Falken Wildpeak AT4W tires installed (LT275/65/20)

[Tr4ckD4ys]

I had the AT3 on my Gladiator, and loved them, but their load rating was a more reasonable 109 for that vehicle. On the Rivian a 116 is more than enough. The 126 rating is ridiculous and makes the ride harsher while costing efficiency. I replaced the stock tires with the Recon Grappler in a 116 load range.

I’m sorry - but this is misleading and only partially true. You are making a statement based on your 116 load rating experience in the Rivian ans comparing it to E load in a different vehicle, which is not apples to apples at all. Beyond load rating, a lot of factors change the ride comfort and quality. 116 load rating tires may on average be more comfortable than the Pirellis or Load E tires, but it’s not true in the case of AT4W vs. Pirellis. Did you have AT4Ws or other E Load tires mounted on your Rivian? Are you comparing R1T to R1T or do you mount them to the R1S (which has a vastly different ride to begin with).

As I’ve stated above: My E Load rated, heavy-ass AT4W’s feel amazingly comfortable on the Rivian and way better than the Pirellis. It’s like riding in soft mode when you’re actually in moderate, in terms of a difference. Road imperfections are way better handled too. I’m sure the same is true for your Recon Grapplers, but in both cases that is because of how bad the Pirellis are and not because of how good our tires are.

Aside, whether the e-load rating is overkill for the Rivian is subjective and depends on your use case, so you can’t generalize that “116” is enough. It might be for you and your use case and not for others. The Recon Grapplers might be the right tire for you but not for others. Where you are right for sure is that it does cost efficiency. The point of my tire change was not to optimize efficiency though.

Sponsored

 

[SeaGeo]

ok just a small update here from my first drive to work today morning: 2.26mi/kWh, which is about ~4.5% drop from my usual efficiency on that drive. So far, not bad at all co side ring all the benefits this tire has.

I would say the best way to describe the change in ride comfort over the Pirellis is to say that the Falken E-Load tires feel like driving the pirellis on “soft” suspension setting when you’re actually in “moderate”. Amazing!

On a side note, I’ve always had issues with steering and alignment on my R1T in the first 5k miles, despite the SC trying to fix it several times. The truck would feel like it has a slight right pull, sometimes even despite opposite road crowning. After SC alignment, that issue would get better for a bit but return. I am glad to report that with the Falkens this issue has completely subsided and the truck drives like a different truck. Dead center and steering almost feels easier than with the pirellis. My only hypothesis here is that the Pirellis run at 48 cold, which is close to their max pressure. Maybe they are just a bad quality tire with iffy contact patches at those psi. The Falken can be run at 46 cold to achieve the same contact patch needed for safety. You can run them at 65 if you further want to negate the range impact and you'd still be ways away from max pressure.

You may want to double check that you are achieving the same load rating at 49psi with the Falkens as OEM specs. IIRC I needed to go up to around 55psi or something with my LT winter tires since the rating drops with pressure.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

You may want to double check that you are achieving the same load rating at 49psi with the Falkens as OEM specs. IIRC I needed to go up to around 55psi or something with my LT winter tires since the rating drops with pressure.

Very good point, I used an online calculator… I wasn’t planning on keeping them at 49 psi but go up to 65 psi as that seems to be the consensus on this forum for helping negate range impact!

The chart I used stated the following for LT275/65/20:

LT275/65/20

PSI	35	40	45	50	55	60	65	70	75	80
Weight limit per tire	2080	2280	2475	2680	2850	3030	3195	3375	3540	3750

Based on this, the contact patch can be achieved between 45 psi and 50 psi, or rather, the "safe weight limit" for the R1T can be achieved at that level.

 

[SwampNut]

Aside, whether the e-load rating is overkill for the Rivian is subjective

No, it's just math. It doesn't care about how you feel about it, the numbers are what they are. Unless you intend to exceed the GVWR and then hope the tires make up for it.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

No, it's just math. It doesn't care about how you feel about it, the numbers are what they are. Unless you intend to exceed the GVWR and then hope the tires make up for it.

It’s about sidewall, not just about weight. You are saying the weight rating is overkill which is true, but it coincides with sidewall construction and whether that’s overkill is indeed subjective to the use case. So I wouldn’t generalize whether a 116 tire is better for the R1T because it depends.

Simply put, the sidewalls on the E Load tire are “beefier” than the 116 load rating.

 

[Chewy734]

Efficiency be damned… these are

 

[TollKeeper]

Comparing Apples to Oranges here...

I had these tires installed on my GMC Envoy when I bought. They are 107 rated, so not the same load rating at all.. But I hated the tires. They did have good grip, and handled all the terrain I threw at them, but I had to get them rebalanced every 2 weeks (no joke). The dealer got tired of it, and installed the Michelin Defender LTX M/S, and I never again had a problem. Been running the MIchelins ever since.

Just offering a opinion.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

Comparing Apples to Oranges here...

I had these tires installed on my GMC Envoy when I bought. They are 107 rated, so not the same load rating at all.. But I hated the tires. They did have good grip, and handled all the terrain I threw at them, but I had to get them rebalanced every 2 weeks (no joke). The dealer got tired of it, and installed the Michelin Defender LTX M/S, and I never again had a problem. Been running the MIchelins ever since.

Just offering a opinion.

Let’s hope it was just a bad set and I don’t have to rebalance every two weeks

 

[EVTrukHog]

I had the AT3 on my Gladiator, and loved them, but their load rating was a more reasonable 109 for that vehicle. On the Rivian a 116 is more than enough. The 126 rating is ridiculous and makes the ride harsher while costing efficiency. I replaced the stock tires with the Recon Grappler in a 116 load range.

What's your report on the Grapplers? Can you share efficiency (relative to your OEM tire) and noise? I was looking at those but a co-worker has them on his Tundra and complains about the noise just like I complain about the Pirellis..

 

[SwampNut]

The noise and comfort improvement was instantly obvious, even though the shop over-inflated them a bit. I am running them at 45-46 now. It's very hard to quantify noise, and also, my tires were half worn and most tires get louder over time. It became so quiet that I noticed how loud the inverter/motor noise is compared to our Tesla. And I noticed the common wind noise from the door. Efficiency was up, but it's hard for me to give you hard numbers. I changed the tires more quickly than expected, and without the ability to do a bunch of recorded tests. But the shop is on a common route into town and back to my house and the overall efficiency was up about 5%. Someone else reported a huge efficiency jump but I think that's not possible.

Off road they are more compliant over rocks because the sidewall/load rating is more appropriately matched to the truck's weight and GVWR. The stock tires are way over it.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

The noise and comfort improvement was instantly obvious, even though the shop over-inflated them a bit. I am running them at 45-46 now. It's very hard to quantify noise, and also, my tires were half worn and most tires get louder over time. It became so quiet that I noticed how loud the inverter/motor noise is compared to our Tesla. And I noticed the common wind noise from the door. Efficiency was up, but it's hard for me to give you hard numbers. I changed the tires more quickly than expected, and without the ability to do a bunch of recorded tests. But the shop is on a common route into town and back to my house and the overall efficiency was up about 5%. Someone else reported a huge efficiency jump but I think that's not possible.

Off road they are more compliant over rocks because the sidewall/load rating is more appropriately matched to the truck's weight and GVWR. The stock tires are way over it.

2-ply sidewall more appropriately matched to a 7150lbs truck when 5000lbs rock crawlers go with 3-ply is a stretch… pun intended

 

[willferrel]

What air down pressure do you plan to use for off roading

 

[dmc94]

Those look great... congrats on just pulling the trigger. I'm almost there myself. I would like to see the approximate range hit... the monthly elec bill doesn't bother me but I'd like to see how it impacts my max range while traveling. Well done!

Dom from WattageOutdoors is averaging 1.99 mi/kWh over 15,226 miles on the Falken AT4W's. His is mostly highway driving, but that's with an iKamper mounted below the cab. We're supposed to get 2.17 mi/kWh with the pirellis (quad large) with no accessories to hit the EPA numbers (I know - a lot of variables there). We've done pretty extensive testing that shows a tent mounted below the cab is a 5% range hit, so this means the tires are about a 4% hit.

This is why I am getting the Nokian's which should be no range loss.

 

[121jigawatts]

These Falken AT4/W E-rated (275/65/20) was the worst tire I ran on my R1T QM.
Cons:
Driver+ couldn't keep the car straight,
sloppy handling,
Very soft sidewall ( tried 48-65psi),
1.4 mi/kW on a 1100mi road trip, going 5mph over limit max. Trip down was with previous BFG KO2 E-Rated with 9/32nd tread; efficiency was1.5 mi/kW going avg 10 MPH above posted with more spirited driving on Ko2.

Removed the Falkens immediately after the trip and replaced with Toyo AT3 which I'm very happy with.

Previous tire was BFG KO2 E-Rated and was very happy with these. 30k mi with 7/32nd tread when removed.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

These Falken AT4/W E-rated (275/65/20) was the worst tire I ran on my R1T QM.
Cons:
Driver+ couldn't keep the car straight,
sloppy handling,
Very soft sidewall ( tried 48-65psi),
1.4 mi/kW on a 1100mi road trip, going 5mph over limit max. Trip down was with previous BFG KO2 E-Rated with 9/32nd tread; efficiency was1.5 mi/kW going avg 10 MPH above posted with more spirited driving on Ko2.

Removed the Falkens immediately after the trip and replaced with Toyo AT3 which I'm very happy with.

Previous tire was BFG KO2 E-Rated and was very happy with these. 30k mi with 7/32nd tread when removed.

I cannot replicate any of your experiences on my first 50 miles but let’s see where the tides at once I hit 5k miles.

Sponsored