Consumer Reports tire test '05
[/B]
Oct 22, 2005 | 01:25 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,549
Likes: 0
From: Littleton,CO
Originally Posted by 4Peanut
Where's the BFG AT KO?
4Peanut
4Peanut
BFGs are great off road but in my experiences fell short in daily driving duties;my Yokohama Geolandars were much better all around tires especially their resistance to hydroplaning at highway speeds and that's where the BFGs on my girlfriend's '94 Toy didn't exactly inspire confidence. Plus the price on an AT KO is quite a bit more compared to most of those tires on that list. Expensive doesn't always mean better.
Oct 22, 2005 | 10:36 PM
#6
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,689
Likes: 4
From: Sarasota, FL
Originally Posted by X-AWDriver
Apparantly no better than #14
BFGs are great off road but in my experiences fell short in daily driving duties;my Yokohama Geolandars were much better all around tires especially their resistance to hydroplaning at highway speeds and that's where the BFGs on my girlfriend's '94 Toy didn't exactly inspire confidence. Plus the price on an AT KO is quite a bit more compared to most of those tires on that list. Expensive doesn't always mean better.
BFGs are great off road but in my experiences fell short in daily driving duties;my Yokohama Geolandars were much better all around tires especially their resistance to hydroplaning at highway speeds and that's where the BFGs on my girlfriend's '94 Toy didn't exactly inspire confidence. Plus the price on an AT KO is quite a bit more compared to most of those tires on that list. Expensive doesn't always mean better.
Frankly im surprised that the Rugged Trail did a well as it did....crappy tire imo. The KO would be right around the revo from the reviews with perhaps less wet traction.
What I was REALLY looking for was a the Michellen X Radial LTs in there... That one should be top 2 considering this is an onroad test...
Last edited by Bumpin' Yota; Oct 22, 2005 at 10:39 PM.
Trending Topics
Oct 23, 2005 | 02:01 AM
#9
Originally Posted by Glenn
What kind of tire test was that?
Consumer Reports is not much to judge from unless your a sucker for popularity. They are as dishonest as you can get. Theres been stories about them getting paid $$$ by car manufactures to increase ratings on specific vehicals which they actually did. I think 80% or less that everything C.R. says/reports is inaccurate. I'll agree it's a half way decent source to go by but i don't read or see any of it as completely truthful. Theres much better websites out there to get honest reviews from. For example: If your looking for tires, go to website tire links/stores/forums and read the reviews. If your looking for electronics, go to the appropriate sites.
Also, did ya know anyone can email C.S. and give a great review (even if it was horrible) about ANYTHING and their next product report on your given review will most likely be favored? Try it for yourself. Just imagine how that can come into play with all the reports C.S. does! Where do you think they get a majority of their info from? Ever notice how all the millions of dollars in products they "test" that they never give real life evidence or accounts to support the findings?
Some of the reports/tests may be legit but others are based on nothing more than greed. Just be cautious of those fancy little C.S. graphs and do some of your own research before relaying on a giant corporation.
I receive(d) both the Consumer Reports magazine and the yearly Buyer's Guides but use(d) them as a vague reference only.
Oct 23, 2005 | 08:39 PM
#15
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: Marietta, Ga
Originally Posted by peacefrog81
has anyone had any experience with these nitto terras?
i have 265/75/16's on my truck now. ...they seem to balance well...however, they are hard as a rock and have a 500 treadwear rating i think. ....probably not too good in the rocks.. but they shine in light mud.
the only thing i don't like about them is they don't look very aggressive.
overall, i'm pleased.
Oct 24, 2005 | 10:25 AM
#16
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Originally Posted by rocket
There probably never was a test.
Consumer Reports is not much to judge from unless your a sucker for popularity. They are as dishonest as you can get. Theres been stories about them getting paid $$$ by car manufactures to increase ratings on specific vehicals which they actually did. I think 80% or less that everything C.R. says/reports is inaccurate. I'll agree it's a half way decent source to go by but i don't read or see any of it as completely truthful. Theres much better websites out there to get honest reviews from. For example: If your looking for tires, go to website tire links/stores/forums and read the reviews. If your looking for electronics, go to the appropriate sites.
Also, did ya know anyone can email C.S. and give a great review (even if it was horrible) about ANYTHING and their next product report on your given review will most likely be favored? Try it for yourself. Just imagine how that can come into play with all the reports C.S. does! Where do you think they get a majority of their info from? Ever notice how all the millions of dollars in products they "test" that they never give real life evidence or accounts to support the findings?
Some of the reports/tests may be legit but others are based on nothing more than greed. Just be cautious of those fancy little C.S. graphs and do some of your own research before relaying on a giant corporation.
I receive(d) both the Consumer Reports magazine and the yearly Buyer's Guides but use(d) them as a vague reference only.
Consumer Reports is not much to judge from unless your a sucker for popularity. They are as dishonest as you can get. Theres been stories about them getting paid $$$ by car manufactures to increase ratings on specific vehicals which they actually did. I think 80% or less that everything C.R. says/reports is inaccurate. I'll agree it's a half way decent source to go by but i don't read or see any of it as completely truthful. Theres much better websites out there to get honest reviews from. For example: If your looking for tires, go to website tire links/stores/forums and read the reviews. If your looking for electronics, go to the appropriate sites.
Also, did ya know anyone can email C.S. and give a great review (even if it was horrible) about ANYTHING and their next product report on your given review will most likely be favored? Try it for yourself. Just imagine how that can come into play with all the reports C.S. does! Where do you think they get a majority of their info from? Ever notice how all the millions of dollars in products they "test" that they never give real life evidence or accounts to support the findings?
Some of the reports/tests may be legit but others are based on nothing more than greed. Just be cautious of those fancy little C.S. graphs and do some of your own research before relaying on a giant corporation.
I receive(d) both the Consumer Reports magazine and the yearly Buyer's Guides but use(d) them as a vague reference only.
Exactly. Consider the source of their information, and you can draw certain conclusions about their "data".
Oct 24, 2005 | 10:51 AM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by bamachem
I had them before the MT/R's.
They were AWESOME. If I had AT's, then I'd have Terra Grapplers. PERIOD.
They were AWESOME. If I had AT's, then I'd have Terra Grapplers. PERIOD.
Oct 24, 2005 | 10:53 AM
#19
Banned
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 1
I ran them for something like 25k and they still looked new - seriously.
They did VERY well in mud for an AT. Not as good as something designed for mud, but for and AT, they are an EXCELLENT off-road tire with good street manners and good wear.
They did VERY well in mud for an AT. Not as good as something designed for mud, but for and AT, they are an EXCELLENT off-road tire with good street manners and good wear.
