BFGoodrich owners, help me out... - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech General discussion of wheels and tires for the Ford Ranger.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
BFGoodrich owners, help me out...

i love my goodyear at/s tires...they have not let me down one bit in the performance/looks department at all....they are a hell of a lot better than the stock tires, but...as all good things eventaully go away, i will have to buy new tires sometime soon....

i have had the BFGoodrich AT's on my '96 Blazer before...and they let me down terribly...i had heard such good things about them, and honestly, they never got me stuck once. they also would shine up nicely too....but the treadwear was a *****. i got maybe 4 or 5 oil changes out of them, and i rotated them every 5k miles.

has bfg done anything to solve this problem? or was it just me? i know that i do a lot more city driving than off roading, and that could have been a cause for the tread dieing, but i kept them rotated and never did burnouts or anything stupid.

if bfg hasnt done anything, can anyone direct me to a good all terrain tire that will last me? around a 500 tread wear rateing? i know that they wont be the best in the rain, but i cant keep buying new tires every year....i put a lot of miles on my truck during a year, and its just getting tobe too much of a hassle....

side note: my suspension is probably similar to a ranger XLT 4x4's suspension...i'm definately lower than a stock EDGE....now, will a 32" tire fit on my truck? i know to get different rims and etc, but is it feasable?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-21-2005
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
Ok i dont know what your problem was with the tires, but normally they last around 50000+. and yes a set of 32x11.5 will fit on your truck. heck there is a guy on GE that got like 90000 out of them and they still look farly good. I love these tires in the rain and snow, mostly the snow.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-21-2005
rngprerunner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Beach CA
Posts: 3,453
One thing to remember is that tread wear is only relavant within brands. Each brand has their own formula for calculating tread wear numbers, so they cant be compared to other brands.

On that note, what AT's did you have? Were they the AT/KO's. The KO is the latest version of the AT by BFG. The spare I have is an older model and it is not the KO and the wear on it looks alot worse than my KO's. I'v got a little over 15,000 on my tires now and they are showing wear, but I also do a lot of offroading and the rocks really chew them up, so take it for what its worth.

Another brand? I have heard very good things about the Yokohama Geolanders. I cant say anymore since I dont own them, but I have heard good things.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-21-2005
LILBLUE04FX4L2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Exit 105 New Jersey
Posts: 2,409
you won't go wrong with the BFG AT KO tires
LIL BLUE will turn 10,000 on the ODO miles this weekend
no rotation yet (all highway and off road) and they still look new
plus I think they sell at a good price
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
I realy can't do much in the line of comparing and contrasting. I had a set of Firestone HTs on my last truck ('99 XL Sport, 4x2 w/ the I4) and they were great as far as tread life goes. In the rain they were okay, but really poor in the snow. But then I didn't have much expectations of them as they were a stock OEM tire. The treadlife I did see was a chock to me. I actually traded the truck w/ the original tires still on the truck!

.. But you want some A/Ts anyhow..

The new truck shipped w/ BFG A/Ts. I'm not sure I'd have ever bought a set of them myself, as they are quite expensive. But they were on the truck, so. At any rate, I'm quite happy w/ them. I'm at ~20k mostly hard-top miles and they have plenty of tread left on them. I like them quite a bit in the dirt/mud as they've never let me down. I'm quite surprised at what that truck can do as it's never been stuck. How much of that is the 4x4 (this is my first), how much of it is the L/S/Torsen, and how much of it is the tires I have no idea. But the whole package is pretty good. What impresses me most is the snow handling. It's quite good. However the ICE handling is QUITE poor. Then again I'm not sure there's much out there that isn't. Ice is tuff, period. The snow traction is impressive though. Again, 4x4 has something to do w/ it. But I skipped putting weight in the back for the first winter ever. In my mind that's saying something!

A happy alternative might be something by Cooper. John loves his, he won't shut up about them in fact! In my (limited) experience they are hard to find though, at least in this area. If they are much cheaper I'll certianly consider a set next time around. If not though I'll probably go for another set of BFGs..

As for what tire will fit, I'm of even less help (and you thought that was possible, right?!). Personally I'm quite pleased w/ the 31x10.5 size. It is enough tire to give quite confident on-road performance. I think the height is fine, but if I ever wanted to go higher I'd probably just go w/ a 33x10.5 as I think the width is just right. Will 31's fit on your truck? Probably, but I'm far from an expert. If you're lower than the Edge height, I'd suspect no. My FX4 is at the same height as the Edge I believe, which I thought was the same as the XLT 4x4. I thought every Ranger w/ 4x4 had the torsion bar suspension, just like the Edge. Or more accurately the Edge had suspension like the 4x4 Rangers.

Anyhow, good luck..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-21-2005
Skyjacker_44's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hillsboro,Texas
Posts: 1,079
4 or 5 oil changes....i'v been trying to kill mine for the past 2 months so i can get 35's and they are now just starting to wear down....and thats the rear i got a good 30k miles left on them.. i also have the KO's but you must ahve got a lemon lol
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
haha i had the ko's....i got them from Sears if that says anything....but for the whole package, tires/balance/alignment was $600 out the door....plus i had a lifetime warranty on them too....

i already have 31x10.50's on my truck, they fit nice and i was pissed that the lady at the Goodyear store (i bought goodyears cuz i could get a discount being that i know someone who works at the local Goodyear tire factory) told me that 31s are as big as i can go, andi know i can fit 32s, maybe tuck 33's...haha....

i think that the EDGE models have the torsion bars cranked a slight bit from the factory more than the 4x4's....i know they have a higher tow rating (a 4x2) than my truck which is also confuseing...but anyway, my buddy has lowered his edge my un cranking the t-bars and remving the rear blocks and he still sits as high/if not higher than me....

i'm thinkin of the bfg's to purchase....the goodyear mt/r's looks are totally me, but tread life an price are an issue....duh haha....

i like the bridgestone dueler revo tires...they have a nice tread, although they look more street performance than off road performance...no big lugs stick up/out....

maybe some buckshot mudders? eh...i dont know.... :(
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
I think the Ranger's computer will only do speedo correction for up to 31" tires, which is the biggest the factory mounts. Maybe that's why the woman told you those were the biggest tires you could take? But then I'd be surprised to learn that a Goodyear tire retailer would have the ability to re-flash your truck to adjust the speedo..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
It goes by rolling radius. The certification limit in the stock firmware only allows a minimum RPM of 670 and the 33"s are 642 so you will read 6% slow with a 33" if you were calibrated for a 31 (678?). If you use the wiggle room in the axle ratio and make it 4.12 and change from 678 to 670, or whatever it was, you can get it to about 5% which is where I have left mine.

The BFG A/T tires do totally rock in the snow. They are not that great in the mud compared to the mud terrains (imagine that!) because they cake up if they even hear you SAY the word mud. For average use, occasional trail duty and lots of superslab driving, I don't think you can beat the BFG A/T. I used to have th MT and I hated them with a passion on the road. I don't see how anyone could live with them on anything that isn't just a trail rig.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-21-2005
gatorblue92's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Delaware
Posts: 8,238
i love my BFG A/Ts i have put about 7,000 miles on them since i got them last june and they have been great... i only have been stuck once with them but that was driver error and the tread on them still looks new... infact you can still see the remains of the pegs on them... i have rotated them every 3,000 miles which may be too often but i want to get all i can out of them...
i had coopers on my bronco II but not the same kind as john and i loved them... i wanted those when i got my bfg's but i couldnt find them anywhere... i know they had about 60,000 on them when i sold the bronco and they had at least 5,000 more left
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-21-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by TippnOver
i think that the EDGE models have the torsion bars cranked a slight bit from the factory more than the 4x4's....i know they have a higher tow rating (a 4x2) than my truck which is also confuseing...
Within any Ranger engine/transmission group, the 4x4 has a lower tow rating than a similar 4x2. Seems wrong at first but it isn't.

For Rangers, the rating is by engine size and transmission type, so all 4.0L SOHC automatics have a Gross Combined Weight Rating of 9500 lbs. The GCWR is the highest allowable weight of the fully loaded truck and trailer combination. Since a 4x4 is heavier than an otherwise similar 4x2, the 4x4's maximum trailer weight must be less to comply with the 9500 pound maximim.

The same is true of 4.0L manuals except they are limited to 7000 lbs. GCWR.

Manuals are lower rated than automatics because the clutch is the limiting factor. A Ford acceptance test requires that the vehicle must be able to launch at GCWR from rest on a steep test hill. An automatic uses the torque multiplication of the torque converter to nearly double the available torque at launch. The manual, on the other hand, must waste part of its available power to heat loss through the clutch during initial launch. If you loaded both auto and manual to 9500 combined weight and tried to launch them on the test slope, the automatic would slowly crawl away while the manual smoked its clutch into oblivion.

Obviously, the 4 cylinder and 3.0L have suitably reduced GCWR's because of their lower torque outputs. Interestingly, a 3.0L automatic has a higher GCWR than a 4.0L manual, again because of the limitations of the clutch at initial uphill launch.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-21-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by rngprerunner
One thing to remember is that tread wear is only relavant within brands. Each brand has their own formula for calculating tread wear numbers, so they cant be compared to other brands.
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) are a federally mandated tire rating system intended to help consumers make comparisons. The tires from all manufacturers are subjected to the same series of tests in controlled laboratory conditions and then rated for Treadwear, Traction and Temperature Resistance. It is entirely analogous to the EPA's inferred dynamometer fuel economy ratings and it has the same limitations: your experience may be somewhat different from the laboratory result. Despite the limitations, the UTQGS does give the consumer a yardstick to make a more informed comparison among tire brands and models.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Bob: Have I mentioned lately that I like having you around?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-21-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba
Bob: Have I mentioned lately that I like having you around?
No, you have been neglecting me...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: ***
Posts: 2,099
I love my BFG's in the snow and for their long life and performance on light trails.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing
No, you have been neglecting me...
Get a room you guys!

That test hill at DPG is fun. Too bad I only have access to high speed and low speed right now.

So like I have been saying, a manual can tow just as much as long as you don't have to start on a hill and don't do it every day. Of course, no one would buy a manual Ranger for a regular tow vehicle. If they had a granny 1st...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Or 2WD low-range..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-21-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave and Julie
So like I have been saying, a manual can tow just as much as long as you don't have to start on a hill and don't do it every day. Of course, no one would buy a manual Ranger for a regular tow vehicle. If they had a granny 1st...
I agree completely, Dave. I wouldn't hesitate to pull the AT GCWR with my manual. But i would for sure avoid stopping it on a steep uphill. If I got caught there though, it would be in low range long enough to get it launched, then back to 2HI.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
But aren't you supposed to completely stop before going in or out of 4Lo?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-21-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba
But aren't you supposed to completely stop before going in or out of 4Lo?
Supposed to but you can double clutch it through 4N to slow everything down and then go to 4HI and on to 2HI.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Some transfer cases accept that method more eagerly than others. I haven't tried that in mine.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-21-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
..I don't dare! Not w/ the problems I've had!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-23-2005
Rand's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Barberton,Ohio
Posts: 1,189
Actually John is right here. They are only relevant if you compare tires in the same brand. Because the tire manufacturers have to select a base tire and compare their own tires against it(they do the tests too)

Quote:
looking at UTQG ratings it is important to realize that the Department of Transportation does not conduct the tests. The grades are assigned by the tire manufacturers based on their test results or those conducted by an independent testing company they have hired. The NHTSA has the right to inspect the tire manufacturer's data and can fine them if inconsistencies are found. While most new tire lines have their grades established when they are introduced, they are allowed a 6-month grace period to allow the tire manufacturer to test actual production tires. Once a grade is assigned it must be branded on the tire's upper sidewall and printed on its label.

Unfortunately, the rating that is of the most interest to consumers is the one that appears to be the least consistent. While the Treadwear Grade was originally intended to be assigned purely scientifically, it has also become a marketing tool used by manufacturers to help position and promote their tires.
Quote:
Unfortunately for all of the money spent to test, brand and label the tires sold in the United States, the Uniform Tire Quality Grade Standards have not fully met their original goal of clearly informing consumers about the capabilities of their tires. Maybe it's because tires are so complex and their uses can be so varied, that the grades don't always reflect their actual performance in real world use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://autorepair.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/aa120603a.htm
One little quirk: Testing tires for treadwear can be an expensive proposition. So the government merely asks the tire manufacturers to be able to justify their rating. In my experience this seems to mean different things to different people and a wide range of "justifications" are being used.

Another little quirk: Each tire manufacturer has its own philosophy about UTQG ratings, especially when it comes to the treadwear rating. Some view the rating as a huge marketing tool, while others tend to think of it as an implied warranty. Be cautious when you compare ratings - they may not be "apples to apples".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) are a federally mandated tire rating system intended to help consumers make comparisons. The tires from all manufacturers are subjected to the same series of tests in controlled laboratory conditions and then rated for Treadwear, Traction and Temperature Resistance. It is entirely analogous to the EPA's inferred dynamometer fuel economy ratings and it has the same limitations: your experience may be somewhat different from the laboratory result. Despite the limitations, the UTQGS does give the consumer a yardstick to make a more informed comparison among tire brands and models.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-23-2005
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
its all rigged.....grrrrr
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brand New set of BFGoodrich M/T 32x11.50x15:Arkansas TheBearJeweler Suspension, Tires, & Wheels 6 10-09-2011 08:33 AM
NEW 35" BFGOODRICH KM2s 2ranger2 Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech 24 09-09-2010 01:22 PM
NEW!!!!!!!!!! BFGoodrich tires Mykhael Snapshots 29 03-11-2008 08:17 PM
BFGoodrich A/T's SUCK! My05edge Ranger Products, Company, & Member Reviews 104 06-04-2007 12:37 PM
queston on bfgoodrich mud-terrains 05edge Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech 15 09-25-2005 10:15 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.