I have these on my Hummer H2 in 37x12.5x17 size and they turn heads in appearence. The first set of these lasted 40,000 miles, the set I'm needing to replace now have 56,000 miles. The difference in miles was due to me not rotating them enough. I live in the Smoky mountains and rotating at 3,000 miles is the key to getting more out of them NOT 5000 like i did on the 1st set (my bad). Performace wise I've only got stuck once with them, and it wasnt the tires fault, it took a bullozer to pull me out of the mud as I was buried clear up to the floor of the truck. Mud and trail is not a problem with these, snow is OK, ice sucks, with ANY tire. Once broken in they are what I consider very quiet on the roads, as I do about 85-90% of my driving on paved roads. I guess the fact that I'm getting ready to put my 3rd set of these on the Hummer says I'm sold on them. The only negative I've had was with the facotry on another ser of different coopers I had on the wifes FJ Cruiser which wore out at 16,000 miles. After alot of arm twisting they gave me a 50% refund which I applied to a different brand for her FJ
Rating: 10
Product Details: "Cooper Discoverer STT On / Offroad Tires" by Editor - posted: Wed March 5, 2008 - Rating: 7.26
Last Review Posted by Unregistered - posted: Sun May 1, 2011 2:49am
For all of the claimants of increased mileage, hp and torque -- well that's great & I'm happy for you. But likely -- you're in no way, shape or form conducting a controlled study to reach scientific conclusions. In fact look up the ancient Westinghouse study -- and you'll likely get some incite into why you may believe that you are seeing improvements.
The modern "vortex-creating" and other "Tornado-like" devices likely came from -- an old GM problem, solution and patent. GM's patent-protection ran out about a decade ago.
Devices like Tornado that spin air are not new -- it is just the location of the device that is new. In the very early eighties -- Corvette developed a new hood profile and revised engine compartment with reduced height and inner clearance -- consequently the engineers had to develop a new "very low-rise intake" to lower the carburetor so to fit under the hood. No problem -- right!!?? Pretty sleek and sexy -- but did it run like a Corvette ?? The GM engineers had a performance disaster on their hands !! The engine was a dog -- little torque and no HP. Problem -- without a sufficient "drop" -- there was little intake velocity and no "packing effect" at high RPM. The drop from the carb to the base of the intake was about 3-4 inches -- while having to make very hard 90 degree turns in order to get to the runners. Result -- they couldn't get the mixture to stay atomized and suspended -- and they couldn't get sufficient flow to the ports.
So what was the solution ?? GM engineers invented bladed "vortex" inserts for under the carb -- built into the top of the intake manifold. Only function -- to spin the air fuel mixture -- since a spinning volume can turn corners more easily than a straight falling column of mixture. Well that's about it -- one "spinning" story created for a specific purpose -- and one that is well know to many OEM engineers. The Corvette bladed device was patented by GM -- but the patent ran out about 10 years ago. GM simply made their one bad situation -- better. Performance still being marginal -- during the next redesign cycle -- they corrected the original problem. Bandaid was gone.
For the gentleman who inferred that a "US Patent" would stop the automakers from desiring to leap-frog the competition with a "proven gas saving devise" -- either with or without licensing the device from the inventor -- is nieve. He must not have heard about the infamous "intermittent wiper" law suit. Regardless -- there are about 20 or so global automakers -- and if any one felt that the "Tornado" was worth while -- then one would have licensed or stole the idea already. (ie -- take China, Russia, etc -- do you think they care about US Patent Protection in their markets ? ) In order for an inventor to protect the worldwide market -- they need to file for patemt protection separately in different countries or regions -- globally. As soon as you go to market in any country -- and you haven't filed in all other countries or regions -- your device can be "knocked off". Normally -- it just won't be sold by another company legally -- where you hold patent protection. US law has no standing. So -- has anyone ever seen any OEM in the world -- with such a "gas saving device" in it ?? Consumer's Reports likely has the reason why.
So -- odds are -- save your hard earned money -- the data and logic are not with devices like these. But -- Nat Gas is on the way -- so "vote" and "invest" accordingly !! Keep jobs and our money in the old US of A !!
Rating: 1
Product Details: "Tornado Fuel Saver" by Editor - posted: Fri April 20, 2007 - Rating: 5.23
Last Review Posted by Unregistered - posted: Sat April 30, 2011 7:03pm
tires have maybe 7000 miles on them 18 months old.
small cracks have started in between v on side walls. one tire is no good one inch split.if you have these tires you should check them mine where made in 08 company will only prorate half.tires are now $375.00 i have 37/12.5/17
Rating: 1
Product Details: "Hankook Dynapro MT RT03 Reviews" by Editor - posted: Fri July 27, 2007 - Rating: 8.02
Last Review Posted by Unregistered - posted: Sat April 30, 2011 6:44pm
When my 35" Km's needed replacing I decided to go with the new KM2's, expecting all the same great performance. VERY disappointed!!!!!!! Even in 4lo with both front and rear axles locked, these can't even take me the places my BALD Km's could go in 2 wheel drive. A definite downgrade to my Jeep that cost me $1200. Boooooo
Rating: 1
Product Details: "BFGoodrich Mud-Terrain T/A KM2" by Editor - posted: Wed May 20, 2009 - Rating: 7.71
Last Review Posted by Unregistered - posted: Thu April 28, 2011 4:32pm
