B F Goodrich tyres
Discussion
Hi Guys,
Does anyone know anything about the above "Mud Tarrain" tyres, only i have 2 sets, one is a KN 265/75/16 the other is a KN2 265/75/16 which has a slightly different tread pattern, is one maybe quieter than the other ? i cant decide which ones to put on my 90 Defender.
Any info would be helpfull, thanks lads.
Does anyone know anything about the above "Mud Tarrain" tyres, only i have 2 sets, one is a KN 265/75/16 the other is a KN2 265/75/16 which has a slightly different tread pattern, is one maybe quieter than the other ? i cant decide which ones to put on my 90 Defender.
Any info would be helpfull, thanks lads.
camel_landy said:
Personally, I wouldn't use either... They're too wide.
Sure, they'll look 'cool' but they'll give you too much floatation off-road, aquaplane in the wet and reduce your turning circle even further.
M
Sorry but this is wrong. It's only your opinion they are too wide, whereas in reality that isn't a wide tyre at all. And if anyone can truly tell the difference in "floatation off road" between a 265 and a 235 then they must be part telepath.Sure, they'll look 'cool' but they'll give you too much floatation off-road, aquaplane in the wet and reduce your turning circle even further.
M
camel_landy said:
Personally, I wouldn't use either... They're too wide.
Sure, they'll look 'cool' but they'll give you too much floatation off-road, aquaplane in the wet and reduce your turning circle even further.
M
Am quite an avid fan of the under rated XZL, however I do have 265x16 KN on my 90 ....I can confirm they dont aquaplane in the wet, on wolf wheels [with correct studs] and being a 200tdi with thinner radius arms the vehicle has a turning circle of a London taxi ..I cant comment on getting stuck as have a rear locker.Sure, they'll look 'cool' but they'll give you too much floatation off-road, aquaplane in the wet and reduce your turning circle even further.
M
300bhp/ton said:
Sorry but this is wrong. It's only your opinion they are too wide, whereas in reality that isn't a wide tyre at all. And if anyone can truly tell the difference in "floatation off road" between a 265 and a 235 then they must be part telepath.
I must be part telepath then??!?? I could spot a massive difference on my old D2 when I went from 255 to 225. There is also a noticeable difference between the 235MT/R and the 7.50XZL... You get more 'bite', which helps hold the car laterally. However, as with everything tyre related, whatever you choose is always going to be a compromise. It has been debated many times before and I'm not going to get drawn into another discussion here.Yes, you can go wider than a 265 but this width tyre on a 90 is only really effective on very soft ground where you are likely to get bogged. In most other conditions, there just isn't the weight in the vehicle to make the tyre work. If I was spending most of my day on sand or on boggy ground, I would probably consider them but in reality very few of us are in that position... FWIW - I've found a low-pressure 7.50XZL pretty effective for dune bashing in a 110.
M
camel_landy said:
I must be part telepath then??!?? I could spot a massive difference on my old D2 when I went from 255 to 225. There is also a noticeable difference between the 235MT/R and the 7.50XZL... You get more 'bite', which helps hold the car laterally. However, as with everything tyre related, whatever you choose is always going to be a compromise. It has been debated many times before and I'm not going to get drawn into another discussion here.
Yes, you can go wider than a 265 but this width tyre on a 90 is only really effective on very soft ground where you are likely to get bogged. In most other conditions, there just isn't the weight in the vehicle to make the tyre work. If I was spending most of my day on sand or on boggy ground, I would probably consider them but in reality very few of us are in that position... FWIW - I've found a low-pressure 7.50XZL pretty effective for dune bashing in a 110.
M
Sorry Camel I don't agree at all.Yes, you can go wider than a 265 but this width tyre on a 90 is only really effective on very soft ground where you are likely to get bogged. In most other conditions, there just isn't the weight in the vehicle to make the tyre work. If I was spending most of my day on sand or on boggy ground, I would probably consider them but in reality very few of us are in that position... FWIW - I've found a low-pressure 7.50XZL pretty effective for dune bashing in a 110.
M
Are you sure you aren't comparing different tyre treads/types rather than a direct comparison between width using the same tread on the same vehicle, with the same pressure on the exact same terrain on the same day with the same conditions?
Also I've never seen a one Land Rover sink while another floats just due to the tyres.
Oh I have seen wider tyres dig deeper tracks and have more grip than narrow ones.
Seriously you'll see more change in tyre contact area going from 28psi to 15psi on a 235 type, than you will comparing a 235 and a 265 tyre both at 28psi. It's only 30mm wider and remember only a small proportion of the tyre contacts the ground at anyone time.
The tread pattern will help when moving but pushing through the 'squidgy' stuff is down to physics, surface area and therefore the width. In the cast of swapping 255 to 225... Nope, exactly the same tyre, just different size. (That particular case was the Goodyear Wrangler)
I run multiple sets on my cars and there's a marked difference going from 275 to 255 on my RRS (both Scorpion). I run the 255 if I take it off-road or for winter... I can get by on the 275s but dropping to 255 makes a big difference. It also means that I can fit chains if needed.
You might not be able to tell the difference but I can.
M
I run multiple sets on my cars and there's a marked difference going from 275 to 255 on my RRS (both Scorpion). I run the 255 if I take it off-road or for winter... I can get by on the 275s but dropping to 255 makes a big difference. It also means that I can fit chains if needed.
You might not be able to tell the difference but I can.
M
300bhp/ton said:
Also I've never seen a one Land Rover sink while another floats just due to the tyres.
Try playing on sand. 
300bhp/ton said:
Seriously you'll see more change in tyre contact area going from 28psi to 15psi on a 235 type, than you will comparing a 235 and a 265 tyre both at 28psi. It's only 30mm wider and remember only a small proportion of the tyre contacts the ground at anyone time.
Size is all relative... It might only be 30mm but that is still over 10% bigger.Anyway, as said before, most of this has already been discussed at length. I've said my bit, there's a search function (if it's working) if you want any more.
M
300bhp/ton said:
Sarge 4x4 said:
Bin them both and pop on a set of General AT2's, great tyres. 
Yet not as capable off road in the mud, hence the 'MT' and 'AT' naming Horses for courses as they say, if it works for you great, we all have our own opinions on tyres.
Been in the tyre trade for tooooooooooooooooooo many years and still testing tyres, great fun.
camel_landy said:
I can completely understand this tyre choice for overlanding and expeditions when the going is unpredictable and you need a very tough and cheap tyre but if your landie spends near 100% of its life playing off road like mine, the MT from BFG or Cooper is a far far better choice. All the big boys use even bigger tyres and get stuck less than me, that tells me that tyre size (and height) is a critical factor albeit not the only one.
Look, I said that I don't want to start up yet another tyre discussion as it has been done to death, however...
As for the 'Big boys' getting stuck less; When you go off-roading, what do you want to achieve? Do you want to practice & improve your driving skills or do you merely want to drive over things and get your car muddy? If you have someone capable of driving a standard Freelander, on road tyres, over the same terrain as one of the 'Big boys' in a monster truck without getting stuck... Who is the better driver?
Personally, I'd prefer to be that better driver. Sure, physics says that the 'Monster truck' will be able to go further but stick that 'Freelander driver into that 'Monster truck' and they'll probably take it further still.
M
mikeh501 said:
So if your following me in an identical 90 running those XZL tyres..... 1) your diff is going to be lower than mine; not a good thing
7.50x16 XZLs are about the same diameter as 265/75R16... Which are also much the same diameter as 235/85R16. There is going to be little or no difference in the diff height.mikeh501 said:
2) your contact patch in the rough stuff is going to be smaller than mine; not a good thing.
It's not always about quantity... The narrow tyre digs through the soft stuff and grips onto the firm stuff underneath.mikeh501 said:
3) you will have 3 lugs not 4 biting into the ground; not a good thing. Wheres the upside?
Like I said for point 2... It's quality, not quantity.mikeh501 said:
I can completely understand this tyre choice for overlanding and expeditions when the going is unpredictable and you need a very tough and cheap tyre but if your landie spends near 100% of its life playing off road like mine, the MT from BFG or Cooper is a far far better choice. All the big boys use even bigger tyres and get stuck less than me, that tells me that tyre size (and height) is a critical factor albeit not the only one.
Exactly, tyre selection is a very personal choice... but my Landy too spends near 100% of its time off-road. I'll also point out that the XZL is far from being a 'cheap' tyre.As for the 'Big boys' getting stuck less; When you go off-roading, what do you want to achieve? Do you want to practice & improve your driving skills or do you merely want to drive over things and get your car muddy? If you have someone capable of driving a standard Freelander, on road tyres, over the same terrain as one of the 'Big boys' in a monster truck without getting stuck... Who is the better driver?
Personally, I'd prefer to be that better driver. Sure, physics says that the 'Monster truck' will be able to go further but stick that 'Freelander driver into that 'Monster truck' and they'll probably take it further still.
M
camel_landy said:
It's not always about quantity... The narrow tyre digs through the soft stuff and grips onto the firm stuff underneath.
But it doesn't. Not at these size differences. Look at any "floatation" tyre and it'll be massive. A 265 vs a 235 isn't much. For example my 290 width tyres cut through the soft stuff better than any 235 I've run!camel_landy said:
mikeh501 said:
3) you will have 3 lugs not 4 biting into the ground; not a good thing. Wheres the upside?
Like I said for point 2... It's quality, not quantity.camel_landy said:
As for the 'Big boys' getting stuck less; When you go off-roading, what do you want to achieve? Do you want to practice & improve your driving skills or do you merely want to drive over things and get your car muddy? If you have someone capable of driving a standard Freelander, on road tyres, over the same terrain as one of the 'Big boys' in a monster truck without getting stuck... Who is the better driver?
But that's a pointless scenario. A Freelander simply isn't as capable, no matter who is behind the wheel.camel_landy said:
Personally, I'd prefer to be that better driver. Sure, physics says that the 'Monster truck' will be able to go further but stick that 'Freelander driver into that 'Monster truck' and they'll probably take it further still.
M
Nope probably not. In fact no not at all, using your logic Mr Bean in his Mini would be a better driver than Jensen Button.... M
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff