wildpeaks SL vs. E rating question.

Do you really notice any difference? I've gone from stock to LR C to E (C and E were same size tires). Aside from the ~10% hit going from the stock P-rated 31" tires to LT 32", going from LR C to LR E, I saw no noticeable difference in MPG. Given the same model tire and size, I would think at most, you'd be at 1MPG difference, and that's being very generous.

 

I've never owned E tires but I figured 11 lbs x 4 tires= 44lbs savings of rotational mass has to make some sort of difference. At least on acceleration. I've read comments on people going from stock to 33" tires and them complaining on how heavy those bad boys are and how noticeable it is and they're only 6 pounds more an the LTs.

SL 265/75/r16 = 44lbs
LT 265/75/r16 = 55lbs
LT 285/75/r15 = 61lbs

 

I did feel a little bit of lag in acceleration when I moved to a LR E (from LR C). But you have to consider you're going from not only a lighter tire, but also a used tire with most of the tread worn off. Which affects the gearing as well. Perhaps the affects of all of those small variables add up to the sluggish feel.

However, even given that, in real world experience, I noticed pretty much zero difference in MPG.

 

Im not as worried about the mpg's as I am the quality of the ride. I don't want a extra stiff ride for daily driving.

 

What’s the recommended psi for SL?

 

What's on your door tag. A tire's max psi is just that, the maximum. If you inflate to that, you're running around on 4 rocks and the ride will suffer. You'll also tend to wear the center of the tread considerably faster than the shoulders.

 

Depends on the size...whatever it takes to reach a 2,149 lb load rating.

 

Thats only true for the OEM tires. Doesn't mean anything for aftermarket tires. Each person should do their own chalk tests and use their own best judgement for each aftermarket tires.

 

That's not necessarily true. Max load capacity is usually attained at max inflation psi.

Ehh....yes and no.
Rubber manufacturers all build their carcasses to pretty much the same specs in a given size. There's some variations from one to another but they're very minor differences. So a 265/70R17 BFG will behave pretty much the same as a 265/70R17 Goodyear or Kumho, etc, at least in terms of the shape of the tire at a given psi.

On the other hand, vehicle manufacturers generally recommend the best average for the vehicle, not necessarily for the tire, so there is likely to be some variation from tire to tire and the chalk test is worthwhile, especially if you're jumping load ranges. But the manufacturer's recommended pressures are a good baseline to start from, and if you aren't chalking your tires it's a better guide than just going by a tire's max inflation pressure.

All depends on the sort of load you're carrying, as well. If you're running with 600lbs of gear/equipment in the bed all the time then 40psi might be better, etc.

 

I have noticed that the Falkens have a 265/65/17 that is rated XL. I know that is for a bit of extra load over the SL rated tires, but I am wondering if I'd notice any difference in noise or comfort.

They have a 265/70/17 that is rated SL. It is a bit heavier though, by about 5 lbs per tire. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

 

E-rated peace of mind on the trail is what I care about.

Also consider the brand/design though because the rating on the tire is exactly that, it doesnt actually mean they are 10-ply tires, it's an equivalent value.
I'm a Toyo man now, I was convinced over many different situations I put myself into with my old truck, where lesser tires had previously died.

 

Who said anything about max load capacity or max psi?

 

Nobody; I transposed the 1 and the 4 in my brain and thought you were talking about inflating for max capacity.

 

@

OP what did you end up getting and how did it turn out?

 

I have 2 sets of tires, one SL all-terrain and one E mud-terrain. I can subjectively feel the difference in rolling resistance (need to use more skinny pedal) and I get about 6-12% less fuel economy with the mud-terrains. There is also a noticeable difference in ride quality and noise. I’ve never damaged either set of tires.

I suspect LT tires are a bad option for most taco owners.

 

Amen. I got them for the same reason. Peace of mind. Like the other day when a sexy gal stood up at the bus stop…yeah I looked until the concrete curb told me to stop looking. And I mean it told me harshly, lol

Only downside is if you decide to go with the flow of traffic at 80+mph, the Taco chugs the fuel. 75mph and below, and the difference in mpg compared to the stock firestones is damn close. No sluggish feeling around town too(although no camper, etc.)

EDIT: And the ride is not stiff as people think. At least for me. As a matter of fact, the tapping noise that was coming from underneath the dash is gone over bumps. Strange, but I ain’t complaining!!!

 

I have always ran E just for peace of mind. Wether I’m at Pismo Dunes and needing to air down, or off-roading somewhere, or meeting the snow and having to take a snowy path because the main road is down, never know what’s underneath that snow pack or powder. It’s a truck. Silly to worry about mpg. Even while running 18lb forged TE37’s and 285/70-17’s that weigh 55 to 61 lbs each I’m still under 80 lbs per wheel.

 

I like the added tire life of the E, but everything is compromise.

Honestly my next set will be LT 245 75 R16, get SOME economy back while retaining the heavier ply.