September 20, 2019
While it may not be immediately apparent, we’re at a fork in the road for On-/Off-Road All-Terrain tires. It’s no secret that drivers in North America buy huge quantities of pickup trucks, SUVs and unibody crossovers. Many of these vehicles encounter varying degrees of off-road use, while others are simply used as a daily conveyance, a direct substitute for a sedan or minivan. Those drivers bought a truck, SUV or crossover for a reason, though, and often that reason is at least in part due to the rugged utility afforded by such a vehicle. No one wants to give up the capability when it’s needed, but it can be a chore to live with an "aggressive" tire every day.
Tire manufacturers are keenly aware of this scenario, and they’re eager to meet the needs of both the customers who travel off-road regularly and those who rarely venture from pavement. As a result, there has been a stratification of products within the On-/Off-Road All-Terrain tire category with tires aimed at each group of drivers.
How different are the tires from these two groups, though? Would a driver who spends most of his or her time on the road be disappointed with a more traditional, aggressive On-/Off-Road All-Terrain tire? What tradeoffs are there, if any, when choosing between a Euro-metric or P-Metric tire and an LT-metric tire? To gain some insight and find answers, we compared the industry benchmark BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 in a LT-Metric, C Load Range to three Standard Load tires. Two new entries in the test are Firestone’s Destination A/T2 and the Hankook Dynapro A/T2, and they’re joined by the Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015. Our evaluation used 2019 Ford F150 4x4 trucks fitted with new, full tread depth 265/70R17 tires mounted on 17x8.0 wheels.
Our 6.0-mile loop of expressway, state highway and county roads provides a great variety of road conditions that include city and highway speeds, smooth and coarse concrete, as well as new and patched asphalt. This route allows our team to experience noise comfort, ride quality and everyday handling, just as you would during your drive to school or work.
In general, any feature that improves a tire’s off-road talents will make it worse from a comfort and handling perspective, so we were eager to experience the differences between the three "mild" all-terrain tires and the more aggressive BFGoodrich on our road ride loop. Some of the results were as expected, and others were a bit of a surprise.
Leading the way in every metric was the Geolandar A/T G015. The nicely-damped, slightly firm ride felt the most car-like of the group, isolating vehicle occupants from some of the smaller or more repetitive bumps, but larger impacts could feel slightly harsh. With just a low-volume, broad tone from the tread and minimal impact noise, the experience was more like a Highway All-Season tire than one from the On-/Off-Road All-Terrain category. Linear steering response and intuitive light handling were similarly satisfying in a way that belied the tire’s off-road credentials. The Destination A/T2 was just a small step back, though its demeanor was noticeably different. An unexpectedly soft ride was plush over bumps at the moment of impact, but a lack of damping resulted in plenty of secondary motion that felt unsettled and could be interpreted as ride harshness. In addition to a low drone from the open tread pattern, the tire also created a higher-pitched, more distinct sound at speed. Neither of which was unacceptable for the category, but its subjective score from our team dropped slightly because of it. Light steering effort and class-appropriate handling were bright spots in the on-road performance. The All-Terrain T/A KO2 was something of a revelation in that it wasn’t that different from the other tires in the group. If anything gave the tire away as an outlier, it was the ride. It may come as a shock, but when comparing LT-Metric and Standard Load tires of the same dimensions, the LT-Metric tires require more air pressure to reach the same load carrying capacity. As such, the BFGoodrich tires in our test were inflated to 48¹ psi, as opposed to the 35 psi for the rest of the group. Between the additional inflation pressure and the robust construction of the BFGoodrich, the ride was quite stiff to the point that it seemed to induce additional movement due to the flexing of the vehicle structure. Concerning noise, the high-void pattern with its independent tread blocks produced some noticeable growl at a medium volume that was particularly apparent when cornering, but it lacked the more specific tones of some of the other tires. The steering was fast and surprisingly precise, and aside from a lack of feel, it was almost, dare we say it, sporty. The Dynapro A/T2 had its supporters within our team, but when the scores were tabulated, it ended up at the back of the pack. The ride was the stiffest of the non-LT tires over big bumps, though it did a commendable job muting the smaller stuff. Some higher-pitched tread noise was apparent in the cabin, and while the steering feel and response were very good, the tire required some small corrections to maintain a straight trajectory at highway speed, which brought down its handling score.
¹ It may be tempting to run the LT-Metric tires at the 35 psi placard pressure, but at 35 psi, they would be 27% underinflated according to the tire design rules.
Our typical test track course features some elements that aren’t ideal for testing a full-size pickup, so for this test we used a modified lap that includes 90-degree street corners, simulated expressway ramps and an emergency braking zone. Run in both dry and wet conditions, the test track allows our team to experience the traction, responsiveness, handling and drivability normally only encountered during abrupt emergency avoidance maneuvers.
Since high-performance handling is somewhat inconsequential in the On-/Off-Road All-Terrain segment, only a small subset of our team performed dry track testing, and that was simply to ensure none of the tires had any alarming traits that may present themselves during an emergency maneuver. Fortunately, all the tires in the test proved poised and capable, even when being pushed far outside of their, and our test vehicles’, comfort zones.
Wet handling traits are far more relevant, as a driver doesn’t have to be driving 10/10ths to reach the limit on rain-slick roads. Here, the Yokohama again led the way, with a nicely balanced, all-around performance. The front tires could tolerate the highest cornering speeds before dissolving into gentle understeer, and acceleration, braking and handling traction all felt in proportion. Aggressive acceleration was met with the least amount of wheel spin, and the Yokohama led the test in 50-0mph wet braking. The Firestone’s performance was also balanced and proportionate, with limits that were a minor step below the best in the test. It took just a little more care to put the power to the ground, and the driver needed to scrub more speed before entering turns. The outright traction and individual performance metrics of the BFGoodrich were very close to the Firestone. Even so, some abruptness in the breakaway characteristics made it more difficult to put together a clean lap, and the average lap times reflect that. The default behavior of the F-150 is to understeer at the limit, so the experience never felt twitchy or nervous, but there was a finer line between grip and slip. While still acceptable for use on the road, the traction provided by the Hankook was lower than the rest of the group. The deficit is present in all aspects, but it was particularly noticeable laterally. Straight line acceleration induced some additional slip compared to the other tires, and braking took a truck length longer to stop from 50mph. Steady-state turning around the large-radius turns of the track required a significant reduction in vehicle speed to avoid resolute understeer, and the tire also struggled with fast transitions and accelerating while turning.
All of the tires in our test are severe snow service rated and feature three-peak mountain snowflake (3PMSF) branding. In previous testing we have found a considerable range of capability in the snow among 3PMSF-branded tires, but this time around, all four were closely matched. There were varying personalities in the group, but the performance provided was similar.
The BFGoodrich led the group in every test, including lap times and subjective scoring from our drivers. It accelerated confidently, turned in with authority and was able to reliably hold the intended line through corners, and braking was strong, as well. The Yokohama was a small step back, requiring a few additional feet to accelerate and brake and turning laps that were a significant 1.4 seconds behind the pace of the BFGoodrich. Aside from some slight instability in the rear under heavy throttle application, the Yokohama was easy to drive and was a good partner for our test vehicle and drivers. Maximizing the Firestone was a little bit more difficult, as it felt like the window of performance was somewhat narrower than the BFGoodrich or the Yokohama. Even so, it delivered results that were solidly mid-pack and would likely be acceptable to most drivers for daily use. The acceleration performance of the Hankook was second only to the BFGoodrich, and it was just slightly behind the rest of the group in the other measured tests. Subjectively, it felt a little bit more edgy than the Firestone, but once again is likely to satisfy in the real world.
In our ice braking test, the BFGoodrich set the shortest distance, coming to a stop 5.2 feet before the next-shortest Hankook. The Yokohama took only .7 feet longer, and the Firestone was a minor 2.1 feet from there.
Our Real World Road Ride features a relatively flat 6.0-mile loop of 65 mph expressway, 55 mph state highway and 40 mph county roads along with three stop signs every lap. Our team drove each tire approximately 500 miles over the course of several days. Since we wanted to compare fuel consumption results that typical drivers would experience, our drivers were instructed to maintain the flow of traffic by running at the posted speed limits and sustain the vehicle’s speed using cruise control whenever possible. They did not use hypermiling techniques to influence vehicle fuel economy.
| Tire | Test MPG* | Gallons/Year @ 15,000 Miles |
% vs. Most Efficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 | 18.3 | 819.7 | -3.3% |
| Firestone Destination A/T2 | 18.9 | 793.7 | -- |
| Hankook Dynapro AT2 | 18.6 | 806.5 | -1.6% |
| Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015 | 17.9 | 838.0 | -5.6% |
| Our evaluation used Race Technology DL1 data loggers to record true distance traveled. | |||
Fuel economy figures were close across the board, with a 1 mpg difference from the most- to least-efficient. This difference would result in an additional 44.3 gallons of gasoline used per year for a vehicle driven 15,000 miles annually.
It’s important to note our test’s fuel consumption measurements follow consistent procedures designed to minimize variables that could influence the results; however, they do not represent an exhaustive long-range fuel consumption study. While our procedures require the test vehicles in each convoy to run under the same prevailing conditions, the week-to-week differences in ambient temperatures, barometric pressures and wind speeds that we experience over a season of testing can influence vehicle fuel consumption and prevent the absolute mpg values of this test from being compared directly against those of others.
Larger differences in consumption between tires may indicate a difference that might be experienced on the road, while smaller differences should be considered equivalent. As they say, your mileage may vary.
The Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015 is the complete package for a daily-driven all-terrain tire. Without knowing better, the on-road comfort and handling behavior could easily be mistaken for a Highway All-Season tire. It delivers a high level of wet traction for the On-/Off-Road All-Terrain category, and it provides respectable capability in the snow. The Destination A/T2 is more easily identifiable as an On-/Off-Road All-Terrain tire, but it is still pleasant on the road, with some distinctive tire noise and excessive motion following impacts as the primary concerns registered by our testers. It is well-rounded in the wet and the snow with just slightly less outright traction than the leaders in both disciplines. We knew going into the test the odds were stacked against the BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 due to its LT-Metric C Load Range construction and more off-road-focused tread design. The way our testing is designed highlights the tradeoffs of this type of tire without providing the opportunity to display its strengths. Even with the inherent disadvantages, the BFGoodrich is competitive with this group in all aspects of our testing, and it led the test in snow and ice traction. Noise comfort and steering/light handling on the road fit right in, with a stiff ride as the only giveaway that the tire is somehow different from the rest. The wet performance is good, if just a little abrupt in the way it transitions when a driver steps over the limit, and we would take a bump in the overall wet grip provided. The Hankook Dynapro A/T2 has very good steering feel and response and delivers acceptable ride and noise quality for the category. Confident light snow traction is a highlight, but it would benefit from a noticeable increase in wet traction. Fortunately, though, its behavior when pushed is benign and predictable.
Need help choosing the right products for your vehicle? Our team of highly trained experts has the knowledge and passion to help. Just pick up the phone and give us a ring. Or let's chat via email. We love solving problems and lending a hand (or an ear).
Contact Us