Treadwright Tire Question

HARDTRAILZ

Original poster
Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
Several have mentioned treadwrights... How does the re-tread weight compare? Are they heavier than regular tire? I could not find a posted weight anywhere, though it will depend on carcass. I would like to now what yours weigh and then can compare to original weight for tire carcass used.
 

Regulator

Member
Nov 20, 2011
2,496
HARDTRAILZ said:
Several have mentioned treadwrights... How does the re-tread weight compare? Are they heavier than regular tire? I could not find a posted weight anywhere, though it will depend on carcass. I would like to now what yours weigh and then can compare to original weight for tire carcass used.

I would check for ya, but the tires are mounted and its a bit difficult. I would guess that my rim/tire combination is around 60lbs, I can check that for ya if it would help any.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Original poster
Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
What carcass are they?

My 33 are 58 lbs and wider.
 

fishsticks

Member
Nov 21, 2011
433
I think TW gets bulk labels from UPS.

Mine were listed at ~70lbs each as well. Mine are on 35x12.50x17 KM2 carcasses. I think mine are pretty close to 65-70lbs each. Either that or I'm getting old.

They feel heavier than the 37" IROKs on the Yota.
 

IslandRunner

Member
Dec 4, 2011
316
I think mine are on KM2 carcasses as well and they feel every bit of the 69lbs but could be a little different, I didn't weigh them. the TW's run big and heavy. but I think km2's of the same size are only .1 or .2in shorter.
 

TangoBravo

Member
Dec 5, 2011
208
My treadwrights are on BFg casings and that is what they replaced while I do not remember the weight of each I do remember the treadwrights were only slightly heavier. However I did go up in load range, but for the performance you get for the price you pay add that with awsome customer service and the small issues just don't matter much to me. They have a customer for life with me.
 

v7guy

Member
Dec 4, 2011
298
My 265 75 16s are over 50lbs with wheel and tire. If it would help i can pull one off and weigh it.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Original poster
Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
fishsticks said:
I think TW gets bulk labels from UPS.

Mine were listed at ~70lbs each as well. Mine are on 35x12.50x17 KM2 carcasses. I think mine are pretty close to 65-70lbs each. Either that or I'm getting old.

They feel heavier than the 37" IROKs on the Yota.

KM2's are 66 lbs in that size anyway, so maybe it does not add much. I am trying to go light as possible with 3 ply sidewall on the next set. I would buy treadwrights if I was sure it did not really add weight.
 

fishsticks

Member
Nov 21, 2011
433
HARDTRAILZ said:
KM2's are 66 lbs in that size anyway, so maybe it does not add much. I am trying to go light as possible with 3 ply sidewall on the next set. I would buy treadwrights if I was sure it did not really add weight.


A little unsprung weight isn't always a terrible thing. A lot of crawler guys put water in their tires to keep their COG low.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Original poster
Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
But I know from experience that the extra weight w less than optimal gearing kills.
 

fishsticks

Member
Nov 21, 2011
433
HARDTRAILZ said:
But I know from experience that the extra weight w less than optimal gearing kills.


That is true. There was a noticeable difference between my BFG ATs and the TWs. I would almost prefer 4.88 gears with the TWs.
 

hpimichael02

Member
Dec 19, 2011
3
yep my milage sucked when i had the TW on my TB , but then again i had tehm on with the H3 rims and they were about 70 lbs
 

HARDTRAILZ

Original poster
Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
hpimichael02 said:
yep my milage sucked when i had the TW on my TB , but then again i had tehm on with the H3 rims and they were about 70 lbs

The rims were 70 lbs? Usually stock aluminum wheels are not too heavy.


I contacted treadwright and they said the 315 70 17 ran right at 70 lbs, which is only a few lbs heavier than the "New" tires in that size.
 

TangoBravo

Member
Dec 5, 2011
208
HARDTRAILZ said:
The rims were 70 lbs? Usually stock aluminum wheels are not too heavy.


I contacted treadwright and they said the 315 70 17 ran right at 70 lbs, which is only a few lbs heavier than the "New" tires in that size.

Sounds about right my TW's were only slightly hevier. If you think about it that makes sence as they remove material from the carcuss before they put there tread on.
 

Sparky

Member
Dec 4, 2011
12,927
I wonder if there is some sort of mathematical relationship that we could use to determine mpg impact of every additional pound or 5 pounds or whatever.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Original poster
Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
Sparky said:
I wonder if there is some sort of mathematical relationship that we could use to determine mpg impact of every additional pound or 5 pounds or whatever.

Would be difference for every diameter of tire.
 

TangoBravo

Member
Dec 5, 2011
208
hpimichael02 said:
great company though i would def do business with them again and again, there tires we good quailty IMO

They have GREAT customer service. I will never buy expensive brand named tires again.
 

Sparky

Member
Dec 4, 2011
12,927
I like planning for the future (even if my plans only work out 25% of the time lol) so I priced out a set of 265/75/R16 Treadwrights and Mark's 2.5" lift and spacers. At current pricing it is just a hair over $900 for everything. Not bad!

Question is which tire should I go with... The Sentinels have a slightly deeper tread (2/32" more) than the Wardens which suggests maybe better tread life, but the tread pattern reminds me of the Kelly tires I had on my truck when I got it and they were a little mediocre. Granted, they were worn down pretty much so it really isn't too fair to judge them based on that. Anyway, the Wardens' pattern is similar to BFG AT's which is good, plus they do look cooler :biggrin:

Either of them have deeper tread than my current Firestone Destination A/Ts did when they were new (only 13/32"), so for either tire the tread depth is better regardless. Both have a higher load range than the Destinations as well (C or D vs B).

Has anyone here run both tires, or maybe one is running the Sentinels and someone else the Wardens and can comment on traction, tread life, MPG differences, and road noise? Traction is most important, tread life and mpg are about even importance, road noise is just for info and not a big factor. Maybe some info comparing other tires with similar tread patterns would be useful as well. Even though I'm looking to go up and get more aggressive looking, I'll admit it is more for show and appearances... The vast majority of my driving is on the road (and 33k miles in a year at that).

I won't be buying tires until this coming fall at the earliest, so I have plenty of time to gather info. By then I'll probably have around 50k miles on my Firestones (currently have 32k on them) unless I get a second (fun) car for the summer, in which case they may be OK for the next winter. We'll just have to see.

I've been over all very happy with my Firestones, so the bar is set pretty high.
 

IslandRunner

Member
Dec 4, 2011
316
Sparky said:
I like planning for the future (even if my plans only work out 25% of the time lol) so I priced out a set of 265/75/R16 Treadwrights and Mark's 2.5" lift and spacers. At current pricing it is just a hair over $900 for everything. Not bad!

Question is which tire should I go with... The Sentinels have a slightly deeper tread (2/32" more) than the Wardens which suggests maybe better tread life, but the tread pattern reminds me of the Kelly tires I had on my truck when I got it and they were a little mediocre. Granted, they were worn down pretty much so it really isn't too fair to judge them based on that. Anyway, the Wardens' pattern is similar to BFG AT's which is good, plus they do look cooler :biggrin:

Either of them have deeper tread than my current Firestone Destination A/Ts did when they were new (only 13/32"), so for either tire the tread depth is better regardless. Both have a higher load range than the Destinations as well (C or D vs B).

Has anyone here run both tires, or maybe one is running the Sentinels and someone else the Wardens and can comment on traction, tread life, MPG differences, and road noise? Traction is most important, tread life and mpg are about even importance, road noise is just for info and not a big factor. Maybe some info comparing other tires with similar tread patterns would be useful as well. Even though I'm looking to go up and get more aggressive looking, I'll admit it is more for show and appearances... The vast majority of my driving is on the road (and 33k miles in a year at that).

I won't be buying tires until this coming fall at the earliest, so I have plenty of time to gather info. By then I'll probably have around 50k miles on my Firestones (currently have 32k on them) unless I get a second (fun) car for the summer, in which case they may be OK for the next winter. We'll just have to see.

I've been over all very happy with my Firestones, so the bar is set pretty high.

If traction is the most important go with the GuardDogs or the Howlers and you get an even more aggressive look! MPH will suffer but tread wear seems ok so far but I've only got 7K miles on mine.
 

Sparky

Member
Dec 4, 2011
12,927
MTs seem a little overkill :laugh: and I thought they wouldn't be quite as good on pavement for traction.
 

Forum Statistics

Threads
23,271
Posts
637,476
Members
18,472
Latest member
MissCrutcher

Members Online

No members online now.