New Falken Wildpeak AT4W ????

As much as I love Nitto Ridge Grappler 265/75/16 116T's... the weight of this 265/75/16 116T is compelling (45 lbs. vs 49 lbs., unsprung weight). That sounds great for an everyday 4-season, 60K tire!

However... AT4 255/85/16 C's might be my next 5-wheel set. For offroad use: additional sidewall plies and tread depth justify 13 lbs per wheel.

 

I learned too that once you go below the 35 psi the drop in load rating is not linear, like you can't just go 40-35 psi is x amount of load and use that same number for 35-30 psi I don't think. Can't wait to be back on C load for the extra comfort and I did notice too on tiresize.com the 10% overage factored in so judging by that number I should be running even lower psi since it went from 2149 to 1964 lbs. I may wear the tire out faster by running below the "recommended minimum pressure" but I'm not too worried as I should be getting the AT4W soon to swap these out.

Originally I was thinking the C load should be cheaper and lighter as well but boy was I wrong.

https://www.falkentire.com/wildpeak/at4w
https://www.falkentire.com/wildpeak/at3w

The new AT4W 315/70R17 in C load comes in at 75.7 lbs whereas the old AT3W E load comes in at 72.8 so I'm actually going to a heavier tire but 6 ply instead of 10 which sort of sucks, tread depth is same. 0.1" more diameter I suppose but the extra 0.4" width may explain it although I am kind of concerned about that because I'm currently not rubbing at full stuff however that increase may change things. I may have to reconsider to 35x11.5R17LT which is the only other C load they offer in a 35 for the AT4W.

 

What's going on with the sidewall lugs in the 1 to 2 o'clock area?

 

Looks like they left it blank to have space for tire info printed on there.

 

I’m just noticing, and very impressed, that the siping is even in the side lugs. Maybe the AT3Ws also had that but I never noticed it. I bet these tires are beasts when they’re aired down and those side lugs are making contact with the ground.

 

Oof. Can’t unsee that now.

 

I've seen pictures of this tire where that isn't there that's why I'm confused lol

 

Anyone that has experience with the at3s, how road noise and traction in the rain? I got the MT01s in 255/85r16s because mud tires were the only option other than the expensive st maxxs. The MTs have the usual mud tire howl on the high way and it can't find grip to save its life in wet conditions. If the at4ws have better traction in the rain and are quieter, I might sell the MTs and get the AT4W in the 255/85r16 size.

 

My AT3Ws were super quiet. I didn’t have a highway tire to compare back to back but I didn’t feel like I had more road/tire noise than any other typical vehicle. Wet traction was great for me. Again, I didn’t have a good back to back comparison but seemed as good as the all season tires on our other cars.

 

Yeah, they don’t look like that on Falkens site. I’m gonna be pretty bummed if mine show up like that.

 

Falken at3 in a 265-70-17 here. I’m at like 15% thread left. These tires were quiet until now. Even now, they just make a little hum at highway speeds, but not as bad at mt tires.

as far as rain grip? I will try to light up my tires in the rain, not flooring it, but taking off from the lights aggressively….and it doesn’t spin. Great tires for the wet conditions.

 

I needed some new tires and wet performance is important to me. I was set on AT3W’s until the AT4W’s came out.

This review was helpful for the AT3Ws. https://tiredriver.com/falken-wildpeak-at3w-review/#So_Whats_left_to_say

In the comments, the reviewer mentioned testing the AT4Ws. I asked if he had any insight in the wet performance and he was not impressed.

I’d rather go with something that I know was good rather than be a guinea pig. I ended up getting AT3Ws and will let more people review the AT4Ws before changing tires again.

Here are my new 275/70R17 AT3Ws.

 

Maybe that batch of cookies got taken out of the mold too early? Not a tire for the OCD.

 

Figured I'd post my preliminary findings on the 255/85R16's I just picked up from the warehouse today. I plan to take some more apples to apples measurements and comparisons between these and my Geolandar G003's but I can share at least some details now.

• They weigh 58.2lbs on my bathroom scale so the reported weight is correct.
• Unmounted, the diameter comes out to 32.75" (specs online state 33.1 mounted, tire has 33.0 printed on it)
• Unmounted, overall width = 9.3" (specs online state 10.3, tire has 10.0 printed on it)
• Unmounted, tread width = 7.88"
• [edit]Mounted, installed on my DCLB with skids they measure an even 32" diameter
• This size DOES have the "DURASPEC" sidewall
• No ugly gap in the sidewall likes like OP's pic of his 265's
• Like previously pictured Falken & Wildpeak branding has different styles on each side of the tire. One sticks out, is more chunky and substantial while the other is more flush with the sidewall and more subdued. I don't see any markings or note anywhere but I assume they're symmetric so you pick which side you want out.
• Mine were made in Thailand

No big surprises here, I suppose. I should reserve judgement until they're mounted and I can put some miles on them but I'd be lying if I didn't say I wished they were a little larger. I know mounting them will change the dimensions some but I'm more talking about tread width. So far they're measuring out to be identical to my G003's which as most know are on the skinny side for this size. I had been hoping the AT4W's would be on the fatter side. We'll just have to see what they look like and measure out to be once mounted on my 7.5" wide wheels.

 

Man that answers so many questions I had. Thanks for taking the time to write that up. Cant wait to see them on the truck. Im also curious to hear what the diameter actually is once they’re mounted.

 

Surprised at that weight. That’s on par with my E load 255/85r16 M55 which measure big and are about as thick and tough a tire as you will ever find.

 

Are all 4 tires like that ? I wonder if the other side of the tire is the same. Maybe you could have it mounted flipped on the rim.

 

These things feel beefy for sure. But yeah, the weight is still a bit of a mystery. I think their tread is slightly deeper than some other comparable which would add weight. The raised lettering even adds weight. But they still feel like a tough tire.

My G003 look beefy as hell but I’ll be interested to see them again once dismounted and compare them. Hard to imagine how they could be so much lighter than the AT4W.

 

PLEASE make a 255/80/17 AT4W in C-Rated! I will throw my money at you.

 

I'm disappointed that they're making a 255/85/16 in C-load but not a 255/80/17. Maybe I'm missing something.