36x12.5" ET'II Perfromance

Post by **Jay** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:15 am

Hey guys
With the Simex dealer getting the tyres very soon in Lebanon with a wide variety of sizes, I would like to know if anyone has experinced with the 36*12.5" ET'II I am wondering about its perfomance on rock? I m considering it rather than the 34x11.5" JT'II

Being a very aggressive threaded directional tyre it might be biting and digging more that what is needed in rock crawling situation?

How would you guys rate the 36x12.5" ET'II
Thanks

Post by **Mudzuki** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:15 am

Although i don't drive on these, i have seen many comp vehicles that do. Performance wise, they will be equal or better than the JT2s and better clearance to boot. If i had a heavier car, they would be my choice.

Post by **Ossie** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:39 am

As far as Rangies in competitions go, most people are not upgrading to the ET2's. The added weight of the tyre does not offer a significant gain over the increase in height, but this is in the higher driving speed events not rock crawling. With the higher diff clearance of the Rangies and 35's they are comparable to Nissans and the 36.5's.

At the Vicwinch04, it was observed that in the muddier conditions the three centre lugs of the ET2's prevented it from cleaning itself, the more open design of the traditional ET appears to be better in the mud, JTII's tend to dig moer of a trench in soft mud.

On rocks the greater contact surface area of the ET2's may be better that ET's and JTII'2.

Jason

Post by **Jay** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:26 pm

Jason

Do you mean the JT'II will dig more than an ET'II?
How much heavier will the ET'II be compared to the traditional ET?

Have the option to fit the ET, ET'II and JT'II on my lifted disco, wanna do it once for all this time.

Thanks
Jay

Post by **TuffRR** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Why not get the 36" ET2 with the two centre lugs. The 36/12.5 has the three centre lugs but IIRC there is a narrower 36" with only two.

I wouldnt't go wider than a 10.5 on a RR anyway. I have 35/10.5/15 on mine and they are plenty wide enough.

If you drive mud get the 2 centre lugs, otherwise if its rock dont get Simex. How much mud do they have in Lebanon anyway?

Post by **DiscoDino** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:10 am

The weird thing about the terrain in Lebanon is that in this little piece of land, is that the 4 seasons pass through it fully...so we get a HARD winter with loads of snow in the mountains, a lot of mud in the spring, rocks are everywhere...hell, we even have some explosive rocks (i.e. mines - joke!)...

Anyways, after using he 35x10.5x15 ETs, I think that the two lug Simex would do better than the new ones...the more void in the tires, the better the performance for us...

Post by **Ossie** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:42 am

Jason

Do you mean the JT'II will dig more than an ET'II?

In my experience the JTII's tend to dig down in soft ground more than the ET's, If the mud is only surface level (i.e 50mm oveer a hard clay base) this is not that much of a problem.

How much heavier will the ET'II be compared to the traditional ET?

I am unsure of the weight difference but there is one (a few kg's?). The ET2's are 11.5 or 12.5 wide where as ET's are available in 10.5. Being cautious with breakages, the centrifugal force of a 10.5 is less than a 11.5 or 12.5. I like to use the higher rev ranges in my rangie so this factored into the decision.

Jason

Post by **turps** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:37 am

If you want a bit more space between the center lugs the 35X11.5 have a larger void think they are part of the ETII range. Which alot who dont want a 36" have gone to.

Post by **GRIMACE** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:41 am

if you want even more space between the lugs look at the Silverstone Extremes

I have em and there prtty cool but very soft compound

Post by **TuffRR** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:16 pm

The soft compound should make the Silverstones pretty good on the rocks. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the Simex and Silverstone on the rocks. (Hint Anthony

)

Post by **GRIMACE** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:34 pm

I have stated it afew time that on wet rock they seem to be lacking but anything else there great.
I have to get sum second airs or something so i can go down to 4-6psi and really test em.

To give you an idea on road my pos cant spin the wheels, It rain and i drove my car onroad for the first time with these tyres and pulling out of my street I gave it abit as a car was coming...... all four wheel where spining at first and the car was not responding front end was sliding :roll:

I had to let right off and pull over to the left and wait till the car went past and take off gradually

these was lots of water on the road but it took me by suprise......

Also at ormuea i can here em spining on the wet rocks in the creek alot, always screech, sliding making funny noises

Post by **DiscoDino** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:52 pm

I had a fender bender on the 35 ETs when it was raining...they are TOO scary...the IROKs are much more easier to drive on the road...

Post by **Davidh** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:55 pm

Also at ormuea i can here em spining on the wet rocks in the creek alot, always screech, sliding making funny noises

I reckon they sound like an old dog trying to bark!

I had a fender bender on the 35 ETs when it was raining...they are TOO scary...the IROKs are much more easier to drive on the road...

Me too! Tried to pull up suddenly at a roundabout when it was pissing down rain and went straight up the back of a Commodre.
$6000 damage for him, just a scratch on my bar.

Post by **Rangie Wrecker** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:17 am

I run 35x10.5x16 ET's on my RR and as far as an all rounder go I think they are hard to beat.

I actually ran Mongrels on my Sierra when I used to do winch challenges with it and found them to be great on such a light car as the duo was a little softer and being radial based casings I could bag them right down on low pressures and had no issues with them.

The unsprung weight of the 36x12.5 would concern me as do the close grouping of the centre lugs as I believe them to be the ET's Achilles heal and I fail to see why they would want to add to this problem.

I had the option of going to the 35x11.5 this time and if I didn't already have a brand new 10.5 spare I would have. I would like to hear some feedback on the 35x11.5 as I believe they would be the best ET.

If you have dry dusty compacted country similar to Landcruiser park the JT2's are hard to beat but the ET's work well everywhere except wet rock. I used to run dirty old rag TSL's on an earlier Suzuki and to be honest they were a bloody good tyre.

From what I have seen of the new Silverstones they have two problems. Skinny sidewalls and no bead protection.

I guess it's up to individual preference but the ET 10.5 are proven in the field like no other. A large rolling diameter with a narrow width is a good combo.

Andy

Post by **Jay** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:18 pm

Andy

I tried the 35x10.5/15 ET's on my disco on three outings. I foundit to narrow for such a tall diameter...for ditch crossing and rock crawling situation and V-gulleys crawling.

I would see the JT'II 34x11.5 or the ET'II36*x12.5 to offer more edges in that matter. Their only pitfall would be the mud cleaning ability but the ET'II did fairl well in the last SIMEX challenge.
On 2.5" of added width I do not think it is possible to keep the contact area with 2 center lugs.
In addition the center lugs , JT'II for example, allow you to grab for more taction on wet rock.

What do u think?
Jay

Post by **DiscoDino** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:56 pm

I

R

O

K

Outer Limits 4x4 Board

36x12.5" ET'II Perfromance

36x12.5" ET'II Perfromance

Who is online