SL rated vs C rated tires

I'm just wondering if I go to SL rated tires to save weight if I'll regret it.

First let me give you a little background. Back in 1985 I purchased a Ford Ranger and went hunting. I had 2 sidewall flats on the stock tires which kind of cut into my in the field time. One from a rock and one from a piece of metal. The desert environment in Arizona can be a little unforgiving. Ever since then I've run nothing but BFGs with the "3 ply" sidewalls.

So my concern is when I air down and hit the trails I'm I going to learn to never ever run a "light" tire and stick to C and E rated only?

 

I would recommend sticking with LT tires for anyone that airs down while off road.

 

I used to have E rated tires before, but got tired of loosing mpg, having extra rotational weight, struggle to lift them if I need to change etc...

Now I use SL tires, took them to MOAB trails, Death Valley, Mojave Road, bunch of medium rock crawling, mud, sand, etc. The lowest I’ve done was 12PSI on SL and they never popped from the wheels.

I did have flats, but at the speeds I got them (high speed driving on rocks/desert) E rated tires would have similar damage I witnessed before.

It is also all about how much weight you have in the truck, I pack mininum and always 200-400lbs below max payload.

Now i get comfortable soft ride, great mpg and I can swap tires with one hand while having beer in another vs lifiting those heavy e-rated with both of my hands

Just my 0.2c.

 

I'm still a n(.)(.)b, so take this FWIW.

After many hours researching tires here on TW, I have drawn the following conclusions:

1. Many people run SL tires and are happy as Norilsk just posted.
2. Many people only run LT tires.
3. Many people say do NOT run "E" tires on a Taco, that they are too stiff for the amount of weight we can stuff on board a Taco. The happy medium seems to be to run a 'C' load rated tire. 'D' rated tires have also gotten thumbs up, but the 'C' rated tires seem to be the most recommended. One problem, though, is that 'C' rated tires are seemingly becoming harder to come by in most "popular" Taco sizes.
   
4. One thread I came across somewhere, or possibly from an internet chat with a tirerack.com representative, many (most?) tires that are "C / D / E" rated do not necessarily have 6 plies (C) or 8 plies (D) or 10 plies (E). That is, they may only be constructed with 2 plies, but those 2 plies are "6 ply equivalent" or "8 ply equivalent" or "10 ply equivalent".
5. E tires weigh more than D tires which weigh more than C tires which weigh more than SL tires.
6. XL tires seem to quack like an LT "C" rated tire: for example, Falken tire, lists their Wildpeak A/T3W XL tire as "6 ply equivalent" and it's tire weight is in the neighborhood of other LT "C" rated tires when I compared 245/75R16 tires.
7. LT "C" rated tires have a tire service description of 108 (in typical 245/75R16 or 265/70R16 sizes). Perhaps consider SL --or-- XL rated tires that have a service desription of 112 -- 116.
8. When comparing tires of the same size (e.g. 245/75R16 or 285/75R17 or whatever), consider how much "E" rated tires weigh, "D" rated tires weigh, "C" rated tires weigh, and compare to SL and XL tires.

In my particular case, I am trying to get gas mileage back, yet want to retain a decent off-road capability when I have to take my Taco down a 4x4 trail for a surveying job. The "C" rated 265/75R16 Duratracs I have on there now rub a bit in the front, so I am going back down to 30.5" dia tires. The Duratracs also weight about 45lb each. There are a few "C" rated tires in 265/70R16, and they tend to be expensive ($170+). Then I saw the "Skinny Tires" thread, which got me thinking about different widths, and I discovered 245/75R16 -- almost exactly the same diameter as 265/70R16. Supposedly "skinny tires" are more "aerodynamic" (though I think the difference is negligible -- less than an inch difference in width), but they ARE lighter. SL 245/75R16 tires could be had for 35lbs (ish) per tire -- a 10lb savings over the DTs I have on there now. Some posts suggest such a weight savings could be worth 1-2mpg. Over 40-60,000 miles, the savings in gas would pay for the tires, maybe more. But I worried about tire strength and durability of a 35lb SL tire (plus I have several hundred pounds in the back all the time). Then I discovered "XL" tires, and, in the case of the Falkens, "6 ply equivalent" or "6 ply rating". The Falken Wildpeak A/T3W in 245/75R16 XL has a service description of like 112 or 114, so it is rated to carry a bunch of weight more than an SL tire, and it weighed 38.6lbs each. So almost 7lbs lighter than the DT's, but with a decent load rating.

So, in summary, might I suggest you consider "XL" tires or "6 ply rating" or "8 ply rating" even if a truck tire is not listed as an 'LT' tire. Also consider the tire service description (e.g. 110, 111, 112, 114 etc), and the tire weight. Weight will be a primary driver in gas mileage, but also give an indication of just how much rubber or other materials it has, which should be an indication of additional (or less) strength.

I'd put this post in the FWIW category.

If I've posted outright fallacies, or highly disputed opinions or facts, I hope the reader will speak up and call me on it, so that I might correct this post. I'd hate to lead someone astray.

ETA: My first choice is a "C" rated LT tire. If it doesn't exist, or is too expensive in the tire size for which I am looking, I will consider a "D" rated tire, or look at XL tire options, taking into account tire weight and the 3 digit tire service description (e.g. 112, 114 etc).

 

Love my C Load Cooper ST Pro's in 255/75/17 Total Boss in the snow etc.

 

read the TIRERACK specs for an SL rated AT tires some are stouter and have more sidewall layers than others do, not al SL Rated tires are created eqaul

 

Well worded sir!

 

Like I said I've been a firm believer of C and E rated tires for longer than I care to admit, but the Wrangler UltraTerrains have gotten my attention. I like that they weigh only 40 pounds but last time I had Wranglers was 1985 and that didn't turn out well.
https://www.discounttiredirect.com/buy-tires/goodyear-wrangler-ultraterrain-at/p/44188

 

Thank you. I try.

(Many times I use too many words, but I try to be accurate.)

 

Could you provide a link to this?

 

you have to read in the tires description itself on how many belts and what type of casing, it doesn't show up in SPECS. found this tho should help https://www.tirebuyer.com/education/how-to-read-off-road-tire-sidewalls

 

I wouldn't even run a C rated tire offroad but that's me...I know some people do and swear by them but every flat tire I've seen on the trail has been a C rated one. Only once saw an E rated tire go flat, and it was my own of course. But in 3+ years that's the one and only offroad flat I've ever had running E rated tires.

Wouldn't even dream of doing anything rated less than a C...that's just asking for flats

 

LT's for me......sounds like your driving demands them also.....

My most recent fuel stop reflected 20 mpg....only 65 mph tops

No freeway or 4x4 driving...driving sensible....

 

Same here! I have 265/75R16 E rated 10 ply and when I am driving SoCal freeways to work and back I average about 21 MPG. Would going to an SL tire make a huge difference on MPG? IDk as I have not tried it.

 

Anybody run the General Grabber AT2’s in 265/70 16 with the SL rating? I don’t think I need Lt tires for anything. I’ve honestly had no issues with the stock Goodyear’s but want more aggressive look next time.

 

This:^^^

I'm will be carrying a camper soon and wanted fresh rubber. I had to dig into tire specifics to make sure I had the correct load. What I learned was exactly what Steve wrote. Ply is just a rating in reference to when they actually made tires out of cotton and used multiple layers. These days the layer difference between a C rated and E rated may be just one layer.

Also, it may state that it is an SL tires but when you dive into the numbers it more closely represents a C rated tire. For example the Duratracs in this size are labeled as a SL tire but the specs put it as a C rated. I went from Wild Peaks AT3 at 265 to a 255 "skinny" and lost 6lbs per tire and kept the same load index. With my truck fully loaded with camper I still have over 5,000lbs to max. Obviously for a Tacoma that would be dumb. An E rated would give me about 1600 more lbs to max. Not worth it when my camper is only on for extended weekends and some summer trips.

I'm carrying a good puncture kit and compressor for the regular sharp rock or screw pick up. I don't think I'll be needing to worry about sidewall damage with the roads I'll be sticking too. Airing down a "skinny" tire is a different conversation too.

Pros and Cons to all of this. I'm by no means an expert, just good at the Google.






Looking at the load range at 115 with max tire pressure at 51lbs it ranks it at a C rated. Not really 6 ply rubber or 4 for that matter.






Load Index:






Just learned this too from Goodyear. I don't think my Tacoma will ever be running like a dually.

 

Yea, I think as others have already mentioned, tire technology/manufacturing has changed to the point where 95% of people should run tires that are rated for their specific truck. Tacoma's don't need LT "rated" tires. But to each their own!