Falken Wild Peak ATW3 vs BFG KO2
01-11-2017, 01:13 AM
#42
Senior Member
There are many reviews by reputable sources online showing how terrible the BFG is, but here's a short excerpt from one of my favorites, Expedition Portal, where they build rigs for on and off road travel specifically and log thousands of miles on every tire out there:
"BFGoodrich (BFG) has been a stalwart brand in the overland and 4WD communities for four decades. The All-Terrain T/A, which was released in the late 1970s, claimed countless awards and desert racing championships. I have used BFG tires for years and several hundred thousand miles, and currently have a set on our project Land Rover Discovery. Despite the reliability I’ve experienced with this tire, technology has advanced well beyond their current designs. As a result, these classic standbys are fading into the past.
On Road
In the highway evaluation the All-Terrain was busy and noisy. The Jeep tended to follow grooves and generally imparted a harsh ride with excessive noise. The tire also required the highest average weight to balance (8.06 ounces). The T/A provided reasonable stopping distances and finished towards the middle of the pack in the emergency braking test. On the slalom track it had the slowest overall time, with less-than-impressive lateral grip, and required significant steering input for directional change. Skid pad times were at the lower end of the pack, and calculated lateral g-force was .67. At the end of the test, the shoulder of the outside front tire was showing major tearing and chunking and was nearly shredded. Once the asphalt turned wet, the speeds and control in the 90-degree corner dropped even further, resulting in the poorest performance of the test.
On Trail
The T/A continued to struggle in the dirt. There were significant delays in responsiveness and excessive steering wheel input was required to initiate directional change. Lateral grip on the dirt oval was recorded as weak, which induced oversteer and slow recovery during countersteer. Damping was good on the dirt, with less step-out on corrugations than average and better overall comfort. We did note that the tire was linear and lacked surprises—even with less overall grip it was consistent and predictable. On the rock climb the BFG demonstrated good lug deformation and keying, but lacked adhesion and ultimately failed the climb. It recorded the shortest climb height of the units tested. bfgoodrichtires.com, 877-788-8899"
This is generally the consensus across the board about BFG tires. They are popular because they've been around since most of us where born. But they offer poor traction and aren't nearly as rugged as they claim, compared to today's technology. They are also very over-priced.
"BFGoodrich (BFG) has been a stalwart brand in the overland and 4WD communities for four decades. The All-Terrain T/A, which was released in the late 1970s, claimed countless awards and desert racing championships. I have used BFG tires for years and several hundred thousand miles, and currently have a set on our project Land Rover Discovery. Despite the reliability I’ve experienced with this tire, technology has advanced well beyond their current designs. As a result, these classic standbys are fading into the past.
On Road
In the highway evaluation the All-Terrain was busy and noisy. The Jeep tended to follow grooves and generally imparted a harsh ride with excessive noise. The tire also required the highest average weight to balance (8.06 ounces). The T/A provided reasonable stopping distances and finished towards the middle of the pack in the emergency braking test. On the slalom track it had the slowest overall time, with less-than-impressive lateral grip, and required significant steering input for directional change. Skid pad times were at the lower end of the pack, and calculated lateral g-force was .67. At the end of the test, the shoulder of the outside front tire was showing major tearing and chunking and was nearly shredded. Once the asphalt turned wet, the speeds and control in the 90-degree corner dropped even further, resulting in the poorest performance of the test.
On Trail
The T/A continued to struggle in the dirt. There were significant delays in responsiveness and excessive steering wheel input was required to initiate directional change. Lateral grip on the dirt oval was recorded as weak, which induced oversteer and slow recovery during countersteer. Damping was good on the dirt, with less step-out on corrugations than average and better overall comfort. We did note that the tire was linear and lacked surprises—even with less overall grip it was consistent and predictable. On the rock climb the BFG demonstrated good lug deformation and keying, but lacked adhesion and ultimately failed the climb. It recorded the shortest climb height of the units tested. bfgoodrichtires.com, 877-788-8899"
This is generally the consensus across the board about BFG tires. They are popular because they've been around since most of us where born. But they offer poor traction and aren't nearly as rugged as they claim, compared to today's technology. They are also very over-priced.
You do realize this review is for the original bfg ko's right? They are not talking about the newer ko2's which are different.
01-11-2017, 08:41 AM
#43
www.sldraftingdesign.com
I was going to go with these instead of stock size, but the place I buy tires was out of stock so I just went with stock size because I really wanted to try these tires. DO IT. They are awesome
02-25-2017, 02:21 PM
#45
FDT
I have them in a P265/60R18 (stock 2wd size) and put over 10,000 miles on them and did not lose any mpg's. And that's been a few trips from Milwaukee to Knoxville and a 3,100 mile round trip from Milwaukee to Orlando.
The following users liked this post:
Neilb75 (02-26-2017)
02-25-2017, 08:00 PM
#46
Senior Member
True, but the KO2 is nearly identical, which they did on purpose. Only the outer tread changed much. It's the interlocked nature of the blocks that kills them.
02-25-2017, 08:24 PM
#47
Senior Member
The tread has changed quite a bit when you take a close look. I can also tell you first hand they are tremendously better than before, esp in the snow. I have tested both extensively on just about every terrain there is.
I also had a set of Nitto M/T Trail Graps. There has not been a place my BFGs couldn't take me that the Nittos did. That includes plenty of mud and everything else I threw at them over 30k miles.
02-26-2017, 01:21 AM
#48
Senior Member
No that's not true, I've ran ko's on vehicles in the past and I run the ko2's now, big difference in off road capability and pretty good difference in tread.
^^^^^^^^^ this exactly
Attachment 468453
The tread has changed quite a bit when you take a close look. I can also tell you first hand they are tremendously better than before, esp in the snow. I have tested both extensively on just about every terrain there is.
I also had a set of Nitto M/T Trail Graps. There has not been a place my BFGs couldn't take me that the Nittos did. That includes plenty of mud and everything else I threw at them over 30k miles.
The tread has changed quite a bit when you take a close look. I can also tell you first hand they are tremendously better than before, esp in the snow. I have tested both extensively on just about every terrain there is.
I also had a set of Nitto M/T Trail Graps. There has not been a place my BFGs couldn't take me that the Nittos did. That includes plenty of mud and everything else I threw at them over 30k miles.
02-26-2017, 08:41 AM
#49
I've been using BFG AT's since the 70's on all the trucks and Jeeps I've owned in my lifetime. To say they don't perform well or sling mud when needed is an understatement. Tell you what, next time I'm in the mud I'll pull out on dry pavement and let you stand behind me while I pull away and sling so much mud on you that you'll look like a chocolate fudge fountain.
Seriously, the choice of tires you put on your vehicles is something you decide in the end and not by someones else humble opinions. At least you have the internet to research reviews and opinions and decide.
The reason I use BFG's KO's, KO2 AT or whatever they are calling them now, is longevity and performance. I have always gotten near 90,000 -100,000 miles tread wear from these tires when scheduled rotations and proper air pressure and good alignments. Yes, you pay for them upfront but the cost is justified in the wear factor and durability of the BFG's KO's and that is just my humble opinion.
Seriously, the choice of tires you put on your vehicles is something you decide in the end and not by someones else humble opinions. At least you have the internet to research reviews and opinions and decide.
The reason I use BFG's KO's, KO2 AT or whatever they are calling them now, is longevity and performance. I have always gotten near 90,000 -100,000 miles tread wear from these tires when scheduled rotations and proper air pressure and good alignments. Yes, you pay for them upfront but the cost is justified in the wear factor and durability of the BFG's KO's and that is just my humble opinion.
Last edited by Keith460; 02-26-2017 at 08:44 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Sgb020 (07-24-2017)
11-26-2018, 03:45 PM
#50
I know, old thread but can't find any info. How are wild peaks in the snow and on cold wet pavement? I had KO2s on my 16 regular cab and they are great dry pavement, Suck on cold wet or snow pavement!!!!! I thought it was because of I had a regular cab (light weight) Not the case, have them again on my 18 screw and they still suck *****, like driving on banana peels in snow, little to no traction, unsafe to say the least. Last winter I went to michelin defenders and they grip like glue in wet/ cold conditions - I could do it again but want an aggressive look - can anyone say how these are on snow?
