2004 Rubicon tire recommendations

S

strichzwei

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
44
Location
austin
Well, I was all set to pull the trigger on the BFG KO2's (245/75-16) on the stock moab rims and I started to read some of the threads on here about load ratings......

This will be the teenage daughters daily driver for the next few years, would it be well advised to steer clear of these tires because of the load rating? Is there a comparable tire in a Load C rating?

Thanks,
scott
 
Is it stock? I doubt Jeep would have put load range E tires MTRs on stock '04 Rubis if there are safety or drivability issues. The KO2 you are proposing are even more mild.

My .02 is the concerns (my own included) about load range mainly stem from larger MT-style tires on modded Jeeps. I ran 34" load range C LTBs for a long time and its aggressiveness (and being bias ply) significantly contributed to worn drivetrain/suspension components much moreso than a milder D or E would have.

In other words, I wouldn't worry at all about an E rated 31" AT on your daughter's Jeep.
 
RubiconRic said:
Is it stock? I doubt Jeep would have put load range E tires MTRs on stock '04 Rubis if there are safety or drivability issues.

...
Click to expand...

Factory tires for the Rubicon were the first generation MTR in a load range E.
 
I'd worry more about my daughters in a jeep than tire load rating.

Why? Little perverts. 16-17-18 year old boys.

After your daughters and TJ.

Time to be cleaning the gun when they come over.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: DickD1911, Daryl and Plumber1
I see that the goodyear Duratracs are available in the rubicon stock size 245/75-16 with a "C" load rating, so given a choice between the KO2's with an "E" load rating and the Duratracs with "C" rating, what would you go with?
S
 
strichzwei said:
Well, I was all set to pull the trigger on the BFG KO2's (245/75-16) on the stock moab rims and I started to read some of the threads on here about load ratings......

This will be the teenage daughters daily driver for the next few years, would it be well advised to steer clear of these tires because of the load rating? Is there a comparable tire in a Load C rating?

Thanks,
scott
Click to expand...
Hi, I'm in the exact same situation. Wanted to know what did you decide and how was the result ?
Thank you
 
I went with the Duratracs and am happy with the decision.
I like the looks of the K02 better but it was well worth the trade off. I had 10 yr old grapplers in "E" load on there before and the handling is noticeably better! My biggest concern with the Duratracs was that folks complained that they would get load over time, but figure the jeep ain't no quiet ride anyways! I did put K02's in "E" load on my FJ80 and it is a stiff ride!
Go with the Duratracs!
Good luck.
Scott
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyG
strichzwei said:
I went with the Duratracs and am happy with the decision.
I like the looks of the K02 better but it was well worth the trade off. I had 10 yr old grapplers in "E" load on there before and the handling is noticeably better! My biggest concern with the Duratracs was that folks complained that they would get load over time, but figure the jeep ain't no quiet ride anyways! I did put K02's in "E" load on my FJ80 and it is a stiff ride!
Go with the Duratracs!
Good luck.
Scott
Click to expand...
I like the look of those also and I drove a TJ with a set and I was very impressed with how it rode and drove... I know it's not all the tires but I believe the tires or a big part.

Appreciate you guys posting this I'm looking at making some changes to one and that is the tire I'm leaning toward.... I may be 100% wrong but it looks like it's really one of the best blends of on and off-road tread designs.
 
Check out Kanati tires. They get great reviews and have a Duratrac knock off, and have a 3 ply sidewall better made then Duratracs . Duratracs are cheap made. Very thin 2 ply sidewall even on the E load! , soft rubber and they get terrible mpg, as a result. Most who go to them say they notice a 1-2 mpg drop. .. and the crazy thing they are lighter weight, yet still kill mpg.

I think C vs E load is overblown. I actually preferred E load on my TJs. I had an 06 Rubi with stock MTR Es, and then tried KO2 Cs and didn’t like how they drove, returned them for KO2 Es and noticeably better mpg and handling. Not harsh at all.
 
Last edited:
RubiconRic said:
Is it stock? I doubt Jeep would have put load range E tires MTRs on stock '04 Rubis if there are safety or drivability issues. The KO2 you are proposing are even more mild.

My .02 is the concerns (my own included) about load range mainly stem from larger MT-style tires on modded Jeeps. I ran 34" load range C LTBs for a long time and its aggressiveness (and being bias ply) significantly contributed to worn drivetrain/suspension components much moreso than a milder D or E would have.

In other words, I wouldn't worry at all about an E rated 31" AT on your daughter's Jeep.
Click to expand...
Those were the original MTR's as well.

They weren't a load range E
 
I’ve had three sets of m/t tires on my 06 Rubicon, not that you need any other recommendations as you have a great set now,, but I don’t think any of these have been covered.

First I had a set of Mickey Thompsons and they were OK until the tread had some ware then they got progressively louder and the winter paved road traction wasn’t the greatest, the next set were Coopers they were not to noisy and played well both on and off road the tread life was fair and the new set I just bought are Toyo I have not had a chance to take them off road so I can only guess they a probably best of the 3 now on pavement I think they are the harshest ride and the noisiest of the 3 I’m not sure if I’d buy another set yet.

probably my next set I’ll try one of these, Falken has some good reviews for on road manners and seemed OK off road too, good year and goodrich are highly regarded here, so one of those 3 I think, truth is any of the 3 I’ve had so far worked just fine...Oh, the Tokyo’s have the best look of the 3 on my Jeep I think, nice tread pattern and aggressive look...probably why they are a little louder on pavement.
 
image.jpg
 
Top Bottom
Back