Tires again. Michelin LTX M/S2 vs Nitto Dura Grappler

[Regcabguy]

Nitto had a recall on some of their Duras years ago for just those reasons.

 

[BigPapa]

I've always had good service from Michelins, just expensive. I ran a set of Dura Grapplers a few years back and had comparable service from them. I replaced the LTX M/S's at 75K and the Dura Grapplers at 65K. The last set I had were Firestone Trans Force H/T's and they were worn out at 40K miles. I've been thinking of trying the Bridgestone R500's but hearing Cerb's report on the G2's I may have to check them out.

 

[RVTRKN]

I'm happy that you all have had such good luck with Michelin tires. I was once 100% loyal to Michelin and ran them on every vehicle I owned. In 2014 I had a LTX MS 2 suffer a sidewall separation driving the truck at highway speeds. In all of my years of driving, I never experienced a flat happen in that manner. When I took it back to my tire dealer, they informed me of the following recalls on Michelin tires from 2013 and that the damage to the tire appeared to be similar to the problem they were having.

http://www.michelinman.com/US/en/help/safety-recalls/ltx.html

http://www.fr.michelin.ca/US/en/help/safety-recalls/latitude-tour.html


After several months of back and forth with Michelin, they denied my claim for recall replacement. According to them, other sizes of the LTX MS 2 were recalled for this problem but there was no way that the 265/17 that I was running could have similar issues.

I will not be doing business with Michelin anytime in the future.

I'm not inferring you caused the wear, but I think it could be a possible issue, from under inflated tires? I went through an issue with Goodyear tires on my 94 2500 Dodge Ram because of serious cracks at the beads and they had to be replaced. I was told that they did that due to being under inflated and was lucky they didn't have a serious blowout. And he was right about the under inflated tires, because I ran them low in pressure to soften the ride.

 

[jgillott]

I'm not inferring you caused the wear, but I think it could be a possible issue, from under inflated tires? I went through an issue with Goodyear tires on my 94 2500 Dodge Ram because of serious cracks at the beads and they had to be replaced. I was told that they did that due to being under inflated and was lucky they didn't have a serious blowout. And he was right about the under inflated tires, because I ran them low in pressure to soften the ride.

In this case, no. It was on my 1/2 ton with the TPMS. Those are 44psi max inflation tires and the system, which will throw a warning light at anything below ~36 psi, never showed a warning light. Well, after the tire blew, I got the warning.

 

[Kirwin]

I don't think the Michelins come in that size. If you can live with the reduced weight rating then they are probably fine. These trucks eat tires so anything less than the harder compounds have problems lasting. If you only drive 5k per year by the time they are worn out they are due for replacement anyway.

If your talking about the Michelin Defender LT, it doesn't come in the OEM LT235/80R17 E, but does come in the LT245/75R17 E which Greg has successfully run on his DRW truck in a Firestone tire. They are load range E so they are equivalent to either the Michelin LTX M&S or the Nitto Durra Grappler.

 

[RVTRKN]

One of my criteria for buying tire's also has the ply ratings vrs actual number of ply's. Lots of tire's with E load 10 ply tire rating running less than 10 ply's.

 

[WalterJ]

Nitto had a recall on some of their Duras years ago for just those reasons.

Yea, I'm still waiting for a bug fat check from them! Plenty of tread left, so should be NO complaints on that issue!

 

[cerberusiam]

If your talking about the Michelin Defender LT, it doesn't come in the OEM LT235/80R17 E, but does come in the LT245/75R17 E which Greg has successfully run on his DRW truck in a Firestone tire. They are load range E so they are equivalent to either the Michelin LTX M&S or the Nitto Durra Grappler.

Correct. As the title says, LTX M\S is not listed with a 235\80\17 size so whoever is expecting that size will be disappointed as the specs will be different.

One of my criteria for buying tire's also has the ply ratings vrs actual number of ply's. Lots of tire's with E load 10 ply tire rating running less than 10 ply's.

None of these tires actually have 10 plys, they are all a rating of equivalency. A 10 ply rating means nothing anymore as it is old notation of cotton plys used in bias tires so long ago nobody remembers it. Tires today should be bought by load index and load rating. Anything less than a 126 index is really too light and runs the risk of sidewalls failing. As a rule, unless it is a mall queen, you want a 126 index and a 3500-4000 per weight rating.

DRW's are a problem because you can run a lighter weight tire on the rear as there are 4 but you put them on the front and hurts them. 4 tires at 2800 lb ratings are adequate on the rear but if you rotate to the front they aren't. Sidewall and tread separation failures are mostly due to under rated and under inflated tires on heavy vehicles, aside for actually problems that have been found. The 17" tire offerings are just not up to what these trucks can haul evidenced by the fact new trucks don't use them anymore.

 

[KCJackson1]

DRW's are a problem because you can run a lighter weight tire on the rear as there are 4 but you put them on the front and hurts them. 4 tires at 2800 lb ratings are adequate on the rear but if you rotate to the front they aren't.

Not entirely true. Tires have different ratings based on whether they are used in a single or dual application. LT235/80R17E tires have a load index of 120 single and 117 dual, with a max load of 3085 single and 2835 dual. The 6170-lb capacity when used as singles is sufficient for the 6000-pound front axle of the Ram. The linked PDF shows the separate load ratings for single and dual use of many tire sizes Ram owners use... start on PDF page 8 (actual page 109) for light truck sizes.
https://commercial.bridgestone.com/...6-pdfs/TBR Load and Inflation Tables 2015.pdf

 

[cerberusiam]

Not entirely true.

No, it is entirely true. Go back and read my post, in a single wheel application minimum 126-129 load index is preferred, you can squeak by with a 124 depending on the tire but that is pushing it. On an SRW anything lest than a 126 index is wasting the $$ to buy the tires, the front end on a dually doesn't magically change that.

The CTD overloads those single front tires empty and beats them to death loaded. Tread failures, sidewall failures, death wobble, etc, that is the end result when using to light of a tire.

 

[grabinov]

i have had two sets of Dura Grapplers over the years. They were great tires and wore like iron. If I didn't require better off road capability I'd have bought a set for my 4th gen. instead of the EXO's I ended up with.

I did exactly the same - went from Dura Grapplers to EXOs. I loved the Dura Grapplers though. Wanted them again but couldn't get the size I wanted this time.

The Dura's were the smoothest quietest tire I've ever had on one of my Rams. Great with a heavy 5th wheel. Great mileage.

 

[KCJackson1]

No, it is entirely true. Go back and read my post, in a single wheel application minimum 126-129 load index is preferred, you can squeak by with a 124 depending on the tire but that is pushing it. On an SRW anything lest than a 126 index is wasting the $$ to buy the tires, the front end on a dually doesn't magically change that.

The CTD overloads those single front tires empty and beats them to death loaded. Tread failures, sidewall failures, death wobble, etc, that is the end result when using to light of a tire.

If you're exceeding the front GAWR of 6000 pounds, then you overloaded the truck, not FCA. You can put 305/80R22.5J tires on a Ram if you want, it still won't change the GAWRs. If you're even just occasionally having tire failure that catastrophic, a higher load rating won't necessarily change anything. Any subsystem of a truck is limited to the ability of its weakest part, and beefing up the rest of the subsytem (tires vs suspension/axle capacity) is not going to change that.

 

[MRoberts]

I had a set of Michelin Defender LTX's put on my truck last week. So far very happy, great on the highway, snow and slush no issue. Went with 285/65/20, about an inch taller then the stock tires.

Now if the shop hadn't scratched the crap out of my wheels........I'll save that for another post and give them a chance to make it right before I go full kung fu!

 

[Jared Herzog]

I have a 15 drw. The nexens are wearing real bad in the front. The passenger tire is extremely more worn on the outside than the inside. From the front the wheels look like this: \ / The tires have 18,000 miles and have never been rotated because i want to show the tire wear so i can get it aligned if i go that route. I constantly drive in the Texas hill country so the tires are always cornering and trying to convince the truck not to go straight. The issue is this truck goes straight and does not pull or vibrate. So i was considering the michelin tire in the front to eliminate a bad nexen making it look like a bad alignment. The tire just looks footballed to me. I hate to have a tech mess with an alignment i may not need if in fact it is just a bad tire. Then i was considering putting four cooper st maxx tires in the back of the same size. If they are in fact the same diameter i do not know. I am considering this because i would prefer a street tire in the front so i do not tear up a more aggressive tire and get a bad hum. What do you guys think of mixing brand and type of tire? Sort of like having steer and drive tires. My logic is the more street biased tire may hold up better to prevent cupping. I am still on the fence. May run the truck by an alignment shop for advice also. Currently the rears are wearing perfect and flat.

 

[cerberusiam]

You can put 305/80R22.5J tires on a Ram if you want, it still won't change the GAWRs. If you're even just occasionally having tire failure that catastrophic, a higher load rating won't necessarily change anything.

What is the weight rating on that tire? Not talking about changing or overloading the GAWR. Oh, yes it WILL make a NECCESSARY difference in whether the tire fails or lasts to its expected lifetime.

Your missing the point here, a 3100 lb weight rated tire is just barely adequate for EMPTY driving let alone loaded, some are not even adequate for that. The front tires take a beating from JUST the engine.

 

[Regcabguy]

I have to say my 3195# rated Toyo AT2's are like rocks @ 65psi.
I presently run 55# all the way around and there's a very slight bulge in the sidewall.
Maybe it's the Toyos.

 

[Kirwin]

What is the weight rating on that tire? Not talking about changing or overloading the GAWR. Oh, yes it WILL make a NECCESSARY difference in whether the tire fails or lasts to its expected lifetime.

Your missing the point here, a 3100 lb weight rated tire is just barely adequate for EMPTY driving let alone loaded, some are not even adequate for that. The front tires take a beating from JUST the engine.

You have a point, but the front end can't have more than 6,000 on both tires with the truck at 14K GVW. So adding a higher load rated tire to the front does't increase the load capacity. The front end is just plain overloaded anywhere north of 6K. The stock dually tires can cary 3086 per tire at 80 PSI (120 Load Index) in SRW configuration. Thus 2 can carry 6,172 lbs. 172 lbs more than the axle rating. I imagine there are tires rated at 126-129 service rating but I haven't see them in the 235/80R17. I have weighed my truck both brand new before any modifications, and fully loaded, full of fuel and all the stuff for a long term RV trip. My heaviest FAW is 5,700 lbs. The person who operates the truck is responsible for operating his truck within the truck's design limits. There are adequate margins for the stock truck operated within Ram's limits on the front axle. Would I like it to have 7000 lbs of front axle capacity? Yes! But I already know that that takes 19.5 tires. Not interested in making it any harder for me to get my truck serviced.

 

[JohnWelch]

I must be lost on how the front tires are taking a beating on an unloaded truck. The stock tires are rated for over 3000lbs each. If your driving a srw truck that's 12000lbs of total capacity adding front axle to rear axle on a truck that weighs less than 8000lbs. If you are upsizing and going to a tire without a 121, or higher load index, then you are in trouble, if you are towing, or hauling. Not if empty. I have the TOYO A/T II's in 285/75R17 on my truck, running 65 front, and 45 rear as indicated by the door placard for light load, and they ride and handle fine on an empty truck, quiet too, 55000 on the first set, I think I will stick with them..

 

[cerberusiam]

You have a point, but the front end can't have more than 6,000 on both tires. I imagine there are tires rated at 126-129 service rating but I haven't see them in the 235/80R17.

Doesn't matter what the GAWR is, what matters is the capacity of the tire to handle the load placed on it. Not all load is pure weight, just like the suspension components, tire structure suffers if the composition and build is inadequate, regardless of what the numbers say.

You won't find a 17" tire rated more than 121 or 3195 lbs, if that much, anymore. Used to be able to buy 17" tires rated at 3600-4000 lbs per tire depending on size. They easily went 50k with heavy towing and good rotation practices. Hard to find that any more unless it is the newer tires like G2's or AT2's. This is partially due to rubber compounds now but a lot of the downfall was the mandate to reduce load ratings on 17" tires to what they are now, it just didn't pay to make the tire any better than it had to be until the market demanded it.

I must be lost on how the front tires are taking a beating on an unloaded truck. If you are upsizing and going to a tire without a 121, or higher load index, then you are in trouble.

The sheer weight of the engine has caused problems with tires, shocks, and suspension components from day 1. The proliferation of businesses supplying beefed up components would never have happened, we would all be running Moog BJ's and BFG tires because they were adequate .If you are still lost on that point not much anyone can do to explain it.

On the contrary, if you aren't looking to run higher than a 121 index YOU are in trouble, and maybe those around you. A lot depends on how and where the truck is used so one person may have no issues and another nothing but problems. Usage has to be considered, but, if you are running at or close to GCVW\GVW on most of the roads in this country you WANT a heavier tire than the specs cal for.

 

[Oil Stain]

After much thought I purchased the Michelin LTX M/S2 235/80-17 tires. Having them installed on Thursday and having and alignment. These are not cheap tires. We'll see how they hold up over the long haul. Everything rides and feels great for the first 5k miles. Thanks for all the helpful information.

I believe cerberusiam has a very valid point. The MFG are meeting the spec number technically. This is evident in the RV world by putting tires that just fit the bill. Having a 5th wheel RV you see and hear the stories of tire issues. More bad then good. I know it seems that 95% of the tires come from China and that may the issue. Who knows. But I quickly got rid of those E rated tires for G rated tires for piece of mine. Okay, your saying trailer tires are different! I know that. Just pointing out the issue is the same across the industry. That's all.

It seems on our trucks we are just getting by again because of MFG cut backs and the true fact that most people don't want to have a truck, ride like a truck. They want that car like ride. Oh, your still getting the load range E tire, but the specs have been lowered to give that car like ride. But informed people know the difference and the general consumer gets "The smoke and mirror show".