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
9.49 kg / t
Dry
97%
Wet
93%
Snow
85%
Off road
98%
Comfort
89%
Value
91%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
43.6 M
Dry Handling
68.63 s
Subj. Dry Handling
90 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
62.65 M
Wet Handling
84.56 s
Subj. Wet Handling
80 Points
Wet Circle
13.77 s
Straight Aqua
82.7 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.1 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking
50.59 M
Snow Traction
5.61 s
3
Snow Handling
102.45 s
Off road
Gravel Handling
62.12 s
3
Subj. Gravel Handling
100 Points
★
Dirt Handling
58.37 s
Subj. Dirt Handling
95 Points
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
85 Points
Subj. Noise
90 Points
Noise
75.3 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
9.27 kg / t
Dry
93%
Wet
89%
Snow
100%
Off road
100%
Comfort
96%
Value
95%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
46.6 M
Dry Handling
69.33 s
Subj. Dry Handling
90 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
68.5 M
Wet Handling
86.02 s
Subj. Wet Handling
85 Points
Wet Circle
13.91 s
Straight Aqua
83.1 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.77 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking
39.08 M
★
Snow Traction
4.57 s
★
Snow Handling
97.4 s
★
Off road
Gravel Handling
61.6 s
★
Subj. Gravel Handling
100 Points
★
Dirt Handling
56.86 s
★
Subj. Dirt Handling
100 Points
★
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
90 Points
Subj. Noise
100 Points
★
Noise
73.5 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
8.86 kg / t
2
Dry
97%
Wet
85%
Off road
92%
Comfort
91%
Value
86%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
43.7 M
Dry Handling
69.34 s
Subj. Dry Handling
95 Points
2
Wet
Wet Braking
74.05 M
Wet Handling
88.67 s
Subj. Wet Handling
70 Points
Wet Circle
14.43 s
Straight Aqua
82.9 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.17 m/sec2
Off road
Gravel Handling
64.06 s
Subj. Gravel Handling
85 Points
Dirt Handling
57.95 s
Subj. Dirt Handling
90 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
85 Points
Subj. Noise
95 Points
Noise
77.3 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
9.77 kg / t
Not every driver has the same priorities. Adjust the category weightings above to re-rank the tyres based on what matters most to your driving style.
Scores are colour-coded from red (weakest) through yellow to green (strongest) to help you quickly spot each tyre's strengths and weaknesses.
The original test ranking is shown in the # column. Arrows indicate how each tyre moves when your custom weighting is applied.
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...