Super Swamper LTB's or Kumho Venture MT's
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super Swamper LTB's or Kumho Venture MT's
Im getting them in 31x11.50R15's and they are the same price (actually a 3 dollar diff. ). Im leaning towards the swampers because I think they are much stronger and may be better in extreme situations.
What are your thoughts when it comes to these tires. Strength, reliabilty, weight, etc. tread wear is not a big deal for me since it is pretty much just a hunting/offroad rig, but I still want them to last a while.
Thanks guys, I appreciate it.
Swampers:
http://www.4wheelparts.com/4wp/produ...TIRES&man=INTE
Kumho's:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....del=Venture+MT
What are your thoughts when it comes to these tires. Strength, reliabilty, weight, etc. tread wear is not a big deal for me since it is pretty much just a hunting/offroad rig, but I still want them to last a while.
Thanks guys, I appreciate it.
Swampers:
http://www.4wheelparts.com/4wp/produ...TIRES&man=INTE
Kumho's:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....del=Venture+MT
#2
Contributing Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing your from Bakersfield (my neck of the woods) I think the Kumho's would be a better chioce. They should last longer and theres really no need for all that extra "bite" the Swampers have in the Mojave desert.
#3
Kumhos...... ltbs wont last for crap on the street..... i know you said you arent too concerned about treadwear life... but you will be driving to and from the hunting grounds on roadways correct?
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a similar question I asked myself before I ended up buying the Kumhos. I went with the Kumhos for several reasons. The first being the longevity of them versus the swaper ltb in your case. The second reason is that a lot of the reviews rated the kumhos on par with the BFG MT or better. The biggest thing was the price can't be beaten. I have only 2,000 miles on mine so far, so I can't give you a long term analysis yet, but I would definitly go for the Kumhos. The have done great on road, rain, and off road (mild mud, sand, and mild rocks). Hope this helps
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea thats what I was thinking, thanks guys. I do drive it around town a bit, so tires that can hold up to the pavement better is a good choice. I just want to make sure I get the best bang for the buck and have tires that can hold up to some decentnly hard wheeling.
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks masterwacker, I totaly agree with you on the price and ratings, especially in comparison to the BFG's. I dont see why more people have these tires, Im not saying the BFG's are not as good, they are just as good or possibly better but cost a HELL of alot more.
#7
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: B'ham, WA
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got LTBS, had em for just over 1k miles and they still have some of the nubbin things on the tread along with the mold lines. They're not that loud, and actually sound really cool. Haven't noticed much of any diff from my street tires to these in reg driving but in rain braking there is a bit less bite with the swampers...so far I'm happy with them and glad I chose these
Last edited by Silver_Truck; 06-18-2005 at 01:32 PM.
Trending Topics
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ended up with the Kumhos. a HELL of a lot quieter and smoother ride than my friend's swampers. Great grip so far, esp in loose dirt on hills where i used to slide around with my dueler a/ts. I also got them siped, just the center lugs.
Here's a photo of mine with the 32x11.50s from tirerack:
Here's a photo of mine with the 32x11.50s from tirerack:
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the pic Viperdan, I think from more research and all of your coments Im going with the kumhos, Thanks guys.
Viperdan what is your set up with your 32's. My buddy has a 2000 taco and has the 32x11.50's in BFG's. I put his on my 93 runner (all stock susp.) and the back will have to be lifted atleast 2-3 inches to be able to wheel at all and the front was great but rubbed bad at full crank of the steering wheel. Just wanted to know what u got to fit, how it's doing and if there is much variation from the BFG's and kumhos. Thanks
Viperdan what is your set up with your 32's. My buddy has a 2000 taco and has the 32x11.50's in BFG's. I put his on my 93 runner (all stock susp.) and the back will have to be lifted atleast 2-3 inches to be able to wheel at all and the front was great but rubbed bad at full crank of the steering wheel. Just wanted to know what u got to fit, how it's doing and if there is much variation from the BFG's and kumhos. Thanks
Last edited by Magreger; 06-18-2005 at 03:54 PM.
#11
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Loob na kubo kubo ko
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like "Hoes"
Running 35's on the 71 FJ40. It's been nearly a year now. I am completely happy with them. They perform well in mud, sand and asphalt.
Doug
Running 35's on the 71 FJ40. It's been nearly a year now. I am completely happy with them. They perform well in mud, sand and asphalt.
Doug
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Magreger
Thanks for the pic Viperdan, I think from more research and all of your coments Im going with the kumhos, Thanks guys.
Viperdan what is your set up with your 32's. My buddy has a 2000 taco and has the 32x11.50's in BFG's. I put his on my 93 runner (all stock susp.) and the back will have to be lifted atleast 2-3 inches to be able to wheel at all and the front was great but rubbed bad at full crank of the steering wheel. Just wanted to know what u got to fit, how it's doing and if there is much variation from the BFG's and kumhos. Thanks
Viperdan what is your set up with your 32's. My buddy has a 2000 taco and has the 32x11.50's in BFG's. I put his on my 93 runner (all stock susp.) and the back will have to be lifted atleast 2-3 inches to be able to wheel at all and the front was great but rubbed bad at full crank of the steering wheel. Just wanted to know what u got to fit, how it's doing and if there is much variation from the BFG's and kumhos. Thanks
I'll have to measure my tread width tonight....
My only complaint is probably more related to the increase in tire size than the tires themself, but it seems like it takes more pressure on the brakes and distance to stop now. Siping probably helps a bit (which mine are) but the truck is heavier now, therefore there is more momentum.
Last edited by viperdan; 06-19-2005 at 04:24 PM.
#13
Originally Posted by viperdan
Check out my sig for what im running. Basically a 1.5" suspension lift all around. My rims are 15x7 (love the look of the thinner rims with wide tires)with stock backspacing. I get minor rubbing with the wheel cranked all the way hard. Steering stops will cure this. I haven't really tried to flex much, but I think I may have to trim my valance. There's no issues in the back...yet.
I'll have to measure my tread width tonight....
My only complaint is probably more related to the increase in tire size than the tires themself, but it seems like it takes more pressure on the brakes and distance to stop now. Siping probably helps a bit (which mine are) but the truck is heavier now, therefore there is more momentum.
I'll have to measure my tread width tonight....
My only complaint is probably more related to the increase in tire size than the tires themself, but it seems like it takes more pressure on the brakes and distance to stop now. Siping probably helps a bit (which mine are) but the truck is heavier now, therefore there is more momentum.
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm not exactly sure what constitutes where the tread begins (the outermost lugs alternate between 2 heights and widths). When measuring the wider part, the tread extends 9-3/4" wide across the tire on mine.
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here are some pics.
this is my 93 runner all stock susp. with BFG MT's 32x11.50 (backspace?) on 15x10 wheels. The second pick is me flexing my stock susp. (with sag). the front was ok but totally dug into the front inner corner of the fender and the back was ok but would rub bad if I hit a decent bump or hill. They stick out a little bit from the fenders, they look alot more fatter than viperdans.
Sorry these are off a camera phone.
this is my 93 runner all stock susp. with BFG MT's 32x11.50 (backspace?) on 15x10 wheels. The second pick is me flexing my stock susp. (with sag). the front was ok but totally dug into the front inner corner of the fender and the back was ok but would rub bad if I hit a decent bump or hill. They stick out a little bit from the fenders, they look alot more fatter than viperdans.
Sorry these are off a camera phone.
Last edited by Magreger; 06-22-2005 at 07:25 PM.
#16
Originally Posted by Magreger
here are some pics.
this is my 93 runner all stock susp. with BFG MT's 32x11.50 (backspace?) on 15x10 wheels. The second pick is me flexing my stock susp. (with sag). the front was ok but totally dug into the front inner corner of the fender and the back was ok but would rub bad if I hit a decent bump or hill. They stick out a little bit from the fenders, they look alot more fatter than viperdans.
Sorry these are off a camera phone.
this is my 93 runner all stock susp. with BFG MT's 32x11.50 (backspace?) on 15x10 wheels. The second pick is me flexing my stock susp. (with sag). the front was ok but totally dug into the front inner corner of the fender and the back was ok but would rub bad if I hit a decent bump or hill. They stick out a little bit from the fenders, they look alot more fatter than viperdans.
Sorry these are off a camera phone.
anybody get their kumho's at a store instead of ordering off tirerack? seems like by the time you pay for shipping and then mounting/balancing at a shop and having to pay for balancing every time after that if they need it, that tirerack might not be too gooda deal..
#18
Originally Posted by viperdan
Well, I'm not exactly sure what constitutes where the tread begins (the outermost lugs alternate between 2 heights and widths). When measuring the wider part, the tread extends 9-3/4" wide across the tire on mine.
#19
Originally Posted by masterwacker
I got my 33x12.5 Kumho MT for a 15" rim (total of 4) mounted and balanced and the 50k mile warranty for $550 out the door at Tire Discounters