New Falken Wildpeak AT4W ????

Oh hush, you 17" rim people have so many 255 options. Let the 16" crowd have a win for once.

 

It’s true

 

Is your desire for C-load a weight thing or comfort thing?

I wonder how much difference in ride quality there is between the two 255 options. Of course the 16 vs 17 would play a small role here too.

 

It's both. My wife already doesn't like riding in my truck with the C-load KO2s, so I definitely cannot make the ride even worse. Also, weight is a big factor for me too in terms of MPGs. If I can save on 5+ lbs at each wheel, then that would be great.

 

Friend just got these for his F150 in case anyone wants to see a real world picture.

 

I agree.

But not in a C load.

 

Just got back from Discount, here are the AT4w in 265/75-16 on my filthy Trail. Mine are SL, made in Japan.

 

@LordHelmut thank you for your business, we appreciate your support. The Taco looks fantastic!

 

Side wall has that weird solid design with information printed on it. Wonder why some tires have it and some don’t

 

I think I know what you're referring to. Baja Boss are like that too.

 

I did pick the 'chunkier' looking side, I didn't really look at the other, smoother side too much. I could try to get under it and gets some pics.

 

Looks like this guy has that same void?? See last pic

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/falken-wildpeak-a-t4w.822499/#post-29497752

It's so weird they would put that writing above the side lugs (thus having to flatten them out) and not below?

Someone has to take pictures of both sides to see if there is a difference!?!?!

 

My running hypothesis is that this is what Falken does on some of their smaller tire options as they've just run out of room to fit all the required/desired information. Sort of like writing a message on a birthday card when you are a kid, with a huge "HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHRIStopher!" that has to be finished written all sideways and stuff to make it fit.

I think we've seen larger AT4W that look "normal" to us without a flattened out area.

 

That could make sense. I also feel like I've seen it present on the SL tires but not on the LT tires, so was wondering if that was the difference?

 

I could see that, but not on a 265/70/17. There is a ton of space where that info could go. I'm wondering if it was a simple oversight and someone accidently f'ed up...

 

A 285/70/17 C-rated is 69 lbs?!! No thanks.

 

Thanks for posting this. I've been looking for the weight. This just made my decision a lot easier. 69lbs is way to heavy.

 

Mine are SL, and there really is plenty of space for that DOT info in that tiny font. I didn't notice it before, but it's weird AF they flattened that 1 part out. Now I can't unsee it.

 

Any C load KO2 is going to be way lighter than the Falkens in the same size and load range if you’re worried about mpg.
Falkens are fatties, porky on the weight.
I’m trying the Falkens in 285s C load for something to do and they weigh 10 pounds more per tire same size and load range. Quieter ride but slightly worse mpg
What psi you running?, I’m around 35 front 32 rear in summer.

 

That's a Falken heavy tire!

Just for reference, The Toyo Open Country AT3 in 285/70/70 C-rated is 55 lbs. And the E rated is even less at 53 lbs. for that size.