AuthorTopic: Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT  (Read 2365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jonny Boaterboy

  • Posts: 285
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« on: July 27, 2007, 18:04:05 »
I currently have BF Goodrich AT on my Range Rover....... all the times I have got stuck off roading has been down to lack of traction.... so I'm going for some MT..... the trouble is trying to decide which one and what size. I'm leaning towards the Cooper STT they look a little more suited to on road situations compared to the BF Goodrich. As my Range Rover is my only car and most of the miles I do is on road this has bearing on my choice.

So what does every one think? I think I have set up a poll but never done one before so not sure if it will work! I have also added the DynaPro MT which I also like the look of but dont know much about

The next problem is the size, I have 245/70/r16 on at the moment with no problems, I want to increase the ground clearance by putting taller tyres on. I have air suspension does anyone know how tall I can get away with with no modifications?

Thanks all, should be a good debate!

Guardian.

  • Guest
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2007, 18:49:04 »
can only comment on the bfg muds, they are a fantastic tyre in the slippery stuff, and for a mud tyre handle fantastic on the road and not that noisy.
plus for quite a soft compound do lots of miles before they are shot.
i would reccomend them 100%.

Offline Bush Tucker Man

  • Posts: 9161
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2007, 21:35:58 »
I quite fancy the Coopers when the time comes
Richard A Thackeray 
Defender 110Td5 'Heritage Gone, but not forgotten
Jaguar XKR; X88 JLT, also 'gone, but not forgotten'

Yorkshire Born & Bred, and proud of it.

"You Can Allus Tell A Yorkshireman, But You Can't tell Him Owt!"

Offline Brains

  • Posts: 240
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2007, 16:35:18 »
Just had the stt's on my series and they were pretty good off-road but they had to be dropped to 20 psi to get any decent grip  :wink:  8)

Offline jjsaul

  • Posts: 1534
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Leeds, West Yorks
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2007, 23:50:44 »
got bfg mt's on our 110 and theyre great both on and off road...
about the best MT i've driven on tarmac...its quieter and smoother on these than the cheap AT's we had before!
James

...lovin dirty days out...

1983 OneTen V8 Station Wagon 3.5 (LPG)
1972 Range Rover V8
1992 Range Rover 4.6 (LPG)
1978 Range Rover Carmichael Commando 6x4
1972 Range Rover - Major project, FOR SALE
1976 Range Rover - Less of a project, FOR SALE
Previously: Range Rovers 1988, 1990 and others...
2005 Volvo V70 T5 SE (LPG) - daily driver


Offline clbarclay

  • Posts: 1615
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2007, 00:37:02 »
The one thing going for coopers over BFG is that test have proven them to be more puncture resistant. Infact results in an Austrailian mag found coopers to be the best for puncture resistant tyres.

Having said that since filling my BFG muds with industrial tyre gunk The have performed fautlessly and before that it was just leaks round the rims which reseating sorted. I agree with james, the BFGs were cretainly no worse on the road for noise/comfort/grip than the ATs I had on before.
Chris

Various range rovers from 1986 to 1988 in various states
Locost sports car based on mk2 escort - currently working on brakes, fuel and wiring

Offline Jonny Boaterboy

  • Posts: 285
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2007, 10:09:28 »
Well, I have had a bit of a ring around most the places I have spoken to seem to think that the BF goodrich are way better than the coopers (probable because thats what they were selling!)
But another problem has orcured..... I have 245/70/R16 AT on mine at the moment, the biggest size that I can get in the MT is 235/70/R16 (that would fit on my Range Rover without modification)this would mean if I switched to MT I would lose 3cm in the diameter..... thats 1.5cm on ground clearance...... do you think thats a concern or would the extra grip out way the lose of ground clearance?
As I dont have a pure offroader and it is my every day car little things like that count...... or am I just been a idiot!

Thanks all

Jonny

Offline clbarclay

  • Posts: 1615
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2007, 10:40:48 »
What do you mean by biggest size you can get, BFG MT are certainly avalible in a 225/75r16 which is about 29.5" OD and fit a RRC without any problems or is it a case that no one bothers stocking other sizes between 235/70r16 and 235/85r16?

If you don't mind changing to 15" wheels then BFG muds also come in a 30x9.50r15 It may be a case though of having to weight for a less common size to be imported to order.


heres a good guide for varrious tyre sizes on a RRC.
http://www.rangerovers.net/outfitting/tires/classictires.html
Chris

Various range rovers from 1986 to 1988 in various states
Locost sports car based on mk2 escort - currently working on brakes, fuel and wiring

Offline Range Rover Blues

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 15218
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • South Yorkshire
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2007, 16:50:21 »
I've got BFG MT and I am a tad dissapo9inted, they are not as good as my old Machos, but you can't run remoulds on a big V8.

As for the EAS, well if you have the cash for them then get a set of Arnott GIII airbags, the exchange rate is in your favour at the moment.

Try rover renovations http://www.rover-renovations.com/Range-Rover-Air-Suspension-overhaul-kit-p/overhaulciii.htm

for a set of these http://members.mud-club.com/profiles/Range%20Rover%20Blues/gallery/EAS/0/ba2fa2e00651aa239374c9fee8601a68.JPG/QSBtYXNzaXZlIDNpbmNoZXMgZXh0cmEgdHJhdmVs


Otherwise you could try fitting extra long bump stops and spacing the air springs by 35mm then fitting longer shocks.
Or lift the body.
Blue,  1988  Range Rover 3.5 EFi with plenty of toys bolted on
Chuggaboom, 1995 Range Rover Classic
1995 Range Rover Classic Vogue LSE with 5 big sticks of Blackpool rock under the bonnet.

Offline Range Rover Blues

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 15218
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • South Yorkshire
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2007, 16:51:03 »
Finally, due to the extra tread depth, the MT will be that bit bigger anyway, the size4s are only nomial and based on the size of the innner carcase.
Blue,  1988  Range Rover 3.5 EFi with plenty of toys bolted on
Chuggaboom, 1995 Range Rover Classic
1995 Range Rover Classic Vogue LSE with 5 big sticks of Blackpool rock under the bonnet.

Offline Jonny Boaterboy

  • Posts: 285
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2007, 23:45:47 »
Thanks Mr Blues, would love to get the bigger air springs but unless there free there's no chance! :-({|=

So back to the tires, I have been looking at the size of the BFG-MT and have noticed they do a 245/75/R16 they say that the Overall diameter is 30.7 this is compared to my BFG-AT which they say are 29.5 now I have just measured the AT's and I make them about 29........ so do you think that the MT will be about 30.2 overall? if so can I get them under my Range rover and if not when and where are they likely to catch? Im guessing they'll catch on the wheel arch when at full lock and when they on full articulation.

(Can someone just confirm...... I know this sounds stupid...... the two sizes above are both 245 wide....... ok don't take the [throw it] just asking!)

Does anyone have a rough idea how much I would get for 4 BFG AT with about 12mm of tread left?

Dont know if its worth starting another thred for this but I'm looking for a rear axle guard to protect the axle while i learn the limits of the Range Rover! I have a southdown on the front which is great, covers the stearing damper as well, and I want one for the rear that wraps around and covers the lowest point of the axle and wraps back up so as not to work as a scoop if pulled out backwards? any recommendations?

Thanks again

Jonny

Offline jjsaul

  • Posts: 1534
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Leeds, West Yorks
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2007, 22:22:29 »
Never seen rear axle guards, only diff guards...i've got a 'QT copy' rear diff guard which bolts onto the diff nose and comes right up over the top of the diff...
James

...lovin dirty days out...

1983 OneTen V8 Station Wagon 3.5 (LPG)
1972 Range Rover V8
1992 Range Rover 4.6 (LPG)
1978 Range Rover Carmichael Commando 6x4
1972 Range Rover - Major project, FOR SALE
1976 Range Rover - Less of a project, FOR SALE
Previously: Range Rovers 1988, 1990 and others...
2005 Volvo V70 T5 SE (LPG) - daily driver


Offline Range Rover Blues

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 15218
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • South Yorkshire
  • Referrals: 0
Blue,  1988  Range Rover 3.5 EFi with plenty of toys bolted on
Chuggaboom, 1995 Range Rover Classic
1995 Range Rover Classic Vogue LSE with 5 big sticks of Blackpool rock under the bonnet.

anaxemurderer

  • Guest
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2007, 10:23:22 »
My vote would be for bfg but not a lot in it and for diffguards 4x4r us do a fairly comprehensive wrap around guard (although i have an old qt).

RRB why don't you try getting a set of of yokohama mt+ which are the original design for tyres like macho's, sahara's etc but obviously not a remould! Might get a set for mine next time

Nick

ps they do them in a 35 but unfortunately only in america!

Offline Range Rover Blues

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 15218
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • South Yorkshire
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2007, 13:21:53 »
I had thought about that but I've got to get my money's worth out of these now.
Blue,  1988  Range Rover 3.5 EFi with plenty of toys bolted on
Chuggaboom, 1995 Range Rover Classic
1995 Range Rover Classic Vogue LSE with 5 big sticks of Blackpool rock under the bonnet.

Offline rangyholic

  • Posts: 22
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Cooper STT Vs BF Goodrich MT
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2007, 18:35:40 »
Hi, i am using 265/70/16 colway a/t's on mine with a 2" lift these only catch slightly on bottom rear lip of back arches.......i realise this size is not suitable for your motor, but these are the 3rd set of colway remoulds i've used over the years with no probs whatsoever. My first set were 245/70/16 m/t's on a 24valve v6 lwb trooper.....no probs even with all that power :D

 






SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal