2 replies to this topic

[klahanie]

Recently we changed out the tires from Toyo AT2 to Toyo CT. What follows is a bit of a  comparison/review and a few things I learned about the CT from Toyo tech for those interested ... or skip below to the "bottom line" in post #2.

 

We were on our second set of AT2s on this truck. Liked the tire, loved the 285/75R18 size, but, both sets did suffer from rock chipping, which I attribute to all the gravel we drove, compounded by vehicle weight. The old set had some life left in them but not enough to last the duration of the big, long distance trip we had coming.

At ~25K miles (?), time of replacement. The first set btw were much worse when replaced.

 

I didn't mind a slightly more aggressive tread - you never know whats around the corner. Considered the RT but what I really wanted was a snow flake worthy, "all weather" tire. Don't drive a lot of snow but the truck is our snow fall vehicle and since more and more ATs are available with the rating, why not.

Enter the CT.

 

Construction: can't say it's the same carcass as the famously tough MTs but was told the same construction method is used and that this is different from the AT2s. These are not really a commercial tire but do appear similar to the venerable M55.

 

Tread: is definitely more aggressive. Left noticeable tracks on anything but hard surfaces. A few times I found myself sheepishly pressing down damaged lawn after driving where perhaps I shouldn't have ...

 

Highway driving: has been great. Stable and tracks well and with less effort. Tires kept their balance (as they should).

 

Noise: not appreciably louder than the AT2s.

 

Wet weather handling: inspires confidence. Noticeably more stable and responsive when driving through troughs in the asphalt formed by heavy trucks. I thought the AT2s were fine but my wife was never completely happy driving with them, even with new tread. The CTs feel better (a lot better says she, and who am I to argue).

 

Off highway gravel and dirt roads: haven't done a ton but no complaints so far. First impression the drive seemed "softer" than the AT2s but might have been my imagination. No rock chipping as of yet but need more gravel to tell. The CTs have a higher natural rubber content, which is supposed to reduce rock chipping.

 

Rock throwing: had read a complaint so in anticipation I installed larger front mud flaps (see post #3). First gravel was a bit disheartening, with lots of pinging underneath but that was not repeated. May have been the gravel type (prairie glacial till) vs the usual crushed rock encountered later.

Edited by klahanie, 18 October 2019 - 09:34 PM.

[klahanie]

Rock holding: yes, tread will hold the right sized rocks the same as any tire. More important to me is the siping holding rock fragments. The AT2 tread - crazy with sipes - were terrible for this; IDK if this contributed to chipping. The CT tread has fewer, and larger (I think) sipes) but these still hold those fragments. I picked out a 3/8" long perfect dagger from one sipe when rotating (yes, I do check then and pick them out). The tread is designed to accommodate studs (to make up for fewer sipes ?) but my tires will never hold studs as most of the holes are already filled with tiny, immovable pebbles.
 

 

Snow: had some unexpectedly. We were actually hunkered down for two nights as west of the Red River was pounded with snow and all east-west roads in that area were closed (and thereby all cross country). We missed it mostly but in slushy, wet, up to 8"ish of snow, traction was sufficient. Light snow on the highway was no problem. The snowflake btw is for snow traction, rated as 15% better traction in snow than the industry standard for the segment (assume that is LT AT in this case). A true winter tire would have a higher industry standard. The CT tread compound does not have a higher silica content than the AT2s so is no better for cold temps. Conversely, hot weather wear should be no any faster, unlike with some winter tires.

 

Fuel consumption: difference is hard to say; consumption is so subjective. But we did have enough miles on this trip to average things out and that average wasn't significantly different than with the AT2s. I would expect a more aggressive tread to burn more fuel, tho the old tread was pretty hacked up and not smooth per se. If there has been an increase I'd say it is no more than 5%. And I expect  we'll pick some of that up through increased tire longevity.

 

Wear: careful measuring shows an even 3/32 down in 10,000 miles (rotated at 5K) for 4 of the tires. Two spares were also in the rotation (15K total driving for the trip.). These also have 10,000 miles on but measure out with a bit more wear in the center tread which I attribute to having run them with a bit more pressure during the first half of the trip. Note: each tire was driven 5k in front and 5K in rear position. Load averaged out at ~3,000lbs. This is far better  than the AT2s. I might see 40K miles going down to 6/32s or, for someone who runs down to 3/32s that could be 50K.

 

Looking good at 10K, incl about 600 miles of gravel.

 

Bottom line: Super happy so far. A superior tire to the popular AT2s I'd say, except perhaps for ice which, IDK yet. Paid the same for both types.

 

Like many, I drive mostly highway so I don't need a tire this aggressive. But there have been times when a dirt road gets wet and becomes sloppy or we have to drive thru an intense downpour. I think this tire gives us that little extra security for those times while still being a reasonably rugged off highway and a solid highway tire with decent manners and wear.

 

EDITED to add fuel consumption

Edited by klahanie, 18 October 2019 - 10:17 PM.

[klahanie]

Mud flaps: I see so many immaculate trucks with over wide aftermarket tires and no mud flaps and I don't know why. Loss of street cred maybe ?, IDK. Anyhow I picked up an $11, 30x24" truck flap, cut in in half and mounted it. Cheap and effective. Looks a bit ugly here but better in person. These tires are 295/70R18, only a bit wider than the previous ones but I figure it was still worth doing.