Either one of them will perform well in mud, judging by their tread
design, they can't clean:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rangler+MT%2FR
and
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rrain+T%2FA+KM
To clean you need the old military design or what is used on farm
tractors, or this off road use only:
http://www.sandtiresunlimited.com/sandtire1.html#1500
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

twaldron wrote:
>
> I don't believe the MT/Rs outperform BFG MTs in the mud. Care to post
> some tests that show that? I'd like to believe it.
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
>
> 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp
> Function: noun
> Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> World War II.
>
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________

 

Actually, the BFG cvompetitor for the MTR is the Crawler, which perfroms
extremely well on the rocks.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40C8E33F.FE52B4F1@***.net...
> Either one of them will perform well in mud, judging by their tread
> design, they can't clean:
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rangler+MT%2FR
> and
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rrain+T%2FA+KM
> To clean you need the old military design or what is used on farm
> tractors, or this off road use only:
> http://www.sandtiresunlimited.com/sandtire1.html#1500
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> twaldron wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe the MT/Rs outperform BFG MTs in the mud. Care to post
> > some tests that show that? I'd like to believe it.
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> >
> > 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > Pronunciation: 'jEp
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1940
> >
> > Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> > A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> > 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> > World War II.
> >
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________

 

Actually, the BFG cvompetitor for the MTR is the Crawler, which perfroms
extremely well on the rocks.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40C8E33F.FE52B4F1@***.net...
> Either one of them will perform well in mud, judging by their tread
> design, they can't clean:
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rangler+MT%2FR
> and
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rrain+T%2FA+KM
> To clean you need the old military design or what is used on farm
> tractors, or this off road use only:
> http://www.sandtiresunlimited.com/sandtire1.html#1500
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> twaldron wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe the MT/Rs outperform BFG MTs in the mud. Care to post
> > some tests that show that? I'd like to believe it.
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> >
> > 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > Pronunciation: 'jEp
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1940
> >
> > Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> > A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> > 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> > World War II.
> >
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________

 

Actually, the BFG cvompetitor for the MTR is the Crawler, which perfroms
extremely well on the rocks.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40C8E33F.FE52B4F1@***.net...
> Either one of them will perform well in mud, judging by their tread
> design, they can't clean:
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rangler+MT%2FR
> and
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rrain+T%2FA+KM
> To clean you need the old military design or what is used on farm
> tractors, or this off road use only:
> http://www.sandtiresunlimited.com/sandtire1.html#1500
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> twaldron wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe the MT/Rs outperform BFG MTs in the mud. Care to post
> > some tests that show that? I'd like to believe it.
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> >
> > 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > Pronunciation: 'jEp
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1940
> >
> > Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> > A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> > 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> > World War II.
> >
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________

 

Actually, the BFG cvompetitor for the MTR is the Crawler, which perfroms
extremely well on the rocks.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40C8E33F.FE52B4F1@***.net...
> Either one of them will perform well in mud, judging by their tread
> design, they can't clean:
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rangler+MT%2FR
> and
>
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....rrain+T%2FA+KM
> To clean you need the old military design or what is used on farm
> tractors, or this off road use only:
> http://www.sandtiresunlimited.com/sandtire1.html#1500
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> twaldron wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe the MT/Rs outperform BFG MTs in the mud. Care to post
> > some tests that show that? I'd like to believe it.
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> >
> > 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > Pronunciation: 'jEp
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1940
> >
> > Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> > A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> > 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> > World War II.
> >
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________

 

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:27:13 GMT, Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:

>Hi Dean,
>
>Do you recall if any of the BFG MTs were siped? I imagine that siping a
>BFG MT would to some extent close the performance gap with the MT/R.

I can't say that none of the BFG MTs were not siped, but those that I looked at
closely were not. The MT/R's I looked at closely were a bit torn up compared to
similar BFG's. Maybe they use softer rubber?

>Interesting that MT/Rs outperformed BFG MTs in mud. Would you say that
>the difference between the two tires was as dramatic as it was on the
>rock? Are we talking deep mud here or just a few inches on top of smooth
>rock?

Were talking Moab mud here, sandy dirt mixed with water. <g> And if it was over
3 inches deep I'd be surprised. It was however, deep enough to cause problems
with my BFG 40,000+ mile AT's. One this particular part of the trail the Jeep
in front of me had MT/R's and the one behind had BFG MT's. The MT/Rs walked
through with out a problem. I had to use wheel spin in a mostly futile effort
to clear the treads and the Jeep behind with the BFG MT made it though with a
minimum of fuss. He might have been emulating my tire spinning or just having
fun. Hard to say.

I can't really say how the two compare in "real mud." Personally I find mud a
little bit intimdating. That stuff will get you stuck and messy in a hurry,
I'll take big ol rocks any day. <lol>

Dean

>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>Dean wrote:
>> My baby needs new shoes too, so during the Moab Easter Jeep safari I watched how
>> well the different tires behaved on the slick rock. The MT/R's were universally
>> better than the BFG MT's. On every obstacle I could tell which Jeeps had MT/R's
>> vs anything else by how they went up, down or across the obstacle. The MT/R's
>> were better on dry slick rock, wet slick rock, and mud. But the MT/R owners did
>> mention that they seemed to be getting torn up and wearing faster than the other
>> tires.
>>
>> If the BFG MT's wear as well as my BFG AT's, 40,000+ miles and probably another
>> 10,000 to go, the BFG MT's might be your best choice.
>>
>> That said I'm buying the MT/R's. They were THAT much better on the rocks.

 

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:27:13 GMT, Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:

>Hi Dean,
>
>Do you recall if any of the BFG MTs were siped? I imagine that siping a
>BFG MT would to some extent close the performance gap with the MT/R.

I can't say that none of the BFG MTs were not siped, but those that I looked at
closely were not. The MT/R's I looked at closely were a bit torn up compared to
similar BFG's. Maybe they use softer rubber?

>Interesting that MT/Rs outperformed BFG MTs in mud. Would you say that
>the difference between the two tires was as dramatic as it was on the
>rock? Are we talking deep mud here or just a few inches on top of smooth
>rock?

Were talking Moab mud here, sandy dirt mixed with water. <g> And if it was over
3 inches deep I'd be surprised. It was however, deep enough to cause problems
with my BFG 40,000+ mile AT's. One this particular part of the trail the Jeep
in front of me had MT/R's and the one behind had BFG MT's. The MT/Rs walked
through with out a problem. I had to use wheel spin in a mostly futile effort
to clear the treads and the Jeep behind with the BFG MT made it though with a
minimum of fuss. He might have been emulating my tire spinning or just having
fun. Hard to say.

I can't really say how the two compare in "real mud." Personally I find mud a
little bit intimdating. That stuff will get you stuck and messy in a hurry,
I'll take big ol rocks any day. <lol>

Dean

>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>Dean wrote:
>> My baby needs new shoes too, so during the Moab Easter Jeep safari I watched how
>> well the different tires behaved on the slick rock. The MT/R's were universally
>> better than the BFG MT's. On every obstacle I could tell which Jeeps had MT/R's
>> vs anything else by how they went up, down or across the obstacle. The MT/R's
>> were better on dry slick rock, wet slick rock, and mud. But the MT/R owners did
>> mention that they seemed to be getting torn up and wearing faster than the other
>> tires.
>>
>> If the BFG MT's wear as well as my BFG AT's, 40,000+ miles and probably another
>> 10,000 to go, the BFG MT's might be your best choice.
>>
>> That said I'm buying the MT/R's. They were THAT much better on the rocks.

 

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:27:13 GMT, Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:

>Hi Dean,
>
>Do you recall if any of the BFG MTs were siped? I imagine that siping a
>BFG MT would to some extent close the performance gap with the MT/R.

I can't say that none of the BFG MTs were not siped, but those that I looked at
closely were not. The MT/R's I looked at closely were a bit torn up compared to
similar BFG's. Maybe they use softer rubber?

>Interesting that MT/Rs outperformed BFG MTs in mud. Would you say that
>the difference between the two tires was as dramatic as it was on the
>rock? Are we talking deep mud here or just a few inches on top of smooth
>rock?

Were talking Moab mud here, sandy dirt mixed with water. <g> And if it was over
3 inches deep I'd be surprised. It was however, deep enough to cause problems
with my BFG 40,000+ mile AT's. One this particular part of the trail the Jeep
in front of me had MT/R's and the one behind had BFG MT's. The MT/Rs walked
through with out a problem. I had to use wheel spin in a mostly futile effort
to clear the treads and the Jeep behind with the BFG MT made it though with a
minimum of fuss. He might have been emulating my tire spinning or just having
fun. Hard to say.

I can't really say how the two compare in "real mud." Personally I find mud a
little bit intimdating. That stuff will get you stuck and messy in a hurry,
I'll take big ol rocks any day. <lol>

Dean

>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>Dean wrote:
>> My baby needs new shoes too, so during the Moab Easter Jeep safari I watched how
>> well the different tires behaved on the slick rock. The MT/R's were universally
>> better than the BFG MT's. On every obstacle I could tell which Jeeps had MT/R's
>> vs anything else by how they went up, down or across the obstacle. The MT/R's
>> were better on dry slick rock, wet slick rock, and mud. But the MT/R owners did
>> mention that they seemed to be getting torn up and wearing faster than the other
>> tires.
>>
>> If the BFG MT's wear as well as my BFG AT's, 40,000+ miles and probably another
>> 10,000 to go, the BFG MT's might be your best choice.
>>
>> That said I'm buying the MT/R's. They were THAT much better on the rocks.

 

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:27:13 GMT, Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:

>Hi Dean,
>
>Do you recall if any of the BFG MTs were siped? I imagine that siping a
>BFG MT would to some extent close the performance gap with the MT/R.

I can't say that none of the BFG MTs were not siped, but those that I looked at
closely were not. The MT/R's I looked at closely were a bit torn up compared to
similar BFG's. Maybe they use softer rubber?

>Interesting that MT/Rs outperformed BFG MTs in mud. Would you say that
>the difference between the two tires was as dramatic as it was on the
>rock? Are we talking deep mud here or just a few inches on top of smooth
>rock?

Were talking Moab mud here, sandy dirt mixed with water. <g> And if it was over
3 inches deep I'd be surprised. It was however, deep enough to cause problems
with my BFG 40,000+ mile AT's. One this particular part of the trail the Jeep
in front of me had MT/R's and the one behind had BFG MT's. The MT/Rs walked
through with out a problem. I had to use wheel spin in a mostly futile effort
to clear the treads and the Jeep behind with the BFG MT made it though with a
minimum of fuss. He might have been emulating my tire spinning or just having
fun. Hard to say.

I can't really say how the two compare in "real mud." Personally I find mud a
little bit intimdating. That stuff will get you stuck and messy in a hurry,
I'll take big ol rocks any day. <lol>

Dean

>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>Dean wrote:
>> My baby needs new shoes too, so during the Moab Easter Jeep safari I watched how
>> well the different tires behaved on the slick rock. The MT/R's were universally
>> better than the BFG MT's. On every obstacle I could tell which Jeeps had MT/R's
>> vs anything else by how they went up, down or across the obstacle. The MT/R's
>> were better on dry slick rock, wet slick rock, and mud. But the MT/R owners did
>> mention that they seemed to be getting torn up and wearing faster than the other
>> tires.
>>
>> If the BFG MT's wear as well as my BFG AT's, 40,000+ miles and probably another
>> 10,000 to go, the BFG MT's might be your best choice.
>>
>> That said I'm buying the MT/R's. They were THAT much better on the rocks.

 

siping the bfg mt isnt going to make any great difference in rock
performance.....and no amount of siping can improve the weaker sidewalls of the
bfg which ive seen split open like a pig in a cooker.
that said, i disagree that the mt/r is better in the mud than the bfg. while
the mt/r does decent in the mud, over the last 19k miles ive begun to notice
the deficit. if i were a mudder i would definately run the bfg before the
mt/r. being a rock hound i prefer the mt/r, but having run them in the past im
almost convinced that the trxus mud terrain gives you the best of both.