 | Home > Maintenance & Modifications > 285/75/16 on Standard Suspension - TD5 110 |
 
|
|
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342  
|
Typical i used to have some 265's BFG MT's on steel mods that i sold when i broke my D1
|
||
14th Jan 2016 5:51pm |
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342
|
I'm still looking into this every day, i just don't want to spend so much on tyres for them to catch
I have had a flick throught this thread though. Helps a little http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic9184-390.html |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 1:45pm |
|
| camelman Member Since: 27 Feb 2013 Location: Peak District Posts: 3335
|
Thought I'd put my two penneth in
I ran BFG 255/85/16 KM2s for the last 5 years but change to the new KO2s in 285/75/16 nearly 5000 miles back. The 255's look good as they are a nice tall tyre but for general use I wouldn't look back. The 285's are far quieter and much better behaved on the road. I haven't noticed any tramlining at all in comparison to the 255s. I've had a number of trips out in the snow and ice up over the top of the peak district and they are waaay better. One of the reasons I changed from the KM2s was due to issues in ice last winter. The KO2 is a proper winter rated tyre, the KM2 isn't. I must admit to not currently doing any full blown off roading and mud pluggin in the current truck so can't comment on how they behave in thick mud or how they fit under full axle articulation. the other thing I haven't been able to confirm yet is tyre wear. I've previously had 80k miles out of the original KMs and very good wear from the KM2s, will have to see what the AT gives me.  |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 2:11pm |
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342
|
Thank you for your reply, so you've gone from a MT to an AT?
I have a friend with a full set of 285's on modulars that i'm going to pester to do a swap and me do some test articulating. I don't extreme off road but i do a good bit of laning, some times that can be just a mud track or a rocky road. I just don't want to damage panels/body/arches etc Cheers |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 2:22pm |
|
| camelman Member Since: 27 Feb 2013 Location: Peak District Posts: 3335
|
Yep. after sliding around on icy hills last winter with the truck struggling on it;s own never mind towing something I decided to go for a proper winter rated tyre. If the snow was deep enought the MT was ok but if the tyre was getting down to the icy road it was very noticeable.
In addition as most of my driving is sitting on dual carriageways the lower noise levels are very welcome
Click image to enlarge |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 2:55pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17003 
|
In anything other than fresh deep snow, I would choose a KO2 in preference to a KM2 in a flash.
I just wish that BFG would produce a 255/85 version of the KO2, if they did, I would probably change to it from the KM2. |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 2:58pm |
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342
|
Camelman, she's a beauty
Blackwolf, is that because of your needs or you feel the AT is up to the job of the mud |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 4:21pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17003
|
My vehicle spends most of its time on the road, but when it is off-road I need a good mud tyre.
From what I have heard the KO2 is pretty impressive in mud, and I would be interested in trying a set. It isn't an easy choice really. My assessment based on what I have read and been told, plus my own experience over nearly 400,000 miles on KM amd KM2 muds, is that- - In deep fresh snow, the KM2 has the edge over the KO2 - In compacted snow and ice, the KO2 has the edge over the KM2 - On dry and wet tarmac they are pretty even (provided that you drive your Defender like a utility vehicle rather than a sports car) - In standing water, the KM2 has the edge over the KO2 - In relatively non-muddy off-road conditions they are pretty evenly matched - In deep mud the KM2 has the edge - In bottomless mud your stuck either way. So the decision seems to be whether the extreme mud performance is more or less important than the compacted snow and ice performance. Given that other road users are (a) more likely to be affected by any mishap and (b) more likely to act stupidly and require evasive actio to be taken on ice than mud, probably the winter performance trumps the mud performance. Bottom line I am extremely happy with my KM2s and always have been, and I adapt my style to suit both the conditino and the tyres. However I would certainly try a set of KO2s to see how they suit my needs, since without trying how will you ever know? I would in particular linke to see how they really perfome on comapcted snow and ice, and in proper mud. |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 4:50pm |
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342
|
I had a set of 265/75/16 KM2 on my old discovery, they were spot on and i felt the road manners were still good with them too.
My brother in law has them on his boost alloys in the same size and they're done over 40k and still have good tread remaing. Not enough for deep mud but still plenty for what he needs. Reagrdless of size, i'd probably go for them or STT Maxx as i have had them too, i find them more of a cross between an AT & MT, but my main worry is still the size. I think the only way i'm going to know is if i buy some 285's abd see how i get on, if they catch and i'm not happy, i will downsize to 265/75. IMO 265's look best on a 90 and 285's on a 110. |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 5:47pm |
|
| camelman Member Since: 27 Feb 2013 Location: Peak District Posts: 3335
|
Here's mine on the 255/85 KM2s for comparison
Click image to enlarge |
||
|
20th Jan 2016 6:09pm |
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342
|
Thanks camel man. Only problem is that 255's are taller than 285's
|
||
|
20th Jan 2016 9:08pm |
|
| camelman Member Since: 27 Feb 2013 Location: Peak District Posts: 3335
|
The 255 /85 overall diameter is only 6mm taller so only 3mm difference under the arches so probably not noticeable...
|
||
|
20th Jan 2016 9:21pm |
|
| AJC Member Since: 30 Nov 2015 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1342
|
Yeah i suppose that minimal difference
|
||
|
21st Jan 2016 8:41am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17003
|
It may be minimal, but when I changed from 285/75 to 255/85 I had to trim the lip at the inside bottom front edge of my rear flares to prevent contact. The 285s didn't need this.
I was quite surprised! |
||
|
21st Jan 2016 9:25am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
