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

[121jigawatts]

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.

The other thing I forgot to mention was the tire gets out of round when cold but smooths out after a few miles. Did you notice this at all?

Sponsored

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

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 2.25 mi/kWh with the pirellis 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 7% hit.

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

I’d take those numbers any day.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

The other thing I forgot to mention was the tire gets out of round when cold but smooths out after a few miles. Did you notice this at all?

I’m going to report back once I have more miles on them. Honestly anything at this point (50 miles) is speculation by me.

 

[feifan]

I've had the Wildpeak AT3Ws (275/60R20, D-load to match the stock diameter for the 21" wheels) for about 12k miles, averaging about 2.1 miles/kWh. Not much of an efficiency difference between 65psi and 55psi, but the ride is a lot more comfortable at 55psi (which is what I now run).

 

[singlefin]

Running 275/65/20 AT4W on QM. As of today 652 mi averaging 1.88 mi/kWh. Use has been mixed between freeway (68 - 75 mph cruise) and backroads, drive to work is 5k in elevation gain and some forest roads. Currently at 57psi cold. Seems okay for driver feedback but appears to need lower for contact patch. No issues with tracking and did at least 15 miles of driver+ yesterday and thought it was performing better than the worn Scorpions. The additional tire weight is noticeable in steering feel (noted by wife as well) and one foot driving style needed to account for longer stopping distance.

Not surprised 121jigawatts saw 1.4 mi/kWh with spirited driving, but I’d suspect with more varied driving it would be higher.

Baseline: stock 20” AT averaged 2.14 mi/kWh.

I’m still inside Falken’s 30 day ride guarantee and intend to switch to the Toyo AT3 EV in 275/65/20 E load. Why? Would like to see if there is a better efficiency middle ground with a 10lb lighter tire and sure others would be interested in another data point. Bit of a suspension geek and the only thing we can really tool around with is settings and tire/wheel choice.

The other thing I forgot to mention was the tire gets out of round when cold but smooths out after a few miles. Did you notice this at all?

I ran AT3W on a power wagon and it would seem out of balance cold sometimes but I assumed it was due to the truck sitting with a camper. Heard of issues that both AT3W and AT4W were difficult to get balanced…was not my experience.

 

[RivAW]

After much deliberation and only 5K miles in my stock AT pirellis, I decided to double down on my overland build and get my rig some more off-road prowess.

Studying all the different threads on here it became clear that choosing new tires was not going to be an easy task. There is simply no perfect answer to this question at the moment. You want to keep stock size? You’re stuck with few options of questionable range and wear implications. Willing to ignore stock size and ratings? More options but still no guarantee on range.

So after months of thinking and researching this, I got to the “F@*k it!” point and decided to royally screw my range expectations.

I ended up deciding to go with the most bad a** AT tire out there (biased opinion) that also happens to be the heaviest one. The Falken Wildpeak AT4Ws are a great all-rounder if winter, mud & water conditions matter equally to you as sand and rocks. If they don’t, and you’re a Baja-all-the-way person then the KO3s will likely be the better choice.

These bad boys weigh a whopping 65lbs each, for an increase over stock of about ~17lbs depending on the source of information. It’s safe to say that if any rotational mass impact on range can be quantified, these ones will be the benchmark for the max impact. But here’s the thing: my life on the road is only changing in positive ways so long as I make my daily charging 80% now instead of the 70% I used to do:
- Despite 3-ply sidewall and E Load rating, these tires ride smooth as heck compared to the Pirelli stock ATs
- Sound and comfort overall are meaningfully improved
- Wet & Snow traction are best in class, the stock tires won’t even compare
- Compared to the glorified all-seasons that Pirelli calls AT tires (or Nitto Recons for that matter), the Falken’s have real off-road capability, perfect for any overlanding ambitions
- They look hell of a lot better than the stock tires too

Overall, I am super happy I made this choice and stopped worrying about the 50 different threads on tire tradeoffs. Needless to say total cost of vehicle operation was not a factor in my decision. If you’re looking to lower your electric bill, these are not for you.

I’ll keep everyone posted on range evolution. My 5K miles average on my PDM Max is 2.38 mi/kwh.

pics below.

Awesome! I’m doing the same. I had the Falkens on my previous vehicle (Tundra) and they were great. I have 30k miles on the OEM Scorpions which have been droning since about 8k…..I expect to get ~5kish out of them before they have to go…

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

Running 275/65/20 AT4W on QM. As of today 652 mi averaging 1.88 mi/kWh. Use has been mixed between freeway (68 - 75 mph cruise) and backroads, drive to work is 5k in elevation gain and some forest roads. Currently at 57psi cold. Seems okay for driver feedback but appears to need lower for contact patch. No issues with tracking and did at least 15 miles of driver+ yesterday and thought it was performing better than the worn Scorpions. The additional tire weight is noticeable in steering feel (noted by wife as well) and one foot driving style needed to account for longer stopping distance.

Not surprised 121jigawatts saw 1.4 mi/kWh with spirited driving, but I’d suspect with more varied driving it would be higher.

Baseline: stock 20” AT averaged 2.14 mi/kWh.

I’m still inside Falken’s 30 day ride guarantee and intend to switch to the Toyo AT3 EV in 275/65/20 E load. Why? Would like to see if there is a better efficiency middle ground with a 10lb lighter tire and sure others would be interested in another data point. Bit of a suspension geek and the only thing we can really tool around with is settings and tire/wheel choice.



I ran AT3W on a power wagon and it would seem out of balance cold sometimes but I assumed it was due to the truck sitting with a camper. Heard of issues that both AT3W and AT4W were difficult to get balanced…was not my experience.

I’m almost certain the Toyos will be an efficiency/off-road performance tradeoff winner. The data point is super necessary for the Rivian community. For me personally, I’m very much in love with the AT4Ws on my first 150 miles. The efficiency is still dead on 2.3mi/kwh with my “at the speed limit and anticipatory” driving style. Of course the Dual motors and Quads can’t really be easily compared in this category. I’m also running them at 55psi cold by the way. I did think that there was an improvement in comfort when running then even lower at 48 psi cold. Given how much improved over the stock Pirellis they weee, I’d didn’t care much for that small gain.

As you stated: the more aggressive people drive, the exponentially worse the efficiency will be on these heavy tires. I’m not surprised at the 1.4mi/kwh either.

 

[dmc94]

Running 275/65/20 AT4W on QM. As of today 652 mi averaging 1.88 mi/kWh. Use has been mixed between freeway (68 - 75 mph cruise) and backroads, drive to work is 5k in elevation gain and some forest roads. Currently at 57psi cold. Seems okay for driver feedback but appears to need lower for contact patch. No issues with tracking and did at least 15 miles of driver+ yesterday and thought it was performing better than the worn Scorpions. The additional tire weight is noticeable in steering feel (noted by wife as well) and one foot driving style needed to account for longer stopping distance.

Not surprised 121jigawatts saw 1.4 mi/kWh with spirited driving, but I’d suspect with more varied driving it would be higher.

Baseline: stock 20” AT averaged 2.14 mi/kWh.

I’m still inside Falken’s 30 day ride guarantee and intend to switch to the Toyo AT3 EV in 275/65/20 E load. Why? Would like to see if there is a better efficiency middle ground with a 10lb lighter tire and sure others would be interested in another data point. Bit of a suspension geek and the only thing we can really tool around with is settings and tire/wheel choice.



I ran AT3W on a power wagon and it would seem out of balance cold sometimes but I assumed it was due to the truck sitting with a camper. Heard of issues that both AT3W and AT4W were difficult to get balanced…was not my experience.

Man 1.88 is rough. I get 1.82 with my 18" Xtrusion rack and RTT mounted above the cab which is like a brick in the wind. You're seeing a 12% hit over the pirellis. WattageOutdoors was seeing a 7% hit, which I'd still not be happy with. I off-road a lot, but even the off-roading I do doesn't need the AT4W so the tradeoffs just aren't worth it for me.

If you do swap to the ATIII EV, please update us! I'm very curious how they are in efficiency. I'm still leaning the Nokian's but those are a close second for me.

 

[dmc94]

I’m almost certain the Toyos will be an efficiency/off-road performance tradeoff winner. The data point is super necessary for the Rivian community. For me personally, I’m very much in love with the AT4Ws on my first 150 miles. The efficiency is still dead on 2.3mi/kwh with my “at the speed limit and anticipatory” driving style. Of course the Dual motors and Quads can’t really be easily compared in this category. I’m also running them at 55psi cold by the way. I did think that there was an improvement in comfort when running then even lower at 48 psi cold. Given how much improved over the stock Pirellis they weee, I’d didn’t care much for that small gain.

As you stated: the more aggressive people drive, the exponentially worse the efficiency will be on these heavy tires. I’m not surprised at the 1.4mi/kwh either.

It would be a good practice for all of us to start including battery pack and motors in our notes because comparing it to the rated mi/kWh is the most fair way to compare.

As a reminder, here is what we should be getting according to the EPA:

R1S & R1T

Generation	Motors	Battery Pack	Wheels	Pack Capacity	Range	mi/Kwh
Gen 2	Dual	Standard	20" Goodyear	92.5 kWh	258 mi	2.78
Gen 1	Dual	Standard+	20" Pirelli	121 kWh	277 mi	2.28
Gen 1	Dual	Large	20" Pirelli	131 kWh	307 mi	2.34
Gen 2	Dual	Large	20" Pirelli	109.4 kWh	280 mi	2.55
Gen 1	Dual	Max	20" Pirelli	141 kWh	355 mi	2.51
Gen 2	Dual	Max	20" Pirelli	141.5 kWh	370 mi	2.61
Gen 2	Tri	Max	20" Pirelli	141.5 kWh	320 mi	2.26
Gen 1	Quad	Large	20" Pirelli	131 kWh	285 mi	2.17

 

[EVTrukHog]

2.17 mi/kWh is pretty close to what I'm getting on this setup over a 20K mile sample size.

 

[121jigawatts]

Look forward to following this thread to see how everyone's experience is.

I should also mention I have more aero drag than a stock R1T; Ruff Rax Roof Rack, Ruff Rax Bed Rack, IKamper Mini 3 (Big end towards back), and 23zero 270* awning. This setup with the BFG KO2 was 1.65 mi/kW here in the PNW.

I normally drive lite-footed MOST of the time; the southwest posted speed limits combined with keeping with the flow of traffic is a real drag.

*Edit for grammar

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

2.26 is a drop in efficiency for you? Impressive! In all my stop & go California traffic I tend to average 1.6-1.8 on the pirellis but can see 2+ on long drives.
Encouraging news though!

May I ask why you’re running the tire pressure so low? (Lack of LT tire knowledge over on my end)

Stop and go is where the extra weight become a factor. More rotational weight means more energy needed to do the work—spin them up from stand still. The difference might not be big per revolution, but little differences add up over a distance. Once cruising it doesn't take much (more) energy to maintain momentum.

 

[abram]

Stop and go is where the extra weight become a factor. More rotational weight means more energy needed to do the work—spin them up from stand still. The difference might not be big per revolution, but little differences add up over a distance. Once cruising it doesn't take much (more) energy to maintain momentum.

An excellent point! “Around town” I get approx 1.1-1.3kWh with careful driving. Once I’m on the highway it’s easy to get back into the 1.8-2.0+ range.

I suppose that’s something I’m going to have to factor into my decision. It’s a shame they’re so heavy because they tick all the boxes for me in dry and wet performance with on and off road behavior.

 

[121jigawatts]

It was noticable how much additional throttle was needed to accelerate from a stop when I had the AT4/W.

 

[Yetiman]

I’m going to report back once I have more miles on them. Honestly anything at this point (50 miles) is speculation by me.

Curious how many miles you've put on the Falkens at this point? Would you recommend? What's your efficiency looking like? I'm stuck between the Falkens or Yokohama Geolander AT4's that are nearly 10 pounds lighter. I've got the Falkens on my Tundra and they've been fantastic. Just worried about the range a lil bit.

Sponsored