New Falken Wildpeak AT4W ????

Did you watch the video, it’s only getting the AT4w up to 30 mph and then the other test was braking from 30 mph , it’s not rocket science.
I have Falken AT3w 285 70 17s that I picked up from a Jeep guy going to 37s so I’m not a Falken hater.

 

I don’t know man. It just did not seem like a legitimate controlled test. But I don’t have strong feelings about it. I live in Texas and don’t care about snow traction. I am also not a brand loyalist. I will probably try another brand on my next tires as I want lighter C load range tires. Not trying to argue.

 

Hey I agree with you, it’s not scientific at all haha but whatever happened the Falken AT4w kept on sliding, the firestone they tested after did great .

 

I really liked the KO2s I had 285s in C load 51lbs, great for mpg and looking good. The Falken AT3w I’m running now are 10 lbs heavier per tire same size and load range, mpg isn’t that much worse

 

Never had an issue and I've had two sets of AT3's and one set of AT4's.

 

I think there's something fishy going on in that test. I'm not gonna argue and say the Falkens are better but the fact that they show literally more than a 100% increase in stopping distance whereas all the other tires are more tightly grouped I think there's a flaw in the test. A test like this has way too many variables and unless I missed it in the video they did ONE stop with each tire. For tests like this you should be doing multiple tests then averaging results, perhaps even throwing out the high/low results. There's also another test by another youtuber showing a much closer result that feels more accurate.

 

This is another YouTube test, the guy used a Ford Raptor as the test vehicle, again the AT4w is at the back for snow. Dry and rain it scores great.

 

This was the other youtuber I mentioned in my post. Notice how the AT4W is worse but not 100% worse? I think this is likely much, much more accurate than that other video showing double the stopping distance.

 

True, these results came from multiple runs, interesting the KO2 was tops.

 

Yeah, that's the proper way to do a test like this. I was surprised by the BFG as I've always heard lots of bad reviews about their traction on snow/ice.

 

I watched TFL's comparison in the snow and I was floored by how poorly the AT4Ws did compared to the other two, although I don't live anywhere that snows.

I'd still get the AT4Ws mainly because it's one of two A/Ts that comes in 255/85r16s and it's also $100 cheaper per tire than the other option but I have the Wildpeaks MT01 that aren't even two years old yet (with only 15k miles on them) so it's hard to justify getting the AT4Ws. The main reason I want the ATs is because mud tires are terrible in rain and it's rainy season for the next 2-3ish months here in NorCal which means I have to feather the throttle from every light, go around corners slower than I usually take them, and I feel like the truck could just straight up hydroplane at any time on the freeway. On top of that, they're loud, rides a bit stiff, and the siping on the outer tread blocks wear faster than the center. None of that bothers me nearly as much as the poor traction in the rain, but it sure doesn't help. I was just a bit too excited to put 33's onto my truck when I first got it but now that the honeymoon phase is over, I'm starting to get tired of the cons of MTs on road. Sure they've been fantastic when I go off roading, but the truck is also my daily so the MTs are just a bit much for me. If only America's Tire offered some kind of insane trade in offer like Samsung does with their phones ($1900 Galaxy Z Fold 6 512 GB for $800 after trade in? Yes pls) but for now, I'm just gonna live with the MT01s. They're not terrible, it's just whenever it rains that I really regret them. Also E load on the MTs vs C on the AT4w.

 

Totally agree, even if you took half of the extra distance for stopping in the snow that’s still bad!
Good luck on your search for a light weight AT 33, people love to hate on the KO2 here but I’ve run them for years here in BC with no issues in the rain. Our speed limits are lower and I do have a canopy so 200 lbs extra weight in my bed so maybe that’s the difference. A 285 70 17 in C load is 51lbs, my mpg was good with it.
I’m running the same size and load range Falken AT3w now, it’s 61lbs a tire, fat! My mpg isn’t that bad with it, good traction in rain, snow performance nothing spectacular.
If you want to save a few bucks look on Facebook marketplace for guys with jeeps taking off their Oem tires KOs or Falkens to put on 35s or 37s off the lot. You can save a bunch buying thier barely used tires, And they are 33s off of the Rubicon.

 

Alright so on the following video around 11:30 mins (thanks for the link @DavesTaco68) he talked about the surprising lower performance of the Falken in the snow. He apparently contacted Falken that explained that for the LT they had to "sacrifice" on some of the snow performance. He also mentioned that SL option can improve the snow performance.



He also wrote it on his site: https://www.tire-reviews.com/Article/The-BEST-All-Terrain-Tire-for-2025.htm

"Falken told us they reduced snow performance slightly in the LT sizes of the AT4W to improve performance in other areas."

SL option (lighter tires) is probably the option I will go with ...

 

I’ve got the E rated tires and they for sure sacrificed ride quality compared to the AT3s. Do you think wet traction was impacted or does snow and wet not really relate much to one another?

 

I have no idea reason why I am also asking the community here knowing that we have both SL and LT users.

There is a slight difference between the 2 tires:
Overall diameter 31.7 vs 31.9
Overall width 10.5 vs 10.8
Trend depth 14/32 vs 17/32
no ply vs ply
and of course weight 7lbs difference between the SL and the LT

All of that make the LT tire more rigid with more velocity (probably better traction on dry and dirt) and the performance comment above may make sense for me from a physics principle stand point but I am over processing probably here [at least it is fun to read / learn more about AT tires]

https://www.falkentire.com/wildpeak/at4w#size-list

 

I care most about wet traction. And the ride quality. If I get neither I may ditch them.

 

Those guys look happy with them

 

As someone from MN who gets some nasty winter roads, that first video is a rather poor snow test. He has wet sticky snow thats already melted off the roadways. Any A/S or A/T is going to perform fine in that. A good winter review needs snow packed roads to really see how they perform.

I've lived in MN all my life so I'm no stranger to winter driving. We have had couple different 1 inch snowfall days which has resulted in side roads getting a good mix of packed spots, icy spots, and dry spots. So far I haven't been impressed with the 4W's. Not the worst I've had, but not great. Not much traction on these side roads. The other day I was heading home and the ass end kicked out a little on a bridge that I wouldn't have considered bad by any means. Ice is slippery for anything, but a good tire can still resist slipping to some degree.

Now, dry pavement and dirt they have been great. Everything from downpours to rock covered mountain trails to Utah desert trails. I have almost 25k miles on them and the tread wear has been awesome and expect them to easily last another 25k and more.

So far the best A/T I've had in the winter has been the original Duratrac. Even on my light weight and short wheel base Jeeps they performed really good in the winter. Worst was the BGF KO2. That shit was scary.

 

So AT4W Lt is good in the dry and wet but bad in ice / snow?

 

Correct, so far not impressed in the snow. We haven't had any significant snow amounts to really test them, but with the little bit we have seen I'm not impressed.

Wet was good in my experience, but I also know from my travels that wet roads in the north are a lot different than wet roads in the south. Our roads up here shed water a lot better than yours down south.