BFG 265 70 R17 Rugged Terrain vs All Terrain

The wet traction on the KO2 is terrible. Just thought I'd throw that in.

 

I have had both the BFG AT's and the BFG Rugged Terrain's on my 02 Tundra and I like the Rugged Terrains much better. The AT's were 6 ply (though it is hard to find 6 ply's anymore, most are 8 ply D rated), the Rugged Terrains were P rated tires. AT's have no tread wear warranty, Rugged Terrains have a 50k warranty. In all around use, the Rugged terrains are quieter, ride smoother, are better in both rain and snow, and not bad in mild mud. The AT's kind of sucked in the wet California snow and were no better in the muddy stuff. The only plus to the AT's was a stiffer ride so a bit less mush in the twisties. Yes, the AT's look more "Truck Like", but for day to day driving are not as good as the Rugged Terrains. Also, the last set of 4 Rugged Terrain's that I bought was about $750 mounted and balanced on the truck. Same store (America's Tires) wanted $1250 for the AT's, so almost double the price.

 

Thanks for the input. The tires raised the truck a little with no rubbing. I'm going to look into suspension now for another inch or 2...or 3.

 

I am confused. I thought 265/70/17 would fit on stock truck. Would the new KO2 not fit?

 

They fit fine, I love them. I'm just looking for maybe a little higher just because the truck looks good with a little lift. There is no rubbing or binding. I could leave these on stock height and suspensions and have no problems. I haven't heard much road noise but only got up to about 55 so far. These make the truck sit just a little higher and I like it but may get some suspension to go a little more although not required with these tires.