Check out this link. Now I realize that they are not huge tires, but I was looking at grabbing some tires that were slightly cheaper because I will be traveling across the country (~5,000 miles each trip) roughly 5 times in the next year. I am currently running m/t on my FX4 and love them and was dreading buying a highway tire. I will be traveling through in Colorado and Utah alot (From NY) during these trips and would love the comfort of have a beefy tire.

Why are they so dam cheap? My m/t's that I have on now were 266 a piece, which I can't jusify running the **** out of them. I don't mind putting these tires on before the trip and taking off and then changing back to my 33's (33.7 to be exact). I only have Bilistein shocks (2in) and a AAL.

Are they just an outdated tire?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Parts...ayphotohosting

Thanks guys,
Ryan

 

They come out to be 32 inch tires. I know that would look small but for my situation, I think that it would be fine unless you guys see something that i don't...

 

Discounttire has them on for about the same price, if not cheaper. Shipping might be included.

http://www.discounttire.com/dtcs/tir...90210&pc=38730

I think they're the original BFG MT. The newer model are the KM2's from the way I understand it. There were some changes made in the tread pattern from the T/A KM, to the T/A KM2 apparently resulting in less road noise, for one. It appears that BFG still manufacture the older version.

 

Probably just not a popular size??They are pretty narrow and kind of short.
FWIW, they are $96 each at tirerack.That's only $2.25 more a piece than the tires in the ebay link you posted.It still seems like a good deal for mud tires, I just paid over $200 each for 15" mud tires.

 

Yeah that is what I was thinking. They are

255/75-17
d=32.06
w=7.53

But if I am looking just to commute on the highway, these seem like a good option and still have a decent m/t tire (just with a smaller price because of slightly smaller size).

 

I ran those tires on my ranger... not the same size of course.. and I would get 80,000 miles out of them. I never considered them a noisy tire either. I liked them alot.

 

I'd prefer running a narrow tire in snow. Too wide of a footprint will yield in poor traction in snow.

Outside
\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\
Inside

More surface area being covered, meaning the vehicle weight and PSI of vehicle is less on the patch of tire that is on the road. Which will result in poor performance in snow, but great cornering and stability during the summer time <--- not what you are doing in the winter anyways.

Outside
\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\
Inside

Less surface is being covered, meaning the vehicle weight and PSI of vehicle is greater on the patch of tire that is on the road. Which will result in optimum performance in snow, but lack-luster performance in cornering and stability during the summer time.

I've looked at the tires that are coming on these new vehicles, like 18s, 19s, and 20s, and they are all way too big to be really road worthy for general driving practices, plus they are way too wide. 15s, 16s, and 17s are good tire ranges for daily driving needs.

 

You guys think that they are going to look really small on the truck with the 2in front and AAL?

Also they are LT load range C (Is this acceptable)? I don't know much about load ranges. I know that I want to say with Lt's but I current have load range D. What is the difference between C and D (how much less is the C).

Thanks guys

 

Load range C will be fine if you aren't going to be doing any heavy towing.

 

Nope, won't be doing any tires while these are on.

Thankyou

 

i know your wanting an MT, another option is buy dealer take off tires. you can get them usually really cheap and their brand new tires.

 

http://www.wscope.com/tire_conversion_chart.htm

this site has the conversion, The diameter comes out to 32.1 and the width is 10.

 

Thanks