 | Home > Wheels & Tyres > Are TR's really that bad! |
 
|
|
|
| harveyg77 Member Since: 09 Apr 2010 Location: Derby Posts: 309  
|
Like yourself I had Scorpion STs on a Freelander, it's the best road tyre for a Fl1 and the best tyre Pirelli make IMO. I also ran Michelin XPCs and BFG ATs back to back. XPCs were better on road, faster and hung on. The ATs could be bullied into running wide (progressively).
Now I know you're on TRs, but they're a similar design to XPCs (5-block pattern with some sipes/shaping, a M&S rating - what value that holds is a different debate). I personally think the TR is perfectly adequate for day to day road driving. I aim to keep mine on until completely worn out then look about. I like the look of the new Conti ATs, the BFG AT is an obvious choice, then there is also the GenGrab AT2. I wouldn't go too aggresive for road use or you'll end up with 'exciting' moments when it's raining or you over cook it into a corner! Also your tyre size will generally dictate your choice to a degree. Hth H |
||
22nd Aug 2010 7:14am |
|
| K9F Member Since: 12 Nov 2009 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 9610 
|
Could not agree with you more Harvey! 
I heard of someone achieving 120k miles out of a set of BFG ATs on a Discovery. For longevity you would be hard pushed to find another tyre that comes close. Dependant on your driving style they may be the best....but, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole (due to my driving style) in the wet they are  if you've got alot of weight on board or a heavy vehicle like the Defender and need to apply the brakes somewhat aggressively do not expect to stop quickly and safely this side of Christmas. 
My Coopers are brilliant but then again I reckon 12 - 15k miles and I'll be looking for a new set. BFG KM2s next I think to hopefully get a happy balance between safety and longevity. If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!
Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!! Last edited by K9F on 22nd Aug 2010 11:49am. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 9:08am |
|
| RED-DOT Member Since: 29 Jun 2009 Location: stirling Posts: 2363 
|
I agree with K9F about the grip of the BFG AT's as i had a new Defender in 1999 and it was fitted as standard with AT's in 265. I hit the anchors on a damp road and it just sailed on. General Grabbers AT2 have very thin sidewalls and should not be used over rocks or flint roads.
My tyre supplier (Strathearn Tyres) regularly see BFG AT's with 85k on them but i have never kept a LR that long. 2008 RS4 gone, 123d M Sport, and a Puma 90 XS.. |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 10:11am |
|
| K9F Member Since: 12 Nov 2009 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 9610
|
Me neither, I'd had about 40k out of mine with bags of tread left. I did mention on another thread just recently I had a BFG AT throw a tread on me on the A419, quite tricky to handle when changing as one of the steel belts had failed and there was skin piercing steel thread all over the place! If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!! Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!! |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 11:45am |
|
| diesel_jim Member Since: 13 Oct 2008 Location: hiding Posts: 6043 
|
I run TR's on my 110, use them for "summer" laning all around Wilrshire here, they're not bad at all.
OK, n mud they're pants, but they're not a mud tyre; for "damp" chalky clay stuff they seem fine, and are nice and quiet on the road. Road manners are great, they're cheap on ebay as people always seem to upgrade to other tyres. I've got some BFG MT's for winter work. |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 11:57am |
|
| Laurie Member Since: 22 Feb 2008 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 2897  
|
TRs are the worst tyres ever fitted to a Solihull product. (Assuming you go off-road)
Now on BFG MTs  |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 12:04pm |
|
| Ads90 Member Since: 16 Jun 2008 Location: Cots-on-the-Wolds Posts: 800 
|
I currently have the standard skinny XPCs on my Defender (similar to TRs), and they are indeed better in the wet than the BFG AT 265s I had on my last Defender.
Granted the wider, more aggressive BFG ATs looked loads better, but they were poor on wet roads, makes me reluctant to go for these again, especially as safety on tarmac is a priority for me. It's not so easy to compare to driving in snow, as conditions vary, but I'd say the XPCs are every bit as good, maybe better. Opinions on tyres seems very subjective for all-terrain - and there are few proper 'road-tests' making choice difficult (unless you can afford to change often, or have more than one set of wheels). The few reviews I have seen seem to rate XPCs ahead of TRs for wet road & snow. I'd be interested to hear how people get on with these new 11-MY Conticross Contact ATs - they look like they might be a good 'all-terrain' tyre choice for those who spend most of their time on tarmac, but still need occasional performance in mud (they have more aggressive side-walls than the XPCs)... They also appear to have many 'sipes' cut in them, essential for icy conditions. |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 12:12pm |
|
| diesel_jim Member Since: 13 Oct 2008 Location: hiding Posts: 6043
|
Yes, but the TR's arn't an off road tyre are they? MTs are.... |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 12:45pm |
|
| RED-DOT Member Since: 29 Jun 2009 Location: stirling Posts: 2363
|
If that is true they should never be fitted to an offroad vehicle? 2008 RS4 gone, 123d M Sport, and a Puma 90 XS..
|
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 12:56pm |
|
| bm52 Member Since: 04 Apr 2010 Location: Kent Posts: 2189 
|
thanks for the replies.
i hope this link works, interesting comparison between BFG and GG ATs....... http://www.tyres-pneus-online.co.uk/4x4-tyre.html still looking for a review on the TRs, the fact i can't easily find one probably says it all ! EDIT - just been reading Tyre Test . Com http://www.einsehen.de/reifentestcom/cgi-bin/autotest.pl?101\z120\z108\z5&&&EN&& the BFG and GG ATs are very close on the reviews, slightly worse wet braking for the BFGs otherwise pretty even and i guess down to personal choice. after reading many of the reviews the poorer scores seem to come from people with wider tyres, or American trucks!. this also adds to my view on 235s as an overall choice for dry grip and digging in on softer ground. let alone turning circle!! ignoring money i think the choice is clear - BFGs or GG ATs for me. but which one  BM52 |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 1:51pm |
|
| Laurie Member Since: 22 Feb 2008 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 2897
|
They're classified as M&S (Mud & Snow) I've driven Land Rovers for fifty years. Avon Traction Mileage and Dunlop RK3s were all you could get then. They were better by far than modern M&S tyres. |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 3:19pm |
|
| Ads90 Member Since: 16 Jun 2008 Location: Cots-on-the-Wolds Posts: 800
|
All the 'review' sites I found were reader's inputs, so do vary (probably dependant on vehicle, and expected usage). I suspect many are as you say from American or Alpine 4x4 drivers, with emphasis on snow/ice, rather than UK mud.
I looked at these: http://www.tyretest.com/4x4_tyres/general/grabber_tr/index.html http://www.tyretest.com/4x4_tyres/general/grabber_at2/index.html http://www.tyretest.com/4x4_tyres/bf_goodr...index.html http://www.tyretest.com/4x4_tyres/michelin/4x4_xpc/index.html http://www.tyretest.com/4x4_tyres/continen...index.html |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 4:41pm |
|
| diesel_jim Member Since: 13 Oct 2008 Location: hiding Posts: 6043
|
Because not all of LR's are taken off road.... if you really want, you can specify BFG MT's or Michelin XZL's when you order a vehicle, if you know that it's going to be used in muddy conditions (which is different to "off road") so i suspect, via customer feedback from each dealer who sells vehicles, "they" (LR) know that x% of vehicles arn't taken into the rough stuff, and therefore don't need the extra expense of MT tyres, nor the extra noise of MT tyres and naff roadholding (which the average LR user would complain about) Yes, the extreme folk (i'm one) who like to venture into rough stuff will accept poor road manners, noisy tyres, reduced fuel consumption etc of using an MT tyre, but i'd imagine that the bulk of users wouldn't. Take a look at unimog websites... these are the uber-off road vehicle, yet a lot of these still run with a road biased tyre if they're not used in mud. It doesn't take a genius to work this one out  Last edited by diesel_jim on 23rd Aug 2010 7:57am. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 5:51pm |
|
| harveyg77 Member Since: 09 Apr 2010 Location: Derby Posts: 309
|
I guess the worse wet weather brewing score for the BFG AT Vs the GG AT2 would result from the harder compound in the BFG. Also the BFG has a Tri-ply side wall, so is less susceptible to damage. Having said that ifit were me I would look at other options first. I really like the look of the Conti AT as a slightly 'less hardcore' off-road tyre, which hopefully picks up some more road biased behaviour as a result.
But beware of 'forum experts' (that's not aimed at anyone here before the grenades start). I often come across these tyre questions/arguments everytime I decide to change my MTB tyres (now run Conti's on both MTBs). Tyres are like women - a personal preference where one mans pleasure is another mans pain/poison 
Harvey |
||
|
22nd Aug 2010 6:27pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
