BF Goodrich AT KO2 vs. Hankook Dynapro

I'm seriously considering getting new tires for my 2014 DCSB and have narrowed the field to these two tires. I'm curious to get any feedback from anyone that I can. I like the KO's but they're fairly new to the market. The Hankooks seem to have a pretty decent track record from what I can tell. I'm also thinking about bumping up a size to the 265/75R16 and am curious to know if that will fit my stock truck without rubbing anything. I appreciate any responses, thanks!

 

Im running the Hankooks 265/70r17
I had no problems rubbing before my lift.20k so far..I really like them theyre great in the snow...No problems offroad.. Im real happy with them.

 

I've had both. First the original KO's now the Hankooks. I found both pretty comparable in performance and wear. I say you'll be happy with either. That size will also fit without a lift.

 

keep in mind the KO2's are only found in the VERY heavy load range E.... a P265/75R16 in the hankook dynapro rf 10 weighs 39.2 lbs.... thats almost 14 pounds lighter per tire vs the KO2's at 53 lbs.

I love my hankook's they have been doing really well.

 

Haven't run Hankooks. I'm sure they're excellent. But I like my KO's so much that I can't imagine running anything else. I'm in TX, so not much snow. But they are fantastic in the little bit that we get. And they are great in mud. I've got 10K on them and they barely show any wear.

 

get the original KO's on ice and you wish you had heat cycled hard rubber slicks cus they would be better. No idea about the KO2's

 

I'm never buying Hankook ATm's again

 

why???

 

They suck in our wet slushy winter snow , the tread blocks pack and won't clear , my Hankook MTs were better

 

Never heard of anyone having that problem here in the Chicagoland area, and their pretty popular around here, (I know a lot of people that run them) plus they last a long time, I know people that put 70k on them with tread left before replacing.

 

I had the Dynapro MTs on my FZJ80. Can't say how they would perform on the much lighter Tacoma but I really liked the tires. Sidewalls were strong enough to drive without tire stems (had some stem failures). I have no experience with the ATs.
On my Tacoma, I am running the Toyo ATIIs. Not as aggressive and definitely lighter, I have zero performance complaints on these ATs.

 

Although the KO2's are technically new, the main changes they made were reinforcing the sidewall and adding some tread to part of the sidewall. Basically they're designed to have improved traction with a stronger sidewall. Wear life is still wicked long. The KO's have been around for like 15 years or something so I can't see you going wrong with the KO2's. My dad loves his.

 

I run the load range E KO’s and love them. They are a bit heavy and stiff, but I don’t mind it riding like a truck, and I like the extra protection of the 3 ply sidewall and 10 ply base. I have used the original KO's in C and E load ranges on four different light trucks and suv's, and my dad has had them on two diesels and I am always impressed with the durability, traction, and longevity in many different conditions. The Hankooks get good reviews and would likely give a softer ride. I have never used them but I am guessing they are fine tires. When these wear out I will likely try the new KO2's, but that will be a while as they only have about 12k on them.

 

Not all snow is the same , they work fine on dry snow

 

Our snow in denver is pretty dry and also it is here then gone

 

Had the BFG KO's and they performed well both on and off the road. I'm sure the newer KO2's will be better.

 

I was in the exact same situation 3 months ago. Purchased a 2015 and did not like the Dunlops. I narrowed it down to KO2's and Dynapro's. I mainly use the 4x4 option on my truck when hunting. I ended up purchasing the Dynapro's and am very satisfied. They perform well, have a good warranty, road noise is decent and the final purchase price was 350 less than the KO2's.

 

actually snow tires are designed to pack. Snow on snow is sticks better than rubber on snow. This is why MTs are not normally rated for snow. Look at "snow" tires and you will notice the voids are smaller.

 

That doesn't work so great on slushy wet snow , which is why I said they don't work well in our wet coastal snow

Dry snow is no problem

 

Is there a noticeable difference in mpg because of the weight difference? Or noticeable difference in mpg between AT and MT?