Over two years and 40,000 miles, I conducted an in-depth and long-term review of BFGoodrich’s KO2 all terrain during New Mexico Backroads’ normal scouting, training, and guiding fieldwork. The KO2 unseated the KM2 mud terrain as my tire of choice for midsized trucks and SUVs. My professional clients often ask for recommendations and information on tires, and above all other vehicle-related upgrades, the newly released KM3 provided an opportunity to reassess BFGoodrich’s best offerings for overland, trail, and daily driving use. While I do run other brands of tires such as Nitto, Cooper, and Toyo, my tire preferences tend to gravitate toward BFGoodrich’s offerings since they generally weigh less than the competition while providing strong overall performance and durability traits.
Overall Impressions
Editor’s Note: Due to the immense detail provided in the review we have placed the summary at the top. Read on to learn more.
Facing stiff competition from other manufacturers’ mud-terrain offerings, BFGoodrich tasked themselves with redesigning the decade-old mud terrain T/A KM from the ground up. Aside from the nearly 7-pound (per-tire) weight gain and the absence of a load range D rated 35×12.50R17, the new KM3 is better in every way than its predecessor. Notable improvements over the KM2 include better pavement performance, strengthened tire construction, improved tread durability, and increased traction over a broad range of surface conditions. The KM3’s weight penalty may be forgivable given that the fortified mud terrain builds confidence by finding traction under the toughest conditions. Of all the tires I’ve run on NMBR’s vehicles, the KM3 both engages loose terrain and clings to hard surfaces better than any other, with the exception of BFGoodrich’s Krawler KX (Non-DOT Red Label). The smooth ride afforded by the KM3 mud terrain over rocks, ruts, and bumps was much appreciated throughout the tire’s 12,000-mile review—this trait alone may keep the tires mounted beneath the NMBR Recon.
While the KM3 wins hands down over the KM2, the comparison heats up between selecting the KM3 and KO2—especially for overland applications. After eight months with the new KM3, my current assessments are mixed. For the three or four total months of NMBR’s seasonal work where trail conditions are wet, muddy, and snowy, and for individual fieldwork, training, and guiding runs that involve especially technical terrain, the KM3 reigns supreme. Across the board, the KM3 is a beefier and more durable tire than the K02. The design and construction differences between the two tires equate to the KM3 being less susceptible to damage and punctures both on and off pavement. However, the big-blocked KM3 weighs over 8 pounds more per tire than the like-sized and load range rated KO2. The KM3’s additional rotational mass did have a somewhat negative effect on vehicle performance and fuel economy compared to the KO2. Through a host of mixed driving (4WD and 2WD), surface types, elevations, temperatures, and terrain variations the KO2 all terrain consistently yielded 1 to 2 more miles per gallon than KM3 mud terrain. The KM3’s reduced fuel economy seemed to nag me the most while traversing the Gila Legends Expedition where gas pump to gas pump (off-pavement) mileage for the first leg of the journey can top 250 miles. With the KO2, I was able to complete the first stage of Legends without touching my 10-gallon AEV fuel caddy. This was not the case with the KM3 mud terrain—I was adding gas about an hour short of the filling station.
Review Background
BFGoodrich KM2 Mud Terrain T/A—tried and true performance: Eleven years ago, I mounted a set of BFGoodrich’s 35-inch KM2 mud-terrain tires on the freshly built and rock-ready NMBR 4Runner. In the years that would follow, between three different vehicles, I collectively logged over 180,000 miles on eight different sets of KM2 tires. Through a variety of terrain and travels ranging from Moab to the remote backcountry of the Gila National Forest, to southern New Mexico’s infamous rock-crawling trails, I developed a strong understanding of the KM2’s high and low points. In summary, the tire performed exceptionally well over a variety of technical trail driving scenarios but displayed some shortfalls on the road. On pavement, the KM2 was susceptible to loud droning, vibrations, and unpredictable tracking in wet weather conditions. During the winter driving season, mainly iced roads, the KM2 was often unpredictable during mild and moderate steering, acceleration, and braking efforts. Despite the shortfalls, the now discontinued KM2 provided a worthy tire choice—there were zero failures or flats to report amongst 40 different tires.
BF Goodrich KO2 All Terrain T/A—a leap of faith: When the KO2 was released in 2014, I decided to mount a set on the NMBR Rubicon and perform an in-depth and extended tire review. The theme of the evaluation was simple: “Is it time to come back to an all-terrain tire?”. Given my solid experience with the KM2, switching to an all-terrain tire was a big leap of faith. After logging 40,000-plus miles on a single set of 37-inch KO2’s my question was answered—a resounding, yes! The tire provided nearly all of the off-pavement benefits of the KM2 with a few big advantages. On pavement, the KO2 was quiet, smooth riding, and vibration free. Even with the upsize from a 35-inch KM2 mud terrain to a 37-inch KO2 all terrain, the overall fuel economy improved. Although the KO2’s tread depth is shallower than the KM2, the KO2 still provided significantly better wear. With plenty of tread life remaining after 40,000 miles of use, that test set of KO2 tires triumphantly tackled the Dusy Ershim Trail with American Expedition Vehicles as their final act before the NMBR Rubicon was sold.
Notes for consideration: To provide a direct comparison between the KM3 and KM2 mud terrains and the KO2 all terrain, the majority of feedback within this review is specific to tire size 35×12.50R17, all mounted on our current Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited Recon Edition (aka – NMBR Recon). A notable difference within the trio is that the KM2s feature a load range rating of D, and the KM3 and KO2 both feature a load range rating of E. While this tire review highlights feedback on all three tires, the article’s primary focus is the KM3 mud terrain. To read NMBR’s long-term and in-depth review of the BFGoodrich KO2 All-Terrain, visit this link.
Tire Performance
On Pavement
While most low-range aficionados build their four-wheel-drive vehicles for maximum capability to conquer challenging terrain, the reality is that the majority of mileage is often logged over pavement. While the BFGoodrich KM3 has incredibly strong off-road attributes (we’ll cover this soon), the tire’s on-pavement performance should be strongly considered for enthusiasts that use their rigs primarily for daily driving, road tripping, and pavement pursuits in between the backroads. A common gripe with aggressive mud-terrain tires is the amount of noise and vibration they produce over asphalt, especially at highway speeds. My first impression of the KM3 was that they were noticeably quieter and smoother than the KM2. While the KM3 was chiefly designed to tackle tough terrain, mud, and rocks, the tire’s reworked tread pattern helps minimize the adverse side effects of running big blocks on tarmac. While the KM2 and KM3 may look similar, the main tread pattern of the KM3 has been reworked with siping revisions, block sculpture redesign, compound changes, and by reducing the overall spacing between tread blocks. However, within a few thousand miles of hard fieldwork use, the KM3’s noise level on pavement did increase moderately at speeds above 50 mph. My view on the noise increase, best described as a transition from a whir to a hum, was that it related to the smoothing and rounding of the tread block edges. This type of wear is somewhat normal for mud-terrain block patterns as the crisp tread edges become scrubbed during aired-down off-pavement use. Mall crawlers need not worry about this subtle issue. Even with the noise increase, the KM3 has not approached the droning and volume levels of the KM2. Additional pavement handling improvements over the KM2 include the absence of incurable vibrations, vague tracking on hot days, and lackluster wet road performance.
Bottom line, the KM3 beats the KM2 in all on-road categories. Shifting gears, in comparison with the KO2 all terrain, the KM3 does not outperform the KO2 in any pavement performance categories short of encountering a fresh rockslide across the roadway. While the KM3’s on-pavement performance such as straight-line tracking, cornering stability, and overall traction comes close to that the KO2, the KM3 can’t quite shake its burly mud-terrain persona. Regarding on-road noise, the KM3 is still noticeably louder than the KO2, especially at interstate speeds. Over bumpy and weathered road sections, the KO2 does more to dampen harsh feedback than the portly KM3. Ironically, the KM3 provides a smoother and plusher ride than the KO2 when off pavement. The KO2 remains the undisputed king of the road.
On the Trail
For decades, BFGoodrich has developed and tested their off-pavement tires on the Baja California Peninsula and across a broad spectrum of rugged motorsports. The company’s first dedicated mud-terrain tire, Mud T/A, was released in the early 1980s. Inspired by the Baja T/A KR3, BFGoodrich’s SCORE desert racing and King of the Hammers champion tire, the KM3 mud terrain was developed (first and foremost) with severe terrain and challenging surface conditions in mind. When comparing the KR3 and KM3 side by side, the similarities in the main tread and sidewall profiles are apparent. The KM3’s Terrain-Attack tread pattern profile was configured to provide optimal traction through varied steering angles and over a wide range of surface types. While the KM3 mud terrain’s main tread pattern may be similar in appearance, its predecessor (the KM2), the KM3’s revised design, and composition equate to better overall traction. The KM3 also features new Krawl-TEK compound. BFGoodrich claims the reworked KM3s provide five to eight percent more traction than the KM2 in a broad range of environments and conditions from sand and slickrock, to interstate and ice. During the long-term review of the KM3, the tires’ strong off-pavement ride and traction qualities dominated my overall perception of the tire. On the trail, even before encountering the first rock obstacle, the KM3 provided a smooth and plush ride over rough trail sections. The type of slow-going terrain includes numerous rocky, rooted, and rutted surface features that make up the majority of trail mileage between technical challenges. So long as you are easy on the throttle and brakes, tire breakaway on loose hill climbs, off-camber trail sections, and steep descent scenarios are scant. In a variety of technical trail scenarios from scree-covered inclines to dry waterfall climbs to daunting rock gardens, the KM3 provides ample terrain engagement. Overall, the tire’s stability and traction characteristics are predictable across a broad spectrum of challenging driving situations.
The KM3’s sidewall features BFGoodrich’s next generation Coreguard Max technology to help prevent sidewall damage. Aside from composition revisions, the sidewall tread pattern of the KM3 extends farther down the sidewall surface than KM2 to provide additional protection. The KM3’s sidewall and shoulder tread pattern, appropriately named Traction-Armor, features prominent tread blocks and grooving that were designed to engage a variety of natural surfaces and help maximize traction. The company touts the KM3’s sidewalls as being 27 percent stronger than KM2. Comparing the KM3 and KO2, the sidewall construction and design of the KM3 are stronger and more aggressive. Even with the KM3’s load range E rating, the tires’ sidewalls yielded considerable flexibility when aired down. During boulder scaling, driving situations that necessitate sidewall/terrain interface in order to conquer hard lines, the KM3’s sidewall grips firmly to both smooth and coarse textured rocks. After countless interactions with trail hazards ranging from sharp shale to shattered ice to splintered branches, the KM3’s sidewalls remain unscathed.
Tread durability with the KM3, as it relates to off-pavement use, appears better than average. Only a few small scratches and nicks are visible across the tread pattern of each tire. Brand new, the KM3’s main tread pattern depth measured 18/32 inches. After over 12,000 miles of use, the KM3’s tread depth measured an impressive 15/32 inches. The technical trail performance of the KM3 is better in every way than both the KM2 and KO2. The KM3’s strongest advantages include strength and traction gains. I have yet to encounter a technical driving situation where the KM3 fell short. For those four-wheel-drive enthusiasts that like the thrill of conquering big rocks and tough obstacles, the KM3 mud terrain will not disappoint.
In the Mud
The KM3’s first significant mud challenge came during NMBR’s 375-mile Gila Legends Expedition. The overland traversal unfolds during the height of the Southwest’s summer monsoon when heavy downpours often render treacherous trail conditions along the route. This year’s Gila Legends Expedition provided mile after mile of water-logged terrain from deep-tracked clay to slick vermillion to burn scar ash slurry. The performance characteristics of a mud-terrain tire (in mud) can be separated into two categories: grip and release. Let’s dig deeper into these harmonious functions as they relate to a tire performance in mud. For grip, the tire’s main tread pattern must feature tall and widely spaced lugs that support maximum surface contact (creating friction) in order to engage liquefied terrain. Vehicle traction on any surface relates the amount of engine torque being transferred from the engine to the tires to the ground, and the subsequent vehicle movement that does or doesn’t result. Ideal traction occurs when a tire has the ability to hold ground (or create friction) without spinout or sliding during vehicle motion. Under the best circumstances, the tire’s diameter multiplied by the number of tire revolutions (for any given stretch of terrain) should be nearly identical to the distance of ground covered. Because mud is enveloping, a heavily lugged sidewall tread pattern is necessary to capitalize on the tire’s increased contact patch under such conditions. The main and sidewall tread pattern of the KM3 provides considerable friction and forward in the slickest mud. On the subject of release, a well-performing mud-terrain tire via angular kinetic energy (or rotation), will self-clear a significant amount of mud and debris from between tread voids. If a tire’s tread pattern and functionality are lost behind a blanket of mud, it’s no better than a racing slick in the jungle. The BFGoodrich KM3 provides a strong combination of both grip and release traits that allow the tire to excel through a variety of muddy and soft surface conditions. The KM3’s trademark Terrain-Attack tread pattern, featuring deep voids and dominant blocks, yield strong traction performance in mud that usually necessitates the use of a winch and recovery gear. To help support the release of mud and debris packed within the main tread pattern, BFGoodrich positioned raised Mud-Phobic bars and pyramids between tread blocks.
The best mud performance comparison between the KM3 mud terrain and KO2 all terrain came during the aforementioned monsoonal run of the Gila Legends Expedition. Between a 4Runner in the group fitted with KO2s, and the NMBR Recon fitted with KM3s, a disparity between the two tires’ mud release characteristics became apparent. On multiple muddy trail and road sections, side-by-side assessments between the two revealed that the KO2 was more susceptible to the “chocolate doughnut effect,” a condition where unreleased mud builds multiple layers through tire revolutions—just add sprinkles! Although the KO2 all terrain features BFGoodrich’s Mud-Phobic design elements and provides decent overall mud performance, the tread pattern was overwhelmed in certain scenarios: mainly thick mud infused with gravel and debris. Given the KM3’s official mud-terrain designation and design attributes, it’s no surprise the KM3’s traction and control characteristics in mud outperformed the KO2. In comparison to the KM2, the KM3’s performance was slightly better due to its improved ability to release mud. Through challenges thick and thin, the KM3 provided exceptional mud performance where success is often measured by clean boots and soiled rigs.
Winter Driving – Snow and Ice
On-Road Winter Performance This year, winter packed a big punch across the Southwest’s high-country, producing an onslaught of powerful winter storms and heavy snowfall. While conducting off-season scouting runs for the upcoming River to the Sky Expedition and Camino del Tesoro Overland traversal routes, I managed to log over 1,500 miles across the snowy backcountry and backroads of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. I’ll admit that my early expectations for the KM3 were mixed on how the tires would perform on ice—a notoriously sketchy surface condition for most mud terrains. When it comes to winter travels, the most harrowing driving conditions seem to unfold over paved mountain roads where ice and snow change otherwise scenic and leisurely drives into precarious situations. While commuting to and from NMBR’s backcountry route access points, I utilized a maze of two-lane highways and mountain pass roads. Notable highpoints (above 10,000 feet) along the winding drives included Wolf Creek, Brazos, Tusas, La Manga, and Cumbres passes. On road sections encrusted by frozen slush and gleaming ice sheets, the KM3 provided surprisingly good stability, decent steering response, and predictable tracking. Moderate steering, acceleration, and braking maneuvers yielded minimal wheel slippage or spin. Unlike Ken Block, my approach to snow and ice driving involves low speeds, subtle movements, gentle brake modulation, and undramatic momentum control.
Additionally, for such road conditions where I don’t install tire chains, I set the Recon’s tire pressure between 18 psi and 24 psi depending on surface conditions. Keep in mind that my preferred lowered tire pressure range undoubtedly enhanced the KM3’s snowy and icy road performance and my subsequent opinion of the tire under such conditions. It’s likely the KM3’s performance in this category would be reduced while running tire air pressures suited for normal highway driving conditions. While the tread pattern of the KM2 and KM3 share similarities, the KM3 provides more grip on slippery surfaces. I assume the KM3’s Krawl-TEK tread compound has something to do with the difference.
In comparison to the KO2, the KM3 comes close but does not meet the winter road driving performance of BFGoodrich’s all terrain. Comparing the two tires’ main tread patterns, the KO2’s main tread design features extensive siping and grooving whereas the KM3’s tread blocks are mostly smooth and uninterrupted. While the KM3 proudly wears the Mud+Snow (M+S) rating, the KO2 ups the bar with the M+S and the Three Peak Mountain Snowflake ratings. The rating variance between the two should be a strong consideration for enthusiasts that live and recreate in heavy winter weather regions.
Backroads and Trails Winter Performance Off the beaten path, in snow ranging from a few inches to nearly 2 feet, the BFGoodrich KM3 mud terrain produces positive grip that’s as good or better than any other tire I’ve previously run during the winter season. Depending on snow depth and composition, the preferred snow air pressure range for the NMBR Rubicon is 7 psi to 14 psi. If you hadn’t noticed, my approach to maximizing tire performance begins with adjusting air pressure to best suit surface conditions. Following the lead of the KM3’s grip and release mud characteristics, the tire’s tread layout provides above average traction in snow. The KM3’s Mud-Phobic tread design elements help to release packed snow from between treads. The KM3’s main, shoulder, and sidewall patterns maximize snowy surface engagement within the tire’s contact patch, resulting in favorable traction and steering performance. In powdery to medium density snow, I had no issues charging through 2- and 3-foot-deep drifts propelled by the KM3’s aggressive tread pattern. Despite the challenging surface and substrate conditions provided by snow through technical terrain, the KM3 held a relatively firm grip on off-camber, steep ascent/descent, and technical trail sections. In the deepest and densest snow, the NMBR Rubicon’s front bumper, axles, and undercarriage did more to inhibit forward motion than the tire’s limitations. Comparing the KM3 and KM2, the two tires perform similarly in snow. However, the KM3 does do a better job releasing snow from the tread pattern. While the KO2 all terrain outperforms the KM3 mud terrain for most on-road winter driving conditions, the KM3 takes the lead as snow depth increases. The main tread pattern of the KM3 is less likely to become overwhelmed by snow than the KO2 for the same “grip and release” characteristics mentioned within the mud performance comparison. On a side note, being light on the throttle and maintaining controlled forward motion helps prevent an aggressive tire tread pattern from digging down into snow or other unstable surface types and consequently burying the vehicle.
Despite my initial expectations for the KM3, the tires earned a passing grade. Without a single traction related incident or self-recovery during NMBR’s scouting, the mission was a productive and successful one. With that said, it’s worth mentioning that my feedback for the KM3’s handling characteristics over snow and ice is based on a two-week long experience that did not include emergency maneuvers or the most severe winter conditions available in North America. For serious winter snow and ice driving conditions on the road or in the backcountry, snow chains are the gold standard for maximizing safety and preserving vehicle dynamics such as traction, steering, and braking.
Forest Roads, Two-track, and Dirt Highway
The vast majority of NMBR’s annual mileage is logged over tracks ranging from rough and slow-going primitive two-track to graded and maintained dirt highway. Commuting in and out of remote fieldwork and guiding areas, be it borderland desert or the Gila National Forest, entails long and lonely stretches of unpaved backroads. Technical trails, mud, and snow account for only a portion of the service work mileage. In this, my judgment of a tire’s overall off-pavement performance is directly related to an average 10- or 12-hour drive day. Whereas I may encounter a few dozen rocky and technical trail sections, totaling five or six miles combined, I’ll easily cover two hundred miles of less dramatic backroads where the terrain and surface conditions allow a faster pace. These brisk travel road sections can be punishing on both driver and vehicle if suspension and tires do not harmonize. Ride quality can make or break a driving intensive field day. As noted in the On the Trail section of this review, the KM3 mud terrain is smooth riding over rugged terrain—more so than the KO2 all terrain at equal air pressure. The sidewall break-in period for the KM3s was relatively short given the stout sidewall construction and load range E rating. Some mud-terrain tires, especially those with higher load ranges, yield harsh ride and handling traits due to rigid sidewalls. Even with the KM3’s plush ride, I’d like to see BFGoodrich offer a load range D rated 35×12.50R17 that brought the 74.4-pound, per-tire weight closer to the like-sized KO2 and KM2 (both below 70 pounds). Shaving weight would likely benefit braking, acceleration, on-pavement ride quality, and fuel economy while helping to reduce stress on vehicle components.
My assumption is that BFGoodrich produces the E-rated 35×12.50R17 KM3 to accommodate a wide range of vehicle platforms and towing/hauling applications. On the smoothest sections of dirt highway, where speeds above 50 mph were obtainable, the KM3 yields stable tracking and predictable handling through moderate steering and braking actions. Overall, on dirt and gravel backroads, the KM3 performs slightly better than KO2 with most points being awarded in the driver control and ride quality categories. Unrelated to performance, just like most mud terrains, large voids between the tread blocks facilitate rock chucking. Switching from the KO2 all terrain to the KM3 mud terrain reminded me of this as the pings and dings caused by projectile rocks substantially increased. When adventuring in groups, make sure to keep vehicles in procession widely spaced as aggressive tires (both all-terrain and mud-terrain tires) eject paint and glass damaging rocks. Also, be kind to your fellow motorists and remove larger rocks from the tire treads while airing up and before hitting the road home.
Full-sized Feedback Some may ask why NMBR’s BFGoodrich tire review feedback is specific to midsized trucks and SUVs. The rationale for this is because we have only employed all of the tires in this review in size 35X12R17 on the Recon. My intention was to provide an accurate comparison utilizing a single tire size and single vehicle platform. My experience is that tires often perform differently between weight class categories. As an example, NMBR’s Prospector, an American Expedition Vehicles-built RAM 2500 Power Wagon, did not produce the same positive results as the Recon with the KO2 all terrain. The tire specification for the AEV Prospector (non-XL) calls for size 37X12R17. The only KO2 offered in this size has a load rating of D. While KO2 provided the Prospector with good overall off- and on-pavement performance, the tires were subject to accelerated wear, and their stability was less favorable while towing or if the truck was fully loaded. At 20,000 miles, with minimal tread remaining, the Prospector’s KO2s neared the end of their service life. The size and load rated KO2 provided the NMBR Rubicon (not the current Recon) with over 40,000 miles of hard use. As I haven’t run the KM2 or KM3 on the Prospector, it would not be fair for me to cast an opinion on either tires’ performance and durability pertaining to full-sized and heavy-weight applications. For what it’s worth, and so you know I’m not in bed with BFGoodrich, the Prospector currently sits atop 37-inch Nitto Ridge Grapplers.
Recommendations For overlanders and weekend warriors using their midsized truck or SUV for daily driving duties, maybe the Rubicon, San Juans, or Moab once or twice a year, and a slew of rugged multi-day traversals in between, my recommendation goes to the BFGoodrich KO2 all terrain. The KO2 provides better than average traction for an all-terrain tire while winning high marks in the pavement, weight, fuel economy, and winter season categories. The KO2 set the benchmark for all-around tire performance standards upon the completion of their exceptional two-year, 40,000-mile stint mounted an NMBR’s Rubicon.
For those hardcore trail enthusiasts, global overlanders, and professionals seeking the highest degree of uncompromised traction and durability, the KM3 mud terrain is best suited for the most unforgiving terrain and surface conditions. While the KO2’s tightly spaced and shallow treads allow better flotation in certain mud, sand, and snow conditions, the KM3 still provides stronger overall off-pavement traction. The KM3 reigns supreme across the technical trail, mud, rocks, and deep snow categories. Although the KO2 and KM3 come close, the takeaway here is that no tire is perfect; gains in one area can equate to losses in others. It’s up to the end user to decide what tire performance characteristics are most practical and important for their specific needs. As for what tire the Recon will finish out the 2019 season with, you’ll have to keep up with New Mexico Backroads’ adventures to find out.
KM3 Pros and Cons
Pros
On pavement Better handling, less noise, and less vibration than the KM2.
On the trail Excellent traction and performance over a variety of technical terrain. A smooth and plush ride over rough trail sections (better than KO2 and KM2).
Mud Excellent “grip and release” performance (better than KO2 and KM2).
Winter driving Good all-around performance for a mud-terrain (better than the KM2), and excellent performance for backcountry and snowy trail driving conditions (better than the KO2 and KM2).
Durability Excellent overall tire construction strength and tread wear characteristics. Brand new, the KM3’s main tread pattern depth measured 18/32 inches. After over 12,000 miles of use, the KM3’s tread depth measured an impressive 15/32 inches (sidewall is better than the KO2 and KM2; tread wear is better than KM2).
Cons
On pavement Noticeably louder and harsher riding than the KO2 on pavement.
Winter driving The KO2 performs better across a broad range of winter driving conditions and features the Three Peak Mountain Snowflake rating; the KM3 does not.
Tire weight The KM3 weighs more than both the KO2 and KM2. The weight gain adversely affects braking, acceleration, on-pavement ride quality, and fuel economy.
Statistics
BF Goodrich 35×12.50R17 Mud-Terrain T/A KM3
Price $323 each
Tire warranty A standard manufacturer’s limited warranty, which covers defects in workmanship and materials for the life of the original usable tread, or for six years from the date of purchase, whichever occurs first.
Load range E
Max load 3,195 pounds
Speed rating 121Q
Recommended rim width 8.5 to 11 inches
Weight 74.4 pounds
Average height at 28 psi on the fully loaded NMBR Recon 33.6 inches
Tread depth brand new 18/32 inches, tread depth after 12,563 miles of use was 15/32 inches.
NMBR Recon tire psi ranges during review On road, 28-30 psi; off pavement, 12-18 psi; On road snow and ice, 18-24 psi; off pavement snow and ice, 7-14 psi.
Wheels used for review 17 x 8.5-inch American Expedition Vehicles Salta Wheels (for JK Wrangler)
Please note: BFGoodrich provided the five KM3 tires used in this review at no charge to NMBR. NMBR was responsible for expenses related to mounting, balancing, and maintaining the subject tires and was not paid nor promoted by BFGoodrich (or any other companies).
To learn more about Jake’s adventures and endeavors, visit New Mexico Backroads here www.newmexicobackroads.com