Thread: All terrain vs mud pattern, again

Really it depends what you want them for. There's a thousand threads here on AULRO and every other 4WD forum that a quick Google search will find for you.

A good AT is not going to be as effective as a good MT in the mud and thick of it. But a MT won't be as nice on the road as an AT. It's compromises and what fits best for you most of the time. Then not all ATs are equal nor are all MT's equal so the brand and model will vary too.

Personally I run BF Goodrich All-Terrain KO (the originals) and I think they are my hold back off road, particularly now that they're a few years and a few 10,000km's old. But more of my driving is tarmac and they've handled great on there and given me the balance I needed. The new KO2's look a bit more aggressive and I look forward to stepping up to them and getting that bit more of an edge.

Good luck.

I think depends what you use them for.
If you like the Vic High country or Yalwal then mud terrains.
If you like touring then ATs.
I used to have 2 sets but it is really tiresome to change tyres.
One answer is MT rears and AT fronts, as I used to have and semis run all the time with traction tyres on rear and steering tyres on front. I found this not a bad compromise at one time but that was with BFG pre Baja type MT and every time you pulled to a halt you got a thump thump.

Why not try a set of aggressive ATs or mild MTs like Kumho MT51 and report back how noisy they are ..

PS I have ATKOs and am very happy with them and the new KO2 is more aggressive. I will probably go for Michelin Latitude Cross 255.65x16 as my current 255.70x16 raise the gearing 5% and towing needs all the help.
Regards Philip A

There are more wear characteristics to tyres then just the tread, the idea buying half worn mud terrain tyres rather than all terrain tyres doesn't sit right with me. Mud terrain tyres tend to become worse and worse to drive on once they are half worn, not just because of the tread depth but the way the tyre handles and it's comfort levels get worse. (Compared to a new MT Tyre). Obviously you will have the same effect on any tyre, but MT tyres seem to deteriorate faster than an AT tyre.

I do understand the reason why one would ask the question and potentially go down this path, I looked for ages for a tyre that was somewhere between a AT and a MT. It came down to BFG KO2 or GOODYEAR DURATRAC'S. I went with the DURATRAC's mostly because they look like a very aggressive AT tyre. Only had them 2 weeks and I must say i'm more than happy with them, heaps of grip on and off the road. Handled the VIC High Country north of Licola very well. But I honestly I haven't had the opportunity to try them in mud, I'm really not one for driving through bog holes, but mud and bog holes are two different things.

I had mud terrain tyres for 4 years, not sure if i'll bother again. There is not much correct tyre pressures and GOOD AT tyres won't manage.

The only situation I can really see any value in worn mud terrain tyres is on sand dunes, like Robe or Portland.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

PS I have ATKOs and am very happy with them and the new KO2 is more aggressive. I will probably go for Michelin Latitude Cross 255.65x16 as my current 255.70x16 raise the gearing 5% and towing needs all the help.
Regards Philip A

Have a look at the Michelin LTX Force, their new AT.
Pretty mild for an AT, designed in Sth America for their roads which I'm guessing would be a similar mix to here, I've been seriously looking at them for my next set of tyres.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

One answer is MT rears and AT fronts, as I used to have and semis run all the time with traction tyres on rear and steering tyres on front. I found this not a bad compromise at one time but that was with BFG pre Baja type MT and every time you pulled to a halt you got a thump thump.

I'd be very cautious doing this in a constant 4WD vehicle. There's a lot of different factors compared to a truck which is just steering at the front and driving at the rear. The concern is similar to how generally you change all four tyres on these vehicles at once. The different styles, brands, models, compounds, and duties (e.g. front are steering and scrubbing) can mean varying wear rates so the tyres may end up different sized front to rear.

They may even start life sized differently - its well documented now that different brand and model tyres often vary a bit in their actual overall size. For example, BF Goodrich in their 285/75R16 size list both the AT KO2 and MT KM2 as being 834mm overall diameter, but the MT has 15mm tread depth and the AT has only 12mm. If both are used all the way down then the MT will end up 3mm smaller. But I would want to be checking that it's not actually physically larger in the beginning too.

In saying all that it would be interesting to try to see if the MT's on the back just gave it that extra edge.

Originally Posted by rick130

Have a look at the Michelin LTX Force, their new AT.
Pretty mild for an AT, designed in Sth America for their roads which I'm guessing would be a similar mix to here, I've been seriously looking at them for my next set of tyres.

Thanks everyone, I used to run Bridgestone 694 I think on my patrols and had aggressive mud tyres to swap to at play time, I now have the kumho mt 51which I am happy with, m y mate has sold his play 4x4 so now I'm just thinking wether to stick to kumho mt51 for some touring or to change back to all terrains as play days are basically over and the all terrains will handle next adventures no problems. Thanks ya all