265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2





Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    209
    Thanked: 71

    Default 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Chaps,

    i need some advice here, my ranger is currently shod with BF KO2 and i have no complaints about the strength and reliability of the tyre, it has not let me down. However i daily drive my Ranger and basically only escape to gravel or worse roads once a month on our competition fishing rounds. While having the BF's on is a nice to have with its good looks an rugged ability, it isn't very pleasant on the pocket to keep paying at the pumps with the difference in additional fuel spent.

    So now i am considering pulling the BF's off and placing a set of Michelin LTX AT2 (https://www.errolstyres.co.za/tyre/m...-2/9261/242767 ) on and saving the extra fuel mileage, a little bit of extra oompf and still being happy that i have a safe quality tyre on my vehicle. they are a Michelin product and there is always that implied sense of quality when dealing with the brand.

    Who has had these tyres, what experiences can you share about them? as a second option i will go with the Goodyear Wrangler adventurers...

    Thanks...
    Ford Ranger 3.2 Auto 4x4 XLT
    Paj DiD SWB Auto
    E92 335i 430kw at the wheels!
    VW G6 GTi DSG

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Amorosa
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,375
    Thanked: 338

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Good tyres - you wont go wrong with the Michelin. Have seem them offroad as well. No problems at all.
    Toyota Fortuner 2.8 GD6 4x4 MT
    Bush Lapa Miskruier 586
    Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFS..._as=subscriber
    4x4 Competency - Unit Standard 254135

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Bogaards For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Secunda
    Age
    55
    Posts
    350
    Thanked: 127

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Value for money there are definitely better options, like the Pirelli Scorpion, but this LTX just gives you miles and miles and miles. A lot more expensive though than the Pirellis. BFs never rocked my boat - expensive, noisy, and one of the worst in wet.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to j9x For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kareedouw
    Age
    41
    Posts
    77
    Thanked: 11

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Michelin’s will give 100k + kms. They ride much better on and offroad, no road/windnoise, and cost substantially less. They lack the “macho” appeal and are not a sponsor to any major expedition trough Africa. The Bf’s will give 60k kms if you’re conditions/driving style are in their favor. Expect a much firmer ride and more noise. Put them on when you like to be seen and drives around town with a spade, axe and jerrycan Name:  IMG_0802.jpg
Views: 1541
Size:  101.3 KB

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Basterbrak For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    cape town
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,172
    Thanked: 585

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    how much fuel will you really save with a different tyre? Granted they are the same size.

  9. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Pretoria
    Age
    59
    Posts
    111
    Thanked: 48

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Cant comment on fuel saving but Michelin is a very good all round tyre with the added value of very high km's and it has good grip in the wet. Low noise as well.

    Must qualify my statement however as my experience was on M/S which gave me 164k km and still had a lot of thread left but the casings went beyond 10 years.

    So although you pay a premium for them the cost per km should be ok. Rotated mine every 10k km and ran them (empty) at 1.9 bar.

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Secunda
    Age
    55
    Posts
    350
    Thanked: 127

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    In general driving conditions you will save very little. In fact not even worth measuring

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    JBay
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanked: 238

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Quote Originally Posted by JK1 View Post

    Must qualify my statement however as my experience was on M/S which gave me 164k km and still had a lot of thread left but the casings went beyond 10 years.
    164000, holy... you driving it or pushing it...
    Patrol TB48
    Patrol TD42T
    Ex-4x4-partners:
    105 Cruiser
    80 Cruiser
    60 Cruiser
    Tdi Defender
    2.8D Hilux

    http://4x4africa.co.za/

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Pretoria
    Age
    59
    Posts
    111
    Thanked: 48

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Nursing it LOL.

    Seriously though. Met a guy at Weesgerus who had more km on his set.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Centurion
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,153
    Thanked: 233

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    I have AT2 on my Colt, currently on 68k km and they are good for another 40k km I would say, best balanced tyre i have ever used, quiet on tar, of the 68k i would guess about 15k km was on gravel and sand but almost no km on rocks, no punctures to date. I think they will damage easy on rocky terrain (rubber/sides looks a bit soft) but deflation for gravel and sand has never given me issues and they survived a couple of potholes as well.
    Neil

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    209
    Thanked: 71

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocin View Post
    how much fuel will you really save with a different tyre? Granted they are the same size.
    Roughly about 45lt per month on my current mileage covered, fuel consumption bumped up 1.05lt/100km with the BF vs the continental that came with the Ranger when I got it.. The Beekman canopy added another 0.2lt/100km over that...

    Thank you for the good responses from everyone who has bothered to reply, it looks like a set of KO2 will be in the classifieds soon...
    Ford Ranger 3.2 Auto 4x4 XLT
    Paj DiD SWB Auto
    E92 335i 430kw at the wheels!
    VW G6 GTi DSG

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    209
    Thanked: 71

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Just to add, if I remember correct for every 1kg extra of unsprung mass on a vehicle its as if adding 8kg to the vehicle in the amount of energy it takes to move it.

    Hypothetically speaking if the bfs are 2kg per tyre heavier than the Michelin that's 64kg of sprung mass being removed which again in ricer maths is approx the weight of a canopy?
    Ford Ranger 3.2 Auto 4x4 XLT
    Paj DiD SWB Auto
    E92 335i 430kw at the wheels!
    VW G6 GTi DSG

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Kish2604 For This Useful Post:


  17. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lonehill, JHB
    Age
    42
    Posts
    6,201
    Thanked: 788

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    I was reading the posts and thinking “why bother, the cost of 4 tyres versus the anticipated fuel saving will be an interesting calculation to see how long it will take to pay off the new tyres” and then I saw how much mileage you do .

    Why don’t you try this: buy some H/T tyres (like the previous Conti’s) to get back to the same economy and keep the BF’s (if you have the space) for the odd time you need them off-road? It will be interesting to note if the Michelin’s (which are brilliant tyres) will give the same economy as the previous HT’s?

    Edit - the cost of changing tyres onto rims every time will be a waste and a pain in the ass, so scrap that idea and buy the Michelin’s 🤣
    2014 Pajero 3.2DiD SWB

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to KurtG For This Useful Post:


  19. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Melkbosstrand
    Age
    43
    Posts
    682
    Thanked: 139

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish2604 View Post
    Just to add, if I remember correct for every 1kg extra of unsprung mass on a vehicle its as if adding 8kg to the vehicle in the amount of energy it takes to move it.

    Hypothetically speaking if the bfs are 2kg per tyre heavier than the Michelin that's 64kg of sprung mass being removed which again in ricer maths is approx the weight of a canopy?
    This is very interesting... (even if taken with a pinch of salt)
    Factor in rolling resistance, and there is a potential massive impact.
    2015 VW Amarok 4motion Auto
    2011 Conqueror Companion

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    45
    Posts
    2,727
    Thanked: 181

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    OK, the Michelins are brilliant tyres and have probably the best grip on any tar surface. However, they are ridiculously priced. I would rather go with the Pirelli Scorpions.

    But for the elephant in the room now.

    I cannot see that BFGs will make such an impact on the consumption of a big diesel. Maybe on a small petrol vehicle.
    What pressures are you running on the BFGs?
    I ran my BFGs on the Isuzu at 2.5 bar and had no consumption increase on the goodyears it came with. I still get pretty much the same consumption with the General Grabbers I have now, but I have stopped keeping a log. Pretty much around 10km/l around town.

    I really doubt you will make your money back spending R20k on Michelins. I know I wouldnt....
    -----------------------------
    Isuzu Frontier 280LX 4x4 2001

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RogueFrontier For This Useful Post:


  22. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    MTUNZINI
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,972
    Thanked: 425

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    I drive a Discovery 3, tare weight 2700 kg.
    My best mileage I get is from the Michelin LTX AT2, I do 75 000km without trouble, travel lots and lots of gravel , sand , stones.
    Fantastic tyre , also under hard breaking with trailer in tow, had to step on breaks hard in Transkei because vehicle just stopped in front of me on N2.
    I never ever had a blow out on them, before had Bridgestone's with blow outs.
    On my 3rd set of Michelin on the Disco
    I recommend them highly
    Koos Best
    Land Rover Discovery3 TDV6 S.
    VW T5 D/cab 4 Motion with slide on camper

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Koos Best For This Useful Post:


  24. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lonehill, JHB
    Age
    42
    Posts
    6,201
    Thanked: 788

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Quote Originally Posted by RogueFrontier View Post
    OK, the Michelins are brilliant tyres and have probably the best grip on any tar surface. However, they are ridiculously priced. I would rather go with the Pirelli Scorpions.

    But for the elephant in the room now.

    I cannot see that BFGs will make such an impact on the consumption of a big diesel. Maybe on a small petrol vehicle.
    What pressures are you running on the BFGs?
    I ran my BFGs on the Isuzu at 2.5 bar and had no consumption increase on the goodyears it came with. I still get pretty much the same consumption with the General Grabbers I have now, but I have stopped keeping a log. Pretty much around 10km/l around town.

    I really doubt you will make your money back spending R20k on Michelins. I know I wouldnt....
    BFG = R4038 each
    Michelin = R2766 each for the SUV spec.
    Michelin = R2751 each for a slightly larger 265/70R17 in LT spec.

    This is on Errol’s tyres
    2014 Pajero 3.2DiD SWB

  25. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    45
    Posts
    2,727
    Thanked: 181

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtG View Post
    BFG = R4038 each
    Michelin = R2766 each for the SUV spec.
    Michelin = R2751 each for a slightly larger 265/70R17 in LT spec.

    This is on Errol’s tyres
    That is a very good price. When I was looking, when I got the Generals, they where about R1k more each!
    -----------------------------
    Isuzu Frontier 280LX 4x4 2001

  26. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    durban
    Age
    27
    Posts
    11
    Thanked: 3

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Hi. I honestly do not believe that rolling resistant will have such a huge impact on fuel consumption. My wildtrak came with 265/60/18. For the first 3000km with the stock tyres on my consumption was averaging 10.5. I have fitted 285/70/17 cooper st maxx which are just shy of double the weight of the stock tyres. Ive done 3000km on them and consumption sits at 11.8. The coopers weight 14kgs more per tyre than the stock tyres. Thats 56kgs × 8kgs = 448kg total extra resistance? I highly doubt that. Even travelling from durban to clarens last month with 5 adults,food and luggage for a week consumption was 12.9.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to jordache david For This Useful Post:


  28. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    209
    Thanked: 71

    Default Re: 265/65/17 Michelin AT2 vs BF Goodrich KO2

    Quote Originally Posted by jordache david View Post
    Hi. I honestly do not believe that rolling resistant will have such a huge impact on fuel consumption. My wildtrak came with 265/60/18. For the first 3000km with the stock tyres on my consumption was averaging 10.5. I have fitted 285/70/17 cooper st maxx which are just shy of double the weight of the stock tyres. Ive done 3000km on them and consumption sits at 11.8. The coopers weight 14kgs more per tyre than the stock tyres. Thats 56kgs × 8kgs = 448kg total extra resistance? I highly doubt that. Even travelling from durban to clarens last month with 5 adults,food and luggage for a week consumption was 12.9.
    Well your a case in point, your consumption increased from 10.5 to 11.8 or an additional 1.3lt/100km.. the question is, if you had your stock tyres on and loaded approx 500kg into the load bin permanently, would your consumption have increased proportionally to 11.8ish? the way i interpret it is that its not rolling resistance but energy consumed in moving the heavy tyres...
    Ford Ranger 3.2 Auto 4x4 XLT
    Paj DiD SWB Auto
    E92 335i 430kw at the wheels!
    VW G6 GTi DSG

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •