Gidday NL
RB, dont forget you have standard suspension whereas I have raised (stiff) suspension, plus you have a rear LSD in good working order. That alone gives you more grip. Plus you have way more experience offroad than me. However, we did have similar grip descending the Phasmid Tr. I think you would have been shocked at the difference our tyres would have made ascending. There's no doubt at all the chunkier and deeper tread pattern of the Geo AT-s gives way more grip than highway tyres. Beyond doubt lol :iconwink:
I didn't notice the AT-s getting much leverage going up that mess, either. No more nor less than the P7s. Fortunately for me, they had just enough so that I didn't get run over when I fell flat on my face!!
Really, I suspect that short of fitting smaller rims with higher profile LT tyres (
very expensive option), there just aren't any "real" off-road tyres for our vehicles. There are some like the AT-s that are reasonable, but skill and experience will still make up for lack of tyres, specially with vehicles that have technological advantages over my old '68 Landcruiser - big time! As you already said, just that rear LSD helps enormously IMO.
Consider that straight, dry uphill track we all took on that day at Noojee. Barry just couldn't get out of the starting blocks in his OB. I got around 3/4 km up the hill before turning around and coming back down.
We were both running P7s, but his hang angle in the middle and bum stopped him getting the momentum he needed to get a start up that track that went straight up the hill. I reckon Barry has more experience with this sort of driving than I have; but the Forester was better for that all-important first slope.
Maybe the rear LSD and extra grunt of the 2.5 L N/A donk helped me a bit there, too; but more likely just that I could get a better run up at it because of my better hang angle and rear clearance.
I do believe that you're right, that the technology and vehicle specs make a difference. Sometimes, just enough.
bobbotron, in your situation, I'd go with Yoki Geolander HT-s. I think they will still perform well offroad, just not as well as the AT-s. The "s" stands for silica, so both have excellent grip in the wet, but the HT-s will be better. The AT-s also has a factory puncture warranty, which one of the members recently claimed on and received brilliant care from Yokohama. I think the HT-s also has this but be sure you ask. Its a big selling point IMO.
The At-s are a little noisy but I dont think its bad. I dont think the HT-s will be any noisier than any other tyre.
I have already noticed that the XM-2s are considerably quieter than the P7s. Probably down to the silica compound, as the tread pattern is very similar.
Remember pretty much all tyres have at least good grip on dry bitumen, its when it gets wet, with a bit of an oily surface, going around a corner or in emergency braking, that you realise the dramatic difference between tyres. Its then you will get down on your knees and kiss the tyres for just saving you!
(Or curse them if you got less grippy ones)
Absolutely right mate. SWMBO's Camry is now on its second set of Toyo TEOs. They are super quiet, and stop like baby poo on a nappy in the wet ... :lol: :ebiggrin:.
In the end its up to you. My recommendation is go for the tyres that give you the best grip in the wet, but still are strong enough offroad to not fall apart.
That's the reasoning behind my going with the XM-2s instead of the AT-s. 75% of the price; super quiet on the black stuff; excellent directional stability for both steering and braking; better on-road performance, with precise, excellent cornering; much longer life expectancy ...
.
