Recent Topics
New key programming cost
by 92saturnsl2
1 minute 40 seconds ago
When you help someone and its time to walk away
by RazorsEdge
19 minutes 38 seconds ago
Sightly overfilled oil..ok or drain?
by flinter
21 minutes 17 seconds ago
Wheel says 50 mph max
by pda1122
35 minutes 14 seconds ago
15w40 Maxlife in Motorcycle
by Brian553
50 minutes 16 seconds ago
BITOGer in Ottawa/Orleans Canada area ? ...
by Papa Bear
52 minutes 37 seconds ago
Old Engine SOUND
by MasterSolenoid
Today at 06:06 PM
ProMotive PH 2500 CUT OPEN
by car51
Today at 04:54 PM
go green or Dexcool?
by umungus1122
Today at 04:50 PM
Latest info on ExxonMobil synthetic base stocks
by Gokhan
Today at 04:49 PM
Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 - $3.21/qt Amazon
by SnowmanCO
Today at 04:37 PM
What Is Dexos Oil?
by mx5miata
Today at 04:27 PM
Hail damage means newer vehicle time!
by ZZman
Today at 03:39 PM
Trouble with Grease Gun
by tc1446
Today at 02:30 PM
Toyota brand conventional (TGMO)
by Jaha24k
Today at 01:45 PM
Any synthetic oil rebates currently or soon?
by 07Piloteer
Today at 01:32 PM
2018 Hyundai elantra motor oil
by kapama
Today at 01:00 PM
SN Plus on shelves
by 03s
Today at 12:23 PM
Group 90 Battery - 45 vs 60aH rating
by The Critic
Today at 12:19 PM
Tire on Church 15 Passenger Van
by Gebo
Today at 11:58 AM
Newest Members
Ilia, nmac9, Theraven, battleman13, Shassis
65278 Registered Users
Who's Online
109 registered (92saturnsl2, 01rangerxl, 379KITTY, 04sierrashortbed, 4ever4d, 2003f7, 14 invisible), 1602 Guests and 69 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65278 Members
67 Forums
285669 Topics
4767459 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Topic Options
#4770716 - 05/28/18 09:02 PM Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT
mdocod Offline


Registered: 07/06/05
Posts: 624
Loc: Colorado, US
I just acquired 4 more GM original rims for my H3. I intend to put 315/75-16 rubber on it all around, on all 9 rims. A set of 5 for 3+ season use, and a set of 4 winter/snow/ice dedicated tires. The options for dedicated snow/ice tires in this size are limited.

I'm looking for anyone who can share their experience with either the Studdless Geolander I/T or a Studded "commercial traction / hybrid / AT" class of tire. Specifically I am looking at studding tires like the General Grabber ATX or AT2 or Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac. I know both of these tires are leaders in their class for winter traction without studs. I figure studs would solve their weaker areas on glaze ice near freezing temps.

I'm trying to get a feel for how the Geolandar would compare to the studded AT both in glaze ice and deep snow. For the purposes of this discussion, let's not concern ourselves with contemplations of alternative sizes. I'm pretty set on wanting to run this size for clearance and floatation reasons on deep snow, clearance reasons in the summer for running trails, and looks. I also want a single-spare solution for year round so that doesn't have to be swapped. I think I have it narrowed down to those few choices though I realize there are other studdable tires out there to consider, I think I have more or less eliminated them from consideration for various reasons.


Thanks,
-Eric
_________________________
2005 Volvo XC70 2.5L I5 Turbo.
1995 Isuzu Rodeo, 3.2L 4WD Manual. Extensive suspension and drive-line mods.
2009 Hummer H3 Adventure 3.7L I5 Manual.

Top
#4770769 - 05/28/18 09:50 PM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: mdocod]
fsdork Offline


Registered: 02/08/11
Posts: 188
Loc: Canadia
I ran a set of G072s on a FWD Escape for a few winters, and was as happy with them as I have been with any other studless winter. Other studless winter tires I have used include Nokian Hakkapeliitta, Bridgestone Blizzak, and Michelin X-Ice, with only the X-Ice being a disappointment.

I have very little experience with A/T or studded winter tire use on snow and ice, so I can't speak to a comparison.
_________________________
2011 Ford F-150 Lariat S/C 6.2L 4x4 - 76K km
2003 Ford Explorer Limited 4.6L 4x4 - 202K km

Top
#4770957 - 05/29/18 08:23 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: mdocod]
khittner Offline


Registered: 07/13/12
Posts: 309
Loc: Michigan
Per Tire RAck's search function, you're planning to run snow tires that are 3-5 sizes too big for your H3. You don't want "flotation" in snow; you should prefer skinny and tall for snow, if you're going to depart from the tire size the vehicle was designed for. "Tall" minimizes high-centering; "skinny" helps cut through the snow to where the traction is, and maximizes the vehicle's pressure on the contact patch, which is good for slick conditions. You won't turn your H3 into a powder-floating snowmobile with oversized tires; you'll just turn it into a tobogan with less directional control.


Edited by khittner (05/29/18 08:26 AM)

Top
#4770984 - 05/29/18 09:09 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: khittner]
Astro14 Offline


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 8536
Loc: Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: khittner
Per Tire RAck's search function, you're planning to run snow tires that are 3-5 sizes too big for your H3. You don't want "flotation" in snow; you should prefer skinny and tall for snow, if you're going to depart from the tire size the vehicle was designed for. "Tall" minimizes high-centering; "skinny" helps cut through the snow to where the traction is, and maximizes the vehicle's pressure on the contact patch, which is good for slick conditions. You won't turn your H3 into a powder-floating snowmobile with oversized tires; you'll just turn it into a tobogan with less directional control.


What khittner says is true: there is no such thing as a good snow tire that wide.

They just don't exist. Wide is the antithesis of good in snow tires. It's like saying, "I want a tall narrow tire that's good in cornering"...

So, what you're considering, then, is the range of tires that suck less than others in their size, but just be forewarned, that nothing in that 315 width is going to be good. Even with studs.

Better winter performance comes from rubber compounding that allows flexibility on cold temperature, from high void to rubber ratio, and from siping that allows better grip on ice. So, an aggressive AT tire will have one, perhaps two, of those three things while a true winter tire (like a Nokian Hakkapelliitta or Bridgestone Blizzak) will have all three.

The dedicated winter tire will be your best bet for winter performance, even though you're ham-stringing the tire by insisting on that size on that truck. Studs will only make a difference on glare ice, which is rare in CO, so I would skip the stud requirement and simply pick a good winter tire. The only one that I can find in that size, is the Geolander that you mention.

Go for them. Skip the studs.

And don't be surprised when some rattle-trap Subie with 4 regular size Hakkapellittas on it runs rings around your truck in the snow, significantly out braking, out accelerating, and out cornering you. Because in the snow, only grip matters. Not HP, not fancy suspension, not big brakes, just grip.

In fact, I would pit my old Volvo 240 Turbo wagon (RWD) with 4 Hakkapelliittas on it vs. any SUV with inappropriate tires. I've seen so many SUV crashes in CO and VT that were the result of poor grip. All that AWD and ABS and Stability control meant nothing when the tires were unable to grip the snowy surface of the road.


Edited by Astro14 (05/29/18 09:13 AM)
_________________________
32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Valvoline

Top
#4770993 - 05/29/18 09:21 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: mdocod]
krzyss Offline


Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 382
Loc: MA, USA
One may want to float on top of snow if it is too deep to get to hard surface underneath, similar to sand.
Of course in such conditions one may be asked if it is wise to be outside.

Krzys

Top
#4771014 - 05/29/18 09:50 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: mdocod]
SubLGT Offline


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 2646
Loc: Idaho
For driving on top of deep snow:

https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/news...ting-from-the-/

Quote:
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 44 is especially tailored for Arctic Trucks’ special expedition vehicles and it excels in grip and durability. The novelty weighs approximately 70 kilos and its diameter is over a meter. Despite its robust size, the tyre moves through deep snow with ease.

- The middle section of the tread pattern features very sharp V-shaped angles that are optimised for cleaning the grooves from snow and slush. The width of the tread as well as the tyre’s maximal airspace both guarantee that the tyre moves efficiently even on a soft surface. Snow poses no challenge for Nokian Hakkapeliitta 44, ensures Kalle Kaivonen, R&D Manager from Nokian Heavy Tyres.

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 44 handles with ease on all road surfaces. The enforced shoulder blocks balance handling in sudden situations, and the supported tyre’s centre rib ensures precise feel of the road. The special Nokian Tyres Polar Expedition tread compound combines first class winter grip with durability excelling in extreme cold weather. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 44 can be studded and there are 172 stud holes on the tyre. The main use of the tyre is without studs, however.

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 44 is the beginning of a completely new chapter in the cooperation between the two experts of the Arctic area. The tyre is available in the size LT475/70 R17, and is especially designed for Arctic Trucks’ heavy SUV-type 4x4 vehicles. The production of the tyre will begin within the next few months and it is available exclusively through Arctic Trucks.

Top
#4771034 - 05/29/18 10:08 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: krzyss]
Astro14 Offline


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 8536
Loc: Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: krzyss
One may want to float on top of snow if it is too deep to get to hard surface underneath, similar to sand.
Of course in such conditions one may be asked if it is wise to be outside.

Krzys


If you're driving on a glacier, perhaps you want to "float on top".

On a road?

Never.

You're just a big toboggan at that point...
_________________________
32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Valvoline

Top
#4771037 - 05/29/18 10:10 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: mdocod]
khittner Offline


Registered: 07/13/12
Posts: 309
Loc: Michigan
Well, uh, OK---but I'd say the total surgery needed to fit a set of Hakka 44s, intended for actual Arctic/Antarctic expeditions, may be beyond even what an H3 owner would be up for buying: Arctic Trucks Fitting Hakka 44s to a Toyota Hi-Lux

FWIW, if you show up at Vail/Aspen/Telluride in an H3 with those tires on, you better be one heck of a skier, or there's going to be a whole bunch of yucking at your (rather considerable) expense going on back at the lodge . . .


Edited by khittner (05/29/18 10:17 AM)

Top
#4771107 - 05/29/18 11:40 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: Astro14]
Sam_Julier Offline


Registered: 05/22/12
Posts: 430
Loc: Connecticut
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: khittner
Per Tire RAck's search function, you're planning to run snow tires that are 3-5 sizes too big for your H3. You don't want "flotation" in snow; you should prefer skinny and tall for snow, if you're going to depart from the tire size the vehicle was designed for. "Tall" minimizes high-centering; "skinny" helps cut through the snow to where the traction is, and maximizes the vehicle's pressure on the contact patch, which is good for slick conditions. You won't turn your H3 into a powder-floating snowmobile with oversized tires; you'll just turn it into a tobogan with less directional control.


What khittner says is true: there is no such thing as a good snow tire that wide.

They just don't exist. Wide is the antithesis of good in snow tires. It's like saying, "I want a tall narrow tire that's good in cornering"...

So, what you're considering, then, is the range of tires that suck less than others in their size, but just be forewarned, that nothing in that 315 width is going to be good. Even with studs.

Better winter performance comes from rubber compounding that allows flexibility on cold temperature, from high void to rubber ratio, and from siping that allows better grip on ice. So, an aggressive AT tire will have one, perhaps two, of those three things while a true winter tire (like a Nokian Hakkapelliitta or Bridgestone Blizzak) will have all three.

The dedicated winter tire will be your best bet for winter performance, even though you're ham-stringing the tire by insisting on that size on that truck. Studs will only make a difference on glare ice, which is rare in CO, so I would skip the stud requirement and simply pick a good winter tire. The only one that I can find in that size, is the Geolander that you mention.

Go for them. Skip the studs.

And don't be surprised when some rattle-trap Subie with 4 regular size Hakkapellittas on it runs rings around your truck in the snow, significantly out braking, out accelerating, and out cornering you. Because in the snow, only grip matters. Not HP, not fancy suspension, not big brakes, just grip.

In fact, I would pit my old Volvo 240 Turbo wagon (RWD) with 4 Hakkapelliittas on it vs. any SUV with inappropriate tires. I've seen so many SUV crashes in CO and VT that were the result of poor grip. All that AWD and ABS and Stability control meant nothing when the tires were unable to grip the snowy surface of the road.


Amen brother.

I've been running Nokians on Volvo 240's and 960's (RWD, wagons and sedans), and V70's FWD up and back to Stowe and Jay VT in all winter conditions since 1986. Never been stuck once. Did ask the kids and their friends to pile into the way back of the 240 wagon once, which they thought was hilarious. But we made the mountain road to Mt Mansfield. Thin is the way to go in a snow tire. Grip is your friend in snow and ice.

Sam
_________________________
2005 Highlander 3.3L PC Duron 0W30, 47k
1993 Volvo 245 Delo 10W30, 140k
1993 Volvo 244 Delo 10W30, 152k


Top
#4771861 - 05/30/18 02:34 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: fsdork]
mdocod Offline


Registered: 07/06/05
Posts: 624
Loc: Colorado, US
Originally Posted By: fsdork
I ran a set of G072s on a FWD Escape for a few winters, and was as happy with them as I have been with any other studless winter. Other studless winter tires I have used include Nokian Hakkapeliitta, Bridgestone Blizzak, and Michelin X-Ice, with only the X-Ice being a disappointment.

I have very little experience with A/T or studded winter tire use on snow and ice, so I can't speak to a comparison.


Thank you for sharing your experience with the G072's. I appreciate it very much!

---------------

Originally Posted By: khittner
Per Tire RAck's search function, you're planning to run snow tires that are 3-5 sizes too big for your H3.


~5% taller and ~9% wider than stock. You're trying to make the difference sound a lot bigger than it is. "too big" is also subjective. There's conjecture in the H3 community that GM actually intended to sell the H3 with 315's, but couldn't "fit" the fuel economy/emissions issue into their fleet. It does fit 315's pretty comfortably with no lift, even has room for 315 on the spare mount position above the rear bumper.

For my driving style offroad and in deep snow, 315's are going to be fine. The skinny pedal is not the solution to anything for me, so my driving method has headroom to support more strain on the driveline from larger tires. I don't drive 90 on the highway, I'm fine with the reduced mileage/power and increase in bearing and bushing wear.


Quote:
You don't want "flotation" in snow; you should prefer skinny and tall for snow,


Can you share your experience with a large studded all terrain tire or Geolander I/T for reference?

75 series tires are pretty skinny and tall (relatively speaking) by definition. The stock 265, 285, and oversized 315 wide sizes with a 75 ratio on 16 inch rims all share the same ratio of sidewall height to width. I do prefer tall skinny tires for most typical road going conditions in snow and ice. 85 series are indeed the best I have ever run on an SUV for typical winter conditions on roadways. However, not all conditions are typical, and 315/75-16 is the tallest, skinniest option I can run without modification to the vehicle, with priority on the tallest part. Anything skinnier is going to be shorter, or on a larger rim, which is a compromise I don't want to make.

Floatation is absolutely desirable in snow. When the snow is really deep, I do not want to go digging around for earth to get traction on, that's just a recipe for getting high centered and is the mentality of typical skinny-pedal-solution drivers who wind up stuck. Tires that are both wide and tall, when carefully driven, form a compacted track of snow under them that "floats" the vehicle several inches above ground level. This "buys" clearance for making passage in ridiculously deep snow. I'm not talking about 6", or 8" or 12" conditions here. I'm talking about when the drifts in the road are up to the hood of the vehicle, when we're carefully plunging in without breaking traction or letting the tires dig down then carefully backing out to pack the floated trail for another run at it.

Quote:
if you're going to depart from the tire size the vehicle was designed for. "Tall" minimizes high-centering; "skinny" helps cut through the snow to where the traction is, and maximizes the vehicle's pressure on the contact patch, which is good for slick conditions.


The reason skinny/tall is associated with good winter performance has a lot more to do being associated with high ratio sidewalls. The 65-85 series tires are preferable to optimize the treadpatch shape and size for snow and ice in typical road going winter conditions. The only time maximizing contact pressure is useful, is if the conditions are such that enough pressure gets you down to the road surface. Once there is sufficient snow/ice coverage to prevent reaching a material with more available friction, a larger contact patch of modern silica rich or winter compound rubber or studs or both is better than a smaller one, for many reasons. The long treadpatch of a tall skinny actually produces a scenario where the tire is less apt to bite DOWN as the material under the tire is subjected to a more gradual distribution of pressure over the length of the treadpatch as it moves over, preventing the tire from cutting itself down into a hard packed pocket/hole. I see modern crossovers with "reasonable" tire widths (215-265), but with a low profile, high pressure contact patches dig themselves stuck in 2 seconds flat in 6 inches of snow all the time. Garbage driving technique is often to blame, but if they were on taller profile tires their lousy driving would lead to less problems on ice/snow.

The reason wide is often associated with being terrible on snow/ice, is that there are really only 2 types of wide tires commonly put on vehicles. Mud tires on trucks and low profile "sporty" tires on cars. Both of these have drawbacks for snow/ice traction for many reasons unrelated to width. That being said, a new/young modern silica rich mud tire with more smaller lugs than the muds of old, with more factory groves/sipes, in a 75+ series, is actually pretty good in most snow conditions. They struggle a bit on ice and get much worse after a year or 2 of aging but aren't as bad as they were years ago.

Unfortunately, no 85 series tire exists in the height I want. An ideal tire for typical winter road conditions with similar height to these factory sizes would be 235/85-16 (in place of the factory 265/75-17) and 255/85-16 (in place of the factory 285/75-16), as these both produce very long treadpatches when inflated properly for the weight of the vehicle and conditions. Unfortunately, I want the clearance and even larger (albeit less optimized shape) treadpatch of the 315/75-16. It's a compromise. If 275/85-16 were a common size that would be what I would put on the H3, but it doesn't exist.

Quote:
You won't turn your H3 into a powder-floating snowmobile with oversized tires; you'll just turn it into a tobogan with less directional control.


I'm not going to turn it into a snowmobile or a tabogan with a 9% change in width and a 6% change in height. You're exaggerating. It wouldn't matter if I were running 285's or 315's, both are a bit on the wide side but both have excellent treadpatch shapes for winter driving being 75 series tires.

I have run sizes from 235/85-16 to 245/70-16 to 265/75-16 to 285/75-16 on my previous SUV (a smaller/lighter SUV). Never had dedicated winter tire but I always replaced rubber every few years regardless of treadwear as newer rubber is important for winter performance, and my old SUV was hard on tires anyway. A ~22% difference in treadwidth across this range seems immense. Of the bunch, the 245/70-16's actually have the smallest treadpatch and the highest contact pressure, but they were not the best performers (though not bad either). The 235/85 and 285/75 both worked fine with different strengths and weaknesses. For any snow/ice condition under ~12" deep, the 235/85 was better. In very deep snow, like 20"+ the 285's were better. In the middle they sort of traded blows. On glare ice and certain types of slippery slush the 285/75's were more tricky, requiring more care and slower speeds while the 235's did find more traction to work with. That said, I attribute the superior ice performance of the 235's to a more modernized tread compound more than anything else. The 285's I ran were very "last generation" in terms of rubber tech (previous gen BF AT KO), while the 235's were the modern popular duratrac that are renowned for having good ice/snow performance in all sorts of sizes. They all served me well but I do recognise the 85 series as having advantages for tread patch shape.


----------------------

Originally Posted By: Astro14
What khittner says is true: there is no such thing as a good snow tire that wide. They just don't exist. Wide is the antithesis of good in snow tires. It's like saying, "I want a tall narrow tire that's good in cornering"...


Wide is not the issue. Short contact patches of wide low profile tires have problems on snow/ice. Typically wie mud tires don't do well on ice because they have the wrong tread, wrong compounds, and no studs.

Quote:
So, what you're considering, then, is the range of tires that suck less than others in their size,


Don't try to church it up or anything...

Quote:
but just be forewarned, that nothing in that 315 width is going to be good. Even with studs.


The rubber compound, tread pattern, siping, studs, and length of tread patch (sidewall ratio related) etc, will all have more impact on ice performance than the width. Being slightly wider than ideal is a minor issue here. Furthermore, I think it's worth pointing out, that a 315/75-16 is about 34.5" tall, and has a ~9.75" treadwidth. In terms of treadwidth to height, this ratio is about the same as the tires on your volvo.

Quote:
Better winter performance comes from rubber compounding that allows flexibility on cold temperature, from high void to rubber ratio, and from siping that allows better grip on ice. So, an aggressive AT tire will have one, perhaps two, of those three things while a true winter tire (like a Nokian Hakkapelliitta or Bridgestone Blizzak) will have all three.


Most of these modern winter tires have a low void to rubber ratio. They are trying to put MORE of that soft rubber in contact with the ice. For true winter compound tires, the manufactures do not advise going narrower than stock because they know their tires will perform best with more contact area.

Quote:
The dedicated winter tire will be your best bet for winter performance, even though you're ham-stringing the tire by insisting on that size on that truck. Studs will only make a difference on glare ice, which is rare in CO,


Glare ice forming around freezing temps on main roads and intersections during storms, as well as glare ice formed from freeze/thaw cycles and on sunny days on hard packed snow in the days following a storm are the most common treacherous conditions along the front range for driving.

[/quote]so I would skip the stud requirement and simply pick a good winter tire. The only one that I can find in that size, is the Geolander that you mention.

Go for them. Skip the studs.[/quote]

Glare ice is common, and one of the biggest problems here. If you're saying that studs are better on glare ice then that's going to be a major consideration at play here. Can you share your experiences on the Geolander I/T or a studded AT for further clarification?

Quote:
And don't be surprised when some rattle-trap Subie with 4 regular size Hakkapellittas on it runs rings around your truck in the snow, significantly out braking, out accelerating, and out cornering you. Because in the snow, only grip matters. Not HP, not fancy suspension, not big brakes, just grip.


Thanks for the public service announcement. I actually purchased the H3 because I was told by the car salesman that its as close as I could get to a 4WD sports car. It's also very fuel efficient, and its exhaust smells like cherry pie. /sarcasm off

I have no delusions about about what the H3 is and isn't. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Our turbo AWD volvo with studded 215/70-16 winter tires will run circles around the H3 in anything up to ~8-10" of snow. Why would I be surprised? I'll just take the volvo and enjoy zipping away from morons with trucks on mud tires spinning in circles.

When the going gets rough and the snow gets deep, I want to be able to get home, or get out to help family/friends/community if required. The H3 with large tires and a skillful, patient driving technique, like any SUV or truck with good rubber and a good driver, can navigate very deep snow. The kind of snow that shuts cities down. Done it before many times. The compromise in "typical" winter conditions, is worth it, for the ability to be able to help myself or help my family or community when the need arises.

Quote:
In fact, I would pit my old Volvo 240 Turbo wagon (RWD) with 4 Hakkapelliittas on it vs. any SUV with inappropriate tires. I've seen so many SUV crashes in CO and VT that were the result of poor grip. All that AWD and ABS and Stability control meant nothing when the tires were unable to grip the snowy surface of the road.


On glare ice up to a few inches of snow, absolutely. In 20"+ of snow, our volvo's are useless and stranded.

I've already considered the compromises and narrowed down my decision to this size tire. I've been through the possibilities of a dedicated 235 or 255 wide tire for winter. Yes, I know they would be better for typical conditions. When conditions are typical, we can take the volvo to the grocery store. When conditions are not typical, I want to know I've done everything I can to maximize the capabilities of the H3 in deep snow.


Edited by mdocod (05/30/18 02:45 AM)
_________________________
2005 Volvo XC70 2.5L I5 Turbo.
1995 Isuzu Rodeo, 3.2L 4WD Manual. Extensive suspension and drive-line mods.
2009 Hummer H3 Adventure 3.7L I5 Manual.

Top
#4778721 - 06/06/18 12:54 AM Re: Geolandar I/T G072 vs Studded Aggressive AT [Re: mdocod]
mdocod Offline


Registered: 07/06/05
Posts: 624
Loc: Colorado, US
Well... Anyway...

The tire shop I like to do business with made a very good argument for Studded DuraTracs instead of the GeoLander I/T. The Geolanders in that size are hard to come by, and may be hard to replace if I have a problem with one. On the other hand, they always stock at least 4 duratracs in that size. He gave me a great deal on the duratracs, and threw in free studs. I'm comfortable with this decisions having been more or less "made" based on availability. My experience with duratracs is that they are indeed some of the best all terrain type tires available for snow and ice. The studs, combined with keeping them "fresh" (out of the summer sun) should give them quite a few years of good winter service and ice traction, after which point, if needed, I could probably pull the studs and use as summer tires for many more years. Maybe by then someone will have a proper studdable "true" winter tire available in that size.
_________________________
2005 Volvo XC70 2.5L I5 Turbo.
1995 Isuzu Rodeo, 3.2L 4WD Manual. Extensive suspension and drive-line mods.
2009 Hummer H3 Adventure 3.7L I5 Manual.

Top