| Pages:
1
2 |
comitan
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4177
Registered: 3-27-2004
Location: La Paz
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
Tires, Tires I have a problem I have 6.5" rims on my pickup the tire rack say maximum 245/75/16 but I would like to put 265's I'm talking about load
rating E
The reason I want to change is I would increase load rating for a heavy camper.
Strive For The Ideal, But Deal With What\'s Real.
Every day is a new day, better than the day before.(from some song)
Lord, Keep your arm around my shoulder and your hand over my mouth.
“The sincere pursuit of truth requires you to entertain the possibility that everything you believe to be true may in fact be false”
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65410
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by TW
I'm also looking at new tires for my 04 Tacoma. I'm debating as to the 265 vs the 285. I have the lift installed already but if I use the stock rims I
need spacers for the front which I have on hand. Also a 285 won't fit in the spare tire slot without modifications. Cost is also a consideration. I
can get 5 of DKs Hankook tires for the price of 4 Grabbers and 6 (2nd spare) for almost the price of the BFGs. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
|
There is a TON of info at http://www.TacomaWorld.com it is about 10 times more active than Baja Nomad's forums!
|
|
|
jaymtb
Junior Nomad
Posts: 93
Registered: 3-30-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
General AT 2 Tires
Hi,
I have been using this tire in LT for several years, both in
27x8.5 x14 for 2wd tacoma and 16" size for 4wd taco with good results in both Colorado snow& ice, off-road, and in Baja and Sinaloa back
roads. No problems w/ rock cuts, punctures, uneven wear, or noise on hard surfaces. The are a bit firmer riding than P rated tires, but they hold
up.
They also give good wear, traction, dry road handling, and seem to resist hydro planing in rain well. They are available at a good price point at
discount and online suppliers.
Cheers,
Jay
|
|
|
Hook
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9011
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
Surprised no one has mentioned simply going to the tirerack.com site and looking at the reviews. Appears there are 106 of them. Most all of them glowing. I could save about 200.00 on a set of four, compared to my Michelin LTX-MS2 tires. That's something to
think about................as TW says, like a free tire. I should EVENTUALLY replace my spare. 
[Edited on 12-10-2011 by Hook]
|
|
|
John M
Super Nomad
Posts: 1924
Registered: 9-3-2003
Location: California High Desert
Member Is Offline
|
|
Opinions are pretty high on these tires
I went through many of the reviews from Tire Rack that were posted on their website. Although a number of the vehicles with these tires are full size
pickups, and larger, like crew cabs the ratings were predominatly very good. I didn't see any comments relating to very soft sand, silt, and one or
two said ok on beach sand. None that I saw posted spoke about lowering air pressure so I took that to mean most evaluations were at street pressure.
Didn't seem to be many of the more serious "off-road" reports there. That is why I asked here on the Baja Board.
Pricewise I only compared Tire Rack advertised prices for the size tire I'd use. My current tires are BFG KO 265-75-16 listed for $232 each/$926 for
four.
General Grabber A2 - 265-75-16 for $149 each/$596 for four.
I guess Tire Rack excludes mounting & balancing which would be the same regardless which brand.
Quite a price difference although I paid substantially less at Discount Tire for my last set of BFGs a couple of years ago.
Still like to see & hear some Baja Proven stories on the Grabbers.
John M
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65410
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by John M
I went through many of the reviews from Tire Rack that were posted on their website. Although a number of the vehicles with these tires are full size
pickups, and larger, like crew cabs the ratings were predominatly very good. I didn't see any comments relating to very soft sand, silt, and one or
two said ok on beach sand. None that I saw posted spoke about lowering air pressure so I took that to mean most evaluations were at street pressure.
Didn't seem to be many of the more serious "off-road" reports there. That is why I asked here on the Baja Board.
Pricewise I only compared Tire Rack advertised prices for the size tire I'd use. My current tires are BFG KO 265-75-16 listed for $232 each/$926 for
four.
General Grabber A2 - 265-75-16 for $149 each/$596 for four.
I guess Tire Rack excludes mounting & balancing which would be the same regardless which brand.
Quite a price difference although I paid substantially less at Discount Tire for my last set of BFGs a couple of years ago.
Still like to see & hear some Baja Proven stories on the Grabbers.
John M |
John, not sure if you looked yet, but the reviews of the AT2 are good on Tacoma World, as well... (as are the reviews of the ATm I now have)... The
tread pattern of the Genera AT2 is very close to the All Terrain TA BFGs, so if that tread worked for you, then should be good.
I liked the self cleaning ability of the Dynapros... had to be the best of any tire I had... perhaps why they work so well in mud and snow?
[Edited on 12-12-2011 by David K]
|
|
|
bonanza bucko
Senior Nomad
Posts: 587
Registered: 8-31-2003
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Airport Bum
|
|
I am on my fifth set of BFG TAs...three on my Toyota Tundra and two now on my F150. I love them. I trust them...3 ply side walls the biggest
reason....never had one problem on THAT ROAD south of Puertecitos where other tires got chewed up.
But!! My F150 has the normal...and historic...Ford trouble with the truth about such stuff as gas mileage. The sticker on my 2010 F150 advertised
"18 MPG road and 14 MPG city." I am a numbers freak and I don't trust the Ford built in calculator which is always about 2 MPG high...so I calculate
my mileage. In 49K miles since new my F150 has gotten 13.6 MPG!!
Now...is that due to Ford fibbing?... I think it is. But maybe...just maybe..part of it may be due to the BFG TAs which are not included in Ford's
"suggested" tires for the truck.
What do you think?
BB:-)
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
18 hwy and 14 city is a pretty standard rating for a full size truck. My 91 chevy 4x4 was listed at 13 and 17. My 04 GMC Z71 was listed at 14 and 18
as your Ford was. City driving was more in the 12 to 13 range but hwy was more in the 15-16 range. However that was driving mostly 75mph a lot. Your
speed on the hwy has a lot to do with it as does the tire pressure. My 07 Tacoma work gets 21-22 hwy with the 4L V6 as does my 04 Tacoma with the 3.4L
V6. Keep your hwy speed below 60 and that Ford will probably get 18mpg hwy.
|
|
|
J.P.
Super Nomad
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
I have followed those Ford test trucks across Arizona I 40 They are virtual rolling labratory's I really doubt if a individual could duplicate the
driving situtaions they are able to create
[Edited on 12-12-2011 by J.P.]
|
|
|
Hook
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9011
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
I'm also not sure I would call some of the recently produced F-150s a full sized truck. In the mid-late 90s, they moved away from the same box and
chassis size as the 250s and 350s.
Now, they SEEM to have gotten bigger again with the craze for four doors and a short, short bed.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Speed
| Quote: | Originally posted by TW
18 hwy and 14 city is a pretty standard rating for a full size truck. My 91 chevy 4x4 was listed at 13 and 17. My 04 GMC Z71 was listed at 14 and 18
as your Ford was. City driving was more in the 12 to 13 range but hwy was more in the 15-16 range. However that was driving mostly 75mph a lot. Your
speed on the hwy has a lot to do with it as does the tire pressure. My 07 Tacoma work gets 21-22 hwy with the 4L V6 as does my 04 Tacoma with the 3.4L
V6. Keep your hwy speed below 60 and that Ford will probably get 18mpg hwy. |
I couldn't believe the mileage difference, between doing 50-55 and 70-80... 21-23 mpg and 15-16 respectively .. 86 Bronco , V8 302 .. I just putt
along ... f'em I'm old ... and stay in the right lane..
Thanks to all .... one of the better benefits of reading BN's... IMHO
[Edited on 12-12-2011 by wessongroup]
[Edited on 12-12-2011 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65410
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by TW
My 07 Tacoma work gets 21-22 hwy with the 4L V6 as does my 04 Tacoma with the 3.4L V6. Keep your hwy speed below 60 and that Ford will probably get
18mpg hwy. |
I wish I know how you got that much? Secret gas, flat driving? In my area, all three of my Tacomas all got about the same... 16 mpg avearge daily
driving (15-19 range). I have the 4.0 V-6 automatic 4 door 4WD, last two... and even Toyota gave it a mileage rating of 16 mpg city/ 20 mpg hwy. Nice
that you exceeded the factory figures.
My 2001 was a 2 door extra cab with the 3.4 V-6, but it also was 16-17 mpg for me... At least with the bigger 2nd generation trucks and bigger engine,
the mileage didn't go down!
|
|
|
bonanza bucko
Senior Nomad
Posts: 587
Registered: 8-31-2003
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Airport Bum
|
|
I had a new Ford Explorer several years ago with the then new on board computer system. We took it on a trip to North Dakota from San Diego. I
believed the computer's mileage and range data because I didn't know any better. We passed a sign in ND that said "next gas 130 miles." My range
computer said I had 160 in the tank. We barely made it...fumes.
So for the rest of our trip....about 5000 miles to Illiniois, Wisconsin, Missouri etc and all the way home I kept a log of miles driven and gas
consumed. The actual data were about 14 MPG but the computer reported about 17....20% error. So when I got home I went to the dealer about that. He
said. "It's an average MPG." I said, "How's 5000 miles with a 20% error?" We went round and round and after many, many phone calls I finally go a
woman in Ford in Detroit HQ who called me say the following, (paraphrased)..."We know it's wrong and we are not going to fix it...this is the last
contact you will have with Ford Motor Company about this."
So I fired Ford after about 20 years of customer hood. I bought Toyota Tundras and loved them until Toyota decided to try to emulate a Dodge Ram 2500
and then to make the bigger truck weigh the same as the old one with lotsa plastic and thin sheet metal. I bought a 2010 F150 which is a very fine
machine indeed!....it performs on THAT ROAD just as well or better than the Tundra did and that is saying something.
But the F150 has the same Ford Fib in the onboard computer. I just know about it now.
Still peees me off!
BB
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 20374
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bonanza bucko
I had a new Ford Explorer several years ago with the then new on board computer system. We took it on a trip to North Dakota from San Diego. I
believed the computer's mileage and range data because I didn't know any better. We passed a sign in ND that said "next gas 130 miles." My range
computer said I had 160 in the tank. We barely made it...fumes.
So for the rest of our trip....about 5000 miles to Illiniois, Wisconsin, Missouri etc and all the way home I kept a log of miles driven and gas
consumed. The actual data were about 14 MPG but the computer reported about 17....20% error. So when I got home I went to the dealer about that. He
said. "It's an average MPG." I said, "How's 5000 miles with a 20% error?" We went round and round and after many, many phone calls I finally go a
woman in Ford in Detroit HQ who called me say the following, (paraphrased)..."We know it's wrong and we are not going to fix it...this is the last
contact you will have with Ford Motor Company about this."
So I fired Ford after about 20 years of customer hood. I bought Toyota Tundras and loved them until Toyota decided to try to emulate a Dodge Ram 2500
and then to make the bigger truck weigh the same as the old one with lotsa plastic and thin sheet metal. I bought a 2010 F150 which is a very fine
machine indeed!....it performs on THAT ROAD just as well or better than the Tundra did and that is saying something.
But the F150 has the same Ford Fib in the onboard computer. I just know about it now.
Still peees me off!
BB |
i am not sure your complaint is fair. your method of measuring fuel consumed is via pump reading at point of purchase. your cars' trip computer
essentially measures fuel consumed by measuring length of time fuel injector is open and assuming a constant fuel pressure. they are 2 very different
methods of measuring fuel consumed, and one shouldn't be surprised by 20% discrepancy, and perhaps 20% difference is very good result. any engineers
want to opine?
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65410
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
If you top your tank, drive 200 miles then fill it again... and put 10 gallons in, you just got 20 MPG. (period)... The onboard computer can tell you
the sky is green and sea levels are rising... but the FACTS are right in your face when you pay for 10 gallons after driving 200 miles.
Bucko, there are a lot of guys on the Tacoma forum aspousing some pretty fantastic mileage numbers... and they too are using on board computers! It
seems that the public education system is so busy showing algore's global warming movie to scare kids, they didn't have time to teach basic
division!!! 
|
|
|
Ken Cooke
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8970
Registered: 2-9-2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pole Line Road postponed due to injury
|
|
some reviews from JeepForum.com
link: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f211/general-grabber-at2-7702...
Price: $160.00
Pros: Very aggressive tread pattern. Offroad abilities are great. Very quiet going down the highway, and not just for an agressive tire. These are
quiet for any tire!!
Cons: Feel unstable driving on road right away... only have them a short while so not sure if that will improve.
Recommended? Yes
Comments: I really am happy with these tires. They look great, and perform amazing offroad. They are very quiet going down the highway, i can hardly
hear them at all. They do seem to be unstable driving on road tho. It almost like u can feel the tread shifting slightly so it makes the jeep wobble
almost. This "wobble" is not that bad tho, and no its not anything like death wobble.
Overall they are a great tire and given the chance i would still purchase these tmrw if i needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $140.00
Pros: aggressive tread. great price
Cons: none noticed
Recommended? Yes
Comments: I got 5 of these in 31" for 140 installed with nitro. They are great for basic AT driving. Since this is my daily driver, they are also good
on the highway. They get bogged down in heavy mud, but are good if you aren't going deep mudding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $750.00
Pros: A cheaper alternative to BFG's, these tires are great! These have great grip for snow and ice, are fun to slide in rain, and not too bad in mud
if you gas it to clean the treads.
Cons: 255/70/16's took a full week to get shipped to OH from the factory in CA
Recommended? Yes
Comments: I got them a month ago, and I haven't had any problems with them yet. They always seem to have solid grip and road noise isn't very bad for
an AT tire. In mud and soft ground i would just say to make sure to throttle enough to clean them out. I would definitely recommend these over a BFG
All Terrain T/A because my tire installer wanted 160 more than the grabbers for nearly the same tire in my opinion. Good luck in your tire decision
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $148.00
Pros: 60K Milage Warrenty Lower road noise than BFGs Supposed to be better in snow
Cons: none yet
Recommended? Yes
Comments: These tires were at the right price for me, and the 60K warranty was a big plus because my XJ is also my DD. I ordered the tires online from
tirerack, they had the best price. They are a little quieter than my old BFG ATs and other reviews said they performed well in snow. It hasn't snowed
here yet so I will update later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $155.00
Pros: great looking tire
Cons: none so far
Recommended? Yes
Comments: just put the tires on my GC. they are a great looking AT tire and the price is very nice compared to other similar tires.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $130.00
Pros: great tread pattern, low price, nice quality
Cons: None
Recommended? Yes
Comments: It seems these tires are just like BFG A/T's.
The only thing was that the tread was a bit un-true, so balancing was near impossible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $831.00
Pros: Nice aggressive tread - good traction off road - quiet ride on road
Cons: Heavier than stock - gas mileage went down to 17.5 mpg
Recommended? Yes
Comments: I bought a set of General Grabber AT2, 285-75-16 from Big 10. Went to 16's from my original 17's. Paired the tires with a set of Mamba
M-5's. The tires have a nice aggressive tread pattern for an all terrain tire. Price for purchase, installation of new wheels and tires, life-time
rotation and balance, and installing Jeep valve-stems was $831 out the door. I have had the tires for two weeks now and have driven them about 500
miles. The biggest difference between these and stock are the ride on the road. They are not a noisy tire at all. They provide a much more comfortable
ride than the stock tires did. Off the pavement they performed well for what I wanted them for. I do not climb rocks but once in awhile do come across
some nasty mud looking for the right fishing spot. The tires handled mud just fine. The one thing I was the most pleased with was an area where we
fish has a hill that is about 45 degrees and rather high (part of the dam). The stock tires would spin so I would have to take the hill on an angle.
The new General Tires went staight up, no spinning. Do not expect your gas mileage to go up with these tires. My mileage went down about 1 - 1.5mpg. I
would definitely recommend these tires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price: $150.00
Pros: Seem to be very similar to bfg a/t, if so then ill have no complaints
Cons: None just yet...
Recommended? Yes
Comments: The tires were very reasonably prices, and appear to have very similar characteristics to the BFG A/T. I have used BFG's in the past and
they were great, but the Generals had a better price tag and I figured I would give them a shot. So far they have been great.
|
|
|
bonanza bucko
Senior Nomad
Posts: 587
Registered: 8-31-2003
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Airport Bum
|
|
I agree with David K....5000 miles of miles driven divided by gallons pumped into the thing equals Miles Per Gallon! Period.
I don't give a Mexican rat's scruffy butt for any trick, factory, gumming, advertising department BS to the contrary.
BB:-)
|
|
|
John M
Super Nomad
Posts: 1924
Registered: 9-3-2003
Location: California High Desert
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ken's tire reply
Hey, who hijacked this Grabber thread into a pick up mileage contest? Heck, not one of the mileage reports mentioned General Grabbers.
Thank you Ken for seeking out additional reports on the General tires.
John
|
|
|
Ken Cooke
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8970
Registered: 2-9-2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pole Line Road postponed due to injury
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by John M
Thank you Ken for seeking out additional reports on the General tires.
John |
I'm trying to keep the thread on-topic, that's all. I have seen Interco IROK tires packed with mud, so any tire can pack in mud if the conditions are
right.
I haven't had the greatest experience with BFG All-Terrain tires - I completely shredded one on a Jeep run in the Old Dale Mining Dist. of Joshua Tree
- in front of the Rubicon Owners Club.
I am willing to give the KM2 tires an opportunity on my Jeep, though. But, I'm pretty tough on tires.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
