Escape 5.0 owners: What tires do you use on your truck?

[Ops]

BFG KO2s all the way around on my '15 Tundra CrewMax.
They look good, ride good, traction in wet, slush and snow and they look good (oops, repeating myself)

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by davescape

Michelin has new "All Weather" truck tire: Cross Climate. We get tons of rain, a little bit of sun and when it snows it comes at the freezing mark and slicker than anything you find in the cold provinces.
...
Every tire is a compromise somewhere but these Cross Climates seem to hit the high marks for most conditions.

The Nokian WR is the best-known choice in this category, and there are others. They are attempts to make real "all season" tires, rather than the summer tires with sipes added that usually pass for "all season". They certainly are a compromise, but are probably a good choice for places that don't actually get winter. They work on ice and light snow, but performance is severely degraded at low temperatures (below what the B.C. lower mainland ever sees).

Vancouver-area people might want to note that cold places don't go directly from hot summer to frigid winter - we transition through Vancouver-winter-type temperatures multiple times per year. A thin layer of wet snow on ice is deadly, and we do see that or freezing rain briefly, more than once every year.

I tried Nokian WR G2s here in Alberta (on both our van and my car), and found that they were better in winter than traditional all-seasons, but certainly not as good as real winters (e.g. Hakkapeliitta) in cold weather; I went back to two sets of wheels and tires per vehicle and seasonal swaps. The Edmonton Police Service actually uses (or used) them year-round to avoid seasonal tire changes... but of course they never leave cleared roads. The latest versions ("G2" means second-generation, and Nokian is up to "G4") are presumably better, but they will always be a compromise.

It is good to see this type of tire in light truck sizes; they will be useful for many people.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Catchlight

We put Michelin Cross-Climates on our RAV4 Hybrid last fall and are very impressed with them. The first test was getting out of our driveway, which slopes toward the house for about 100'. The first half was sheer ice and the top half was a foot of wet snow. When the RAV and the Cross Climates handled it in one pass without wheelspin, I was sold on both the tires and the vehicle!

On dry pavement, they make no more noise than an all-season tire, and they resist hydroplaning well in rainstorms. If Michelin makes Cross Climates that will fit the Tundra with which we tow our Escape, I would consider running them year round after my Nokian Hakkapeliittas wear out.

As with other manufacturers, the same trade name is used on multiple lines of tires, even if internally they are unrelated in design and construction. Michelin Canada lists three "Cross Climate" tires:

1. CrossClimate® + - in Euro-metric sizes for cars
2. CrossClimate® SUV - in Euro-metric sizes typical of SUVs
3. Agilis® CrossClimate® - a "CrossClimate" variant of the Agilis commercial vehicle tire, which doesn't even look (in the tread) like the other CrossClimate-branded tires; mostly in LT sizes

The first two don't come in sizes large enough for a Tundra. The Agilis CrossClimate doesn't come in the Tundra's 275/55R20, but it is available in even larger sizes than that to match stock sizes on recent "one ton" pickups. It does come in LT275/65R18/E 123/120R, which would be suitable for a Tundra using that size; I think that this would be worth considering, but I would not expect the same wet-road performance as the car-sized CrossClimates, and it is unlikely to be even close to a Hakka on ice and in snow.

[C&G in FL]

When I bought my 2015 Ford F150, it came through from the factory with Hankook tires. I wasn’t really pleased because I really didn’t want tires from Asia, given their reputation. I believe Hankook is South Korean. However, when I researched them I learned that the majority of contestants in the Baja 500 run on Hankooks. Since the 2015 F150 was electrocuted (by lightning) I ordered a new truck. It just came in on Monday and also had Hankooks. Since I got approximately 55,000 miles on the 2015 before it’s untimely death and there was still an estimated 10,000 or 15,000 miles of tread life remaining, I wasn’t so upset when I saw the new one also had Hankooks. The tires ride fine and I wouldn’t hesitate to buy them again if the tires need to be replaced.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

1,285 pounds would certainly be marginal, if not outright inadequate, for a Tundra... but according to the spec above the load index of the first tires is 117, and that means 2,833 pounds... or 1,2985 kilograms.

Either no one noticed the nonsensical number, or they just realized that it was a typo so there was no confusion. "1,2985 kilograms" was supposed to be "1,285 kilograms"

[Mark James]

Interesting. Did not realize that the R18 were better at absorbing shocks/bumps. Thanks for this.

[arniesea]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

If the first tires were inadequate, it wasn't the size... you're just using the size which Toyota supplied, right? 275/55R20 is one of the Tundra's stock sizes.

1,285 pounds would certainly be marginal, if not outright inadequate, for a Tundra... but according to the spec above the load index of the first tires is 117, and that means 2,833 pounds... or 1,2985 kilograms.

The new tires have a different load index, despite being the same size and load range (XL for "extra load"); are you sure that they are XL? The load index is not clear ("7121" doesn't make sense), but a load index of 115 would correspond to 2,679 pounds or 1,215 kilograms. A BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 in that size should be a LT275/55R20 Load Range E, which does have a load index of 115.



The first tires have a load and speed code of "117T", which means a load index of 117 and a speed rating of "T" (118 mph or 190 km/h); the K02's have a load and speed code of "115/112S", which means a load index of 115 in single use (and 112 in dual applications) and a speed index of "S" (112 mph or 180 km/h). So the "more aggressive" tread of the K02 which causes more road noise and higher drag is on a tire which is rated for slightly lower sustained speed. Other than the off brand, unless you go off of paved surfaces to a significant extent the first tires were probably more suitable.

You don't really need to understand much about tire specs if you just use a tire of the same size (275/55R20 in this case) and the same load index as the manufacturer supplied or higher, and those are shown on the label with tire pressures, normally found on the driver's door jamb (but occasionally in the glove compartment).

If you check the Gross Axle Weight Rating (normally shown on the rating placard on the driver's door edge), you can just ensure that the tire is rated for more than half of the axle rating. It looks like the rear axle GAWR might be 4,000 pounds, meaning that each tire should have comfortably more than 2,000 pounds capacity, and the original and new tires both meet that requirement.

If you really want the most durable tire rough roads for that truck, a better choice than any 275/55R20 would be the 275/65R18 or 255/70R18 sizes also offered for the Tundra, in a suitable load range and probably "LT" type. The taller sidewalls (due to the smaller wheel diameter and same overall diameter) are able to absorb more severe bumps.

The reason for 275/55R20 Tires on my truck is it is the Platinum edition with 20" wheels.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by arniesea

The reason for 275/55R20 Tires on my truck is it is the Platinum edition with 20" wheels.

The larger-diameter wheels are commonly a feature of higher trim levels, for appearance and handling. This particularly makes sense for pickups used as cars, rather than as working trucks, although of course the 20" setup still meets the load requirements of the truck when it is working (in the case of the Tundra... but there have been F-150 configurations which must have the 18" wheels to meet load requirements). Fancy trim and pounding down really bad roads is not a common combination; you won't see the 20" wheels very often on corporate fleet vehicles doing service work or hauling to remote locations.

It is possible that the springs and shocks are specifically tuned for the 275/55R20 tires, but it is almost certain that if you wanted to, you could get 18" wheels and use either of the 18" tire sizes with zero issues.

[John in Santa Cruz]

My Tacoma had 265/70R16XL's which replaced with LT265/70R16 KO2 and put around 20,000 miles on the, all kinds, highway, towing, sporty mountain driving, 4x4, more towing, when I sold the Taco, the tires still had 70% of their tread wear left at 20K miles.

My F250 uses LT265/75R16 load range E... I found out, that specific size of KO2's come in a 'DT' variant, which is meant for heavier trucks and towing,and is less likely to chip and chunk on gravel/rocks, but is not as good a M+S tire in exchange. Since the F250s primary purpose is hauling and towing, and since I rarely am in snow, seemed like a good trade off. The big local Michelin tire shop called them the 'commercial truck version', and had them in stock in my size, says they install 20 sets a week

The regular KO2's have the newer 3PMSF, icon, 3 Peak Mountain Snowflake, signifying a better level of snow performance than regular M+S.

[davescape]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

...but I would not expect the same wet-road performance as the car-sized CrossClimates, and it is unlikely to be even close to a Hakka on ice and in snow.

The Agilis CrossClimate model is the one I have on my truck. It has a higher load rating. Some of the Nokian models I was looking at previously actually performed (Kal tire test results) very poorly in wet conditions. Unfortunately the data is still missing for the Agilis but the car version was very impressive and I took a chance. My truck requires a Load Range E even though its a 1/2 ton and Michelin delivered. I probably could have gone with one of the passenger tire versions but if an accident occurred as a result of the tires, the courts would take a dim view of my negligence.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by davescape

The Agilis CrossClimate model is the one I have on my truck. It has a higher load rating.
...
My truck requires a Load Range E even though its a 1/2 ton and Michelin delivered. I probably could have gone with one of the passenger tire versions but if an accident occurred as a result of the tires, the courts would take a dim view of my negligence.

It doesn't matter to courts or anyone else who matters whether the tire is "passenger car", "light truck", or anything else... as long as it has suitable load capacity; many pickups come from the factory with perfectly suitable "P" tires. Michelin only makes CrossClimate tires in the size (and load capacity) needed for a full-size pickup in the Agilis line, so of course that's the one to use.

[gbaglo]

When Firestone did the recall on my 1994 Ford Explorer years ago, I wanted Light Truck tires as a replacement. That was not allowed. They had to install Passenger tires.

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

When Firestone did the recall on my 1994 Ford Explorer years ago, I wanted Light Truck tires as a replacement. That was not allowed. They had to install Passenger tires.

I've never had any issues putting LT tires on a vehicle that came with P series XL tires. now, sure, Ford might not have BOUGHT you LT tires as a warranty/recall replacement.

[gbaglo]

It is what Ford spec'd.
On the QT, I paid the difference for LT tires, but the invoice was for P tires.
By the time they were half worn, I couldn't hear the stereo any more. When I replaced them with Michelin P tires, I was astounded at the sound of the motor when I press the accelerator. Hadn't heard that sweet sound for a couple years. They were Yokohama Geolander.

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

It is what Ford spec'd.
On the QT, I paid the difference for LT tires, but the invoice was for P tires.
By the time they were half worn, I couldn't hear the stereo any more. When I replaced them with Michelin P tires, I was astounded at the sound of the motor when I press the accelerator. Hadn't heard that sweet sound for a couple years. They were Yokohama Geolander.

That was more likely the difference between cheap all terrain tires and quality highway tires, rathe than LT vs P

[gbaglo]

Beats me. In 1994, I think the Ford Explorer would still be considered a truck. In 1995 it was morphing into a SMT / Soccer Mom Transporter.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

When Firestone did the recall on my 1994 Ford Explorer years ago, I wanted Light Truck tires as a replacement. That was not allowed. They had to install Passenger tires.

Presumably Firestone didn't allow it to avoid higher cost, or Ford didn't allow it to reduce cost or to preserve ride quality and handling. As far as safety, functionality, and legality are concerned, you can put Light Truck tires on a VW Beetle if you can find a suitable size.

Ideally, that Explorer should have had LT or commercial tires; if it uses "P" type passenger car tires the rated tire capacity must be reduced by a factor of 1.1 to calculate the capacity for service in a tall or utility-service vehicle such as that Explorer (but a "P" tire of sufficient capacity can still safely be used).

[citabria90]

Originally Posted by rubicon327

I have nothing but great things to say about Michelin Defender LTX (on 2nd pair) for tow vehicle and Maxxis M8008’s or Goodyear Endurance for the trailer.

Ditto on the Michelin Defender LTXs

Chuck

[SkipperClyde]

Michelin 10 ply truck tires. The smoothest running and safest tire I have ever own. Michelin invented the paddle mold (i think that's what they call it). Tires are more true than any competitors.

[boardhead]

I have the same BF Goodrich KO2's on my Tacoma. Always buy LT (light truck) tires. I have never had a flat with the LT tires. Never run P (passenger) or the ones that say nothing unless you only drive in the city.