Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

How aggresive are the Falken Wildpeaks?

41K views 85 replies 27 participants last post by  jrallen 
#1 ·
I plan on purchasing these tires in a 32x11.50x15 size for moderate trailriding and daily driving. I've done a lot of research on these but am still concerned with the tread depth. All the pictures I see make them look similar to the dueler revos or destinations. Falken's site states that the Wildpeaks are at 17/32's and BFG's site reports the same. So does this mean that the Wildpeaks are as aggressive and deep as the BFG's? I find this hard to believe since the BFG's are known as one of the most aggressive A/T's. Someone please enlighten me!

Thanks
 
#44 ·
Just got these tires.... After months of debating on which tires, I just couldn't justify buying anything else at the price I got 4 of these. My out the door price for 4 285/75/16's was $799.33 with tax and replacement certificates from discount tire. That's mounted and installed. I really wanted Duratracs, but they were gonna be ~$350 more.

After having them installed and seeing them in person, they look MUCH better than in any of the pictures I've seen. Maybe they just aren't photogenic, I dunno, but these things look great in person. Road noise is almost nothing. Here's a pic... I'm extremely happy with these things for $800!

 
#45 ·
Got 7,000 miles on mine now. The more miles on put on them, the less I like them.

Cons:
-Much heavier than competitive ATs. Is KILLING my gas mileage.
-Continuous flat-spotting/balancing issues. Cannot get these to balance. Not going to bother sending any more tires back for replacement.
-Miserable offroad traction. Mud, damp dirt, roots, loose soil, just horrible traction. Not a good eastern U.S. trail tire at all.
-They pick up gravel worse than any other tire I've ever used. My rock rails and rocker panels and doors are taking a beating. Plus, the constant "tick tick tick tick" traveling down the road.

Pros:
-Low price
-Thick sidewalls
-Quiet on the road
-Wearing great so far

At this point I'm 100% sure I'll never buy them again. Out of the 18 or so brands/models of tires I've used, these are the first ones I've told myself I'll never buy again. Now I know why the Sumitomo AT was discontinued...they weren't selling them so they slapped the general tread design on a Falken branded tire and promoted it as something new, but the quality is still shoddy.
 
#46 ·
What size do you have? I know we did a weight comparison on all of the 16's and they weren't any heavier than most of the other AT's.
 
#47 ·
I have 285/75-16. Two weighed 62 lbs., and two weighed 64 lbs. (further proving the manufacturing quality is low). By contrast, 95% of ATs in this size go 51-58 lbs. As much as 10 lbs. heavier per tire...that's significant.
 
#48 ·
I realize that no tire will be good for everyone but I've got the same question for you as on the other forum. What pressure are you running them off-road? Tire pressure has a large effect on a tire's performance especially when you have a tire with a strong sidewall. I run mine at 12 psi off road and they grip like a champ. I'm not just saying that because I work for a company that sells them. These tires really have been excellent for me.
 
#51 ·
Everything you read says that 10 lbs. of unsprung weight is the equivalent of adding 100 lbs. load into the back of the vehicle, in terms of fuel economy, power, and braking. I don't know if that math is correct or not... but that's the rule that is passed around on the Jeep forums all the time.

So, assuming that is true, I'm running 40 lbs. of additional unsprung weight by choosing Falkens over another brand of AT. That's like carrying 400 lbs. around in the back of the Jeep all the time as far as my gas gauge is concerned. That's a BIG deal.

On my daily routine, I was averaging 19.2 MPGs in bone stock form. With the Falkens I'm at 16.0 if I baby it...and 15.2 if I drive it like I want to on the same driving route to/from work and play on the weekends. The 4.88s didn't do anything for my mileage pro or con...they just help me hold overdrive on the highway now, but my mileage hasn't changed hardly at all due to the gears.

So, it appears that I lost 3-4 MPGs from the Falken tire upgrade. Now, if I went with a lighter AT tire of the exact same size..how much would I gain back? Probably not much...around 1 MPG probably. But every 1 MPG is worth $20/month to the average person...so choosing a different AT tire would pay for itself FAST.

For that reason (and the others I listed) I'm going to try the Nitto Terra Grappler. It's listed at 53 lbs. each and has great reviews. I already have one for my spare...and as my Falkens die I'll get more Nittos to replace them with.

If my JKU was a trail-only vehicle I'd have MTs on it. But since it's not I have to be conscious of efficiency and ride comfort in addition to trail prowess...and the Falken just isn't getting it done.
 
#52 ·
With my Falken WildPeaks my MPG did go down. It went from 19.5 (roughly) to 18.5 (roughly) on my daily commute. My DD is 55 27 miles each way to work and back Monday - Fridays. I have the 305x70x16 wildPeaks with no other options and 3.73 gears. I like them, actually. Find them very quiet, at least for the Central Texas roadways that we have. I only have about 2500 miles on them, so it will be interesting to see how they are once they wear some. I run them at 28 PSI on the road, have not been off road enough with them to know what I need to run at then. I have not had any issues with them so far. Will be interesting to see if they make any improvements in weight or tread designs over the next year(s) with these.

Like WXMan I too find them very heavy and I will probably go with a different AT tire whenever I need to replace these. But that will be a while. Other then weight, I am happy with them so far. I have a while to go before I can consider a different tire, as these look like they will wear slowly (which, coming from sports cars is a nice change!).
 
#53 ·
Some people want durability for offroad use.. Some people want lower weight.. Can't really have both so in the end it's up to the buyer what they want. Wether it be something light weight but can be easily damaged like a duratrac or something that is heavier and more durable like the wild peak at, st maxx, and most MT's.
 
#55 ·
285/75/16's
Falken Rocky Mountain ATS - 62 lbs/tire
BFG All-Terrain T/A KO - 59 lbs/tire
General Grabber AT2 - 62 lbs/tire
Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac - 58 lbs/tire (there are two different kinds on tirerack, one weighs 58 one weighs 54)
BFG Mud-Terrain T/A KM2 - 59 lbs/tire
Dick Cepek Mud Country - 61 lbs/tire

305/70/16's
Falken Rocky Mountain ATS - 67 lbs/tire
BFG All-Terrain T/A KO - 61 lbs/tire
General Grabber AT2 - 62 lbs/tire
Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac - 63 lbs/tire
BFG Mud-Terrain T/A KM2 - 59 lbs/tire
Dick Cepek Mud Country - 63 lbs/tire

So yes, looks like the 305's in the Falkens are much heavier... in the 285's though, not bad.
 
#57 ·
The mistake here is that you're comparing apples to oranges. The 285/75 Falkens are load range "D". The BFG and most other tires you listed are "E". If you consider that the lighter capacity Falkens are heavier than the higher capacity competitors, the issue becomes obvious.

Like I said earlier in this thread... I've collected weight data directly from the manufacturers by emailing them or calling them, and what I've found is that 95% of the ATs out there in the 285/75 size are 51-59 lbs...with most of those being in the low to mid 50s. By contrast, the Falkens are almost 10 full lbs. heavier.
 
#59 ·
I went from crappy 30x9.5x15's to 285/75/16 Falkens and my gas mileage has not suffered much at all. They are quiet and handle well for me on the highway at all speeds. Before i got these, my mileage was at max 15mpg... With these, it MIGHT be about .3 mpg less. I couldn't turn them down for the price.
 
#62 ·
Yes still have them and they are holding up great. I have 22k on the odo now and all but about 500 are on these I expect I will get another 25k or possible more out of these before needing to replace. Still quiet. Still good in rain. Ok on the trails I do. But not that good in mud. I think they were a good tire for me so far.

Bill
 
#66 ·
Yeah it's 22k miles for them. Still happy with them in rain. I'm in south central Texas, so they have not seen any snow.
They are good tire for street use. I dont get on trails as often as i would like and am easy on the trails,so they work good for me. Little heavy for a 305/70/16 and are an "E" rated tire. I keep them at 28 psi and check them often too.

Bill
 
#67 ·
bhoch said:
Sure.

Just taken now.

Bill
I saw these tire the other day at the tire shop, they looked really nice. There is a JK on base where I work with these tires also, they looked to be are down a little more than yours. The bad thing was that once worn past the tread groves, they were really just 5 bands of worn treads around the tire. They still had plenty of depth, just no more groves. If I see it again, I will snap a photo.
 
#73 ·
I've ran the wild peak a/t in a 305/70r16 on my f-150 for about 2 yrs now around 30k miles and they still look to have around half tread. Wearing even and I've never rotated them. Great in the snow and rain. Pretty decent in the mud for an a/t. Nice and quiet, and they ride good. I will replace the bfg's on my tj with the wild peak when they wear out
 
#74 ·
Well when I ran the Wildpeaks briefly one of the things I was concerned about was how they'd perform with 50% of the tread worn. It looked to me like the tread was designed in a wacky way such that with some wear there would be no biting edges left in the tread.

Turns out I was correct.

I just found a pic of a Wildpeak tire with 6/32nds of tread remaining. (A couple of the tires in this set measured 7/32nds). So these are about half way worn. And as you can see, there are almost NO biting edges left! At this point in the tires life it is now worse than having a HT tire. You might as well be running a racing slick. :laugh:

I want to like this tire so bad...but I just can't get past the horrible tread design. I like the concept of this tire ( a rugged sidewall with a smooth rolling tread design ) but you are basically getting 6/32nds of usuable tread and then you might as well throw these puppies in the trash. This is the most pathetic tire I have ever seen and that includes all AT, MT, and HT tires.
 

Attachments

#76 ·
Well when I ran the Wildpeaks briefly one of the things I was concerned about was how they'd perform with 50% of the tread worn. It looked to me like the tread was designed in a wacky way such that with some wear there would be no biting edges left in the tread.

Turns out I was correct.

I just found a pic of a Wildpeak tire with 6/32nds of tread remaining. (A couple of the tires in this set measured 7/32nds). So these are about half way worn. And as you can see, there are almost NO biting edges left! At this point in the tires life it is now worse than having a HT tire. You might as well be running a racing slick. :laugh:

I want to like this tire so bad...but I just can't get past the horrible tread design. I like the concept of this tire ( a rugged sidewall with a smooth rolling tread design ) but you are basically getting 6/32nds of usuable tread and then you might as well throw these puppies in the trash. This is the most pathetic tire I have ever seen and that includes all AT, MT, and HT tires.
I have very limited experience with these tire (explained later) but the math here isn't totally accurate.

Any tire only has usable tread down to 3/32nds. Wildpeaks come new with 17/32nds, meaning 14/32nds of usable tread. If you've noticed a fall all of performance at 6/32nds, that's only 3/32nds, or less than 25%, of the usable thread.

With this math, I think this is in line with any/all tires that I have ever used. As tires near the end of their life, performance falls off.

I don't want to pick a fight, just my observations.

My experience, I like and really want to like this tires. I got a really super deal (almost free) on a used set, with 14/32nds left. Only been a couple of months but really like them so far. But, do to the deal I got, even if they have performance issues earlier than normal, I still made out good.

Time and miles will tell.
 
#77 ·
I grooved mine so my observations might not be totally spot on - because I customized the tread they seem to be feathering a little more than a stock tread pattern would, but all in all they're good, reliable tires. They were fine on wet roads, but snow left quite a bit to be desired which is why I got the groover out. Otherwise, they're just as good on road and off as the BFG or Pro Comp AT tires I have used before this.

I'd also say that grooving some new biting edges into that (way) worn out tire would bring it back to life, at least as long as you needed to get a new set.

Overall, they are a little heavy though, and that's something that may or may not matter to you. My 285/70/17s on JK Moabs are fairly heavy. I haven't bothered weighing them but they feel like they weigh at least as much as the 35" KM2s I had on 15" rims prior to this (I am aware that's a different load rated tire, different size rim, and different intended use of tire).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top