IcedTeasley wrote:9000 miles in and I've only lost 1/64th of an inch of tread depth. These tires wear like iron. I'm still happy with them and will buy them again if they ever wear out.

Okay, so how many miles now & how are they wearing? Have you noticed anything at all that would support all the negative reviews about sponginess (feels like the tires are underinflated), or weak sidewalls?

I was up in your neck of the woods last week. Once things settle down, I'll post about one of my side trips.

@NVSteve

I have 14,000 miles on these tires. They wear very well. If you rotate them religiously @ 5K miles, you will love them so long as you want more aggressive tires. If I remember correctly, you have Bridgestone AT REVO 2s on your PF. Our tires are very different animals. As such, I'll avoid any comparison and contrast.

To address your concerns about sponginess...

I have no idea what other owner's are referring to. I changed my tires from Yokohama HT/S all season tire to my Duratracs and never noticed any loss in cornering response or stability. I am very happy to own an aggressive tire that works so well in the real world.

To address your concerns about sidewall strength...

I was recently "racing" my PF on stock (not ideal) suspension during a high-speed run in Southern Wyoming inside a Military training area (yes, I had clearance). I still managed to out run real-deal HumVees and a few staff vehicles including a late model Land Rover Discovery, 2004 Toyota Tacoma and an '06 4 Runner. The point is that I ran into rocks the size of a cantaloupes at speed and came out on the other side with a few black marks on my alloys. These tires have sidewalls that can deal with way more than most PF owners will ever throw at them.

Please post your pics of CO. I love it when everyone can see how beautiful it is.

IcedTeasley wrote:@NVSteve

I have 14,000 miles on these tires. They wear very well. If you rotate them religiously @ 5K miles, you will love them so long as you want more aggressive tires. If I remember correctly, you have Bridgestone AT REVO 2s on your PF. Our tires are very different animals. As such, I'll avoid any comparison and contrast.

Yes, I have the Revo 2s. Looks like the Duratrac has the same amount of tread as the Revo, but obviously spaced farther apart. I would imagine they would still handle far better in wet conditions (water) than the BFG TKO. The reason I'm interested in these is twofold: better handling in the snow & better usability off road.

Thanks for all the info.

...nice look and promising review. Have a set on order for install in about 2 weeks. Local dealer said the MTs were too mud focused and not as capable in snow as the Duratracs...he's got a set of MTs on his truck and wishes he'd gone with the Dura's. Cheaper too!

Shopping for summer wheels and rubber (Ultra Magnus, black, 18s). Gotta make it through the winter first though.

THX for the review.

Cheers!

Steve

Disallow, how is the ride on yours when not pulling or hauling? I noticed you bought the load range E, which is why I'm asking. The tire mfrs have been cutting back on load ranges for a given tire. The Revos I have now are load range C, but now those same tires are only offered in the E load range. Same is true for a number of other tires I've looked at in the past, all of which at least offered a choice between C or D. I could get something in a D, but it would be a tire that I wouldn't want to buy.

If I go with the stock size again (265/75/16), it will be a C with the Duratracks, which is fine & what I'm used to. If I want to up the size to a 285, my only option is E. Load range E is, IMO, way overkill for the Pathfinder. But, I'd like to hear from anyone out there running the Duratrack E on their unloaded Pathfinder. Is the ride gut-busting?

I'm down to 4 or 5/32 of tread remaining on my Revos, and I don't think that is enough tread for winter roads. I can grab $120 in rebates if I buy in November, so I'm planning on just that.

NVSteve wrote:Disallow, how is the ride on yours when not pulling or hauling? I noticed you bought the load range E, which is why I'm asking. The tire mfrs have been cutting back on load ranges for a given tire. The Revos I have now are load range C, but now those same tires are only offered in the E load range. Same is true for a number of other tires I've looked at in the past, all of which at least offered a choice between C or D. I could get something in a D, but it would be a tire that I wouldn't want to buy.

If I go with the stock size again (265/75/16), it will be a C with the Duratracks, which is fine & what I'm used to. If I want to up the size to a 285, my only option is E. Load range E is, IMO, way overkill for the Pathfinder. But, I'd like to hear from anyone out there running the Duratrack E on their unloaded Pathfinder. Is the ride gut-busting?

I'm down to 4 or 5/32 of tread remaining on my Revos, and I don't think that is enough tread for winter roads. I can grab $120 in rebates if I buy in November, so I'm planning on just that.

Hey NVSteve,

Very happy with these tires. About 10000kms on them so far, only about 800-1000kms towing. So far, these are the quietest tires I've ever driven on, and rock solid while towing. I keep them inflated to about 55psi, so the ride is a little more 'truck-like', but not so much that my wife complains. (She drives it most of the time). Bumps are more pronounced with the high inflation and the fact that they are stiffer, but its not bone jarring. I expected the ride to be pretty rough with these, but I have been very pleasantly surprised!

The only complaint I have on these is that these tires are much heavier than the Cooper Discoverer ATR P265/70R16s I replaced. Thus, my fuel economy has gone down about 5-7%. I weighed a tire assembly the other day while doing my brakes. 88lbs per tire assembly. Not light!

Also moved up from 265/70R16 to 265/75R16. I notice some rub on the mudflaps when at full lock on the steering, but nothing that is causing any damage. I assume this is due to the tread being deeper on LT tires vs P tires, but I really don't know.

I am not complaining about the fuel economy either. I knew going to E-Rated LT tires would cause this. I think going with E-Rated is actually overkill. For my next tires in 3-4yrs, I am thinking about the REV02s, but P-rated tires which have an equivalent Load Rating of C. Hopefully that would lighten them up some, though the 10ply is probably good for making sure I don't get any nail holes in them....

I paid $890 CAD for all 4 including install at Costco. This is taxes inc (12% here in Manitoba), and net the $70 rebate I got at the till.

I definitely recommend getting these tires, and can't wait for the snow to get here so I can try out the more aggressive tread!

t

disallow wrote:I keep them inflated to about 55psi, so the ride is a little more 'truck-like', but not so much that my wife complains. (She drives it most of the time). Bumps are more pronounced with the high inflation and the fact that they are stiffer, but its not bone jarring.

Have you done something like the chalk test? I'm thinking 55psi is probably overinflated, specifically when you aren't towing anything. Guys on the Jeep and Toyota forums are running these at pretty much the same pressure as regular tires. The pickup truck forums are all over the place though, but these are also where all the negative reviews are coming from.

The only complaint I have on these is that these tires are much heavier than the Cooper Discoverer ATR P265/70R16s I replaced. Thus, my fuel economy has gone down about 5-7%.

I didn't notice a drop when I went from the stock P to my current C. But, I'd probably see a difference if I went with the 285/75/16 since it is about 15 lbs heavier.

Also moved up from 265/70R16 to 265/75R16. I notice some rub on the mudflaps when at full lock on the steering, but nothing that is causing any damage. I assume this is due to the tread being deeper on LT tires vs P tires, but I really don't know.

You shouldn't have any rubbing at all with that small of a tire. The tread is deeper on LT tires, but the overall diameter is still going to be pretty close across all the brands.

For my next tires in 3-4yrs, I am thinking about the REV02s, but P-rated tires which have an equivalent Load Rating of C. Hopefully that would lighten them up some, though the 10ply is probably good for making sure I don't get any nail holes in them....

They actually haven't had plies (re: 6, 8 or 10 ply) for many years. Most of the tires will be 2-3 ply. I really like the LT C tires I have (and the LT tires I've used on previous vehicles) far more than P tires. It's a combo deal: thicker sidewalls & deeper lugs, both of which are absolutely mandatory for me.

I definitely recommend getting these tires, and can't wait for the snow to get here so I can try out the more aggressive tread!

I'm still reading through massive threads discussing these tires before I make a final decision. One of the Jeep forums has this 26 page thread devoted to these tires. Only 1 person had something negative to say, but it sounded fairly out of place. He was claiming that the sidewalls would roll far too much when taking tight & twisty roads. Still, that's one person out of a hundred or more. The last thing I want to experience is a limp sidewall while driving 85 or more on freeways/highways.

NVSteve wrote:

disallow wrote:I keep them inflated to about 55psi, so the ride is a little more 'truck-like', but not so much that my wife complains. (She drives it most of the time). Bumps are more pronounced with the high inflation and the fact that they are stiffer, but its not bone jarring.

Have you done something like the chalk test? I'm thinking 55psi is probably overinflated, specifically when you aren't towing anything. Guys on the Jeep and Toyota forums are running these at pretty much the same pressure as regular tires. The pickup truck forums are all over the place though, but these are also where all the negative reviews are coming from.

I have done a chalk test. Even at 65psi they were fine. Was annoyed by the TPMS light though, it kicks in at 65psi.

The only complaint I have on these is that these tires are much heavier than the Cooper Discoverer ATR P265/70R16s I replaced. Thus, my fuel economy has gone down about 5-7%.

I didn't notice a drop when I went from the stock P to my current C. But, I'd probably see a difference if I went with the 285/75/16 since it is about 15 lbs heavier.

I've done some research, and based on my calculations, I've increased my unsprung weight by almost 100lbs. That is huge! So its understandable that I notice a decrease in FE.

Also moved up from 265/70R16 to 265/75R16. I notice some rub on the mudflaps when at full lock on the steering, but nothing that is causing any damage. I assume this is due to the tread being deeper on LT tires vs P tires, but I really don't know.

You shouldn't have any rubbing at all with that small of a tire. The tread is deeper on LT tires, but the overall diameter is still going to be pretty close across all the brands.

Like I said, it only touches the mudflap, not the actual wheel well. The P tires list a 12mm tread depth on the website, vs the LT tires at 16mm. 4mm would be enough to cause the issue with the mudflap.

For my next tires in 3-4yrs, I am thinking about the REV02s, but P-rated tires which have an equivalent Load Rating of C. Hopefully that would lighten them up some, though the 10ply is probably good for making sure I don't get any nail holes in them....

They actually haven't had plies (re: 6, 8 or 10 ply) for many years. Most of the tires will be 2-3 ply. I really like the LT C tires I have (and the LT tires I've used on previous vehicles) far more than P tires. It's a combo deal: thicker sidewalls & deeper lugs, both of which are absolutely mandatory for me.

Well that may be (regarding plies) but they've made up for it in some other way then, be it tread depth of thickness of the actual tire. I have driven over some pretty sharp tree branches, rocks, and the like. These tires seem bulletproof.

But what does the '10/E' stand for in the spec if there aren't 10 plies?

I definitely recommend getting these tires, and can't wait for the snow to get here so I can try out the more aggressive tread!

I'm still reading through massive threads discussing these tires before I make a final decision. One of the Jeep forums has this 26 page thread devoted to these tires. Only 1 person had something negative to say, but it sounded fairly out of place. He was claiming that the sidewalls would roll far too much when taking tight & twisty roads. Still, that's one person out of a hundred or more. The last thing I want to experience is a limp sidewall while driving 85 or more on freeways/highways.

I stand by my recommendation. Though only the second set of tires I've had on the pathy, I have run Coopers, Firestones, BFGs, Michelins and Pirellis on my hondas (civic so prob not comparable). The quietest of these was the michelins. The REV02s are far quieter than that. In fact, I can now discern a hum coming from the back end that I couldn't hear before, possibly a u-joint or wheel bearing. They are really that much quieter. And they haven't gotten any louder over the 10000kms I've put on them. My coopers were horrible for that. Super quiet for 5000km, and after that forget it! super loud....

NVSteve wrote:They actually haven't had plies (re: 6, 8 or 10 ply) for many years. Most of the tires will be 2-3 ply.

I don't think your statement is true. Right on the side of my tires it says:

"PLIES: TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 1 NYLON
SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER"

Now, this doesn't add up to 10, but it does say that there are plies in the tire.

I just happened to be out tonight trying to get the damned upper shock bolt on the rear off (did not succeed), otherwise I may not have noticed. The writing on the sidewall was REALLY small.

t

disallow wrote:I have done a chalk test. Even at 65psi they were fine. Was annoyed by the TPMS light though, it kicks in at 65psi.

Good to hear. I never would have thought you'd have issues with the TPMS & high psi. As an aside, it took me forever to find some chalk at a store. Chalk. You would think everyone would carry that, but I guess chalk is far too old school. Ended up with a bucket of super fat sidewalk chalk that leaves a huge mark in one swipe.

I've done some research, and based on my calculations, I've increased my unsprung weight by almost 100lbs. That is huge! So its understandable that I notice a decrease in FE.

Still seems like a large % in FE loss. I had to research my current tires since they are no longer made (Revo in a C load). 48 lbs, but the crappy BF Goodrich tires that came stock are a bit more challenging since they are manufactured as OEM, with less tread depth than the regular P rated tires (BFG Rugged Trails). At any rate, I'm pretty positive that I only went up about 50 lbs in unsprung weight. But, I have also had my highest mpg numbers using the heavier C rated tires, albeit I've been running higher pressures. Are you basing your % on mpg readouts, or hand calculated figures? The US models are tuned to a 265/75/16 tire in terms of speedo & cpu, which means those who run smaller tires will have better mpg numbers according to the Pathfinder since the on-board calculation is wrong.

Like I said, it only touches the mudflap, not the actual wheel well. The P tires list a 12mm tread depth on the website, vs the LT tires at 16mm. 4mm would be enough to cause the issue with the mudflap.

The tread depth doesn't have anything to do with it. A D tire has to be pretty much the same for every mfr, spec-wise. There are variations, but only by very small fractions of an inch. Not as bad as buying a men's medium shirt from Spam do not click, then one from spam do not click, and finding one fits like a tent & the other like a glove. The Goodyear MT in your tire size is 31.9", which is .2" larger (diameter) than your Duratrac(31.7"). The Silent armor is exactly 31.7" in both the LT and P versions.
Like you said, at least it is only the mudflap. That's an easy fix. I actually get some rubbing also, but that's only when off road with the wheel jammed completely up in the wheelwell at a full turn.

For my next tires in 3-4yrs, I am thinking about the REV02s, but P-rated tires which have an equivalent Load Rating of C. Hopefully that would lighten them up some, though the 10ply is probably good for making sure I don't get any nail holes in them....

I have to say I really like my Revos. But, I only have about ~31k or so on them and they pretty much need to go. I don't feel comfortable driving in snow with only 4-5/32 of tread. On the other hand, a guy on the FJ forum posted pics recently of his Duratracs at 30k here. They look absolutely fantastic. He's probably at about 10/32" of remaining tread. I'm definitely going to try these out now after seeing his post yesterday. I've never had more than 35k out of a tire (AT or MT), so it would be a pleasant change if my tire would like that at 30k.

disallow wrote: I don't think your statement is true. Right on the side of my tires it says:

"PLIES: TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 1 NYLON
SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER"

Now, this doesn't add up to 10, but it does say that there are plies in the tire.

Here's one of the better explanations:.

The load range or ply rating branded on a tire's sidewall helps identify how much load the tire is designed to carry at its industry specified pressure. Passenger tires feature named load ranges while light truck tires use load ranges that ascend in alphabetical order (letters further along in the alphabet identify stronger tires that can withstand higher inflation pressures and carry heavier loads). Before load ranges were adopted, ply ratings and/or the actual number of carcass plies were used to identify the relative strength with higher numeric ratings or plies identifying tires featuring stronger, heavier duty constructions.

Today's load range/ply ratings do not count the actual number of body ply layers used to make up the tire's internal structure, but indicate an equivalent strength compared to early bias ply tires. Most radial passenger tires have one or two body plies, and light truck tires, even those with heavy-duty ratings (10-, 12- or 14-ply rated), actually have only two or three fabric plies, or one steel body ply.

In all cases, when changing tire sizes or converting from one type of size to another, it is important to confirm that the Load Index in the tire's Service Description of the new tire is equal to or greater than the Load Index of the original tire and/or that the new tire’s rated load capacity is sufficient to carry the vehicle's Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

I've done some research, and based on my calculations, I've increased my unsprung weight by almost 100lbs. That is huge! So its understandable that I notice a decrease in FE.

Still seems like a large % in FE loss. I had to research my current tires since they are no longer made (Revo in a C load). 48 lbs, but the crappy BF Goodrich tires that came stock are a bit more challenging since they are manufactured as OEM, with less tread depth than the regular P rated tires (BFG Rugged Trails). At any rate, I'm pretty positive that I only went up about 50 lbs in unsprung weight. But, I have also had my highest mpg numbers using the heavier C rated tires, albeit I've been running higher pressures. Are you basing your % on mpg readouts, or hand calculated figures? The US models are tuned to a 265/75/16 tire in terms of speedo & cpu, which means those who run smaller tires will have better mpg numbers according to the Pathfinder since the on-board calculation is wrong.

I think you're right, and like I said, not really complaining. The performance of this tire really makes up for the FE loss, and some of that loss may not have been real due to the tire size change.

I have to say I really like my Revos. But, I only have about ~31k or so on them and they pretty much need to go. I don't feel comfortable driving in snow with only 4-5/32 of tread. On the other hand, a guy on the FJ forum posted pics recently of his Duratracs at 30k here. They look absolutely fantastic. He's probably at about 10/32" of remaining tread. I'm definitely going to try these out now after seeing his post yesterday. I've never had more than 35k out of a tire (AT or MT), so it would be a pleasant change if my tire would like that at 30k.

Do you have REV02s? They apparently have better wear characteristics than the previous REV0s.

I really wanted the Duratracs when I saw IcedTeasley's review of them. But after reading up, seems they are really finicky on alignment and rotations. The REV02s seem to be less so. Also the road noise factor steered me away from them, though that was more a sanity check on the size of the lugs on the tread vs the REV02s, not based on any opinions or data from the field.

t

NVSteve wrote:

disallow wrote: I don't think your statement is true. Right on the side of my tires it says:

"PLIES: TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 1 NYLON
SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER"

Now, this doesn't add up to 10, but it does say that there are plies in the tire.

Here's one of the better explanations:.

The load range or ply rating branded on a tire's sidewall helps identify how much load the tire is designed to carry at its industry specified pressure. Passenger tires feature named load ranges while light truck tires use load ranges that ascend in alphabetical order (letters further along in the alphabet identify stronger tires that can withstand higher inflation pressures and carry heavier loads). Before load ranges were adopted, ply ratings and/or the actual number of carcass plies were used to identify the relative strength with higher numeric ratings or plies identifying tires featuring stronger, heavier duty constructions.

Today's load range/ply ratings do not count the actual number of body ply layers used to make up the tire's internal structure, but indicate an equivalent strength compared to early bias ply tires. Most radial passenger tires have one or two body plies, and light truck tires, even those with heavy-duty ratings (10-, 12- or 14-ply rated), actually have only two or three fabric plies, or one steel body ply.

In all cases, when changing tire sizes or converting from one type of size to another, it is important to confirm that the Load Index in the tire's Service Description of the new tire is equal to or greater than the Load Index of the original tire and/or that the new tire’s rated load capacity is sufficient to carry the vehicle's Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

So really, when a tire manufacturer says 10/E, they mean it will carry a heavier load than a lower rated tire. I am OK with that.

Of note though is that the load rating is based on the inflation of the tire. A REV02 inflated to 35psi actually has a lower load carrying capacity than that of a P rated tire...

An interesting read here: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Tires-2359/T ... e-P-LT.htm

disallow wrote:Do you have REV02s? They apparently have better wear characteristics than the previous REV0s.

No, just the plain Revo. They weren't out yet when I made my last purchase. They would have to be quite a bit better in terms of wear. That being said, this is my 2nd set of them because they handle rain and snow real well (way better than the 3 times I had the crappy BFG AT KOs). I also haven't had any problem with them off road, but the tread could be a bit more aggressive. I'd certainly run them again, but I really wouldn't want a P rated tire. Too bad these things are only P and E now.
[/quote]

Just got back from Discount Tire. I had them order the 265/75/16 in a C. I could easily be swayed into a 285, but it doesn't seem like anyone here is running the OME & 285 Duratrac E combo to chime in with useful tidbits. I have until next week to change my mind, just in case someone feels they can persuade me into a 285.