Thread: Hey BB, sitrep on MTR's

Ace, that's horribly accurate of you. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img]

Dave, Mick-Kelly,

As I mentioned, yes I think there was a problem with the initial run of BFG MT KO's, with respect to the bead protector built into the sidewall. According to the rep, they have now addressed that. Unfortunately, too late for me [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img]

Originally posted by gghaggis
Richard,

Good to see you' re back [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

I'll add my trial and tribulations with BFG tyres, as Richard only knows too well!

I've had 4 sets - one set of AT KO's, two sets of the older MTs and one set of MT KOs. All performed faultlessly - except the the last

The first series of MT KO's (around 2003?) had the "bead protector" molded on. When airing down to 20psi, these seemed to do nothing but suck in every bit of mud, rot and sticks they could find, causing the tyre to leak and (often as not) come off the rim. We had 4 flats in one Harvey outing, slowing eveyone down

And forget sand driving .....

The Tyrepower store claimed that the new MT KO's no longer had this problem, but I shied away from them and opted for the ProComp Xtreme's - which I don't think are available anymore. A shame really, because I've found these tyres to be incredibly good at almost everything. As a siped MT, on road noise is minimal, sand driving is a breeze (they air down to 14psi with nary a complaint!) and given the limitation of a 16mm tread depth, they do pretty well in the mud, at least as well as my BFG MTs.

Cheers,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Between those MTR's and diffs you could have had a lot more driving time :!: :!: :!:

Originally posted by VladTepes
Ace, that's horribly accurate of you.

The sooner you accept it the sooner you can move on. I was just helping. :wink: Matt

8) vlad, looks this ones going strait to the pool room.[topic]

and i wouldn't bother with testing anything else on my disco
original spec mitchies,[in fact i made a lot of noise to get them back on the shelves] mostly road use, and the speed rating is my main reason. if you put tyres on with a lower speed rating than the book then you risk the insurance man tearing up your claim.
and for the small part of my off road driving i dont think **** tyres are worth the effort.
i gotta say i am doing 100 k a day mostly, and thats on the black top in 110 km zones, i actually have had the need for the thing [95 disco] to go around a corner [or die] and the thing did it at an exceptionally high speed.
i don't think that 60 mph rated bog tyres would have saved me.
at the end of the day you have got get a balance between safety and insurance, don't have the first, don't have the second.
have a look at your vehicle's tyre chart before you purchase.
and for those that don't insure there cars- please don't fill the tank ever again.
i hate uninsured people [i hate insurance companies too]

Originally posted by harry
8) vlad, looks this ones going strait to the pool room.[topic]

and i wouldn't bother with testing anything else on my disco
original spec mitchies,[in fact i made a lot of noise to get them back on the shelves] mostly road use, and the speed rating is my main reason. if you put tyres on with a lower speed rating than the book then you risk the insurance man tearing up your claim.
and for the small part of my off road driving i dont think W**K tyres are worth the effort.
i gotta say i am doing 100 k a day mostly, and thats on the black top in 110 km zones, i actually have had the need for the thing [95 disco] to go around a corner [or die] and the thing did it at an exceptionally high speed.
i don't think that 60 mph rated bog tyres would have saved me.
at the end of the day you have got get a balance between safety and insurance, don't have the first, don't have the second.
have a look at your vehicle's tyre chart before you purchase.
and for those that don't insure there cars- please don't fill the tank ever again.
i hate uninsured people [i hate insurance companies too]

Will second that, i fear being hit by an uninsured driver and having to fix everything at my expense. Matt

8) you know i really think that its got to the stage that all cars should have compulsory third party 'knock' insurance, at the very least. like we pay to cover the person, but not the property,
i insure mine, [full comp.] but why should i have my premium compromised by someone who has no insurance cover?

take drug smoking penny pinching poofters and arseholes off the road.
teach the new drivers [our children] to take the responsibility and have the right cover [i was going to write 'protection' but thats covered in another letter -french- i think] before they cost others , and themselves more than we can afford.

Originally posted by harry
8) you know i really think that its got to the stage that all cars should have compulsory third party 'knock' insurance, at the very least. like we pay to cover the person, but not the property,
i insure mine, [full comp.] but why should i have my premium compromised by someone who has no insurance cover?

take drug smoking penny pinching poofters and arseholes off the road.
teach the new drivers [our children] to take the responsibility and have the right cover [i was going to write 'protection' but thats covered in another letter -french- i think] before they cost others , and themselves more than we can afford.

When i was on my P's i had an old 1600 escort. Comp insurance wasnt worth it (to insure it for $2000- premium was nearly $600), but i always had 3rd party property damage as you say. I couldnt afford to fix some blokes beamer if i hit it. Matt