New Falken Wildpeak AT4W ????

I'd think the big FALKEN lettering protruding on the tires is enough.

 

Good for you!

 

Enjoy your tacky windshield banner bud!

 

No not E. I guess they are SL 116T. I specifically did not want E rated. That is why I did not go BFG. I had the AT3W on my old GMC Sierra and they worked great in the snowy mountains.

 

Ah gotcha. Was gonna say, C in that size would have been perfect. Wish I didn't need to get E but it was my only option for 265/75R16

 

There was another option, they make two versions in that size:
LT265/75R16 (E load)
265/75/R16 (SL load)

I ran the SL AT3W's previously and they were great. I liked how light they were. And although one man's experience doesn't say much, I never had any issues with durability either. And not like I was rock crawling all the time but they definitely saw their fair share of rocks and even sharp shale.

Also, interesting comparison... the C load 255/85R16 has a max load of only 2470lbs yet the LS load 265/75R16 is rated up to 2765lbs while the E load LT265/75R16 is rated up to 3415.

 

I meant anything above SL. Yeah I had SL at3w's for my prior tire and didn't have any durability issues either. After tackling some harder trails and needing to drive through construction sites/dumping areas, I wanted the extra protection for peace of mind. No complaints whatsoever with the E rated 265's but after driving over the remnants of a stop sign by accident I was real happy to have the extra plies. Very interesting about the load, I have to imagine it's due to the extra aspect ratio on the 255's

 

It should be noted that the load rating is not an indication of # of plies. The "Ply rating" doesn't even correspond to an actual number of plies. An E tire does not necessarily have more plies than a C or SL. In fact, most of the time companies don't actually report how many plies are used in their tires so it's not even info we have access to. When you think about it, this makes sense. In our modern world there are SO many different types of materials and designs. You can imagine a scenario where a VERY durable tire is made with a low number of very durable plies. And another scenario where a very weak tire is made from a multitude of very weak plies. More plies does not necessarily mean stronger because all plies are not equal.

I think it has more to do with sidewall stiffness and overall sidewall/carcass design. Usually high load rated tires require very high pressure in order to handle that load. You'll notice that the LT tires are normally rated for ~80psi but if you look at these SL and C load Falkens they are only rated for 50psi. If you look thru the specs you'll notice there are definitely tires with tall sidewalls (large aspect ratio) that still have high max load ratings.

 

Ran into that with the Cooper AT3 XLT's I was looking at too. It's nice that Falken reports the ply number directly (10 in this case). Rubber/tire technology has come so far. I was quite surprised how smooth the 123/120S AT4w's I got ride despite the ~3400lb load rating. They're cooking up some real good tires there at Falken HQ.

 

How are they in the rain?

 

Only hit rain one time so far in Colorado, but my wife was driving. She never mentioned anything, so I assume good. They are brand new though and have full tread.

In Central Ca, we don’t get much rain. I was more interested in the three peak snow rating. We spend a lot of time in Lake Tahoe in the winter.

 

Take another look at that spec sheet from Falken. You'll notice they don't provide the ply "count" and instead, it's a ply "rating". Those are not the same thing.



Read thru all their materials more and you'll see that the "Duraspec" sidewall that comes on some of the AT4W sizes is actually a 3-ply construction. However, those same tires have Ply Ratings anywhere between 6-12 depending on the specific size you're looking at. As you can see, Ply Rating does not indicate # of plies used.

For some historical context and an explanation of what Ply Rating actually means, here's an except from Tirerack (see link below for full context):

https://www.tirerack.com/upgrade-garage/what-are-load-ranges-ply-ratings

 

(I not you)

 

Yeah, it's easy to do. Especially because 99% of what you read online is people equating rating and count while also saying anything but E rated are going to be fragile glass tires you'll shred on the first tiny rock you find. I don't doubt that it used to be much simpler to generalize like that but I think with newer tire tech and all the neat stuff companies like Falken are doing that you simply can't use these specs as a stand in for durability.

 

I'm on the fence between the AT4W and the new Duratrac RT. The new Duratrac is supposed to have a lot more siping than the older version. I don't have any issues with the Duratracs I have now. I can break them loose in the rain if I try, but almost any tire will do that if you try, especially on a truck with an empty bed. I've never felt unsafe with them, or felt they were losing traction in the rain. But I'm open to new options.

 

My 285/55r16 back order finally came in. Got them installed yesterday. Haven’t really driven with them too much but have a long trip this weekend so I’ll see how they do on highway and offroad. Had to remove the front Weathertech mud flaps as they were rubbing when turning.

 

I think it’s around 2”. I have OME 886 coils in the front and super heavy duty Dakars in the rear (HD pack with an extra AAL).

 

Are you liking the ride of that HD pack?

 

It’s fine now that I added the extra leaf. Before with the HD pack just how it comes it was a little soft especially loaded. I think OME is very generous with the weight ratings they give.

In the pic my truck is on an incline but on level ground it is 1” higher in the rear and when loaded with gear and crap it sits level.