BFG MT's vs. Goodyear MT/R's

Hi Jeff,

I have 33x10.50R15 BFG MT with 4.10 gears on a daily driver. My RPM are

2320 @ 70 mph in 5th (0.79 ratio). Assuming you have the same transmission, yours will be about 2475 RPM ((70*4.10*0.79*336)/30.8) - still fine for the 4.0L.

These were my first MTs and when I got them I was prepared for huge noise. I can hear a difference (they really growl when slowing to a stop) but overall I hardly notice them.

I heard tales of these tires wearing quickly. After 8 months (with regular rotation and careful attention to tire pressure) it looks like I'm going to exceed the manufacturer's tread life spec.

I was also worried about warnings of hydroplaning. I've since driven in torrential downpours and have had zero traction or handling issues.

They work great in the mud for a street tire, but can clog up if it gets really thick and slimy (clay).

I like how they pull in really deep snow.

Handling and traction is noticeably reduced at speed on snow/slush covered roads as compared to a proper snow tire. Not a major issue, I simply drive a little slower than I would with Nokians or Blizzaks.

Traction on slick rock and wet asphalt can be significantly improved by siping the lugs:

Steve

Handywired wrote:

BFG's all the way!

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Handywired wrote:

If you are not offroading do not spend your money on a mud tire. The BFG mts are great, I am running them but check the specs on the website. The tire is not ment for snow. In the winter I run a differents sent. Also Mud tires can make alot more noise. If you live in Canada, I would go for the Canadain tire Roughrider, M+S. This tire comes in 31 and this is what I use in the winter. They are great tires and usually go on sale.

The Goodyear MT/Rs are expensive but you pay for what you get. If you have not built up your jeep you could go for the 31 BFG ATs. Once you build it up then you can put on the 33 muds. (Plus the lift, slip yoke, wider flares, regear .... $$$ ching ching!)

You make really good points.

Despite how good my BFG muds are in the winter, Snowboardripper is the only one to cleanly beat me on a winter hill climb!

It was on an ice riverbank climb on a trail and he just purred up it with those Roughriders with his arm out the window hooting. 'Everyone' else had to be winched out of that ravine.

Didn't even get any good photos, it was so cold my camera froze up.

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Snowboardripper wrote:

I had to make this decision last year and went with the BFGs, simply beacuse I've gotten great performance from them on several Jeeps and they were at the time a lot less expensive, like $60 a tire for 35s.

the mt/r has a much stronger sidewall and im very pleased with mine, but if youre not a rock crawler i think the mt/r would be a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. ive owned bfg's in the past with great success and for your intended uses i think you would be better served with them.

youve heard correct. @19000 miles mine still have a fair amount of life left in them, but theyre showing a lot more wear than my bfg's of comparable mileage. i can also state with assurity that the mt/r's are _totally_ unforgiving if you miss a single rotation. still, when its time to buy tires again ill replace them with mt/r's but only because i like rocks. :-)

My baby needs new shoes too, so during the Moab Easter Jeep safari I watched how well the different tires behaved on the slick rock. The MT/R's were universally better than the BFG MT's. On every obstacle I could tell which Jeeps had MT/R's vs anything else by how they went up, down or across the obstacle. The MT/R's were better on dry slick rock, wet slick rock, and mud. But the MT/R owners did mention that they seemed to be getting torn up and wearing faster than the other tires.

If the BFG MT's wear as well as my BFG AT's, 40,000+ miles and probably another

10,000 to go, the BFG MT's might be your best choice.

Dean That said I'm buying the MT/R's. They were THAT much better on the rocks.

Thanks for the reply!

I have already regeared to 4.10, and had 'em put True-Tracks front and rear. However, I don't intend to lift it for a couple years as it is a daily driver that is used by my wife quite a bit when I commute in the other car (Volvo). I drive a lot on road but I do get if offroad quite a bit too.

I have 30" BFG AT's on there now, and I have no complaints. They did pretty good when we got hammered hard by snow up at elk camp. However, it bugs me that they (the AT's) are not much good in slimy mud, of which we have plenty in Western Oregon! And 31's would be a better match for my gearing until I lift it, etc.

Sp that's the thinking behind the whole thing...

-jeff

Hi Dean,

Do you recall if any of the BFG MTs were siped? I imagine that siping a BFG MT would to some extent close the performance gap with the MT/R.

Interesting that MT/Rs outperformed BFG MTs in mud. Would you say that the difference between the two tires was as dramatic as it was on the rock? Are we talking deep mud here or just a few inches on top of smooth rock?

Thanks,

Steve

Dean wrote:

Actually, the BFG cvompetitor for the MTR is the Crawler, which perfroms extremely well on the rocks.

and

>

I can't say that none of the BFG MTs were not siped, but those that I looked at closely were not. The MT/R's I looked at closely were a bit torn up compared to similar BFG's. Maybe they use softer rubber?

Were talking Moab mud here, sandy dirt mixed with water. And if it was over

3 inches deep I'd be surprised. It was however, deep enough to cause problems with my BFG 40,000+ mile AT's. One this particular part of the trail the Jeep in front of me had MT/R's and the one behind had BFG MT's. The MT/Rs walked through with out a problem. I had to use wheel spin in a mostly futile effort to clear the treads and the Jeep behind with the BFG MT made it though with a minimum of fuss. He might have been emulating my tire spinning or just having fun. Hard to say.

I can't really say how the two compare in "real mud." Personally I find mud a little bit intimdating. That stuff will get you stuck and messy in a hurry, I'll take big ol rocks any day.

Dean

siping the bfg mt isnt going to make any great difference in rock performance.....and no amount of siping can improve the weaker sidewalls of the bfg which ive seen split open like a pig in a cooker. that said, i disagree that the mt/r is better in the mud than the bfg. while the mt/r does decent in the mud, over the last 19k miles ive begun to notice the deficit. if i were a mudder i would definately run the bfg before the mt/r. being a rock hound i prefer the mt/r, but having run them in the past im almost convinced that the trxus mud terrain gives you the best of both.