BFG KO2 (C) load vs (E) side wall durability do you have first hand experience?

E-rated for shale country. Pretty much all there is to it.

 

C is rated 6 ply, they don't have that many plies, just an indication of strength.

 

No KO2 experience but here’s my situation. 08 4Runner, first set of tires after lift was 285/70/17 Nitto Trail Grapplers in E (MT’s). Those suckers were noisy, heavy, rode like shit and I could never get them balanced properly. They did last forever though, about five years later they were still at least 50% tread left. Never had a flat and saw lots of dirt.

Second set was SL Wildpeak AT3W in 285/70/17. Very light (51lbs), dead quiet, great in snow. However, I had two flats pretty close together when on road driving. They were very soft, definitely felt the difference even in normal daily driving situations, they deflect a lot.

Just put on 285/70/17 Duratracs in D. I think this is the sweet spot. They’re not much heavier (54lbs), and they handle awesome so far. I just took a 1300 mile road trip to Rocky point and they did great, including on the crappy roads down there. I have yet to get them on the trail, but I won’t be as scared as I was with the SL Wildpeaks having a blowout or puncture. Only real downside with the Duratracs so far is they’re loud and EXPENSIVE!

 

Unfortunately tire MFG's don't always give us a choice to what load rating we end up using. If we are looking for a given size of a specific brand and tread pattern. I wonder if a MFG even has the ability to offer a "C" load rating and sidewall durability of what most believe a "E" load provides in the same size. Yes there are very durable tires with "D" load ratings but they tend to be of tires in the 40x13.5x17 sizes. It is all about a balance of features and what compromises any of us are willing to make.

 

I like BFG tires and have used them for over 35 years. Currently, my Tacoma is on 265/70/17s and my wife’s JK is on 285/70/17s Load C KO2s, because they meet our needs of moderate off road use, durability, and added weight. I would likely go with an E rated tire if I was using either vehicle really hard, or for heavy towing. For what we use these vehicles for it doesn’t make sense to add a lot of rotational mass and unsprung weight.
I have used D and E rated tires on other vehicles I’ve owned. My 90 truck was on 32/11.50/15, Load D, Mud Terrains. They were great off road, I’ve never had a flat, but they took a toll on power and braking. They lasted a long time on that light truck. Lots of road noise
I had E rated 315/70/17s, in both a mud and then an all terrain on my Ram. They were really heavy, decreased braking and acceleration a little, but were great on the trail and for hauling moderate loads. Very flat resistant. I did have an incident once when heading to Phoenix from home. I hit some big metal thing at 80 or so in the fast lane on the 10 out by Cabazon, lost my L/R tire, and tore the bedside and exhaust apart. The tire sidewall held and let me bring the truck to a stop safely, despite the damage, without the rim hitting the ground or the truck getting squirrelly.
Heavier tires are great for towing, they are more flat resistant, and hold up better if you do have a catastrophic failure. The trade off is they are very heavy so you feel the road/trail more (which can be good or bad in different circumstances),create more rotating mass which decreases braking and power and does so even more when you are going up in tire diameter, and add to the unsprung weight, which increases the demands on the suspension. The brakes, engine, and suspension can absorb some increases with little adverse effect, but at some point, it has to be addressed.
Both the Toyota and Ram mentioned earlier underwent gearing, brake, and suspension changes to run the larger, heavier tires.
Ask yourself what you use the truck for most of the time, what you need it to do, and what trade offs or modifications you are comfortable with to accommodate a heavier and/or larger tire.
I chose the tires I did because of the light trail duty I put my truck through and that I use it on long drives. I didn’t want to go with a large, heavy tire that would require a CMC, gearing change, or more suspension.
I’ll save that for a project vehicle this time around.
One thing I’ll say about heavy tires on a light vehicle is the sidewalls flex less when aired down. On the 90 Toyota, I could drop them to 10 psi and it was not noticeable at a glance. My suggestion with E tires on a light vehicle would be a tall sidewall tire. Use a 16 instead of an 17 or 18 to max out the footprint length. You should do that with any tire, but I think it’s more critical with a stiff tire.
Just one guy’s two cents.

 

I have both the KO2 is C and E. There was about a 5lb difference per tire. I don't notice any real difference except that the E load for some reason turns in faster.

 

I considered the Toyo AT3 as it does come in a 285/75/17 "C" load rating but did not find any feedback on sidewall durability. Considered the BFG KO2 in a 285/70/17 as it comes in a "C" load rating but I wanted some thing a little taller. There is also the KO2 34x10.5 in a "D" and that looked like a good choice but being more than $100 more per tire than the 285/75/17. Why who knows? I ended up with the 258/75/17 KO2 "E" only choice (KO2) in that size and will see if the balance of features is acceptable. The other tire considered was the new Mickey Thompson Baja Boss AT in a 295/70/17. There are more sizes coming this fall so if the KO2 don't work out I will take another look at the M/T. However the 295/70/17 is an "E" as well and about 10lbs heavier.

 

So much misinformation in this thread on Load Range vs. Ply Rating vs. actual tire construction!

Bottom line:
Ply Rating = An out dated measure of tire strength, they used to use layers of cotton, or plies, to form the internal construction of tires. The number of those plies gave you the ply rating. Those days are long gone, so the ply rating no longer has a direct connection to a tire’s construction and number of layers. These days, tire ply rating is more commonly expressed as load range.

Load range = Modern load ranges correspond to the ply ratings of old. Load range is expressed as a letter, with letters further down the alphabetic order corresponding to increased strength, with higher psi (inflation pressure) potential and heavier load capacity.

Actual tire construction = With modern tire engineering and materials it's possible to create greater tire strength and capacity without adding layers. Generally speaking most tires are 2 ply sidewall construction. For Load Range E (and a couple C that I know of - General Grabber X3 and Cooper ST Maxx ) LT tires in an MT or AT, they can be up to 3 ply sidewall construction.

The comparison of the modern strength measure of Load Range to the former strength measure of Ply Rating is as follows and has nothing to do with actual tire construction.
SL = 4 ply
C = 6 ply
D = 8 ply
E = 10 ply
F = 12 ply
G = 14 ply
H = 16 ply
J = 18 ply
L = 20 ply

OP, sorry to head slightly off topic...back to your normally scheduled programming.

 

How are those Toyo e rated tires? I have them and they are like steel wagon wheels 315/75/16

 

They are not too bad actually. I have the fronts set at 34 psi and the rears at 37 psi. Chalk test. When I tow my bass boat I go up to 45 psi in the rear. Honestly, even though they are "E" rated, my "C" rated bfg's were much worse of a feel. I can see with the weight and side wall of a 315, the ride be like bricks....