Wyoming B.S. Thread

I am planning the put new tires on the truck before the end of the year. Normally I'm pretty adamant that I always put what I feel are the best tires I can on the truck. I'll do 265/75/16 to keep things simple and had planned on the Mickey Thompson Baja Legend EXP, and they are $246 a piece. E rated. Out the door $1516.

But then i saw some generic brand, Rocky Mountain All Terrain, SL rated for $110 a piece. Out the door $661.

The price difference is $855 and it is hard not to go the cheaper route for a truck I daily drive in town and will take only a couple trips a year. I could get the E rated rocky mountains for $151 a piece which might be the better compromise and still carries a significant cost savings. What do you guys think, does an e rated sidewall translate to a "tougher" tire? Or is a may-pop either way?

 

Kenda Klever Rts in that size are 214.56 each. Just saying..seems a good middle ground and honestly has been a great tire.

E rated sl vs Lt is still going to be weaker tire in terms of puncture resistant. I'm not sure I'd chance it given what you'll likely be doing with them. Especially with a no name unknown tire.

 

The whole Kenda tire vs Rocky Mountain, I think of Kenda as a no-name brand already. Made in Vietnam/China/Taiwan. The Rocky's are made in the US, in Grand junction. According to their website they do claim that they are designed with off road in mind, and tough sidewalls. It's one thing to type and another to deliver in that. It sure is tempting the more I look it up if I'm honest. Just have to figure out which sidewall rating will be best.

 

Kenda has been making tires, mostly dirt bike and road bike tho since well before you or I was born. They're newer but not new to automotive tires

 

What is the weight difference between the SLs and the Es in that Rocky Mountain tire?

 

How long do you think you'll run these tires? (since I know you're itching for 35s)

IMO, if you're mostly around town and on FS roads (or equivalent), and you think you might not run these tires for more than a year or two, I think there's a case to be made for the cheaper tires. I mean, you can always change a tire if you get a flat. At the cheaper price, you could get the tire insurance, and just keep getting new ones...(albeit, inconveniently).

Now, if you're plan is to run them into the ground like I do before you swap them out, then you'll have them for what 4-5 years probably? In that case, just get the quality tires, b/c it's not really that much over such a long timeframe, and gives you peace of mind.

 

Discount has the SL at 38#s, the E are 49#. 25% weight penalty.

You're in line with my thoughts. But I won't put 35s on it as a daily, and I can't pick up a different daily until I have a house. Aaaand I don't plan to buy a house anytime in the near future... So I'm kinda stuck where I'm at.

As for certs, I have learned that they aren't worth it. Something about self-insurance that works for me there

 

The Kenda is pretty tried and true these days. Tons of people are running them now including...well me for the last 3 years and Ryan for longer. Dan has em now too.

Just saying. Very good tire for a good price. Seems a good middle option compared to you're other choices.

Also, much as most hate to admit it, china is very good at making things if given good specs and qc to follow. Made in America doesn't mean better to me these days. Most the "crap" made in China was design by assholes in America anyways haha exceptions to all that obviously. But calling China made stuff just bad or questionable these days isn't the same.

This is another vote for kendas then I think. Great all around tire for a good price.

The rocky mountains looks like they will be good and smooth grade roads, snows, and asphalt. Anything's I'd imagine they will struggle with.

 

Well, I'm glad to hear you coming around on the 35s!

Also surprised to hear your take on the certs! I share that take (if the insurance company thinks they can make money, why shouldn't you be the one to make that money), but thought it might put you at ease on the cheaper tires.

BTW - the Kendas, even if I don't run them again due to not liking the wheels I've got them on - do seem like really nice tires... to Monte's point. They'd definitely be on my short list if they came in 255/85R16. Still more $$$ than those Rocky Mountains, but it sounds like you'd be keeping them a while (it's either tires or a house, lol), so probably worth it for the known vs. unknown.

 

Ben you're starting to sound like Nick, shit or get off the pot with the tires already

 

Why don't you like the wheels? Like the design or 17s in general?

 

Eh, not really, I asked a very specific question that wasn't answered, and spun into a *sponsored ad* for Kenda. Although the curiosity of buying a an SL rated and an E rated tire just to sawzall in half and measuring the thickness of material at the sidewall, shoulder, and tread is tempting. Granted, there is more to strength than thickness alone.

 

Quite a bit heavier than the 5-stars, and I didn't realize the backspacing wasn't ideal.

I think they look great. There weren't as many tire size options as I hoped, but I think that's not a big deal b/c there are options.

 

I mean if you got the cash to ruin two new tires, then just buy the Mikey tires haha

I mean we all know you're gonna do whatever is you want to do anyways

Really? the wheels are that much heavier? Yeah backspacing I get, did the spacers not work good enough?

Not as many skinny tires. Those seem to be a dying breed...that said, there are 35/10.5r17 options...

 

Wheels are ~7lbs heavier per corner, which was crazy to me. Apparently, the 5-stars were Toyota's lightest wheel ever. In fairness, the tires are quite a bit heavier too; total of 20lbs per corner compared to the 5-star/Maxx. Spacers seem to be working fine (though, haven't done a trip yet...so no full stuffage around town... but math says they will be just fine). Of course, spacers sort of negate my desire to have things under the flares (at least, as far under).

I agree on the skinnies. It's a bummer!

 

I mean it should be no less under than it was with your other wheels or they'd have rubbed too

 

That is one perspective. The other view is 25% stronger/more durable. Having said that, my biggest gripe is the ride you get from Es in a light truck.

 

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The spacers put the tire (even with the extra tire width) ~0.1" further away from the frame math-wise. It's just that we all know that tires don't always exactly match mfgs specs (33's are 32.5, etc.), so there's still a bit of wondering in my mind.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I really want 35s. Jus

The ride is a big one... I've complained about how rough my truck is now. One of the reasons for the cheaper tires is to put the saved money to a set of kings at all 4 corners to help the ride. I guess at the end of the day I'll have a spare tire if I find the weak spot on cheapo's.

 

Well they probably poke more not because of the space but because they are wider than the 255s were. Which was only a 10''ish tire vs the 10.5ish you have now.

That said, mine with SCS wheels sits pretty perfect which the side wall barely poking past the flares. Stuff can get muddy but not really bad unless is extremely bad out in which case you're screwed anyways.

I was pleasantly surprised with my Kendas E rating, much nicer ride that the Maxx's I had. The side walls are very flexible. Even at 18-20psi I can pinch them almost to the wheel.