BFG AT or MT?
 

I have decided on either the AT or MT's ffor new tires on my 87 runner. 33x10.5x15 is the size I will be running with front BJ spacers and a chevy spring swap in the rear. I run the AT's on my grand cherokee right now and love them. The runner will be used for wheeling and also the occasional 100 mile trip to the cabin and also will drive it to work on occasion 20 miles each way. I live in central PA so no real rock crawling to speak of. Do the MT's give more traction than the AT's? I have searched here and on several other web pages and I am undecided. Tire rack has a rating section and the AT's rate higher in every category except mud. Also on the BFG web page they rate the tires and the AT's again outrank the MT's. I would appreciate any personal input from users of these tires as to how they compared to each other based on your actual use. Did you see any MPG decrease from the MT vs the AT? I am leaning towards the MT's right now since it will not be my daily driver but I want to be sure I am getting the best tire for my money.

[[Do the MT's give more traction than the AT's?]]]

Yes, of course they do. Just look at them - that's why they have so much more aggressive a tread.... The big lugs and big voids between the lugs translate to more grip in loose stuff and mud-type situations. On the other hand, the ATs with lots of little gripping tread elements does a better job on the highway, will last longer, and won't dig down in sand (for example) as bad as a mud tire. And driven mildly, can provide very good off road traction. You will find the MTs are indeed better off road in almost every sitatuation (a LOT better in most offroad situations,) and the ATs are more desirable for your daily drive, do better on snowy roads and are great for light duty trails (and great for Treadinng Lightly,)and the ATs will last longer.

They certainly look like they should give more traction but then why do the ratings charts rank them below the AT's? Could they possibly be comparing them to different standards?

When I had my FJ40 I did a side by side on these. I found they AT were better on the street (quieter and more rubber in contact with the road), sand (they floated on it instead of digging holes at Pismo relative to the MT's), rocks (more tread to grab smooth rock with) and snow (tread is great in the snow, MT's were not nearly as good). The MT's were better at loose dirt, mud, loose rocks (tread seems to grab more). They were, at the time, built on the same carcass so sidewall etc was equal.

That being said they were both AMAZINGLY good tires. To find differences you are splitting hairs a bit. After running a pair of each for a while I went to swamper TSX's, now there is a difference!

Bottom line, either one is great unless you are in mud. If you run in mud then get the MT’s hands down.

If you see any mud at all get the MT's. They will far out perform the AT's in the slop. AT's on the other hand are the best in the snow and for mild trails. I ran AT's for 3 years and the were great. Moved to MT's when truck was no longer a daily driver.

Well actually, yes that could be part of it. These two tires cannot really be compared to each other - it's like asking if a Camry is better than a 4Runner. Different animals. Both excellent. Get the one that suits your needs.

mud terrains won't get quite as good of traction on wet pavement. siping the center tread helps a great deal though, and makes the tires last longer(helps dissipate heat)

Yea, I have MT's on mine. They are a really good tire but the only complaint I have with them is they don't perform very well in the rain.

I love my M/Ts. They get traction in anything I take my Runner through. Good in mud, awesome on the rocks, decent in sand... Except rain, just like everyone said. :P I really do wish they were siped...