OEM Tire Replacement- Your Choice for Raptor?

[cc1999]

Man, I sure like the way those Falcons look! Sounds like they outperform the KO3's on the road, too.

Thanks!

Yea, I honestly would probably run them if it were just for the look and stance they give the truck alone.

‘The quieter, and improved performance aspects are just a nice bonus. Especially like that they are quiet yet still look aggressive.

Sponsored

 

[Lion77]

I'm still trying to understand some people's obsession with replacing the KO3's with something else...unless going from an AT to a MT, general consensus is that the KO3 is still the best AT as a whole package. Though I do understand if someone wants a more road-focused AT and doesn't really care about the off-road use, but for on / off road mix? Hard to beat the KO3.

Even the KO2's are still in 3rd place ranking! I'm only at 18k miles, but at this point, OEM with OEM . This is my first vehicle I've actually found the factory tires to be very good.

 

[Lion77]

On a side note, this isn't just subjective, they actually had the best Steering / Handling of the AT tires tested:

Yah they are noisier than some of the other tires, but not the worst (middle of the road). Ride comfort is not bad either, but I come from the performance car world where my 2016 Mustang GT had Pilot Sport 4S's, so I care more about handling dynamics / traction than the comfort stuff unless they are so noisy or harsh riding it makes me hate the vehicle.

 

[Pic-N-Stick]

On a side note, this isn't just subjective, they actually had the best Steering / Handling of the AT tires tested:

Yah they are noisier than some of the other tires, but not the worst (middle of the road). Ride comfort is not bad either, but I come from the performance car world where my 2016 Mustang GT had Pilot Sport 4S's, so I care more about handling dynamics / traction than the comfort stuff unless they are so noisy or harsh riding it makes me hate the vehicle.

Actually, by most categories they underperformed. Worse on the skidpad both wet and dry. Worse in breaking than most. Green is the KO3. But I do wonder if they were brand new tires and therefore underperformed compared to having a couple thousand miles on them, as we have heard from others here.

 

[Lion77]

Look again at the spider chart. The KO3's are at 106% of the average for performance metrics. The other THREE categories on that spider chart are Ride quality, Noise and Overall Rating which factors in cost, fuel economy, durability, ride quality and performance. Overall Rating does not translate to "best handling". It's simple a ranking based on the sum of all metrics and their category weighting.

You can have a tire that has mediocre real-world handling but is quiet, comfortable, affordable and durable, yet it would still score quite well overall despite middling performance.

My statement is 100% correct that from a performance standpoint, they stand above in the AT category. KO3's are the green colored web. Like I said, they outperform the other tires when it comes to what matters most when the rubber hits the pavement / dirt, PERFORMANCE.

+8% matters a lot more when it comes to handling than it does with comfort or noise in my opinion. If the other factors matter more, then pick a different tire, but the KO3's perform better than the other AT options and the user rankings reflect that.

The Tan bar is the Handling category; they scored the highest in instrumented testing of all the AT tires tested. Period. Yet they are clearly NOT the highest ranked (although do score well) due to noise, ride quality and other factors. The KO3's are the Pilot Sport 4S of off-road and their core competency is performance without being horrible to live with in other areas, even if not the best in noise, confort, cost, fuel economy etc.

The Nitto Recon's and Cooper Discoverer's were close to the KO3's though in handling though, so those might make some sense if you want different aesthetics or more comfort etc. But from an overall handling perspective? No bueno. Your downgrading by moving to different AT tire (at least of all the tires tested)!

 

[pablo94sc]

I am also looking forward to it. For a tire as hyped as the K03 is/was I dont find it anything special. Thats not to say its not an improvement over the K02 which by all accounts it is. Its a louder tire than I expected and that started showing at 20k...

This right hear (pun intended). The tire noise went from near silent to a roar right around 20k miles, like they hit a different layer in the rubber compound. They've also gotten progressively worse on damp pavement to the point 4A is almost necessary when it first starts raining. Not a fan of them.

 

[Lion77]

I haven't had any such issues. Noise is a tad louder, which has occurred with EVERY performance tire I've ever used, including car tires like the PS4S. Perception of traction is anecdotal, as is my perception of no noticeable change, at 18k so time will tell on durability / consistency.

Everyone can do what they please and claim what they want, but the user reviews seem to back up the fact that the majority of KO3's seem to hold up well overall, otherwise people would be complaining about how they "were great new but sucked by 20k". That's the problem with perception, it's just perception and everyone perceives things differently. We'll just have to disagree on our perception, but I don't have as many miles so maybe that will change as the miles pile up.

 

[Pic-N-Stick]

Dry track performance...Green is KO3.

Quote from the article...

Wet Track: The All-Terrain T/A KO3 felt largely adequate - in a subjective sense - with decent front-end sharpness and communication. However, when it came to actual performance, it just fell short, with slow response times, extended braking, and limited lateral grip. It felt confidently in control, especially at lower speeds, but was quickly overwhelmed at higher speeds. Power delivery lacked confidence, leading to a generally underwhelming driving experience that felt better than it was.

Dry Characteristics/Emergency Lane Change: It really struggled with stability and precision in the lane-change maneuver. It would start off feeling fine, and then the front-end traction was gone. Attempts to change direction led to understeer and even rear-end instability at times. The whole experience was marked by persistent understeer and a lack of stability, with only minor responsiveness in the front end that failed to inspire confidence. It felt unpredictable and ultimately never made a successful lane change attempt.

 

[Daweism]

There is typically a fuel mileage penalty that will accompany pretty much any 10 ply load range E tire. That plus the rub , plus the smoother ride, plus the better mileage, were all what led me to make the swap from my LT295s 34” load range E 10 ply Yokahoma tires to the P285 Falken AT4W SL load range.

I liked that Falken combo so much that was one of the first things I did to my 2025 RR.
Both my 24 and 25 RRs are running that same combo. Very happy with them.

From a looks or stance standpoint, which was a key element in my deep dive to find a better tire then the 295 Yokahoma tires. The Falken SL p285 was the only tire I found that had the tread width almost the same as the 295s.

I really wanted to keep that 295 width or as close as I could get without the load range E weight, and the 33 height fixed the rub, since I am running the Bronco +30 offset rims.

I really love the overall stance and overall effect these Falken P285s had on the truck.
I did try that same wheel with the OEM BFGs much skinnier tread just didn’t have the look / stance I wanted.

Falken 285

BFGs on the same +30mm offset Bronco wheels

What's the exact SN of these Falkens? These will be my next tires. The extra width so nice, yet same size rating! And I'm running the RTR EVO6 17x9 30mm so the extra width will be amazing.

These?

Only negative is that it is a bit heavy.

 

[randomquickness]

If you are staying stock size I would be curios to try Nitto's new terra grappler G3.

Link

It's E-load rated tire (10 ply) but only 56 lbs, and looks quite sharp, with significant ice\water sipes plus some side grip for mud. Looks pretty sharp too. Warrantied for 70,000 miles. Specs are impressive, but it's so new it needs some real world testing.

They don't make it in 35's yet.

For comparison BFG K03 E-rated is 60 lbs and It is not particularly effective in water\ice scenarios.

They recently announced that exact size in a Load C, weighing slightly less than the Load D

 

[cc1999]

What's the exact SN of these Falkens? These will be my next tires. The extra width so nice, yet same size rating! And I'm running the RTR EVO6 17x9 30mm so the extra width will be amazing.

These?

Only negative is that it is a bit heavy.

I will try and find you item number .
I specificity went with the P285 not the LT 285 for that reason and it was wider and being Standard Load should ride smoother too.

 

[Pic-N-Stick]

What's the exact SN of these Falkens? These will be my next tires. The extra width so nice, yet same size rating! And I'm running the RTR EVO6 17x9 30mm so the extra width will be amazing.

These?

Only negative is that it is a bit heavy.

According to Tire Rack, the SL version of Falkens are 53 pounds.
Falken WildPeak A/T4W 285/70R17

 

[Daweism]

I will try and find you item number .
I specificity went with the P285 not the LT 285 for that reason and it was wider and being Standard Load should ride smoother too.

Ah interesting, yeah the LT285 was definitely not listed under this size on their website.

 

[YukonRanger]

Reminder for you guys

I have built a database and weight calculator to help figure out wheel packages for rangers!!!

Thread here

https://www.ranger6g.com/forum/threads/ranger-6g-tire-options-calculator.24177/

 

[Pic-N-Stick]

What's the exact SN of these Falkens? These will be my next tires. The extra width so nice, yet same size rating! And I'm running the RTR EVO6 17x9 30mm so the extra width will be amazing.

These?

Only negative is that it is a bit heavy.

17" 28844913 285/70R17 SL--116T Standard 7.5 - 9.5 8.5 32.8 11.5 647 14 53.4 2756 51 660-A-B

Sponsored