Thread: Maxxis 762 v 764 Big Horns v BFG KM2's

762's can clog up in mud, and I know Matt/rovercare doesn't like the BFG KM2's in Victorian mud at all.

I can only compare 762's to the old KM MT BFG's and the 762's are wearing better for me with equal to or better grip, but according to a coal miner I knew they wore out a bucket load quicker in the pit when tested against the BFG's fitted to Land Cruisers, so ?????

Oh, and 764's are only available in limited sizes so far.
One of the local Cockies has 764's in 265/75-16 on his 79 Series, they are 18 months old and damned near gone, but he's hard on equipment, and most of the country he runs it in is real billy goat stuff.
They have lasted better than the Coopers that preceded them with minimal chipping and far less carcass damage and supposedly grip better too, but that doesn't answer your Q either Terry.
I have no idea how many km he has on them either.

Thanks for the feedback guys, researched plenty of different tyres including the Federal's which if you read the many reviews actually sound really good, especially for the money.

However in the end the price I could get a set of 265/70/17" KM2's for from Tempe Tyres was to attractive to pass up on.

Thanks again.

Looking forward to the report.

I have heard a lot of mixed reviews about the KM2. Always wary of just going on latest tech - lot of that stuff with tyres is marketing hype. Always keen to try new stuff though so hope thry go well!

Cheers

Have to watch the cheap stuff from tempe. They are usually very old stock.

We run a mix of 762's and 764's at work. The 762 are noisier than the 764's.
The 62's I have on the 130 are 10 ply and I find it hard to air them down for sand driving.
No complaints so far in 30 000K's on my 130.
No problems at all with the other vehicles tyres either.

Originally Posted by clubagreenie

Have to watch the cheap stuff from tempe. They are usually very old stock.

Heard this before about their tyres being old, so far I have Bought a couple of sets of tyres from there, never been more than a year old in the build date.

Popular place, while we were waiting for the tyres to be fitted two other 4b's had new sets of KM2's fitted.

Originally Posted by VM_Motori

Love my Big Horns had since new but only a few months old wear seems good to date

Off road they are outstanding

Next set either Deestone Clawers as they perform really well off road or the Federal C's

Just been looking at the Deestone's as they are priced pretty good, have you ran them before ? Also looking at the Federal Couragias .

Originally Posted by clubagreenie

Have to watch the cheap stuff from tempe. They are usually very old stock.

Rubber continues to harden with age, accelerated by exposure to UV. An old trick of cycling is to put a new tyre under your bed for 6 months before mounting. The logic is to allow the rubber to age to harden without the negatives of UV (becoming brittle).

Getting old stock tyres assuming they are stored without exposure to UV will result in a tyre that is harder thus wears better than a new off the factory conveyor belt tyre.

My experience with the KM2's is that they wear at what is perceived to be a fast rate for the first 5,000 kms, then they settle down into an even wear. I have a set of KM2's at 30,000 kms and are about 50% wear. They have slashes to the side wall, chunks out of treat blocks and signs of heavy use. Never had a flat or rolled tyre even when down to 12 psi. They are not pretty but nor have they let me down mechanically. I'm sure there are tyres that have better mud clearing properties, better this or better that but there is no substitute for comfort in reliability and confidence.

ps: the KM2's were designed to comply with the 74 dB rolling road noise rules applied in the EU. They should be quieter than the older style mud tyres.

I haven't had any of the other brands so I don't presume to compare or promote KM2's over any other brand.

cheers MLD