Subaru Outback Forums banner

REJOICE: T/A KO2 in 225-65-17!

209K views 179 replies 37 participants last post by  MiddleAgeSubie 
#1 ·
#45 ·
Gen3 OBXT with KO2s in 215/65-16 on Enkei RPF1 16x7. I am going to gift the car to my son, but need to make it more palatable to him, the snot. ;) A bit of an increase in road-noise, but nothing to whine about. Felt good on the hwy at 70mph. Ride is quote a bit more comfy, but it feels a little slopppy on the 360 on-ramps, TBE. Top of the caliper clears by about 3/8 but will measure. No need for spacers with the RPF1 at a +35 offset, but will be likely adding a 10mm spacer to clear AP Racing Sprint BBK. Rallitek springs and KYB struts are next.

Apologies for the garage cell pics:
 

Attachments

#46 ·
:welcome2: to the forum!

So, you went for the RPF1. Makes sense. It may be practically unbeatable in terms of weight for strength ratio. I considered it, but the tiny spokes failed to convince me (I do go in bigger rocks than most). I read that @bradze broke an RPF1 though I am not sure how. I also know a former forum member took his OB up a rough Colorado Pass on RPF1s w/o problems. All in all, I thought I would rather take the thicker RP03 spokes, otherwise the construction is identical.

The KO2 you got is probably C load rating, given the size.

I am no expert, but I have read that it is best to avoid using any wheel spacers on a Subaru.
 
#49 ·
I do not know. They do not make the RP03 anymore. That is why I got my set now--because it was on clearance. I was not looking for those specific wheels but when I saw them on clearance they seemed to check all boxes. I disliked the looks on the TR simulation, but found them better in person.

I do not ski, but I like Mammoth better:wink2: especially via CA120 or CA 108. Of course, those are not winter options, though they could be for an OB on winter tires, LOL.

Gotta love the entire Sierra Nevada, but the section between the mountain and the Bay area--no matter which road one takes--is one I am glad I rarely ever have to drive.
 
#50 ·
100 miles around town now. Time to re-torque the wheels. The tires continue to amaze me. They feel more livable in town the the aging AT-S, which makes no sense to me. They also inspire more confidence in town than the P-metric Toyo Open Country AT II I had on the B9 ever did. This, too, makes no sense to me. Put otherwise, the TA KO2 seem SUPERB so far, for an AT tire anyway. Of course, ride and noise are another story. I am talking braking (cannot feel any penalty), acceleration (cannot feel a difference in normal driving), and cornering (whoa, a few levels above the AT-S).

Of course, I did not buy these for around town, but all of the above is great nonetheless. I have a bad feeling they will be a bit tiresome on long highway drives, but nothing is perfect.

Now the question is if the TA KO2 is THAT good or if the Geolander AT-S is THAT bad :) Comparing the TA KO2 to all seasons I have had on my VTD Subarus, it is the former that seems to be the case. Sure makes the AT-S look bad though.
 
#52 ·
MiddleAgeSubie, thanks for posting up your initiation thoughts on the BFG TA KO2 tires.
While we are on it, what do you guys think is the optimal pressure for these tires on an Outback? This is an LT tire and there is no way 32/30 is the proper pressure for it. Do you have any idea?
 
#56 ·
We would recommend putting them at 35 and seeing how they ride.
Thanks! I will try 38/36, but doesn't going for the lowest acceptable lead to premature outside wear (as effectively under-inflated for tire type)? For now, I like how they handle and corner at 43/41 but the ride is, of course, firmer than what I am used to.
 
#57 ·
I went from a set of P-Metric tires on the Avalanche that was 35 psi max to a set of XL tires with 44 psi max. I find I like the Avalanche with 44psi in these tires. It's certainly somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison because of the size/weight difference between the Outback and the Avalanche, but it should be a similar comparison between max inflation pressure between tires. I always ran the P-Metric tires at 35 psi. The Avalanche weighs 6000 pounds so it's not an issue with tire wear to run at max psi.


You might try running a chalk line across the tread on the tires with the psi you like and see if the chalk comes completely off the tread after a few tire revolutions. It's a good method to check for a full footprint to make sure the tires will wear evenly. My guess is that you will be fine running your currently preferred psi.
 
#59 ·
Thanks, yeah, the chalk method is a good one--call me lazy for not having done it yet!

The maximum load rating is at over 60 PSI. So, 43/41 is on the low end of the spectrum.

I guess I will be experimenting with 43/41, 41/39, and 38/36.
 
#61 ·
@MiddleAgeSubie I know your intent of the KO2 was for the dirt but how do you like the road (tarmac) noise on them compared to other LTs you have had?

I just purchased the KO2 in 245/65/17 and have only about ~200 miles so far. I started with high PSI (60psi just to try it out; don't hate :)) and now I'm down to 45/42. Besides the over steer at the high PSI, I actually like the handling and response from the tires. I just hate the road noise since the loudest is at highway speed (60-67mph). Looking forward to your opinion since you been adjusting the pressure like me. But the lower I go, the louder it has been.

I haven't tried the chalk test yet since the roads have been moist most days I get off work. Contact looks good so far but I'll confirm once I can do some better analysis besides looking wet thread marks on the ground :p
 
#123 ·
I did a quick search on the term "psi"
it did not capture the entire discussion from MAS, I suggest searching further for his posts in this thread
I had private communication, and iirc, at the end of the math, I ended up believing the load table equivalent would be 40f 38r, but I have not confirmed what he is running now.

I suggest sending MiddleAgeSubie a PM, he is extremely helpful and has done a lot more miles since these posts:

post #61 of 122
I just purchased the KO2 in 245/65/17 and have only about ~200 miles so far. I started with high PSI (60psi just to try it out; don't hate :)) and now I'm down to 45/42.
post #62 of 122
I now have 250 miles around town.

I will go out 43/41 and return 38/36.
post #55 of 122
We recommend putting them at 35 PSI cold, and seeing how they ride. You can adjust up from there if need be.
post #56 of 122
Thanks! I will try 38/36, but doesn't going for the lowest acceptable lead to premature outside wear (as effectively under-inflated for tire type)? For now, I like how they handle and corner at 43/41 but the ride is, of course, firmer than what I am used to.
post #8 of 122
Just FYI, I'm running a set of 215/70R16 BFG A/T KOs on my 2013 Outback. I'm running them at 44/42 psi front/rear.

The 44/42 matches up loadwise per tire with the original P metric's 32/30. Lower gives a little softer ride, but increased road noise and reduced milage.
(I dont agree that lower gives more road noise, and Im not sure I agree that 44 matches 32, but that is what weldon posted)

I did post a load table, post #68 (I came up with 40psi on the K02 being equivalent to 32psi on a stock tire)
http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums/3633706-post68.html
and explanation how to use it. See the posts that follow for additional details on derating passenger tires, the difference to Light Truck tires, etc.
 
#62 ·
I now have 250 miles around town.

I should eat a lemon. The tires are livable around town. They corner better than the Geolander AT-S and I am unable to feel any impact on braking or any impact even on acceleration (vs AT-S). Very impressive.

We will see what I do when the Geolander AT-S wear off. There is time till that happens. But I am no longer so sure I will go for a set of all-seasons. Despite their weight, the TA KO2 feel far better around town than the supposedly mild and civilized AT-S ever did.

Noise: My roof bike carriers make a noise discussion out of place for now. I will hopefully know more within a couple of weeks. Weather is against us, but we still plan on a nice trip. I will go out 43/41 and return 38/36. At this point carrying the bikes makes no sense, so I will remove the carriers and that will allow me to judge noise.

Mpg has so far been a perfectly good 20 in mixed urban driving (some streets, some freeway, no heavy traffic). The AT-S would have been around the same number, maybe half a mile more, whatever.
 
#73 ·
Btw, finding a loophole to pass as a Martian and save a buck does not actually make one a Martian....

> In this case, the GVWR of the IV gen OB does not even make it to 1,200 lb per corner as F/R is almost identical.
agreed, the basis of Load tables is subject to question, but I want to work from a known reference basis, however flawed.

so let me put it in terms of an example.

Lets say the OB was rated to 4800 lbs GVWR (you can give me the actual figure off your door plaque if this is off base). So as you said, thats 1200 lbs per corner, average.

Now here is the point. The Load table for the Passenger tire, after derating for Martians, says each Passenger tire carries 1443 pounds. That is 23% more load capacity than actual GVWR. iow, there is a 23% "safety margin" of extra load capacity. This is normal for how manufacturers choose inflation targets.

The goal is to inflate to 20-25% more load capacity than the actual GVWR. Im going to use 25% in the following example:

IF the mfg objective is to give a safe inflation for a Maximum loaded vehicle, such that during cornering and weight shift, especially evasive maneuvers that potentially approach Lifting One Wheel Off the Ground, then it would make sense to set the car up to carry ALL its weight, essentially on 3 wheels.

So, IF a Martian Passenger tire can carry 1443 pounds per corner, I propose those 3 corner weights should be the target inflation for the actual maximum loaded vehicle weight. Here is what I mean:
If the tire is inflated to carry 1443 (after Martian derating), then 3x = 4329 pounds of vehicle weight.

So, I suggest you weigh your vehicle fully loaded at the maximum you use it, divide by 3, and consider inflating your new tire to that Load Capacity. I believe that 35psi on your new tire should carry 1443 pounds per tire also.

Therefore IF your fully loaded vehicle weighs 4329 pounds or less, then 32 psi on the Passenger tire, would be "safe", and 35psi on the LT tire would be equivalent.

So now we have some data points to crosscheck
1. The load table inflation should equal 25% more than actual weight

2. The tread temperature should be even across the face, not hotter nor colder in the middle.

3. Count Tread blocks touching the ground. 2 is too little imo, 5 is too many imo.. develop your own reference experience by driving, then counting tread blocks touching the ground.

4. For steering safety, I recommend having 1/2 more tread blocks touching in front. That means the front tire will be slightly more squished than the rear. This is going to create some understeer, for safety.

5. Caution, whatever you do, don't set the car up in a way that more tread blocks touch in back than in front. This can be dangerous. That is why when Subaru lists inflation specs for 200kilos of cargo in the rear hatch area, they call for 8psi more pressure in the rear tire. iow, Subaru increases rear inflation to offset the tire being squished by heavy cargo. They use 1 psi extra for each 50 pounds of cargo. And btw, passengers are not cargo, unless they are loaded in the rear hatch cargo area. If the passengers are in the seats, then Subaru does not suggest increasing rear tire pressure. (I think because the weight is not behind the rear axle.

Be safe, Have Fun!
 
#63 ·
The tires were perfectly fine over 450 miles of highway at 43/41 in terms of performance. In terms of comfort, they were harsh only over one specific type of choppy pavement, which in the Southwest is rare. With no bike racks and retracted crossbars, overall noise is very livable--but I am no fan at all of totally silent cars.

Off-pavement, I found it supremely confident over 160 miles of mostly frozen ground almost entirely covered by light snow with occasional ice patches and mildly muddy stretches over trails and roads from easy/smooth/wide to easy/rough/two-track. Did great over a couple of miles of a very narrow, soft-base, undulating-surface trail entered by mistake. Air pressure has been 35/35 since first off-pavement, since I am lazy as always to actually air down--or, rather, to air up. No wheel slip anywhere in these (admittedly) very favorable for my car/tire combo conditions.
 
#64 ·
After 2,700 miles the tires are off the car and cleaned of red Utah mud (to the extent that is ever possible, LOL). Only 180 of those miles were unpaved, but the point is that I continue to be very impressed by the KO2 on road. The only negative is the firmer ride (but harsh only rarely over really choppy pavement), but that is a welcome trade-off for an LT tire that can hold its own in any terrain. I am sure it makes more noise than other tires, but nothing that bothers me.

This thread attests to my back-and-forth about the KO2. Well, I am happy to report that "rejoice" was, in my view, the correct word choice for the title!

There has been almost no wear after 2,700 miles (starting point is 13/32). All tires have spots at under 13/32 (but I think more than 12.5/32) across the board as well as spots of 13/32 across the board (inner, middle, outer). The only difference is that the front tires have more full 13/32 spots than the rears. Apparently the moderate load in the back was enough to make a bit of a difference.

Mpg has been virtually unaffected compared to the AT-S. If there is a penalty, it is negligible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: subiesailor
#65 ·
I really liked them on the LC. I put BFG Rugged Terrains on my current Sequoia they replaced Geolanders that were absolutely the wrong tire for the heavy truck. I had leaky tires and drove it like walking on egg shells in fear of getting a flat. The rugged terrains are loud at 45mph but seem quieter at highway speed compared to the K2s. I put BFG touring tires on the OB when I couldnt stand the out of round Contis any more. The touring tires have been good. Touch stiffer side walls and superior balance holding and wear over the conti junk.
 
#67 ·
I did 43/41, 35/35, and 40/40. I guess I will stick with 40/40 for now with 35/35 from base-camp. I do not plan to air down, especially under 28, unless I go into deep sand or really challenging rock. I have done a lot more mud than sand but I avoid mud as much as I can. Choosing the right season better than I used to helped with the latter!
 
#75 ·
So will these fit on a stock 2014 Outback 3.6 that is spec'd with 225/60R-17 ?
Yes if you add a 1/2" lift and take off your mudflaps. (thats my understanding after reading the whole thread)

(maybe someone without a 1/2" lift and with mudflaps still on, will chime in also)

There are some pros and cons to a larger heavier tire; gain in ground clearance, loss of acceleration, lower RPM on highway, higher load on the transmission, better traction on dirt and snow, more tire drone on highway…

You will also want to consider carrying a full size matching spare that you keep in a 5 wheel rotation, to protect your transmission.

The stock tire weighs 25 pounds, the BFG is 14 pounds heavier (56% more weight at the end of a 3.2% longer lever arm), adds 1/2" ground clearance, and makes your gearing and speedo error, 3.2% taller. It also looks BaaadAzzz!

The car will crawl 3.2% faster at idle, and at a constant speed on highway, the RPM will be 3.2% lower, about a 60rpm lower, at 70mph (Im guessing, needs verification)

The BFG being taller will lag slightly behind the stock tire, when trying to accelerate from a stop, or when passing or merging.. This will make you use more power, which increases the load on the tranny, slightly or 3.2%, in this case.

I have destroyed more than one transmission on a 4x4 vehicle that I upsized from 28" to 31" tires, including transmission regearing. I used engine braking a lot, going down hill. Dont copy me. I should have used the brakes.

a taller and heavier tire puts higher load on the transmission during engine braking (deceleration), and during acceleration.

I personally, would be afraid to put the BFG on your subaru, because they are SO much heavier, even though I think BFGs are Way Cool!
 
#76 ·
Okay, thanks so much for the thorough reply! I might eventually add some lift but I'm not quite ready yet - I do have a full size spare setup though that I managed to wedge in the trunk partially deflated. I couldn't do that with the 65s I would wager.

I'll probably stick to the stock size and try the Geolandars out. Hopefully they're not as bad as everyone says they are! :)
 
#77 ·
I'm really having a hard time swallowing the assertion that a heavier tire will be detrimental to the 2.5's cvt. slow accelerations will display a negligible difference. Maintaining highway speeds will have zero difference. Braking may wear pads quicker.
The two tires I'm considering are 10lbs different per corner. I just can't see the problem. I don't floor my car more than once a week.
Would somebody care to provide evidence to the contrary?
 
#78 ·
I'm really having a hard time swallowing the assertion that a heavier tire will be detrimental to the 2.5's cvt….
ok, lets plug in some numbers and explore a fact based conversation

1. what is the size, weight and diameter of your stock tire?
2. what is the size, weight and diameter of your proposed new tire?

then calculate the percent increase in weight
and calculate the percent increase in diameter

the weight increase adds to the damping work of the shocks, to control the movement of the heavier tire.. the weight also adds to the work the motor and transmission do to accelerate and decelerate the heavier tire.

these people make a business of modifying Subarus, maybe pick their brain also
2010-16 Outback Lift Kit - Primitive Racing

now an example of how a heavier tire makes the motor and tranny apply more power
imagine a see saw and on each end is a person that weighs 100 pounds.. lets say this is our stock baseline

now change one of the people to be heavier by the same percent that the 10 pound heavier tire you're considering would be (35 pounds is 40% heavier than 25 pounds)

so, now the see saw has a person that weighs 100 pounds on one end and 140 pounds on the other

lets say the 100 pound person is the motor.. and their job is to lift the 140 pound person.. you can see where this is going.. the 100 pound person can NOT lift the 140 pound person unless the 100 pound person either jumps up and then lands hard on their butt, to try and lift the 140 pounder..

or, IF the fulcrum of the see saw could be moved 40% closer to the 140 pound person (the heavier person moves closer to the middle), then the see saw would work again.. moving the fulcrum of the see saw (or moving the heavier weight closer to the fulcrum), corresponds to changing gearing to a lower gear that can apply more leverage, this applies greater force

see how the heavier tire requires heavier forces to move it?:)
this problem is compounded when the heavier tire is also larger diameter
 
#80 ·
I stated that a heavier, larger wheel requires more energy to accelerate. Once at speed, the difference is negligible. But compared to the overall energy required to move a vehicle, the difference in energy required to spin a heavy wheel vs a light one is small. Very small.
My assertion is that a heavier tire will affect gas mileage and max acceleration without a discernible negative effect on the CVT, Not that it made no difference at all.

I mean, if one wanted to pay that level of attention to how much a cars systems are stained by weight it would also be advisable to empty it of all tools, extra seats and spare tire.

I'd rather just use my car.
But I'll reiterate, if there's proof to the contrary, I'd be thankful to see it.
 
#81 ·
Here you go. Lets do some quick calculations. Lets assume you want to accelerate from 0 to 60 MPH. Your car weight is 4000 lbs with passengers and cargo. Your wheel + tire weight is 45 lbs. Lets calculate the total kinetic energy of the car as well as the rotational energy of the tire/wheel combo.
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 m v^2 (m : mass in kg, v: velocity in m/s)
Ek = 0.5 * 1814.4 kg * (26.82 m/s)^2 = 652.5 kJ
The rotational energy in the tire/wheels are:
Er = 1/2 I * w^2 (I: moment of inertia, w: angular velocity )
w = v/r (r: radius of the tire: 14.25 inches = 0.362 m)
w = 26.82 m/s / 0.362m = 74.09 1/s
For the moment of inertia lets simplify the wheel/ tire to be a solid disk with equal density. For this simplification the moment of inertia is:
I = m*r^2 / 2 (m is mass of the tire wheel combo here 45 lbs = 20.4 kg)
I = 20.4 kg * (0.362 m)^2 /2 = 1.337 kg m^2
-> Er = 0.5 * 1.337 kg m^2 *(74.09 1/s)^2 = 3.67 kJ
Since we have 4 tires we have to multiply this by 4

The total energy stores in the car is E = 652.5 kJ + 4* 3.67 kJ = 667.18 kJ

Lets assume a second case with 60 lbs of tire wheel weight of the same size. The total weight of the car would go up to 4060 lbs. For this case the kinetic energy Ek = 662.2 kJ and the rotational energy is 4 * 4.9 kJ = 19.6 kJ.
The total energy is E = 662.2 kJ + 19.6 kJ = 681.8 kJ
The total energy needed to accelerate is only 2.2 % higher with the heavier tires. This is surprising even for me. So maybe someone can double check my math.
 
#84 ·
My 16x7 Enkei RPF1 with the 215/65R16 KO2 are on n*sioc if anyone wants a set. I am selling some OBXT stockers here and mentioned them in the classified as well. They are like new, 2K miles. My kid went with 17x8s to run AP Sprint brakes.

FWIW, the ride is excellent. A bit of noise but they track really well. We didn't get much snow in Tahoe (more than last year, however), and the car isn't a DD, but they are insanely good in ice and snow.
 

Attachments

#88 ·
No, just a commenting on a common practice of the Internet. I agreed that unsprung weight is beneficial and the mathematics displayed are for those who find interest in that type of thinking. For the other half ... Squirrel!

In all honesty, I saw the tires listed above and thought about seizing the moment since I will be in Tahoe, but despite my desire to have a track-ready adventuremobile, I had to remind myself I don't have a lift kit or a turbo... And if I have one more set of wheels/tires on the side of the house... Well that's something I don't need.

I just thought it was funny to read a nicer way to say "tl;dr".

I didn't know there was an ignore list. Time to delete said post.
 
#89 ·
about those tires, do they really are like best and tuffest all terrains in the world as they are called . ? i mean they seems score best in wet and snow from all terrains that we can buy today at 215/65/16 size. thats whats im aiming for mine obw. still thinking how long they would last compare with some geolanders and how better they actually are. like for real. i can get them for some 111 euros +-15. and geolanders for some 80 maybe.grabbers at2 for some 108 maybe. i mean those tires that people put on big trucks for real deal. and we put them on obw's . how cool is that :) and they look just so cool.
 
#90 ·
I do not know what "for real" means. A scientific test of the two tires on same car, same driver, same trails, driven one after the other while measurements are taken and then verified?

Nobody will do that, I guess.

So, for me, "real" is what I experience. I have 40,000+ miles on ATS tires and I cannot wait to finish the second set off and replace it with good street tires. I have 3,000 miles on the KO2 which for me are trip tires only. I cannot wait to put them back on! I find them BETTER on road (cornering, braking).

As for offroad, I have only used the KO2 on frozen terrain with some snow for about 200 miles. I never had any wheel-spin, which would not have been the case with the ATS.

As for tougher the KO2 ARE tougher than any other 17" option an Outback can fit. They have three-ply sidewalls and are engineered to resist punctures while driven at low pressure. So, in terms of ability to cope with harsh terrain, yes, they will be better than the ATS.

The only penalty of the KO2 over the ATS is the less smooth ride, which is to be expected for light truck vs pax car tires. Still, the ride is NOT harsh for me.

To me the KO2 is an altogether different league compared to the ATS. The latter is an old, surpassed model, surprisingly inadequate on the street. The KO2 is a brand new tire, surprisingly good on the street.

I cannot speak for 16" options, but I see no reason why the Grabber would be better than the KO2.

A great compromise would be the Cooper Discoverer AT 3 if available where you are.
 
#91 ·
Yes, imo the BFG deserves its reputation as best
I wont buy Geolanders, I consider them cheap
Ive had Grabbers and prefer the BFG. The grabber is softer and has smaller gaps between the tread, making them better on pavement, but not on dirt

Im totally biased, I will only buy BFG for dirt.. if snow was in the conversation I would be talking about Nokian being best, but nobody asked :). And the Subaru AWD system is really good, so it forgives minor differences in tires

I suggest you look up the tread patterns and make a decision based on how they look, knowing that wider gaps between tread blocks are better for shedding dirt, rocks, and heaven forbid, mud.

otoh, closer gaps, as in the Geo and Grabber, can be quieter on pavement, but as MiddleAgedSubie points out, and I agree, the BFG is suprisingly quiet considering its off pavement capability.

one other factor to compare, tire weight.. there IS a significant penalty to higher tire weights in terms of suspension unsprung rotational loads.. discussed a few posts back.

fwiw, imo a higher profile tire will have advantages offroad in terms of ride quality and ability to air down.. there is a reason people go to 16 rims when serious about off pavement tires..
 
#92 ·
i could only found cooper disco 2 here at this size. notin else from copper at this size at 215/65/16 . yes i read coppers are goo and people say they cheaper. well copper disco 2 here still are 100 euros and they look like just normal tire. then i have dunlop grandtrek at3 here . they all cheaper some but they have realy bad scores at wet and snow. and with ko2 i would able to just drive all year as i understand. i dont need very silent tires but not too louds too. and no need performance tires on corners or such. i mean im realistic for what are all terrains and dont want from them notin more. still as much as scores say about ko2 and surely they could lie but they say that those AT tires soo good at wet and snow and just anytin. so why you ever need separate season tires ever. if its more for daily driving and then some trails here and there, maybe some mud, water crossing and some fields...those should do trick.
other thing is how long they will survive compare to other AT tires. grabbers at2 are some long lasting tires as much as i was reading too but they not real snow winter tires. and not as much good on wet. i mean for people where can be some raining and wet roads, wet driving is really important.
so if those ko2 are so noloud and so good on wet and even good on dry and they long lasting ...they could be best. and for fueal usage they score an F . is that real ? but then all others AT tires have F for fuel usage as well and some even worse.
i bought this car just in winter with nokian hakkapelita tires with studs and now without snow i still dirving with those looooud winter tires . and in days i must allready change them to something that summer loves.
i have some old summer almost bold tyres but i want some badass all terrains now. with my lift i will go look for adventures ...those ko2 must love adventures i think :)
 
#93 ·
i have some old summer almost bold tyres but i want some badass all terrains now. with my lift i will go look for adventures ...those ko2 must love adventures i think :)
Considering that you are in Lithuania, the KO 2 seem the clear winner. Unlike the old KO, the KO2 DOUBLES AS A SNOW TIRE. It has the snowflake symbol. I think you would not mind the extra money once you have put them on...

You can still use whatever other tires you have around town, on a cheap set of wheels. Or you can buy STRONG lightweight wheels for the Ko2s, like I did.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top