Tire recomendations

[smurfslayer]

I did a quick tire rack search and found only D & E range competitors. the KO2 is 32# / tire. I did find one that is just as light

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Kumho&tireModel=Road+Venture+MT+KL71&partnum=17QR7KL71&vehicleSearch=true&fromCompare1=yes&autoMake=Ford&autoYear=2017&autoModel=F150 Raptor&autoModClar=SuperCrew

I haven’t run a Kumho off road type tire, but their road tires were respectable.

edit: I need to get a raise because I can’t seem to afford to pay attention.
These are not the same weight as the K02 for us, I misread the weight display. Stock ko2 is ~65# for us, the Kumho above is 73. apologies.

 

[rtmozingo]

I did a quick tire rack search and found only D & E range competitors. the KO2 is 32# / tire. I did find one that is just as light

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Kumho&tireModel=Road+Venture+MT+KL71&partnum=17QR7KL71&vehicleSearch=true&fromCompare1=yes&autoMake=Ford&autoYear=2017&autoModel=F150 Raptor&autoModClar=SuperCrew

I haven’t run a Kumho off road type tire, but their road tires were respectable.

edit: I need to get a raise because I can’t seem to afford to pay attention.
These are not the same weight as the K02 for us, I misread the weight display. Stock ko2 is ~65# for us, the Kumho above is 73. apologies.

When I put together my tire comparison spreadsheet, the D rated K02 was actually lighter 63lbs, and several comparable tires are about the same weight (mainly coopers). Thought the Wildpeak was lighter but it apparently is pretty hefty at 73 lbs...

 

[Badgertits]

I've never found anyone, including the instructors at Raptor Assault, who know exactly what makes the Raptor K02 special. Some say it is for dirt traction (if so, HAH!), some say for winter weather, and some claim for road manners. In practice, what it appears to be is cost savings for Ford, as the tires wear out very quickly on average.

You are right that most popular substitutes for the KO2 are very heavy, excessively so. But there are a few competitors that are around the same weight, or negligibly less heavy, and perform better in different areas. The one main advantage the KO2 has is the speed rating.

You’re not understanding- this same tire in any other size of 33” or greater is An 8-10 ply+ for most other vehicle usually w/ D or E load rating. My take is BFG made these specific for Ford Raptor use which is why it’s the only tire I can think of in such a large size, w/ all terrain tread, for truck use, w/ only a C load rating. Now- I also imagine the treadwear & compound & rolling resistance are different, I’m guessing softer/lower.

You can get a BFG KO2 in 315/70R17E, and it weighs within a lb of the C rated version we have as stock. I’m guessing MPG may drop due to these potential differences in tread compound & rolling resistance despite the weight being close- but I KNOW the ride will suffer since the E rated tires will be much stiffer, they’d also be a helluva lot more suited toward towing if you do any.

They may very well wear better though.

May be worth a try instead of the E rated version?

Check it out:
https://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/upload/bfgoodrich/specifications/specs-all-terrain-t-a-ko2.pdf

 

[MnFlyer]

Not to be argumentative. I don’t think tire weight has as much effect on MPG as we think.

Tread patterns, tire pressure, actual traction ability (stickiness) road conditions, etc all contribute much more to rolling resistance than the mass of the tire. I would almost argue that the mass of the tire (all other things being equal) has no effect on rolling resistance.

The equation is F=Nb/r

F = rolling force (resistance)
N = weight on the axle
b = rolling coefficient (think drag coefficient)
r = wheel radius

So all things being equal 20/17= 1.14ish per axle.

If 10lbs of tire weight reduces MPG that much, carrying a 40lbs kindergartner would do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Turbo95max]

Not to be argumentative. I don’t think tire weight has as much effect on MPG as we think.

Tread patterns, tire pressure, actual traction ability (stickiness) road conditions, etc all contribute much more to rolling resistance than the mass of the tire. I would almost argue that the mass of the tire (all other things being equal) has no effect on rolling resistance.

The equation is F=Nb/r

F = rolling force (resistance)
N = weight on the axle
b = rolling coefficient (think drag coefficient)
r = wheel radius

So all things being equal 20/17= 1.14ish per axle.

If 10lbs of tire weight reduces MPG that much, carrying a 40lbs kindergartner would do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree tread patterns and pressure all contribute to rolling resistance but your comparison of 40lbs in the truck is incorrect. Remember unsprung weight makes a much bigger difference to mpg then sprung weight. 10lbs unsprung weight is not equal to 10lbs of sprung weight.



I've ran the Wildpeak AT3W tire on my Gen 1 Raptor and love it. I got to test them back to back in the snow vs the BFG KOs. Great wet and snow traction. Every tire is going to have compromises, and you'll have to get a tire based on your wants and needs. Falken is my choice, I've sold these to a few friends with Toyotas too and they are happy with them. We mostly do mild offroading, some snow offroading and street use.

Falken has the C rated 315/70/17 tire for the Raptor in the works, will probably be released in a year or so.

 

[chefsam]

@chefsam I started a claim online with BFG on my OEM tires since they were worn in the middle as well (22K miles). Brought them to a dealer that sold BFG's (Discount tire), had the tech call with the claim #, I was offered 50% off new tires without any hassle. Might be worth a phone call to see if they will do same?

thanks it looks like I will be deciding whether to go with the BFG discount or see if I can wait it out a little bit and go with a better tire. Some really good info this thread

 

[rtmozingo]

May be worth a try instead of the C rated version?

Check it out:
https://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/upload/bfgoodrich/specifications/specs-all-terrain-t-a-ko2.pdf

Those who stick with BFG down here (that I know of) run Es, and are happy with them. Not really willing to give BFG another shot, as I've not been impressed with any set I've had, so I'm ok switching to another brand tire, even if it is an E. Granted, some E tires will definitely ride worse, but there are a few claimed to ride similarly.

All of my research at this point is just that tho, research. I haven't run any other tire on my truck yet, so I can't say personally, but I've two friends that have run just about every AT under the sun, and there's endless comparison threads online that are pretty enlightening.

 

[MnFlyer]

I agree tread patterns and pressure all contribute to rolling resistance but your comparison of 40lbs in the truck is incorrect. Remember unsprung weight makes a much bigger difference to mpg then sprung weight. 10lbs unsprung weight is not equal to 10lbs of sprung weight.



I've ran the Wildpeak AT3W tire on my Gen 1 Raptor and love it. I got to test them back to back in the snow vs the BFG KOs. Great wet and snow traction. Every tire is going to have compromises, and you'll have to get a tire based on your wants and needs. Falken is my choice, I've sold these to a few friends with Toyotas too and they are happy with them. We mostly do mild offroading, some snow offroading and street use.

Falken has the C rated 315/70/17 tire for the Raptor in the works, will probably be released in a year or so.

I appreciate the clarification That even further proves my point since rolling resistance is calculated on axle weight (sprung weight).

It would be a fairly simple experiment to run.

All you really need is the tires to test. One test rim. A ramp to roll the tire and rim combo down. Measure which tire rolls farther. The farther roll has less rolling resistance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Badgertits]

Not to be argumentative. I don’t think tire weight has as much effect on MPG as we think.

Tread patterns, tire pressure, actual traction ability (stickiness) road conditions, etc all contribute much more to rolling resistance than the mass of the tire. I would almost argue that the mass of the tire (all other things being equal) has no effect on rolling resistance.

The equation is F=Nb/r

F = rolling force (resistance)
N = weight on the axle
b = rolling coefficient (think drag coefficient)
r = wheel radius

So all things being equal 20/17= 1.14ish per axle.

If 10lbs of tire weight reduces MPG that much, carrying a 40lbs kindergartner would do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol OK no way Jose not even close

Going from a 275/55r20 Goodyear wrangler P metric tire on a GM 1/2 ton to a BFG K02 in LT275/60R20 is a jump up from 39 to 57 lbs & you immediate notice it. The tires on our Raptors are already in the 60+ lb range. You got quite the opposite logic, unsprung weight is HUGE in terms of performance effect- hence why back in the day “mag” wheels as in legit cast magnesium- were so popular- similar to carbon fiber wheels now

 

[MnFlyer]

lol OK no way Jose not even close

Going from a 275/55r20 Goodyear wrangler P metric tire on a GM 1/2 ton to a BFG K02 in LT275/60R20 is a jump up from 39 to 57 lbs & you immediate notice it. The tires on our Raptors are already in the 60+ lb range. You got quite the opposite logic, unsprung weight is HUGE in terms of performance effect- hence why back in the day “mag” wheels as in legit cast magnesium- were so popular- similar to carbon fiber wheels now

Forgive me. I’m not a gear head so I may have the terminology incorrect.

I’m not trying to be argumentative at all just learning is all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk