goodyear wrangler mtrs with kevlar - Page 3

**glockster** · 09-25-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyder6

i called goodyear and they said what sets it apart from other tires is how much kevlar they used. they're goal when designing the tire was to virtually if not all together eliminate steel in the tires. by doing so they have designed an incredibly strong and durable tire that is wickedly light. a 37x12.50x17 tire only weighs 55 lbs - a comparable BFG KM2 is sitting around 80

Something didn't seem right with this so I checked Tire Rack.com. The MTR w/kevlar in a 37x12.5x17 weighs 74 lbs. The comparable KM2 is 72lbs.

Throwing some 35x12.5.15's into the mix the mtr's w/kevlar are 67lbs and the same size km2 are 61.

When I checked mtr/kevlar's in 285/75/16 for my jeep they were 64lbs, a full 8 lbs more than the same size MT MTZ's. It doesn't appear the use of kevlar gave it any weight savings whatsoever. It may have a stronger shell due to the kevlar, but it's certainly not lighter than the same size competitor's tire.

**JBWood05TJ** · 09-25-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glockster

Something didn't seem right with this so I checked Tire Rack.com. The MTR w/kevlar in a 37x12.5x17 weighs 74 lbs. The comparable KM2 is 72lbs.

Throwing some 35x12.5.15's into the mix the mtr's w/kevlar are 67lbs and the same size km2 are 61.

When I checked mtr/kevlar's in 285/75/16 for my jeep they were 64lbs, a full 8 lbs more than the same size MT MTZ's. It doesn't appear the use of kevlar gave it any weight savings whatsoever. It may have a stronger shell due to the kevlar, but it's certainly not lighter than the same size competitor's tire.

I thought so. I know that when I was throwing mine around and mounting them to the beadlocks, they sure didn't seem like 55 lbs.

1997_Sport · 09-25-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kb9qdi

There asymmetrical and his are mounted incorrect. There will be a loss in performance and possibly be noiser but thats really it. They will wear the same mounted either way. I'd mount them correct if you want 100% performance out of your tires

False.

They barely make any noise, and driving in mud and rain they do exceptionly well, and same with rocks and gravel. So im pretty sure i got the total performance, since i didnt get stuck im good.

**JBWood05TJ** · 09-25-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laxnyj18

False.

They barely make any noise, and driving in mud and rain they do exceptionly well, and same with rocks and gravel. So im pretty sure i got the total performance, since i didnt get stuck im good.

Think how much better they'd be if you mounted them correctly.

**sardog12** · 09-25-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBWood05TJ

It certainly isn't the Antirock, as spyder6 suggested, since I don't have one.

sardog - If you look real close at the first pic you can just see that the driver front is just starting to come down off a rock. In the second pic, I was at a very steep angle trying to get up a ledge and the front end was real light.

I saw the rock but wasn't sure if it was below the tire or further behind. Second one makes sense and looks like a lot of fun.

Also, if it isn't the anti-rock, curious to what it is. Gen-Right? Teraflex?

1997_Sport · 09-25-2009, 10:35 PM

Better how? Plus im not having blue walls. lol

**JBWood05TJ** · 09-26-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sardog12

I saw the rock but wasn't sure if it was below the tire or further behind. Second one makes sense and looks like a lot of fun.

Also, if it isn't the anti-rock, curious to what it is. Gen-Right? Teraflex?

SwayLoc

10

**JBWood05TJ** · 09-26-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laxnyj18

Better how? Plus im not having blue walls. lol

Oh, I don't know. Because you'd be using them the way that the people who designed them intended?

1997_Sport · 09-26-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBWood05TJ

Oh, I don't know. Because you'd be using them the way that the people who designed them intended?

Well i'm pretty sure it cant get better then not getting stuck or caught up on anything. So i'll let you do your thing and i'll do mine.

**spyder6** · 09-26-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glockster

Something didn't seem right with this so I checked Tire Rack.com. The MTR w/kevlar in a 37x12.5x17 weighs 74 lbs. The comparable KM2 is 72lbs.

Throwing some 35x12.5.15's into the mix the mtr's w/kevlar are 67lbs and the same size km2 are 61.

When I checked mtr/kevlar's in 285/75/16 for my jeep they were 64lbs, a full 8 lbs more than the same size MT MTZ's. It doesn't appear the use of kevlar gave it any weight savings whatsoever. It may have a stronger shell due to the kevlar, but it's certainly not lighter than the same size competitor's tire.

thats what i get for not checking the internet after the Goodyear guy told me

oh well - there goes my credibility!

makaioM3 · 11-02-2009, 07:50 AM

Does anyone have any first hand experience in the snow and ice with this tire yet?

0IIIIIII0 · 11-02-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glockster

OK, I'm not one to stir the pot, but did you knowingly mount your tires inside out? They are not directional but are symmetrical. The larger lugs go to the outside (like the picture above yours of the red jeep) at least that's how America's tire described it to me.

I prefer the black side out but didn't know you could do it............

I did knowingly mount them that way. All I wanted was a signed doc from my tire guy that he would honor his warranty either way. With that in hand, mount away. Since installing them a few months ago, I have been extremely impressed. They are as quiet as my previous BFG AT's and have handled all I can throw at them. I do get a good many rocks thrown at me though.

zachbh · 11-02-2009, 05:08 PM

How much did these guys run you all?

I heard they were a bit on the pricey side.

1997_Sport · 11-02-2009, 07:13 PM

628 for four.

zachbh · 11-02-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laxnyj18

628 for four.

Wow, definitely not as bad as i thought.