What do you think of these tires for my Frontier...

jerryp58 · Apr 7th, 2006, 04:05 PM

Kumho Touring A/S 795

I like the size, ratings, specs, warranty, and price, but there are two things about them that concern me:

They're listed as Standard Touring while the truck tires seem to be listed as Highway Touring
They're white-wall

But, while they're not listed as truck tires per-se, I was looking at the specs and they're rated for 2194 lbs. @ 41 psi. That's more than the stock Generals.

And, I was thinking I could put the white-walls in and use Tire-Black (if that is still sold) or something similar on them.

What do ya'll think?

Gerald · Apr 7th, 2006, 04:17 PM

I am not an expert on tires so my opinion is just that, my opinion for whatever it is worth. I haul a lot of things in my truck and some of them pretty heavy.

In looking at the tread pattern on this tire it would not seem as well suited for my purposes as what is oem on our
trucks.

OkieScot

inyourface1650 · Apr 8th, 2006, 05:20 PM

The Touring A/S 795 is Kumho's Standard Touring All-Season tire developed to meet the needs of the drivers of coupes, sedans and minivans by blending long mileage and comfort with dry, wet and year-round traction, even in light snow. The Touring A/S 795 tires are intended to be one of Kumho's best values.

I dunno man, while the tires may be capable of handling that weight, they may not be designed to handle a big load for an extended period of time, like truck tires. That tread also loooks even less agressive then what my grabbers have stock...

jerryp58 · Apr 8th, 2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inyourface1650

The Touring A/S 795 is Kumho's Standard Touring All-Season tire developed to meet the needs of the drivers of coupes, sedans and minivans by blending long mileage and comfort with dry, wet and year-round traction, even in light snow. The Touring A/S 795 tires are intended to be one of Kumho's best values.

I dunno man, while the tires may be capable of handling that weight, they may not be designed to handle a big load for an extended period of time, like truck tires. That tread also loooks even less agressive then what my grabbers have stock...

I finally sent an email to tirerack to get their opinions, but yeah, I am a little concerned about the Standard Touring thing too. As far as the tread goes, I'm looking more at the Survey Results than anything else. The results on the Generals suck and the Kuhmos rate really well in Dry/Wet/Snow traction.

I've been looking at these too. They're a "Highway Touring, light truck" tire that's only a couple of more pounds than the 795s. I don't want to add too much to the rolling mass 'cause I don't want to hurt my MPG.

56cbr600rr · Apr 11th, 2006, 07:38 PM

I had these exact tires on my 2000 Frontier and they are great tires! I went up a size or soo too. They are a great value too.

Impressed enough to put kumhos on the 350z also!

jerryp58 · Apr 11th, 2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 56cbr600rr

I had these exact tires on my 2000 Frontier and they are great tires! I went up a size or soo too. They are a great value too.

Impressed enough to put kumhos on the 350z also!

Which ones did you use, the 795s or the HTs?

If it was the 795s, what did you do with the white-wall (or did you have black-wall)?

I've just about settled on the Venture HT 105S SL rated at 2028# @ 35PSI.

Marcus · Apr 11th, 2006, 08:29 PM

I used to have the Kumho 795's on my 1995 Nissan pickup. When I bought the truck used from a local dealer they were already on the truck. They worked really well for me. I hauled stuff with them all loaded up and they worked great. I don't think I ever rotated them and they lasted me about 60k miles. Mine weren't white walled, just black.

jerryp58 · Apr 15th, 2006, 09:18 PM

FWIW, I got the Kuhmo Road Venture HT 105S Standard Load (2028# @ 35PSI). They definitely feel different. They've definitely affected my speedo/odo meters. I may post again after I've lived with them for a while, but I think I'm going to like them. If they live up to what they're rated on TireRack.com, I know I'll like them. Anyway, thanks for all the input. Here they are...

abmobil · Apr 16th, 2006, 12:05 AM

How many miles did you get out of the factory generals?

jerryp58 · Apr 16th, 2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abmobil

How many miles did you get out of the factory generals?

The Generals were wearing pretty well. They only had 16k on them and looked good. My main motivation in changing was that I wanted a little bigger and "better" tire. I say better based solely on TireRack.com's customer review of the Generals and the new Kuhmo's. I ran the Generals for 15 months and saw some heavy rain, light snow, and some packed down (almost to ice) snow on the highway. I broke loose a couple of times in the snow & ice and I'd break loose in heavy rain with cruise on but, luckily, without incident. I'm hoping the Kuhmos will do a good deal better in all of those conditions. Time will tell.

mitchell35758 · Apr 16th, 2006, 05:25 PM

Those tires definetly give the truck a different look. I like them. I'm going to have to get some whilte letters once my grabber wear out.

How much has it changed your speedo and odometer? Is there anyway to calibrate it for the slightly bigger tires? I'm curious to see what affect it has on your gas mileage. I would like to go slightly bigger also.

jerryp58 · Apr 16th, 2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchell35758

Those tires definetly give the truck a different look. I like them. I'm going to have to get some whilte letters once my grabber wear out.

How much has it changed your speedo and odometer? Is there anyway to calibrate it for the slightly bigger tires? I'm curious to see what affect it has on your gas mileage. I would like to go slightly bigger also.

I'm surprised they're still selling OWLs & RWLs. Seems like the current "fashion" is to put them on the inside. I guess I'm so old I think they can still look good mounted out. I thought I would have liked blackwalls better, but I like the OWL.

My MPG will definitely be interesting. I checked the odo against our highway mile markers and it looked like I was about 3% or so on the low side. That sounds reasonable to me because before the new tires I thought I was about 2-3% too high and the new tires are supposed to cause a 5% decrease in odo reading. So, my current MPG average (27) should be about 2-3% too high; making the real MPG no less than a little over 26. If everything else remains the same (and part of my choice for these tires was that they were only 30# each versus the 28# Generals), I guess I should see the total 5% decrease to around 25.5. Hopefully, I've applied those percentages correctly.

According to my local Nissan service dept., there is no modifying the speed seen by the ECU, so I'm stuck with those numbers. The shop didn't seem too shook up about it and didn't seem too surprised when I told them I thought I was 2-3% high with the Generals. I guess they get a lot of that. Anyway, I guess it'll take 15 months of running on the low side for my mileage to balance out after 15 months running on the high side.

Evi|Chicken · Apr 24th, 2006, 01:54 AM

I got rid of my generals in about 500 miles... the traction was not to my liking. Went for BFG All Terrain KO's...Gottta Love em

mitchell35758 · Jul 24th, 2006, 03:24 PM

Hey Jerry
Its been a while now, and I am still curious how the slightly larger tires are doing for you.
I'm going to start planning for new tires at the end of this year, and want to get an idea of what I will be buying now, so I wanted to ask you if you regret the new slightly larger tires at all.

thanks

jerryp58 · Jul 24th, 2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchell35758

Hey Jerry
Its been a while now, and I am still curious how the slightly larger tires are doing for you.
I'm going to start planning for new tires at the end of this year, and want to get an idea of what I will be buying now, so I wanted to ask you if you regret the new slightly larger tires at all.

thanks

It's a tough call. I just ran the numbers on the MPG. If my "corrected" mileage is correct, then the MPG is virtually unchanged. With 19 observations on the 225/70s and 13 observations on the 235/75s, the MPG is 26.3 and 26.1 respectively. With all of the other factors (testing 89 versus 87 full petroleum fuel versus 87 E10, winter driving, summer driving, hauling, etc.) it's tough to say what effect, if any, tire size had. Of course, the illusion of higher MPG with the smaller tires was nicer.

All that said, I think I'm happy with the size. If "fits" the truck better. The wheel wells are filled just a bit more and it feels more like a truck (that might be a bad thing for some people).

Who knows, if I keep the truck as long as I think I will (and I never get my boat), then maybe someday I'll go to a more "street" look. But as it stands right now, I have no intention of replacing these tires until they fail inspection.

Did that answer your question