E78-14 STA Super Traxion

[El Presidente]

I was looking at those Super Traxions again and noticed they are a load range D, but couldn't find anything about the sidewall thickness. I'm guessing 4 ply's, but maybe 5. When they get that thick you start losing offroad ability, because the tire isn't as flexible.

 

I also noticed they are a bias ply which will handle differently on a vehicle aligned for a radial tire. The faster you go the further back your contact patch moves decreasing your castor. Depending on the rig, things can get squirrelly, especially on a narrow tire like the Super Traxion.

 

Most load range C's are between 2-3 ply's on the side wall. BFG everything is 3 ply's and I've never seen one get the sidewall punctured on the trail. Those SSR's are 4 ply, which is why they weight 9lbs. more...most interco's are over built and tough as you can get.

 

Something to keep in mind with a narrow tire like that is they will want to dig and they'll dig fast...so if your getting heavy on the skinny pedal your gonna have problems.

[El Presidente]

Im 30+ miles off the pavement. Not 200+

 

You said:

Im looking for a no BS tire that will put up with abuse, without the worry of putting something through a sidewall more than 200 miles from anything.

 

 

Thats a huge difference. And if you are destroying more than a couple of tires each time you go out, then you really need to find a different tire. Which is why I started this thread in the first place.

 

Yup 30mi isn't 200mi. I don't destroy a couple tires everytime I go wheeling but was sharing an experience from the last run. With a rock lodged in one tire and sand in the bead of the other, neither is destroyed and could of happened to ANY comparable offroad tire. I'd rather have different tires than my BFG mud terrains(like a STT or a SSR), but they work great. Stuff like this happens and if you don't know that, you need some trail time.

 

The tires I linked to are REAL tires. Not passenger car tires pretending to be off road tires, like so many of todays tires are.

 

The tires you linked to are load range D truck tires more suited on a mail truck or restored GPW, than an offroad rig. If you go with these tires, I'd seriously consider the load range C ones. People today buy tires on looks and don't understand the mechanics on how they work and interact with the terrain. I haven't seen any passenger tire being advertised as an offroad tire, but I see a lot of good offroad tires on the road that have never seen good dirt. If you think any of the tires I recommended are passenger tires, you missed something I said.

 

While the SSR might be a great tire for some, all Im seeing are the downsides... Mainly the size. The STA is much skinnier. Huge benefit for a Subaru with limited wheel well space as it is.

 

Wrong, skinnier tires have a smaller contact patch resulting in them digging until your sitting on the ground. It works great on a stable surface, like a road. Also a 9.5" tire will fit just fine in a EA82 wheel well using most 15" wheels. A wider tire gives you more contact area, which keeps you on top of unstable terrain and makes a world of difference on loose gravel, rocks and mud. I'm running a 9.5" wide tire and I can go lock to lock without rubbing. I actually have enough room for a 10.5 wide tire without any rubbing or problems and have seen them run before on an EA82.

 

but just for giggles, lets compare...

 

E78-14LT STA:

 

Overall diameter: 26.6

Rim width: 5.5

Section width: 7.6

Weight: 28 lbs

Load rating: 1710

tread depth: 16/32

Ply rating: 8

 

And compared to the SSR

 

Overall diameter: 27.5

Rim width: 6.5

Section width: 9.5

Weight: 37 lbs

Load rating: 1585

tread depth: 19/32

Ply rating: 6

 

Just in that simple comparo Im seeing this:

 

The SSR is a bit larger in height and a lot wider, MUCH heavier, has a lower load rating, and lower ply rating. It does have a deeper tread depth though.

 

A 1/2" difference over your target 27" isn't going to be noticed and the wider track is only good. Is 9lbs, 36lbs total, really MUCH heavier? Its in the tire, the best possible place, so it helps to lower your already good COG. Load range and ply - your comparing apples to oranges. The traxion is a load range D and the interco is a load range C...are you planning on putting more than 1,500lbs. in the back of your Subaru?! The SSR and the STA probably have close to the same sidewall ply's.

 

The STA retails for $135, while the Interco retails for $150

 

You get what you pay for, $150 is a good price for a tire like a SSR

 

The STAs simply fit the bill better.

 

OK

 

And I just keep talking myself into these tire more

[Idasho]

El Presidente, quite ************ting in my thread. You obviously havnt read it all. Ive already stated that I will not consider the Interco.

 

One noteworthy point though...

 

The Interco weighs 24% MORE. Yes, thats a LOT. If you cannot comprehend that, I really dont know what to say. Not only is it 24% more, when you factor in just 1 spare, thats 45lbs of extra weight the little car needs to haul around. Eating into precious load capacity. Not to mention the added rotational mass for a motor than makes less than 80hp

 

 

Load range C is 6 ply.

cheers

 

Awesome! Thanks dude.

 

So it creeps up towards the top of my list.

 

I did some more research on it and Ive found quite a few reviews placing it above its retail enemy the BFG A/T

 

Even a few claiming that they are getting 50k+ miles out of them on pickups. Thats great news.

[El Presidente]

I did read your thread and have been following it since you started it, you asked for help and thought I'd chime in.

 

You said you were against swampers, not Interco tires..big difference. I was just offering options.

 

Sorry if I pissed you off, I'll leave you alone