Mickey Thompson Baja boss AT

Just got these on today, 265/75/16 SL really appreciated all the info on this thread thanks gents! Need to put them to the test before I can say anything good or bad about them, but definitely quieter then my 285/75/16 GY duratrac’s I had on my last truck.

 

Finally pulled the trigger.

265 75 r16

bought a set of 4 on eBay using $150 off coupon.

Each tire after taxes was $199 what to me is basically $50 off per tire for a grand total of $796 after taxes.

still have some thread on my tires but couldn’t pass on the deal.

hopefully someone else can get advantage of it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/304803630988?ssspo=RYOxUzWIQYW&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=0VD8OwhQT4-&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

Do you have more pictures, looks great! I have been looking at the RXT option 3 since I'm sagging in the back. Do you feel its too raked or is it just that first image?

 

Thanks! Definitely a stiffer ride, and raked. I use it when camping or hauling firewood and hardly ever get any squat. I figure with my shell and spare I'm at a 350lb constant load which is well under the option 3 rating for constant load. My mentality was I spent the $ might as well get the most of it! I'll have to look for some pics when I'm back home.

 

Cool yeah I appreciate it feel free to send any pics directly to me if you prefer. I have a rack, tent, some recovery gear thats about ~250 and the sliders and roof rack effectively added ~450 but if i got option 2 I'd hate to have to stiffen it up to option 3 a few months later...

 

Are any of you guys running these in the SL rated 285/70/17? If so, how is the gas mileage?

I previously had 285/75/16 Yokohama mud terrains but I went back down to 265/75/16 because of how horrible the gas mileage was with the 285’s.

If I can get a 33” AT hybrid in a SL rating, I’d make the switch to a 17” wheel. They would actually be lighter than my current 265’s Grabbers.

I would think the MPGs on the 33” Baja boss wouldn’t be as horrible as with an E rated 33” mud terrain.

 

I do have 295s in E. Really depends on how much weight is on your truck and if you have a tune. I will say my tires are 70lbs tire alone, so it's safe to say they are heavier, especially if you compare to E rated 35s they about as heavy. There are much lighter ATs if your main concern is MPGs.

 

I appreciate the info!

I have only run E rated tires on this truck so I was curious about the SL rated Baja Boss 33”s.

 

These look small for 35x12.50/17, do you have any more pictures up close? Phots of trimming done to the CMC and fenders? I have 30 mm spacers and 285s and am wondering if I should go to 295 or 315 in the Baja Boss AT.

 

Just picked up a set...
I'm measuring 17/32" on 265/75/16 SL.

 

Look into Nitto Nomad Grappler for this use case.

 

We just put them on our JT, so far we really like them.

 

I have to admit that o do like the gladiator… I am sorry but I do… not sure if I will ever buy one but it DOES look sexy.

 

I agree the gladiator looks awesome but the current price tag….wow

 

Good lord that is one beautiful truck.

 

Thanks!!

At first I wasn't sure if I liked it.

Now that is has a 3.5" JKS lift and 37's, I drive it everywhere.

 

Had my 265/75/16/116 installed today...
Little noisier then the 7.5 year old/42K KO2s LT265/75/16 they replaced; but handle and ride so much better. What's surprising is, no real noticeable difference in acceleration shedding 12 pounds at each wheel; braking performance feels a little better though.
Dealer set them at 39 psi...
Got home and deflated them to 30; will set them at 27 in the morning.

I did get 2 new free TPMS sensors because they broke 2 during tire removal...so kudos to them, I guess.

 

Just blew out the side wall on one of my KO2 tires - they were near the end of their life anyways.

After researching new A/T tires, I concluded MT Baja Boss A/T would be a great choice for my needs/wants.

My KO2s were 285/70/17 load range E, and I would like to stick with that size. However, I wanted to get a load range C, which is unavailable in this size.
Because I don't off road/carry heavy loads enough to justify the E range, I was thinking of going with the STD (4 ply) - but it looks like the sidebiters are fairly different from the STD load range (SUV rated I guess?) compared to the E range.

Any clarification on the sidebiters being different based on the two load range sizes?

I would like a lighter tire with better mpg, but I also don't mind sticking with E range and the durability that comes with that 10 ply.

Thanks!

 

just called the MT tech department, they confirmed that the side biters on the STD load range tires (SUV) is significantly muted... prob gonna just go with the E range than - even though I know it is a bit overkill for my needs lol

 

You can search back thru my posts and I did a side by side comparison. The E are heavier duty in all aspects. I had a set of both and stuck wit the SL. No issues. I pull a Triton bass boat and a camper and zero issues.

I do a lot of miles for competition and the SL have yet to fail me. That being said I’m not a hard core wheeler. Dealing with the typical snow, mud, hills and trails I love these tires.

I am about 1/2 thru the wear on theses. I am contemplating going to the 255/85 which is an E rated just because I wanna try that size. Currently running 285