Looking for the perfect size tire for Bronco SAS wheels for my RR.

[cc1999]

Anyone heard of this tire before? Arroyo Tamarock M/T LT 33X12.50R17

This Arroyo Tamarock tire really reminds me of one of my favorite tires
A COOPER ZEON LTZ

I am thinking of trying a set of tires in this 33x12.5R17 size on my Bronco SAS wheels.
Was not really wanting anything like a mud tire. But seems most tires in this are just that Mud tires.

My alternate choice would be the FALKEN Wildpeak R/T01 33x12.50R17

Sponsored

 

[RB205]

Why are you looking at flotation tires? 315/70r17 is the same size with a ton more options. Including several that look like your favorite Cooper

 

[cc1999]

Well I was looking at 305/65R17 but the choices seem even less.

The spec on the stock 285 BFG, is actually pretty narrow for a 285.
I might be able to get what I am after from simply changing up to something like a Falken At4W
in 285/70R17. The Falken AT4W is almost an inch wider tread width. 8.8 ” For the oe BFG vs 9.6 for the AT4W Falken.

Not that big of deal to find a Cooper Zeon clone but I do want something less aggressive then all the mud tires I am finding in those sizes from the main brand names.

I recently put my stock BFG 285s onto my SAS Bronco Rims.
Not happy with how they look, the bead rings setting almost flush or out past the sidewall is not working for me.

 

[cc1999]

I was running a Yokohama X-AT 295/70R17
Which were fine, a bit heavy since load range E, and a bit tall, rubbed on my front crash bars.

 

[cc1999]

Ok I think I am starting narrow down a few choices.
Pretty much all Falken to get extra width I am after.

I think I am leaning towards the Falken RubItrek AT load range E to get the better tread width, deeper tread depth. The 285/70R17 load range E version.
‘Has a 11.6“ Section and a 9.7 Tread depth.

The 295/70R17 Yokohama by comparison was 11.7“ Section width, with a 9.5” tread width.
By comparison, my Yokohama 295s are 0.6” taller annd Only 0.1 wider section width and it is 0.1 narrower tread. I was after shorter., but same width.
With my main goal of getting something lighter and closer to the Oem 33 height, to help with
‘I think the 285 Falken Rubitrek is really close.

 

[cc1999]

Well, I pulled the trigger on ordering a set Falken AT4W. 285/70R17s
To avoid the stiff 3 ply sidewalls and save quite a bit of weight per tire, I ordered the SL (Standard load range) version.


Note: I did not buy these wheels but I used these pics with mounted tires to help determine the what they look like in the exact version I was ordering. Hard to know what your getting just looking at stock black and white images of unknown sizes and spec of a tire.

 

[cc1999]

Ok, new Falken At4W SL 285/70R17 tires are now on the Ranger .
‘Very happy with the results, the extra width fixed the issue I had with how the stock BFGs looked.
‘The stock 33“ height fixes the rub, even with the SAS Bronco +30 offset rims.
‘The SL load range with 2 ply sidewall got the ride smoother then ever, the lighter weight should fix the mpg’s back closer to stock. Seeing 15-16 so far, where with the 10 ply 34“ Yokohama ATs we’re killing the mileage , was only seeing 12-13 on winter fuel.

Overall very happy with new setup.

Sponsored