 | Home > Wheels & Tyres > BFG MT KM2's - 235 vs 265 |
 
|
|
|
| Raddy Member Since: 20 Aug 2013 Location: St. Sampsons Posts: 55   
|
I have found in the year i've had my 90 that the grabber TR's have been pretty terrible in the wet at times, pretty vague on bends and the few times i have had to hammer the breaks due to crap drivers it was pretty hair raising. Not sure if this is because they have been on the car since new (2007) and have done almost 40K, might have gone downhill.
Anyway, set of 265 KM2's on order which should be here friday, hopefully a wise choice, from reviews/you guys on here they sound awesome. Might take a bit of getting used to in regards to noise etc and am hopping they aren't much worse than the old TRs in the wet as it is my daily driver but just have to alter the driving to fit i suppose. |
||
10th Sep 2014 9:00pm |
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20371 
|
The TR's I had on mine were only 26k and they were worn and causing me issues.
Wouldn't go back from BFG now |
||
|
10th Sep 2014 9:06pm |
|
| Maris Widgeon Member Since: 11 Dec 2013 Location: Cotswolds Posts: 216  
|
Been around land rovers for a lot of years and can safely say that the grabber TRs were the worst factory fit tyres for a long while. Replaced mine with BFG mud KM2 in 265 size and can say that it's the biggest improvement that I have made to my truck so far. A little bit extra road noise but not excessive with good road manners and forgiving of bad driving in the rough.
Also very good value for money as my tyres have done 40k miles and only half worn. |
||
|
10th Sep 2014 9:39pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
