New Falken Wildpeak AT4W ????

I am a happy AT3W owner and think they are great tires both in performance and looks. I will most likely get the AT4W when mine wear out. There was something just a little off in my opinion on the AT4W, and I finally pinpointed it...it is the raised ring on the outer edge that makes these look cheap. Anyone else think so? I dont know of any other tire that has the "Side biters" split like that? I suppose and hope this design helps with self cleaning? But based on everyone else tire design, I would think not? Just my observation and opinion.

 

That’s some cool vinyl on your roof and hood! Did you do it yourself?

 

I’ve seen them in person, they don’t look cheap at all and personally I think the side wall looks cooler than the 3.

 

Hey guys.

I am replacing my original factory tires on my 22 TRDOR with the AT4w, but I'm still undecided about what size, ie factory size, 265/75R16 or cookie cutters. This is my daily but I do medium trails up here in the Northeast. No Rock crawling.

It looks like in the 75R16 you can get E rated or the sl. The e-rated has thicker tread but I'm not sure I can deal with everything else that goes with e-rated light rough ride and decreased fuel economy. I believe the cookie cutter size comes in c, load range but I'm not sure how that is going to look or if I want a more narrow tire.

Any advice is appreciated

 

I went from E load to C load...I'll never do E on a midsize again. Ride is far better with a C and I don't see the point for the E on a midsize

 

This. Absolutely no reason to have Es on a midsize truck. They're designed for much, much heavier vehicles.

 

not exactly true. if you are going offroad the e load is nice for the thicker sidewall over the c load but for daily driving and doing some light offroading then a c load will do just fine tbh.

 

so this will depend on what you are wanting to do with the vehicle when it comes to the load rating. are you wanting to go offroad and on hard trails and beat the shit out of your truck? if so go e loads they dont puncture as easily as a c load will. but if you are just going to daily the truck to work and the local store and some light fire roads go c load. they are a lot comfier of a tire for riding around town.

 

Are you talking about E vs C in the same exact tire? Or different tires? Cause it's not a fair comparison if they're different tires. While I haven't had them myself, the E rated Wildpeaks seem to get great reviews in terms of comfort. They are likely very different from a an E rated MT or an E rated tire that was designed as a hauling tire vs an offroad tire.

 

E rated tires do not necessarily have a thicker sidewall than C rated tires. Load rating does not directly correlate to sidewall construction thickness, nor sidewall durability, nor number of plies. You simply cannot make these types of conclusions based on load ratings. Sure, this used to be more correct decades ago, but with modern tires it's somewhat meaningless.

The sidewalls on my 255/85R16 C load AT4W are as thick, or likely a little thicker, than my old 255/85 E load G003. My AT4W are also night and day softer and more comfortable than the G003. They're also heavier. Once you start looking at specific tires it becomes very obvious that what we've all been told by prior generations about these load ratings no longer holds water.

 

e rated =10ply while c rated are =6ply sidewalls so that first statement isnt accurate... now some manufactures have changed this and started adapting new things? but the standard is a e rated has a thicker sidwall for a bigger payload or to have stronger sidewalls to resist punctures more unlike a c load.

 

Ignore the load ratings, they're somewhat of a red herring. I'd highly suggest you get feedback from people who have actually run the E and SL Wildpeaks to see what they say. You shouldn't be assuming all E rated tires will have the same characteristics - because they won't. I haven't run E load Wildpeaks so I can't speak to those. But, I have run the SL load AT3W and they were great. I did a good amount of offroading, including some very rocky trails. Anecdotal, of course, but they held up very well and I wouldn't hesitate to run them again. But, personally, I'd probably opt for the E rated ones for some extra peace of mind since I tend to be alone a lot while offroading. Not because they're E rated specifically but because the SL tire has their "standard" sidewall and the E tire has their HD sidewall. It would be even better if it came with the Duraspec sidewall though. There is likely a slight difference in ride quality but I think the biggest to decision points in the two tires you're looking at are weight and durability

 

I went from E load 265/75/16 General Grabber ATx to C load 255/75/16 Wildpeak AT4w and can tell you that the Falkens have a whole lot less rolling resistance than the Generals. I drove to Milwaukee and back yesterday, 192 miles, and the truck is showing me 19.2 mpg on the dash (dash display is usually pretty accurate). I haven't seen 19 mpg since before the modding began, and I was down under 17 until these tires were mounted.

My gas mileage does drop significantly in town, the truck doesn't like a lot of stop and go. Heavy tires do that.

I'd be curious to see what people's experiences are with the 265/75/16 tires. Last thing I'd point out is that the ride is very similar between the Wildpeaks and the Grabbers...firm but not unpleasant...and not too loud (I know, very subjective).

 

Sorry to break it to you, but you're the one who's wrong here. Those ply numbers you're seeing are "ply ratings" not actual number of plies.
https://www.tirerack.com/upgrade-garage/what-are-load-ranges-ply-ratings



Falken's Duraspec sidewall is a 3 ply sidewall yet you'll find this sidewall on C and E rated tires. My C rated Wildpeaks only have 3 actual plies but they have a "ply rating" of 6. Technology has basically made the number of plies irrelevant. Because now you can use fewer, stronger plies to achieve the same load rating and durability as you used to get by using more, less advanced plies.

 

Not necessarily. Carcass construction seems to have changed in the past 5 or so years. The old way of looking at tires isn't what it was. My C load AT4w tires feel like they are easily as tough in the sidewall as my old Grabber E loads. Rating and construction are not the same.

 

Good point. I overlooked that. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

I'm talking all terrain in general. They literally add extra weight so I don't really understand your argument.

 

I have tried alot of tires and pretty much found the AT3W to be the best all around truck tire. I was running it E rated on my full size and never had issues. On my 24 Tacoma I started with a AT4W P285/70R17 SL weighing about 53ish pounds and found that it had a bit more float at high speeds on washboard surfaces. Switched to a LT285/70R17 at 65 LBS for something more stout. This video sums up that the AT4W is better all around except on wet/icy surfaces.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaT9jTFQWO0 Which was why I like the AT3W in the first place. Im more worries about the icy highways getting to jobsites than deep snow. Winter will be the test. Also throwing out a new option to check out: Cooper Stronghold. https://www.coopertire.com/en_US/tires/discoverer-stronghold-at/24982.html I will probably put that on my HD truck.

 

That's the thing, general info here isn't that useful because not all E rated will be stiffer than all C rated. And not all E rated will be heavier than C rated. Within the same brand and model of tire you can make your assumption fairly confidently but not across different tire brands and models because they will vary wildly in construction and design even if they're classified as the same rating.

Also not sure why you're now talking about weight when you were originally talking about comfort.

 

I'm going to do the same. I think I'm going to go SL load. From when everyone says the E load range is too rough.