New C-Load 315/70r17 Falken Wildpeaks?

[FlyingScot]

During my internet wanderings I found this on Tire Rack's website:
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...ireModel=WildPeak+A/T3W&partnum=17SR7WPAT3WV2

Smart move on their part if true, there's an awful lot of vehicles coming from the factory with metric 35s and not an awful lot of tire choices outside of the E load range. Does not appear on Falken's website, however.

Little on the porky side at 71 lbs, but should ride a bit better for those who don't air down and abuse their sidewalls as often as they'd like.

Sponsored

 

[Girldadx3]

Toyo has the at3 in 35’s with c load as well. 59 lbs.

 

[kojack19]

That has to be a typo on the weight as it is the same as the E rated. Following this for confirmation as it has always been weight that has kept me from trying Falkens. Hear a lot of great things. Hoping for 65 lbs or less!

 

[Silver-Bolt]

If 71 lbs is accurate it will be a big pass. That seems way too heavy for a "C".

 

[FlyingScot]

That has to be a typo on the weight as it is the same as the E rated. Following this for confirmation as it has always been weight that has kept me from trying Falkens. Hear a lot of great things. Hoping for 65 lbs or less!

I like that optimism, but Falken's cheap steel belts aren't very conducive to making lighter tires. Hell, the C-load 285/70r17 AT3w is freaking 63.7 lbs.

If 71 lbs is accurate it will be a big pass. That seems way too heavy for a "C".

A lot of the correlation between load range and tire weight has gone by the wayside in recent years, most of the lighter 315/70r17s now are E-load (Cooper AT3 and Yoko G015 come to mind). Even then, the Falken spec sheet is a wild place, if you look at the E-load sibling to the 285 width AT3w I mentioned above, it is actually lighter than its C-load kin at 58.9 lbs.

 

[da_jokker]

Yeah I don't remember all the details, but when I was doing some tire research for my Wrangler, I was comparing a 12.5" wide vs a 11.5" wide tire of the same manufacturer.

The skinnier tire claim to be heavier. Knowing that had to be a typo I actually called the manufacturer talk to a guy. Turned out, that one tire was made at one place, and the other tire was made at a different place, and the density of the rubber was different and that's why the skinnier tire was actually heavier.

Just goes to show, you really have to pay attention to the detailed specs.

 

[FlyingScot]

Yeah I don't remember all the details, but when I was doing some tire research for my Wrangler, I was comparing a 12.5" wide vs a 11.5" wide tire of the same manufacturer.

The skinnier tire claim to be heavier. Knowing that had to be a typo I actually called the manufacturer talk to a guy. Turned out, that one tire was made at one place, and the other tire was made at a different place, and the density of the rubber was different and that's why the skinnier tire was actually heavier.

Just goes to show, you really have to pay attention to the detailed specs.

Toyo does that with their AT3, the 35x12.5 is 59 lbs and the 35x11.5 is 63 lbs. The narrower tire has a bit stouter load rating (2403 lbs versus 2910 lbs on the wider tire).

Incidentally, a lot of the brand name tire shops won't put that 35x12.5 on a Bronco since its load rating is ever so slightly less than the stock Goodyears.

 

[da_jokker]

Toyo does that with their AT3, the 35x12.5 is 59 lbs and the 35x11.5 is 63 lbs. The narrower tire has a bit stouter load rating (2403 lbs versus 2910 lbs on the wider tire).

Incidentally, a lot of the brand name tire shops won't put that 35x12.5 on a Bronco since its load rating is ever so slightly less than the stock Goodyears.

That may have been the tire I was looking into. Yeah, my Bronco is getting pretty heavy so I may have no choice but to go with a D or E next round.

 

[kojack19]

Bumping for any feedback. Weight being reported now is 66 vs 71 lbs supposedly. Truck arrives in a few weeks and trying to narrow down between these, Recons or the old tried and true BFGs.

Anyone have any feedback?

 

[FlyingScot]

Bumping for any feedback. Weight being reported now is 66 vs 71 lbs supposedly. Truck arrives in a few weeks and trying to narrow down between these, Recons or the old tried and true BFGs.

Anyone have any feedback?

Where did you run across that? I just looked at Falken's spec sheet on their website and they have it listed at 69.2 lbs now.

 

[kojack19]

Where did you run across that? I just looked at Falken's spec sheet on their website and they have it listed at 69.2 lbs now.

It was on one of the retail tire sites a few weeks back. Seeing more pointed at the 69lb weight now. Not a Falken only thing but why is it so hard to get consistent weight info when a new tire gets released.....

 

[Girldadx3]

Toyo does that with their AT3, the 35x12.5 is 59 lbs and the 35x11.5 is 63 lbs. The narrower tire has a bit stouter load rating (2403 lbs versus 2910 lbs on the wider tire).

Incidentally, a lot of the brand name tire shops won't put that 35x12.5 on a Bronco since its load rating is ever so slightly less than the stock Goodyears.

Yup. Discount tire wouldn’t put those on my badsquatch. Moved me to the e load version.

 

[Kevin Scarbel]

During my internet wanderings I found this on Tire Rack's website:
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Falken&tireModel=WildPeak+A/T3W&partnum=17SR7WPAT3WV2

Smart move on their part if true, there's an awful lot of vehicles coming from the factory with metric 35s and not an awful lot of tire choices outside of the E load range. Does not appear on Falken's website, however.

Little on the porky side at 71 lbs, but should ride a bit better for those who don't air down and abuse their sidewalls as often as they'd like.

My rule of thumb is:
1. Falkens are always on the heavy side.
2. Nittos are generally lighter than their Falken equivalent.
3. Lighter tire weight is better.

Sponsored