What does tire load range and / or load index mean?

[Moab]

Back to the OP's original concern here's a reference for load index ratings

Load Rating
The load rating is often found after the size numbers in the tire size of passenger car tires. A P195/60R15 87S would have a load rating of 87.

Load Index (E.T.R.T.O. 1991 - Section 13)

​

Code	Pounds​	Kilograms​	​	Code	Pounds​	Kilograms​	​	Code	Pounds​	Kilograms​	​	Code	Pounds​	Kilograms​
60	551​	250​	​	80	992​	450​	​	100	1,764​	800​	​	120	3,087​	1,400​
61	567​	257​	​	81	1,019​	462​	​	101	1,819​	825​	​	121	3,197​	1,450​
62	584​	265​	​	82	1,047​	475​	​	102	1,874​	850​	​	122	3,306​	1,500​
63	600​	272​	​	83	1,074​	487​	​	103	1,929​	875​	​	123	3,418​	1,550​
64	617​	280​	​	84	1,102​	500​	​	104	1,984​	900​	​	124	3,528​	1,600​
65	640​	290​	​	85	1,135​	515​	​	105	2,039​	925​	​	125	3,638​	1,650​
66	661​	300​	​	86	1,168​	530​	​	106	2,094​	950​	​		​	​
67	677​	307​	​	87	1,201​	545​	​	107	2,149​	975​	​		​	​
68	695​	315​	​	88	1,235​	560​	​	108	2,205​	1,000​	​		​	​
69	717​	325​	​	89	1,279​	580​	​	109	2,271​	1,030​	​		​	​
70	738​	335​	​	90	1,323​	600​	​	110	2,337​	1,060​	​		​	​
71	761​	345​	​	91	1,356​	615​	​	111	2,403​	1,090​	​		​	​
72	783​	355​	​	92	1,389​	630​	​	112	2,470​	1,120​	​		​	​
73	805​	365​	​	93	1,433​	650​	​	113	2,536​	1,150​	​		​	​
74	827​	375​	​	94	1,477​	670​	​	114	2,601​	1,180​	​		​	​
75	853​	387​	​	95	1,521​	690​	​	115	2,679​	1,215​	​		​	​
76	882​	400​	​	96	1,565​	710​	​	116	2,756​	1,250​	​		​	​
77	908​	412​	​	97	1,609​	730​	​	117	2,833​	1,285​	​		​	​
78	937​	425​	​	98	1,653​	750​	​	118	2,910​	1,320​	​		​	​
79	963​	437​	​	99	1,709​	775​	​	119	2,999​	1,360​	​		​	​

Load Range
Load range is used on light truck tires and indicates ply rating and load pressure (PSI).

​

Load Range	Ply Rating​	Load Pressure (PSI)​
B	4​	35​
C	6​	50​
D	8​	65​
E	10​	80​
F	12​	95​

***Thank you. This explains alot of my confusion. I think I'm looking at passenger tires and LT tires. Which apparently use two different systems of measurement for a load rating. So there is no comparison chart showing which ratings are the same between a passenger and LT tire. So that you could compare the two.***

I'm seriously considering the Falkens in my original post. They have great reviews. And are C rated. At least going by tech reviews I've read. It's not an LT tire though. And has a thinner sidewall. But I'm no rock crawler. And they seem to last as long if not longer (most reviews show they last longer) than the Ko2's for twice the price. It's either that or the Coopers. Which look like passenger tires to me.

Here's a good review comparing the Falkens to Ko2's:

https://4wdlife.com/falken-wildpeak-at3w-vs-bfg-ko2
Either that or a set of Ko2 take offs in like new condition. Yet to be found. But lots of ads on CL for similar. Unfortunately they come usually with Newer JK rims. Which pushes the price to high. I wish I had another grand for Ko2's. But they only slightly edge out the Falkens. The Falkens might even last longer. But the Ko2's work slightly better in the rain. The review above rates them both about the same. But again, the Falken is half the price.

Thanks again for posting this. It's clears up my confusion. I was trying to compare passenger tires with LT tires.

 

[reddvltj]

***Thank you. This explains alot of my confusion. I think I'm looking at passenger tires and LT tires. Which apparently use two different systems of measurement for a load rating. So there is no comparison chart showing which ratings are the same between a passenger and LT tire. So that you could compare the two.***

I'm seriously considering the Falkens in my original post. They have great reviews. And are C rated. At least going by tech reviews I've read. It's not an LT tire though. And has a thinner sidewall. But I'm no rock crawler. And they seem to last as long if not longer (most reviews show they last longer) than the Ko2's for twice the price. It's either that or the Coopers. Which look like passenger tires to me.

Here's a good review comparing the Falkens to Ko2's:

https://4wdlife.com/falken-wildpeak-at3w-vs-bfg-ko2
Either that or a set of Ko2 take offs in like new condition. Yet to be found. But lots of ads on CL for similar. Unfortunately they come usually with Newer JK rims. Which pushes the price to high. I wish I had another grand for Ko2's. But they only slightly edge out the Falkens. The Falkens might even last longer. But the Ko2's work slightly better in the rain. The review above rates them both about the same. But again, the Falken is half the price.

Thanks again for posting this. It's clears up my confusion. I was trying to compare passenger tires with LT tires.

Don't get too hung on on the difference in terminology, it's not so much the difference between passenger and light truck as it is a change in marketing.

To clarify, load "index" and load "range" are 2 different methods of expressing the same information.
Load range classifications P, C, D, E, F, etc. designate "ply rating", P = 4 ply (passenger rated), C = 6 ply (LT), D = 8 ply(LT), E = 10 ply(LT), F = 12 ply(LT).
Again these are just "ratings" Not actual ply counts any more. Not all like ply rated tires have the same load carrying capacity (eg: you can look at 2 identical size Load range C tires and have 2 different max weights.)

Load index numbers such as the ones given in the description on the tires you first listed do not refer to any particular "load range" such as P, C, D, etc. The fact that they are listed without the LT as part of the sizing means they are a passenger rated tires that have a load index of 115 or load carrying capacity of 2,679 lbs per tire at max pressure.

The tires you linked to are purpose made for small to mid sized SUVs to as closely match if not slightly surpass the OEM tires specifications while still maintaining a smooth "stock" ride. Many people that switch to a LT tire on a small to mid sized SUV will notice a harsher ride because of sidewall and body of the tire are designed for heavier loads and harsher use.

 

[Moab]

Don't get too hung on on the difference in terminology, it's not so much the difference between passenger and light truck as it is a change in marketing.

To clarify, load "index" and load "range" are 2 different methods of expressing the same information.
Load range classifications P, C, D, E, F, etc. designate "ply rating", P = 4 ply (passenger rated), C = 6 ply (LT), D = 8 ply(LT), E = 10 ply(LT), F = 12 ply(LT).
Again these are just "ratings" Not actual ply counts any more. Not all like ply rated tires have the same load carrying capacity (eg: you can look at 2 identical size Load range C tires and have 2 different max weights.)

Load index numbers such as the ones given in the description on the tires you first listed do not refer to any particular "load range" such as P, C, D, etc. The fact that they are listed without the LT as part of the sizing means they are a passenger rated tires that have a load index of 115 or load carrying capacity of 2,679 lbs per tire at max pressure.

The tires you linked to are purpose made for small to mid sized SUVs to as closely match if not slightly surpass the OEM tires specifications while still maintaining a smooth "stock" ride. Many people that switch to a LT tire on a small to mid sized SUV will notice a harsher ride because of sidewall and body of the tire are designed for heavier loads and harsher use.

You'd think they'd come up with an easier system for consumers to understand. But maybe I'm just a dumbass. lol.

"The tires you linked to are purpose made for small to mid sized SUVs to as closely match if not slightly surpass the OEM tires specifications while still maintaining a smooth "stock" ride. Many people that switch to a LT tire on a small to mid sized SUV will notice a harsher ride because of sidewall and body of the tire are designed for heavier loads and harsher use."

I'm looking at ride quality as a benefit of the lower priced Falkans. As they are passenger tires but with an AT tread pattern. Or so it seems.

 

[reddvltj]

You'd think they'd come up with an easier system for consumers to understand. But maybe I'm just a dumbass. lol.

"The tires you linked to are purpose made for small to mid sized SUVs to as closely match if not slightly surpass the OEM tires specifications while still maintaining a smooth "stock" ride. Many people that switch to a LT tire on a small to mid sized SUV will notice a harsher ride because of sidewall and body of the tire are designed for heavier loads and harsher use."

I'm looking at ride quality as a benefit of the lower priced Falkans. As they are passenger tires but with an AT tread pattern. Or so it seems.

They should work out fine for how you intend to use them. Happy New Year!!

 

[matkal]

Jeeezusss....... so what numbers,106 or 109 for example, are close to Cs?

 

[reddvltj]

Jeeezusss....... so what numbers,106 or 109 for example, are close to Cs?

In response to your question, it's really hard to say when you factor in the new tire designs for cross over and light SUVs. They have P rated tires that have "Extra Load" carrying capacity, that mimics the load carrying capacities of what we're used to as a Load Range C, LT tire. The charts below are the best information I could find on short notice that might be able to help you out. Another key number to look at would be Max Tire pressure... Load Range C tires typically ran 50psi max. Clear as mud???
If you're looking at specific tires I might be able to decipher their information if you can post them up here.

Tire Load Index Capacity​

The load rating of the tire displays the weight a tire can carry. The product of the load capacity of a single tire and the number of tires determines the load carrying capacity of all the tires combined. The rating of 121 shows that it has a load capacity of 3297LBS. Multiply that by four tires (4 x 3,297 = 13,188 pounds) to get your vehicle's max load carrying capacity. Always remember to install tires that have a load index that is equal or greater than your original factory-installed tires.

What is the Load Range?​

Load range is the older measurement standard of "PLY Rating." This refers to the construct of the tire, which is made out of rubber and cord layers referred to as “plies.” Historically, more plies meant a tire had a larger load carrying capacity, so manufacturers would count a tire’s plies and use this number to denote carrying capacity. However, the modern construction of tires uses fewer piles without sacrificing the carrying capacity. Therefore load range simply tells how tough the tire is and the allowable PSI. For example, an “E” load range indicates that a tire is equivalent to a 10-ply construction tire. In reality, this tire is not built with 10 plies, but rather one or two plies of equivalent strength.

https://www.treadwright.com/blogs/treadwright-blog/understanding-tires-load-index-vs-load-range

 

[Rick Flair]

Yep, Alpha numeric sizing.
I think Buckshot and Gumbo were some of the last tires to use that sizing style.
That would be the equivalent of a 37x9.50X15 bias ply tire in today's tires
37" diameter 9.3" tread width for a 15" rim,
R being the load rating = Truck or LT
85 being the aspect ratio 37x9.3
15 inch rim size

That takes me back. On of my buddies had a 1971 F250 factory high boy. He had those skinny buckshots on it. It was baby blue and loved that truck.


He flipped it on a corner one night. I remember him saying, “My buckshots broke loose!”.


Damn. That was a long time ago. I’d still love to have a Ford with those tires.