C and SL Rated tires for the 4Runner?

So we've seen a thread on E rated tires and got lots of good information.

For those that are running C or SL rated tires on their 4Runners, why did you make this choice and what are you running? Lets hear your reasons why they work best for you. Lets see what you've got.


For me, I generally hit the trails once or twice a month. I am running SL rated Falken AT3 285/70/17 tires. Where I wheel I don't often encounter sharp objects continually so they serve me well. I appreciate the lighter weight (less unsprung mass) and the lighter construction providing a more supple ride.

 

I run 265/70/17 KO2 in load C. I wanted to stay as light as possible on wheels and tires while at the same time having better durability for off-road in sharp rocks prevalent in the Nevada desert. C load fit those needs. The only sacrifice is there are better examples of AT tires for wet conditions.

 

It sounds like you made a good decision based on your needs.

 

So unsprung weight matters. Of course tire tize effects this as well but we all make choices that involve compromises. The chart below shows the weight difference between the same tire in load range E and load range SL. You can see there is a whopping 8.4 lb difference between the two. This is why it's so important to get the tires you actually need as it effects acceleration, braking, ride quality and mileage.



Here is a very good video comparing many aspects of the differences between a load range E and load range SL tire. Lots of information here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LH2t9GqU6o

 

I've tried Load E BFG KO2 275/70R17 and it was a bad choice for my almost stock weight 4Runner.

Then I have BFG KO2 LT285/70R17 BSW Load C and Falken Wildpeak SL P285/70R17. I like BFG better because 1) visually looking at the sidewall how it curve, looks stronger. 2) BFG are slightly lighter even though its Load C. Sadly I haven't put my tires to its limits since my 4Runner is not ready for real hard trails. Haven't had punctures. I'm thinking is Rubicon trail rated Wrangler Rubicon come with 35in Load C BFG KO2s or Ford Raptor come with 35in Load C BFG KO2s I should be safe with Load C tires with my 4Runners weigh at 500lbs and 5060lbs. I believe new Raptor R series come with 37in Load C tires?

 

I've had many sets of the BFG's over the years and always thought they were a quality tire. It sounds like we've had some similar experiences. I've been driving 4x4's on and off road for about 45 years and I've run many different tires/load ratings. I've finally condensed my experience down to using the minimum load rated tire required to meet my needs. Anything higher than what I actually need only negatively impacts ride, mileage, acceleration and braking. With that said, there are of course people do need a heavier load range E tire due to their specific wheeling locations i.e. sharp rocks/objects or heavy and frequent towing. For me, the latter is not my case and that likely fits the majority of people here.

 

Nice looking setup.

How much lift did you go with?

Are you running a 285 spare too?

 

Thanks! I'm running the Eiback Pro-Truck stage 2R set at 2.25 in the front and 1 in the rear. I have a spare matching tire and wheel and will soon get the hitch mounted tire carrier.

 

I have 285s on factory steel rim. I have scratched by rear bumper on trails but my spare didn't hit.

 

Been thinking about making the move to the Eiback 2 or 2R setup and the 285's....your rig has me drooling. I see your running the Dobinsons UCA's too....

 

Another thing worth mentioning is the stock weight of a 4Runner is 4,400 lbs to 4,800 lbs. Even with just the SL rated listed above in the 285/70/17 size, they each have a weight rating of 2,833 lbs. That's cumulative rating of 11,332 lbs.

 

Thank you. The Eibach system is very good and I'm very happy with my choice. I went ahead and got the 2R just because I wanted it, but honestly, the stage 2 would have likely been all I really needed. It is nice to know I've got the resiviors on the rear should I encounter prolonged high speed cycling and need to mitigate the heat build up. Just peace of mind I guess. Eibach, and other similar suspension systems say they don't require new UCA's but again, I wanted the extra insurance and they have 3 degrees of castor correction built in. My thinking was it would help make it easier for the allignment shop to get dialed in. That, and they have a quiet construction and have easily replaced (I believe sanken) ball joints.

 

That's good to hear and pretty much echos what others have said. I'm still going to keep my original spare in place but will likely mount a 285 tire on the rim. I like the idea of having two spares when wheeling on the longer or more remote trips.

 

I have “C”s after having “D”s on my old 4Runner and they are the way to go IMHO.

 

I agree with you and honestly, the big take away I have is that unless you have very specific reason for going with a heavier tire, the best option is to go with the lightest tire that meets you needs/wants.

In my case, I have three wants/needs that impact mileage. I have a 2.25/1 lift, 285 tires and a supercharger. On a slightly rolling highway for 500 miles a couple days ago, I got 17 mpg @75 mph. I'm honestly very happy with that. If I had gone with e rated tires I'd have seen closer to 15.

 

Yokohama geolandar at go15, 255/75r17 sl load. Work great for my needs, mostly highway and gravel roads and the occasional fire road or trail. Nothing to wild and these tires will handle it fine. They've also been great on winter roads.

Next set will be something slightly more aggressive just for looks. Still a sl or xl tire. Maybe Baja Boss. Or go with a classic falken at3w. It would be my 5th set spread out between 5 vehicles and 9 years.

 

I have SL on 285/70r17. I went with SL because there was no C load, only E. I wanted to save weight and don't offroad enough to justify E loads and the penalties they carry

 

All good info here. The right tire for the job makes a difference.

 

I really liked the Firestone Destination A/T's I had. They were SL-rated 285's.

Now I have C-load 285 KO2's and although I mostly like them, I can definitely feel a difference in weight and ride quality.

The Destinations performed great and never had any issues with the trails I drive. But I do 95% highway driving so I don't really need the C-loads.

I'll probably be going back to the Destinations again next time. 42lbs per tire!

 

Since I'm a fan of BFG KO2, I looked at the new BFG KO3. The new tread pattern is very tempting. But the weight..!! New KO3 Load C 285/70R17 are whopping 57lbs..!! (Vs my BFG KO2 Load C was 50.33lbs) So KO3 are out of my buying list.

KO2 -



KO3 -

 

I don't know why but it seems like many tires are getting heavier. The new Falken AT4W in 285/70/17 SL rated is 2.9 lbs heavier than the AT3W that I have now. Looks like a much bigger difference on those KO3's.

 

Currently running the C load KO2s in stock size. This is my second set but next set I'll be returning to an SL.
99.99% of my time is on asphalt. Looking at either the Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 or the BFGoodrich Trail Terrains.

 

I've owned both these tires (although the BFG trail terrains were the version before last).

Both were fantastic.

It's hard to say anything bad about either but I think the BFG's look better.

 

I recently posted that thread about the e-rated tires. I really wanted to run a size (255/80/17) that unfortunately was only available in E load. I think I'm going to give that up and go with something available in an SL or XL. I don't need an E, I do way too much highway driving to want to have a heavy tire or stiffen up the ride. If it wasn't my daily I wouldn't be so worried about it.

I don't even know if I'm going to move too far away from the stock size tire, the juice might not be worth the squeeze on that. I'm thinking either look for a tire that's a "big" 265, or a smaller 285.

I would also consider the 275 70, but those are also only available as an E.

If I was really honest with myself, I would go with something like the Firestone AT2 or Geolandar AT that's more highway friendly, but I'm thinking of something like the Baja Boss AT, Toyo AT3, or Cooper Rugged Trek. The Goodyear territory MT is under consideration as well, a C load 285 is only 46 lbs. I'm seeing mixed reviews on those though.

 

255/75r17 cooper road/trail at looks pretty good.

Nice looking sidewall.

3 peak mtn rated and 39lbs.

 

Yes those rocks in Nevada do be hard and sharp. Hard packed dirt with lots of rocks sticking out. I’m thinking of getting an SL but afraid I might need a C out here just to be safe.

 

Was just looking at this one also. Not too many reviews on em yet, Tire rack review only compared them to previous cooper at3 4s but this one and Yoko GO15 and Toyo AT3 on my radar. 255/75/17. SL or C load

 

The ratings you see nowadays are borderline meaningless other than their capacity. I mean an E-load KO2 is a 6 ply tire with a 3-ply sidewall and my P-metric SL Duratrac RT's are just missing a nylon ply at a 5-ply tread and 3-ply sidewall. There's no accounting for the thickness of the plies or the rubber or anything else in those letter designations so you really just need to check in with people's experiences and my experience thus far with an SL tire has been outstanding. Way better ride quality and a more conforming tire on trail while airing down less than I did on those E KO2s on my Jeep.

I need some more trail time to be conclusive but I'm really starting to think the market is finally progressing and some of the old wisdom doesn't really apply as much as it used to. I used to be an E or GTFO guy because the rocks and plants in the desert eat sidewalls for three meals a day but in a few trips out I've had no issues while being very happy with the performance.

 

I’ve been really happy with my XL rated 265/70/17 Cooper Rugged Treks. A little hum on smooth roads and a little bigger than the stock Dunlops that came on it but still a smooth ride. They fill in nice imo with the 1” Cornfed level I have on the front.

 

285 70 17 Goodyear territory mt (multi-terrain). C rated 45/46 lbs. After 10k miles I still really like them. Very smooth and excellent traction.