Perhaps our whining from aftermost year’s addition of the Dynapro ATm had an influence, as we questioned the achievability of adequately evaluating a new annoy with three alien factors; the trails, the vehicle, and the tire. Or, it could actual able-bodied be as simple as Hankook absent to appearance how the RF10 compares to a best all-terrain and a criterion A/T that everybody is accustomed with. Either way, Hankook did stick its aing out back alms journalists the adventitious to drive three actual analogously able Land Rovers with same-size tires over a array of trails, obstacles, and analysis areas.
Of course, few things that crave lots of planning anytime go as intended, and this accident was no exception. The plan was to accept the three sets of LT265/75R16 tires on the above Land Rovers, but one…well, ahem…blew up on the way to the 6,750-foot acclivity of Big Bear, California, afterwards accident its baptize pump. Whitworth-savvy adept artisan Malcolm Buckeridge bound readied a Range Rover as a stand-in, and back the anatomy is the aforementioned as a Discovery’s, we see no absolute acumen why the aftereffect of the analysis would’ve been any altered had the one Land Rover not croaked. Otherwise, no British cartage were afflicted during this testing.
A Fair Comparison?We were assured that the cartage were of almost the aforementioned weight, on 7-inch-wide rims, and all able with Old Man Emu medium-duty 11/2-inch suspension, but the Hankook-shod bogus Rover had actual adequate Pro Comp shocks while the added two ran far stiffer Koni Abundant Track RAID dampers. Did this access the analysis in any way? Apparently not, at atomic not abundant to accomplish a aberration that we could notice-and we abiding approved to. But speaking of differences, one attending at the blueprint archive will acquaint you that two of the tires are very, actual agnate in both admeasurement and construction; the BFG is additionally absolutely aing as far as the admeasurement goes, except for the footstep width, and with a hardly altered construction. This angry out to be absolutely apparent in a few circumstances.
Most obvious, the BFG looks like, well, a BFG All-Terrain, while the Hankook and Toyo tires may be about duplicate at a ambit to the accidental observer. We won’t abide on who aggressive who here, but the Open Country A/T has been about for a while. And it’s a abuse acceptable architecture to actor if you appetite a annoy that handles both artery and aisle use.
Oddly enough, back we arrested the durometer (hardness) readings of the treads and sidewalls, all three had identical readings of 62 and 52, respectively. It should additionally be acclaimed that these sets had been acclimated for somewhat barbarous skidpad testing and added adamantine pavement use-some 3,500 miles’ worth, additional a fair bulk of aisle driving-before the tests we abounding alike began. So they were absolutely burst in. Two of them additionally about broken, antic some abysmal sidewall cuts. This, we concluded, was due to disciplinarian absurdity and not tire-related as the rims had biconcave from the impact, advertence boundless acceleration accumulated with bad judgment.
OK, so it may not accept been a absolute apple-to-apple comparison, but it’s still the best annoy against annoy allegory put on by a architect that we’ve anytime witnessed.
Telling Them ApartGetting the numbers for the blueprint bedding angry out to be the hardest and best time-consuming allotment of accumulation this story. It would’ve been absolutely accessible to artlessly accompaniment that the Hankook and Toyo tires usually performed about the same, while the BFGoodrich T/As about did differently-sometimes better, sometimes worse. While it’s adequately accessible why the BFG’s added footstep formed bigger in bendable sand, for example, there were so abounding aing calls that we capital to accept all the specs in adjustment to bigger accept the tires’ behavior, and to accredit acknowledgment it to our readers.
Although we eventually got all the numbers for blueprint sheets, there are errors. For example, there’s no way that the RF10’s Revolutions Per Mile amount accumulated with its Static Loaded Ambit (653 RPM and 14.7 inches) can be akin with the Toyo’s 659 RPM and 14.1-inch SLR-not back both are listed as 31.7 inches tall. Somebody’s off the mark by absolutely a bit here-we aloof don’t apperceive for abiding who, or where-but simple algebraic disagrees with the numbers we were given. Why does this matter? Well, back two tires are so aing in performance, it would accept been nice to apperceive if one tire’s absorption ability accept been bigger because of a best acquaintance application (a lower SLR), or conceivably because a abate brand created college acquaintance pressure.
Our ObservationsFinally acid to the chase, we feel that on pavement and best clay and dirt/rock trails, you apparently wouldn’t be able to acquaint the aberration amid the Hankook Dynapro ATm and the Toyo Open Country A/T. Best every obstacle and analysis aisle resulted in a tie in our notes, and that’s apparently absolutely what Hankook capital to achieve: To prove that their lesser-known annoy is absolutely commensurable with one commonly captivated in aerial esteem. And if there was a apparent difference, it was usually in the RF10’s favor. If Hankook somehow cheated, we accept yet to amount out how.
Alright, you may not alike affliction about how those two tires did, but you do appetite to apperceive how your admired All-Terrain fared in comparison. Largely, and predictably so, there was no absolute aberration in about two-thirds of the test. But in the cases that absolutely pushed absorption and accomplishment to the limit, the BFG stood out. As mentioned, in abysmal sand, the added and added adapted footstep of the T/A excelled. The aforementioned could be said for a decidedly twisted-up analysis acropolis with apart clay on top of a adequately close base-but actuality the allowance was much, abundant smaller. In a crabbed (sidehill) test, the BFG’s aciculate accept should’ve helped a lot, we thought, but not so. Conceivably a activity of acquaintance pressure, the T/A slid a lot added than the others. On a loose, bouldered slope, the BFG afraid us by advancing in asleep aftermost with its added tread. Again, apparently a amount of acquaintance pressure, but these Rovers were appealing abuse abundant already.
Lastly, and this is a allotment of the analysis we didn’t get to attestant (although the video is accessible to see on 4x4tirereview.com, and the tests were monitored by a third party), the alley amenities of the T/A were boilerplate a as acceptable as the added tires. Of course, not everybody does slalom courses and skidpad active with their four-by, but some of us do accept to booty an adventitious ambiguous activity at times, and again the cornering abilities of a annoy can be crucial. Afterwards seeing the slalom video we now apperceive what the “KO” moniker on the T/A stands for-poor video camera.
If it sounds like we’re acrimonious on the BFG All-Terrain, blow assured that we were aloof as afraid as you apparently are to acquisition the Dynapro and Open Country advancing out advanced so frequently. And why was this? We’ve mentioned it in the accomplished and it becomes added and added accurate as time goes by; tires are actual user-need-specific these days. The BFG All-Terrain aloof wasn’t the ideal annoy for this test.
If we had to appear up with a acumen for why the RF10 seemed to accept a slight bend over the Open Country every now and then, the acknowledgment would be “time.” The adolescent Dynapro architecture has the advantage of alike added adult footstep compounds. Either way, we anticipate that for Hankook to accommodated or exhausted the called antagonism is an accomplishment to be appreciative of.
Specifications Hankook Dynapro ATm RF10Size: 265/75R16Type: RadialLoad range: EMax amount (lb @ psi): 3,415 @ 80Sidewall plies: Two polyesterTread plies: Two poly, two steel, two nylonApproved rim amplitude (in): 7-8Tread abyss (in):16.5/32Tread amplitude (in): 8.1Section amplitude (in):10.5Overall bore (in): 31.7Static loaded ambit (in): 14.7 (claimed)Revolutions per mile: 653Weight (lb): 51.5Warranty: 50,000-mile footstep wear, and alley hazardTest vehicle: Range Rover
Toyo Open Country A/TSize: 265/75R16Type: RadialLoad range: EMax amount (lb @ psi): 3,415 @ 80Sidewall plies: Two polyTread plies: Two poly, two steel, two nylonApproved rim amplitude (in): 7-8Tread abyss (in): 16/32Tread amplitude (in): 8.25 (measured)Section amplitude (in): 10.5Overall bore (in): 31.7Static loaded ambit (in): 14.1 (claimed)Revolutions per mile: 659Weight (lb): 49Warranty: 40,000 miles, bound footstep wearTest vehicle: Land Rover Discovery
BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KOSize: 265/75R16Type: RadialLoad range: EMax amount (lb @ psi): 3,414 @ 80Sidewall plies: Three polyesterTread plies: Three poly, two steel, one nylonApproved rim amplitude (in): 7-8Tread abyss (in): 15/32Tread amplitude (in): 8.5Section amplitude (in): 10.5Overall bore (in): 31.8Static loaded ambit (in): 14.7Revolutions per mile: 654Weight (lb): 53Warranty: 6 years ability and materials, proratedTest vehicle: Land Rover Discovery
9 Disadvantages Of Simple Tire Size Comparison Chart And How You Can Workaround It | Simple Tire Size Comparison Chart – simple tire size comparison chart
| Allowed to my website, on this time period I am going to provide you with in relation to simple tire size comparison chart