Page 1 of 1
dick cepek fc2 vs bfg at's
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:25 pm
by known 2
i'm after some opinions on these 2. I've allready heard alot about the bfg at. but not compared to this new offering from mickey thompson. the size i'm looking at is 265/75/16 or 275/70/16.
can anyone give me exact tyres sizes of the bfg and the fc2 in these claimed measuments aswell?.
cheers.
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:20 pm
by badger
id pick the fc2's everytime over bf's
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:16 pm
by MUD EMPIRE
265/75 16 FC 2 is, (fitted on 8" wheel) 805 high and 215 in tread width.
And, yes, the FC 2 eats the BFG all day every day.
If you want comparisons on size alone, the BFG seems to be a bit bigger
than the M/T when looking at same sizes...............Dave.....
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:39 pm
by -Scott-
The BFG A/T was a great tyre in it's day, but I think the market has overtaken it. Of those two, I'd take the Dick Cepek every time.
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:42 pm
by Snarba
I've got DC's and they seem pretty good but I did get a sidewall puncture from a stick (only 120ks on them
)and I reckon the soft new rubber didn't put up much resistance, but I'd go them over BFG's fer sure
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:59 pm
by Goatse.AJ
Don't care what other tyre you're considering. BFG A/T's are a soccer mum tyre.
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:33 pm
by turkey
A mate has them on his 2001 Troopy and I must admit they are a great allround tyre. He has gone JUST about everywhere that we have with muddies. Seem to be wearing very well too....
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:54 pm
by known 2
thanx for the replies, i like the fc2 aswell