As I said in a previous thread I put up, I am nearly due to buy new tyres for the Collie. I am towing a 2.7t van a lot but mainly on the black stuff. I do go on sandy roads, gravel roads and have even had to go on slightly muddy roads HOWEVER not off road and probably never will. 

I do take the Collie semi off road though looking down sandy tracks/roads, gravel roads, slightly muddy roads and sometimes roads that cross a creek that I have had to go through about two inches of water so nothing serious. I am not interested in serious off road. I got the 4x4 only for if I needed to get out of trouble. I want something that will grip on wet black stuff and grip in semi off road stuff. So,

I am asking you knowledgeable people what tyres you have on your tug and why? Do you tow a CV?

Do you have any suggestions what I should use given the info above? I am not really interested in Cooper sorry. I have them now and never over impressed. 

For the use you envisage I would stay with a good quality, high load capacity road tyre.
If it has a weakness, it would be that it may chip if used at higher speeds on some (but not all) gravel roads. That chipping is due to the compound which will be a tad harder than an AT tyre, but it will last longer and use less fuel than an AT tyre when on the bitumen.

ps... to answer your "cred" question, .....I choose to use a highway tyre on our motorhome that spends lots of time off the black top and I choose Michelin for reasons that I will post later. We tow a 2T boat (including off the bitumen) from time to time.

ps 2 .. You specifically mentioned sand. The best tread for sand in NONE. Bald tyres are the choice for sand, highway pattern 2nd choice, AT 3rd choice, and mud terrain last choice. 

No tread pattern offers any significant benefit in muddy conditions except a dedicated mud terrain tyre which is generally the worst choice for all other applications, despite the gung ho attraction that typically goes with that choice of tyre.

Cheers,

Peter

We have BFG 245/70R16, Speed S, Load 113 on our D-Max. Before we purchased the tyres we did a 4WD course in sand and also in the bush. Most of the other vehicles had BFG's. After the course we went on a tag along 4WD trip through the bush, once again most of the vehicles had BFG's. The tyres have an 8 ply rating giving good tread depth and a fairly thick sidewall. We purchased them after seeing how they performed on other vehicles. Since then we have been very happy with them. Most of our driving is as you have described, a few times we have let them down and driven along the beach between Buffalo and Belvedere beaches. We have found they perform well on dirt and the blacktop. They are noisier than normal road tyres, but that is to be expected

Have been using Dunlop Grandtek AT22 since 2013 which were fitted to my 200 series cruiser when purchased new.

They are quiet, fantastic in the wet, love sand, gravel and generally a great allrounder.

The down side is the low k`s - generally; I get around 40000 - 50000; which I agree is quite low and they are around $400 each.

However, I love the feel, quietness and safety aspects more than the long k`s of harder tyres which will give more k`s.

Regards.

Hetho.

We run Bridgestone AT/697,no complaints.

When we travel with a group of friends,it is a mix of Goodrich or Bridgestone tyres.

Hetho wrote:

---

Have been using Dunlop Grandtek AT22 since 2013 which were fitted to my 200 series cruiser when purchased new.

They are quiet, fantastic in the wet, love sand, gravel and generally a great allrounder.

The down side is the low k`s - generally; I get around 40000 - 50000; which I agree is quite low and they are around $400 each.

However, I love the feel, quietness and safety aspects more than the long k`s of harder tyres which will give more k`s.

Regards.

Hetho.

 

 

 

---

 I am of the same view.

My 200 came with these and I find them ideal forr how I use my vehicle.

I tow a tandem axle van and have similar use patterns to the op..Doug.

I am on my second set but I got over 70,000 out of my first set. The manager of the tyre company where I got my second set suggested I could have got a few more thousand ks from them but I replaced them due to my vehicle going to the RTA for an GVM upgrade inspection and I didnt want to have any dramas with an over pedantic inspector.

Unless I decide to use my vehicle under different circumstances I will stick with the Dunlops.

We always hear about what tyres cost and how many kilometres they lasted.
There is another factor that is at least as important that determines the cost per km of the tyres we use.

In Europe, all passenger car tyres are required to display a rating sticker when sold at retail. That sticker rates the relative the noise level of the tyre, the relative grip of the tyre in the wet. and its relative fuel consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre_labelRolling resistance is the main key factor in measuring the energy efficiency of a tyre and has direct influence on the fuel consumption of a vehicle. A set of tyres of the green class "A" compared to a "G" class can reduce fuel consumption by 9%[2] of a passenger car; even more for trucks.

To put that into context, 9% on top of a possible 15L/100km (for instance) is an extra 1.3L/100km - not much? At $1.50 per litre and 25,000km per year that adds up to almost $500 per year or maybe $1,500 over the life of the tyres. Even 1/3rd of that amount makes that cheap tyre pretty expensive by the time you wear it out.

I got trapped in Europe once and bought a pair of cheap Russian tyres that actually cost be 20% extra fuel consumption. I did not have a lot of experience with the vehicle and thought that fuel consumption was "normal". If I had been smarter in hindsight I would have dumped those 2 tyres very quickly. I learned later when I wore them out and replaced them what they had actually cost.

I then took some time to look carefully at those labels on the tyres and I quickly discovered that I could not tell what was a good tyre (from a fuel consumption point of view) and what was a bad tyre, by simply looking at them.

Low rolling resistance is the haulmark of just a few brands. I buy Michelin in Australia. I think their rolling resistance is lower than most. They are expensive to purchase, but that is only part of the cost.

Low rolling resistance is also the best way to keep a tyre cool. That leads to longer life (assuming the compounds are the same).

Cheers,

Peter

Khumo AT51.

LT construction. Long tread life. Good compromise tread design for all surfaces. Quiet on blacktop. Good price. 

Have had a few sets now and would buy again without hesitation - "when you're on a good thing ...."!

Spot on Peter :]

miroku12g wrote:

---

Spot on Peter :]

---

 I worked along side a mechanical engineer many years ago while in my trade and we were responsible for the purchase of a large fleet of both vehicles and equipment.

His research had shown that many vehicles operated at their optimum with OEM equipment and our results from tests proved that time after time. We had a few employees that insisted that the 4wd vehicles we were using would operate better under set conditions with aftermarket wheels and tyres.

The operating conditions of those vehicles were basically very similar to how my own vehicle operates today and those tests still ring true for me (at least) today. A simple change of tyre type had a marked affect in most cases for the worse with fuel economy and to a lesser extent, driveability with regard to noise on highway and performance on the lesser scale of what we might call off road use.

My decision to continue to use OEM tyres as the replacement brand is a result of my findings today as well as what I learned from the mechanical engineer.

I might add that the engineer I was working with was European and new to our country and where he was a bit lacking in Aussie outback operation with vehicles he was certainly knowledgeable with vehicle operation and related costs. You may ask why a lame brain like me was assigned as his assistant....well our company wanted someone who would help the new man understand  basics of operating vehicles in more remote areas of our country.

Vehicle manufacturers go all out to make their product work as it should and do it economically and tyre selection is a major factor so unless a 4wd is being used in extreme conditions for the majority of its use thos big lumpy bumpy tyres are really only for show.

Many owners choose to have different sets for multiple uses.

I recall that on one of these forums a few years ago there was a topic on 200 series fuel consumption and there was a member who suggested my figures were not true ( probably not as polite as that) as he could not achieve what I had stated. I always wonder what combination of tyres and wheels he had, being if all other things were equal.

Gday...

I understand and can accept what you say Dickodownunder.

However, using a LC 200 Series as an example. Surely, if you were going to load it to close to its GVM and tow a 2500Kg+ van you would not want to continue using the OEM tyres.

Firstly they are very much road pattern and of passenger construction.

One should chose tyres that meet the usage that the vehicle is being subjected to - within (or exceeding) the "specs" stated on the placards.

Jest sayin' 

Cheers - John

rockylizard wrote:

---

Gday...

I understand and can accept what you say Dickodownunder.

However, using a LC 200 Series as an example. Surely, if you were going to load it to close to its GVM and tow a 2500Kg+ van you would not want to continue using the OEM tyres.

Firstly they are very much road pattern and of passenger construction.

One should chose tyres that meet the usage that the vehicle is being subjected to - within (or exceeding) the "specs" stated on the placards.

Jest sayin' 

Cheers - John

---

 Hi John,

I cannot see the point of your statement above.

"One" in my case has chosen tyres that meet the usage etc.etc.etc.

dunlop-grandtrek-at22

This tyre complies in all aspects of what I want for my vehicle and the way I use it.

285/65 R17  116H is what my vehicle was fitted with from new and is fitted with now on its second set.

With an allowable GVM of 3800kg and an actual GVM of 3500kg fully loaded then this tyre is well within specifications and LEGAL From the specifications of the tyre and my vehicle is 1.5 tonnes UNDER the maximum tyre load allowable. If I did not have a GVM upgrade and loaded accordingly then the tyre specification would be over the maximum load allowable by 1.7 tonnes.

As you are suggesting that the choice of remaining with the OEM tyres is incorrect then maybe you better indicate to all of us, your theory as to WHY??

Oh and by the way, make sure you read all the information in the link provided and ensure if you do get to the actual specifications of the tyre, that you enter the CORRECT tyre size as I have stated above in the columns on the right hand side of the publication.

As I said in another post somewhere...lumpy bumpy tyres are not for me.