Cooper S/T and STT vs BFG ATs

Fitting oversize tires, raising and lowering, suspension modifications...

Moderator: F9K9

fallvitals
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:34 am
Location: Dunbar, WV
Contact:

Cooper S/T and STT vs BFG ATs

Post by fallvitals »

I will be ordering my body lift later today, then the next mod will be tires. Im thinking in august I will have the cash for em.

I am gonna go with 30s, unless my uncle gets a used set of 31s in for me to try out. I was pretty much set on BFG ATs 30x9.5R15, actual diameter 29.5". I really dont want them because they want to grab rocks and toss em, and suck in mud, but I know theres a trade off.

Most all of my driving will be onroad. Rarely going offroad (wish I had places to offroad..)

I really liked the Cooper Discoverer S/Ts,
Image

but wrote their 30x9.5R15 off becuase of the actual diameter of 29.35. Which is only a 1/8" differance rfom the BFG AT, and 1/16" in lift. So, its not a issue.

I like those because they seem to be a few bucks cheaper, Dont grab rocks, do well onroad, and have a open enough pattern to still do good in the mud. (which unless its been dry for a long time, theres always mud here).

This site here has reviews and what not, and its rated prety good in all catagorys, better in all catagorys except street by 1 star less then the BFG ATs.
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT-Ti ... overer.htm



I also started eye balling the Cooper Discoverer STT.
Image

They are 29.7" diameter, which I like much better.

They are actually rated as good, and better in some catagorys then the ST here, http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT-Ti ... er-stt.htm

But i figure ill lose some MPG, and have more road noise. The MPG is a deal breaker for me. How likely is it they will decrease my MPG some?



So, looking for any advice here. The Discoverer S/Ts will perform better then the BFG ATs from my reading, but are just a hair smaller. The STs will also work well in mud, and not pick up rocks. Plus the Coopers have deeper tread then the BFG

The STTs, while bigger, and just as good as the STs, will probably decrease gas milage and add more road noise.

Im thinking the Discoverer STs are my best option, ill just have to live with a tire just a hair bigger then the 235s on my truck now, but its a minaml differance between the BFG AT too.
User avatar
HenryJ
Admin K Elite
Admin K Elite
Posts: 12705
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Oregon
Contact:

Post by HenryJ »

I stay away from the ST because of their porous bead problems. The STT has not had problems but is too soft and does not last long. 25k is about all you should expect.

"Speed doesn't kill, suddenly becoming stationary does." - Richard Hammond
"Speed is just a matter of Money - How fast do YOU want to go?"-Mechanic from Mad Max-
If at first you don't succeed - Don't take up Skydiving!
- ThunderII KE7CSK
fallvitals
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:34 am
Location: Dunbar, WV
Contact:

Post by fallvitals »

okay, no STT then. I read about that bead issue, but that was a few years ago, they haven't fixed that yet?

Did some googling and couldnt find much info at all, and what I did find on the subject was old. Ill ask my uncle see what he says. I would really like that tire, I think it would out perform the BFG AT easily.. though just a smidge smaller.
User avatar
border man
Crew Elite
Crew Elite
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:06 pm
Location: AZ
Contact:

Post by border man »

I've got almost 62,000 miles on my BFGs and they have plenty of thread left.
[size=75]I didn't do it, it was already like that when I got it.[/size]
User avatar
HenryJ
Admin K Elite
Admin K Elite
Posts: 12705
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Oregon
Contact:

Post by HenryJ »

fallvitals wrote:I would really like that tire, I think it would out perform the BFG AT easily.. though just a smidge smaller.
Give it a shot , but I have one set left in the fleet and the BFG surpass them in all ways easily.

"Speed doesn't kill, suddenly becoming stationary does." - Richard Hammond
"Speed is just a matter of Money - How fast do YOU want to go?"-Mechanic from Mad Max-
If at first you don't succeed - Don't take up Skydiving!
- ThunderII KE7CSK
fallvitals
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:34 am
Location: Dunbar, WV
Contact:

Post by fallvitals »

hm hm hm... let me ask this aboutt he BFG ATs then...


When every one says they are bad in mud... just how serious is the mud they are in?

Like huge mud bogs?

What I would more then likely see is some mud patches of rutted out road, cow feilds, steep grade cow fields, muddy portions of cow fields. If it has been raiing alot, maybe a unkept logging road thats pretty muddy from lots of rain.

Im not doubting your experiance with the BFG AT Brule. I trust you, but I have read lots of people saying the Discoverer ST was superior in offroad conditions.. just doing my home work first :)
User avatar
HenryJ
Admin K Elite
Admin K Elite
Posts: 12705
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Oregon
Contact:

Post by HenryJ »

Clay. They are not designed to clean as well as a true mud tire, however the KO has more aggressive side lugs. An AT tires is not a Mud tire. No one tread design does it all good. You must compromise somewhere. The TAKO has the snowflake blessing from DOT. Snow sticks best to snow, so their tire does a good job of trapping snow. Not the best thing for a mud tire that needs to clean. Gravel is different as is tarmac, and the list goes on.

Next you get into compounds. The ST is hard. Not as hard as a M55, but hard enough to chunk in the rocks. The STT doesn't chunk since it is soft. But it wears out.
Again a compromise.

Do some research on the BFG TAKO. Baja Champions for more than ten years running. Long lasting. Pretty good in all conditions and very good road manners.

The Goodyear MTR is also a good traction tire. It does not last as long as the BFG, but longer than the STT by far. Better in mud than the BFG, but not a mud tire. MTR is Maximum Traction Radial, not Mud Radial.
They will get half or a little more mileage than the BFG.

There is quite a bit to read about this subject here already. A little search will reveal it.

Each terrain is different. Service is a consideration too. If you have an "in" with a certain brand, that may be the best choice. The service tips the scale in that case perhaps.

Ultimately it is your decision for what will work best for your circumstances and conditions.
Last edited by HenryJ on Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Speed doesn't kill, suddenly becoming stationary does." - Richard Hammond
"Speed is just a matter of Money - How fast do YOU want to go?"-Mechanic from Mad Max-
If at first you don't succeed - Don't take up Skydiving!
- ThunderII KE7CSK
User avatar
BobbleSmitty
Crew Elite
Crew Elite
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Post by BobbleSmitty »

My Cooper Discoverer S/T's had 38,000 miles on them and still had 3/4" of tread left on the tires. Never had one issue with the tires at all. They were great on and off road, and also in the snow.
[size=75]2004 S-10 Crew Cab ZR5 -*SOLD*-2" PA Body Lift - Air Shocks - 30x9.5" Cooper Discoverer S/T tires - 1.25" Rear Spacers - Clear Bumper Lights - Westin Safari - Light Bar w/ 100watt 6" Lights - Custom Stainless Steel V-force Dual Exhaust w/ 3" Black Chrome Slash Cut Tips - CB radio w/ 100watt PA speaker - Alpine MP3/CD Player - 10" JL Sub w/ 300watt amp - Low Profile - 'TonneauMasters' Tonneau Cover - In-channel Vent Visors - Airbox mod - Custom Front Tow Hooks - Debadged [/size]
fallvitals
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:34 am
Location: Dunbar, WV
Contact:

Post by fallvitals »

I am still googling,, but im really leaning to those Coopers.... I am reading the BFG ATs are a little better on road, which most of my driving will be, but the Coopers (based on the majority of what I have read) is much better. Has a much more aggressive tread, deeper tread, and equal ammount of road noise to the BFGs, if not a bit more.

I read into the harder compound = tire chunking. Seems to not really be an issue unless your in some nasty sharp rocks, roots, and not taking it easy. Which I dont see me getting into any thing like that. Plus they don't throw rocks, atleast no where near as bad as the BFG ATs.



Let me ask this. I mentioned these tires are 29.35" and te BFG ATs are 29.5.

Thats about 1/8" differance, and 1/16" in actual lift. It does bother me somethat the cooper are smaller, but it seems like its a none issue since its so minute. Tell me its all in my head or would it be a noticable differance...
User avatar
04crewvt
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:24 am
Location: St Albans Vermont
Contact:

Post by 04crewvt »

I have run Coopers Or Mastercraft, another of their brands on every vehicle I have had in the last 15 years. I have never had a problem with them. They do wear down quicker than some other brands but I usually can get them for half the price of the others so it's a wash there. Personally I would rather run on the top half of the tread instead of running longer and getting into the lower portion of the tread with higher mileage.
The two different tire will give a different look to the truck but I doubt you would be able to notice a difference in ride height, they are just too close in size to make a difference.
If you are going for maximum gas mileage none of your selected tires will do as well as a slightly less aggressive tread, you really need to determine how much you are willing to loose for the amount you really plan on going off road. If you are really going to be in the type of mud you are listing, the tires you get will definitly give your gas mileage a hit.
[size=75]Why does the universe decree that if you have all the time in the world to work on projects you have no money and vice versa?
Green 2004 ZR-5 w/ too much to list here: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2296465[/size]
User avatar
HenryJ
Admin K Elite
Admin K Elite
Posts: 12705
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Oregon
Contact:

Post by HenryJ »

04crewvt wrote:...They do wear down quicker than some other brands but I usually can get them for half the price of the others so it's a wash there. Personally I would rather run on the top half of the tread instead of running longer and getting into the lower portion of the tread with higher mileage.
Good point. I have used that rationale too. It works if you can get them at half price. A good way to go and another good point to remember.
Keep in mind that while you are on the top half twice, you are also on the bottom half twice too so the average is nil. Don't forget the cost to mount and balance the replacement set too. If you do it yourself , or have it done for free that is not an issue. For those that don't have that advantage $50 difference might be a deal breaker.

"Speed doesn't kill, suddenly becoming stationary does." - Richard Hammond
"Speed is just a matter of Money - How fast do YOU want to go?"-Mechanic from Mad Max-
If at first you don't succeed - Don't take up Skydiving!
- ThunderII KE7CSK
User avatar
04crewvt
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:24 am
Location: St Albans Vermont
Contact:

Post by 04crewvt »

I don't know, it always seems the bottom half of the tread life is always longer than the top since the compound is harder. Would that not skew the results? As for cost in mounting, half the time I run separate snows on the same rims (although I am getting away from that some) and have the tires balanced once a year or so so the extra cost of mounting sort of goes away then, I just replace when it's time to remount.
[size=75]Why does the universe decree that if you have all the time in the world to work on projects you have no money and vice versa?
Green 2004 ZR-5 w/ too much to list here: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2296465[/size]
fallvitals
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:34 am
Location: Dunbar, WV
Contact:

Post by fallvitals »

Thats good info too. Ill just keep reading on the subject.

As for gas milage vs offroad. From what I have read from other folks Sts make little to no differance in MPG.. which i do find strange. I just PMed bobble asking about his experiance with em. I wont be offroad very much, but my logic here is, I want a tire that when I need it it will be a decent offroad tire as well. But I dont need something as extreme as a mud terrain. Im willing to sacrifice some MPG for it, maybe a gallon, but nothing more then that (I average 15mpg now running goodyear wrangler silentarmors, they were on the truck when I got it so im not sure if those tires cut down MPG, its got a decent tread, but not overly aggressive)

But the biggest thing keeping me from that BFG AT is how it picks up rocks.. I would definantly need mud flaps (dont want) if I go with those unless I want a nice bare metal look behind the tires.

As for tire life, I have read mixed reviews. Most seem to be positive. I do one guy saying that yes, infact the Cooper get less life. BUt in his experiance (he owned these tires) his BFG ATs got 70-80K and coopers 60K, which in his opinion, was still a long tire life, even if less then the BFGs. As long as I cant get 50K-ish out of the STs ill be happy. That will be about 4-5 years for me.
fallvitals
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:34 am
Location: Dunbar, WV
Contact:

Post by fallvitals »

Hm.. thinking over and over.. might just stick with the BFG ATs. They definantly last longer, price is only like $10-$15 differance. Yes I do have the hook up, no charge for mounting/balancing. They are just a hairrr bigger. I really do think the STs will be a litle better offroad, but still read lots of great things about the bfg offroad, and in light mud. Which will be more of what i will see.


But i figure with either tire, my MPG lose will be pretty much equal. I searched here, couldnt really find an answer except a few folks who said their MPG didnt change,,, but any one know what the average MPG lose is with a BFG AT, or similier tire on our trucks? Or is that "moody" like our trucks and isnt set in stone?
User avatar
HenryJ
Admin K Elite
Admin K Elite
Posts: 12705
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Oregon
Contact:

Post by HenryJ »

My mileage increased going from a heavy 31" tire to a lighter 33" tire. I don't think that the fact they were BFG had anything to do with it. In my case it was the difference in the final ratio that made the improvement.

Pay attention to the tire weight too. Lighter is easier to get rolling. A gain in performance and mileage.

"Speed doesn't kill, suddenly becoming stationary does." - Richard Hammond
"Speed is just a matter of Money - How fast do YOU want to go?"-Mechanic from Mad Max-
If at first you don't succeed - Don't take up Skydiving!
- ThunderII KE7CSK
User avatar
roadrunner
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1267
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:39 pm
Location: NW KS

Post by roadrunner »

One more consideration is whether or not you intend to run "aired down". My experience with the BFG's is there is a notable increase in mileage aired up to 50psi as compared to running at 35psi. About 4mpg in my particular case. This is due to the beefier sidewall construction contributing to rolling resistance IMO. Personally I prefer the heavy construction and plys of the BFG's and the rim protection sidewalls. Just works better in my particular application. Aired to 50psi you will get a rougher ride too. If comfort in a daily driver and fuel mileage are concerns this needs consideration for your particular use as well. My .02 worth.
2001 CC LS, pewter, stock, 4.3,Wait4meperformance, CFM throttle blade, Helix throttle body spacer, 4spd auto, 3button electric 4x4 shift, heavy duty factory suspension, Bilsteins, 1" rear wheel spacers, skid plates.
User avatar
jeff024
Crew K Elite
Crew K Elite
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:42 pm
Location: Union Bridge, Maryland
Contact:

Post by jeff024 »

I just took my BFGs off my nissan at 67000 miles and im sure I had 10k left
[size=75]2004 S-10 CREW CAB {TRADED IN}
........ 2006 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeff024/]PICS OF THE CREW CAB[/url][/size]