Mastercraft Courser CXT

Mastercraft Courser CXT 

Commercial Traction

Most light-truck tires are welcome in my garage, from tame all-terrains to the impressively streetable modern mudder. However, I have a strong preference for rubber that fit neither category, those that intentionally blur the lines of distinction, finding their own focus. Known by their traditional name, commercial traction tires, or aggressive all-terrains, hybrid, or the newer slang moniker, tweener (in-between), the design goal is similar.

Commercial traction tires are not new, they have been produced for decades, though the choices were fewer and they rarely received much marketing budget. Still not necessarily the beneficiary of the biggest advertising campaigns, depending on the brand, the performance advantages of modern hybrid treads have won-over many enthusiasts as a practical choice with fewer compromises. This segment of the market demands good grip on multiple surfaces, load-carrying capability, and puncture resistance.

Notably better in sloppy stuff than a typical all-terrain, with less noise and superior versatility than muds, there is much to like. Some have more sipes and the 3-peak/snowflake winter rating, while many don’t, but still perform well in the wet stuff. Nearly all have prodigious tread depth and void—particularly at the outer lugs—that broadcast their ability to absorb and fling muck when required. Mud-terrains are often described as 20/80-designs (20% road 80% dirt/mud), but commercial tractions are generally 60/40, 50/50, or 40/60, depending on their characteristics.

Mastercraft Courser CXT commercial traction tires

Mastercraft Courser CXT

In May 2016, Mastercraft Tires introduced their new light-truck (LT) commercial traction tire, the Courser CXT. It’s a mid-void, 4-rib that replaces the Courser C/T (C/T = commercial traction). Mastercraft is a subsidiary of the Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, one of the few remaining American tire companies and manufacturers. Before sharing my observations and insights, what Mastercraft says about their product is quoted below in orange:

Overview

The Courser CXT was designed as a premium light truck commercial traction tire that provides trusted all-terrain performance with enhanced off-road durability. The CXT features variable full depth siping and a silica rich tread compound for enhanced wet and winter traction. The large tread element and blocky design help to resist abnormal wear while enhancing tread stability and durability.

Large Surface Area Tread Blocks

Provide increased grip on and off-road while improving wear performance.

Optimized Void-to-Rubber Ratio

The amount of rubber on the road is optimized to provide rough terrain traction and enhance on highway driving comfort and feel.

Enhanced Upper Sidewall Design

The shoulder design increases off-road traction with side traction blocks and the circumferential raised rubber feature protects against sidewall abrasion and impacts.

Large Shoulder Scallops 

The scallops provide a “mud-scoop” effect for dependable off-road traction while giving the CXT a more aggressive look, to enhance the appearance of almost any light truck vehicle.

M+S Rated

Extra Tidbits

The CXT is offered in 29 sizes, starting with the oldie-but-goodie 31×10.50R15LT, up to the 35×12.50R20LT. The size breakdown includes three 15-inch (all load-range-C), nine 16-inch, nine 17-inch, five 18-inch, and three 20-inch sizes. All sport a substantial 18.5/32-inches of tread depth, offering potentially more grip and longevity than others that start with less. In addition to the M+S rating, the CXT can be studded.

18.5/32″ tread depth in all sizes
Deep sipes

For those familiar with Cooper’s other LT designs, it is easy to assume that the CXT is simply a different tread slapped onto their extremely popular and capable, Discoverer S/T MAXX casing. Not so, they are different tires, both tread and carcass. Yet, many considering the CXT will likely also consider the S/T MAXX.

Mastercraft CXT vs. Cooper S/T MAXXTwo Primary Differences 

The Discoverer S/T MAXX employs Cooper’s Armor-Tek3 carcass, a 3-ply sidewall, whereas the Courser CXT uses a 2-ply design. There are pluses and minus to both depending on one’s needs; 3-ply sidewalls are generally more rugged and stiffer, where a 2-ply may flex better, ride softer, and weigh slightly less.

The S/T MAXX is optimized for severe cut and chip resistance. When the MAXX was added to Cooper’s light-truck line it’s closest sibling was the S/T (no MAXX), which was/is not nearly as cut and chip resistant. The Discoverer S/T is also a straight 4-rib, where the MAXX’s center alternates between four and five.

Tread and sidewall specifications for a CXT 255/80R17E
255/80R17 Cooper Discoverer S/T MAXX and Mastercraft Courser CXT

The CXT has extra silica for additional wet traction. The slightly higher-void of the 4-rib CXT is visually similar to the older Cooper S/T, but the CXT has deeper scalloped outer lugs, plus beefy upper-sidewall (shoulder) tread that the older S/T does not.

More or slightly less void, 2-ply or 3-ply sidewalls, increased wet traction potential or optimized cut and chip resistance…only you can decide.

Outer rib tread lugs—Cooper S/T MAXX, Mastercraft CXT

Cult Of The 255 / The Third 255/80R17 

Several of the 29 Mastercraft Courser CXT sizes could fit one of my vehicles, and I was tempted to pick a larger size. However, for nearly two decades I’ve run and been a fan of moderate width tires, chiefly the 255/85R16, and for a few years its 17-inch brother, the 255/80R17. Mastercraft makes the CXT in both of these sizes, and 255/8x aficionados are surely rejoicing!

Mastercraft Courser CXT tread close-up

One challenge for those wanting to move to the 255/85 size is the lack of treads with less void; many current 255/85R16 offerings are mud-terrains. The 255/85 has become a niche choice, with few newer trucks using 16-inch wheels. The 255/80R17 is even more specialized. Mastercraft’s introduction of the CXT raises the total number of tires offered in this size to three. Cooper makes two of them; BF Goodrich’s mudder is their only competition.

Height, Weight, Width

A super-clean set of fourth-generation Ram 17×8-inch WFK forged-aluminum wheels were purchased from a Craigslist seller, each weighing just 21.8 pounds with the hubcap. Unmounted, a 255/80R17 CXT registers 55.2 pounds on my shop scale (the same size S/T MAXX is 58 lb.), and once mated to a WFK wheel the combination measured 77.2 pounds. Inflated to the maximum 80 psi, the overall height was 32 15/16-inches, with 8-inches of tread.

255/80R17E mastercraft CXT tire weight

It’s noteworthy that I’ve repeatedly found published specifications for Cooper-manufactured tires to be accurate. For this tire and size, on a 7-inch wheel, Mastercraft lists overall diameter of 33.15-inches, and tread width of 8.07-inches. Acknowledging that manufacturers’ measuring tools are likely more accurate than my straightedge and yardstick method, and the 255/80 CXT was mounted on a wider wheel, my measurements were still within nearly two-tenths. For the curious, the unmounted height was almost a half-inch shorter, but focusing on unmounted diameter is pointless: tires are not used without wheels and compressed air.

CXT 255/80R17E tread width is eight inches, both unmounted and mounted

Mounting And Balancing

Manufacturing  tolerances, weight, width, construction, and the wheel employed all affect how easily and well an assembly is balanced. In general, smaller and lighter equals easier to true. Using the static, single-plane method, the ounces of wheel weight required were:

#1 3.50

#2 2.75

#3 2.50

#4 4.50

Discount Tire has been mounting and balancing my tires lately
Modern spin balancing is quite good. Single plane, “static” balancing was chosen

First Drive 

The tires were immediately put to work supporting a maximum load on a built Ram that typically lives at its 10,000-pound Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), carrying a Hallmark Milner camper, tools, and other supplies. With the fronts at 60 psi and the rears at 80 psi, the ride was neither mushy nor harsh. Over a familiar section of freeway where expansion joints can induce freeway hop (generally not a problem on this truck) the CXTs exhibited no such tendency. Steering response was excellent, a common trait with narrower tires, as they take less energy, time, and effort to change direction. Even at paralegal speeds, balance didn’t change and no bad-vibrations were felt.

Noise

Initial impressions were that noise is slightly more than the popular Cooper S/T MAXX, which is an impressively quiet design. This is not surprising as the CXT has a higher-void, 4-rib pattern instead of the MAXX 4/5-rib. The volume and deeper tone is not annoying or loud, and what I expected; both are certainly much quieter than any mud-terrain. The CXT sounds similar but slightly quieter than the older Cooper Discoverer S/T (not to be confused with the S/T MAXX, STT or STT PRO).

Appearance

Function is more important than form, but many like their 4WDs to look tough. Before receiving this set of Mastercrafts I’d not seen the tire in person, just the few marketing shots online. There were no substantive professional reviews or user reports. This article still may be the first. The outer lug scallops were a pleasant surprise, and the sidewall shoulder tread was beefier than I expected. Pretty sexy, in a nice, girl-next-door way.

An OEM 17″ WFK forged aluminum wheel and a 255/80R17 Mastercraft CXT are a light tire and wheel combo, only 77.2 pounds

Notes On Tracking

When changing to a different tread, size, and/or wheel, there is a possibility that your vehicle may need a custom alignment to match the new combination to the chassis. Some folks are willing to ignore a little drift (or pull) right or left, where others find any drift unacceptable. Some tires have a well-deserved reputation for directing vehicles to the shoulder or median, but different trucks and roads can cause different behaviors.

If your truck has an independent-front-suspension (IFS), adjusting the caster (and to a lesser extent camber) to help it track straight should be easy for a good alignment shop willing to make custom adjustments. Be willing to pay more. Finding such an establishment with a skilled technician may be challenging. Many places that should know better still want to use the factory geometry for modified rigs when different settings would fix or dramatically improve drivability.

Picking My Own Line

The 2014 Ram initial CXT test platform has a Specialty Products Company (SPC) 1.5-degree offset ball joint at the right-front, installed after only 1,500 miles to counteract the characteristic right-pull of many Ram trucks and/or some tires. Before any modifications, still running the stock Firestone highway treads, this truck drifted right and would head for the shoulder quite rapidly if the steering wheel was released, typically in six seconds or less. Unacceptable.

The SPC offset ball joint increased caster angle on the right, effectively directing the truck left helping the chassis drive straight without input from the driver to correct the right drift. With such an aggressive geometry modification there is always the possibility, even likelihood, that the truck will track left with some tires or under certain circumstances, including differing road crown. This was a compromise I was willing to live with, but it’s not for everyone. Swapping ball joints is not a trivial affair on a live-axle truck.

With the CXTs mounted, this truck has a slight tendency to go left, depending on the roadway. However, three “look mom, no-hands” tests during the first 100 miles, under suboptimal windy freeway conditions, achieved 12.06, 11.90, and 12.26 seconds before semi-autonomous driving had to be curtailed to prevent the truck from changing lanes. These are good numbers, but not surprising as narrower treads generally track (much) better than wide ones. This also means I’d be perfectly happy to run these on long road trips. The stars were aligned during another test on Interstate 5 in California where I clocked 25 seconds of straight tracking. A buddy’s Dodge that drifts right with most tires, still did with the CXTs mounted . Your truck may vary; adjust as needed.

No complaints after the first few thousand miles

Sources: 

Cooper Tire & Rubber: coopertire.com

Mastercraft Tires: mastercrafttires.com

Specialty Products Company: spcalignment.com 

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler. All Rights Reserved.

Favorite LT255/85R16 Part Two

Edit- Check out my new favorite(s) 255/8x tread(s), link below

Link- Mastercraft CXT (with Cooper S/T MAXX comparisons.

 

Favorite 255/85 Part 2

Over that past several weeks I’ve found myself seriously considering a new set of 255/85R16 tires for my old F350 (Pull Dog), which was recently put back in-service after an embarrassingly long hiatus. Maxxis Bighorns or Toyo M/Ts are the only treads I’ve been considering, both readily available from Les Schwab Tires where I do much business.

Toyo M/T & Maxxis Bighorn LT255/85R16

The reason for the 255/85 tire shopping is not because I need tires; the Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R16 currently mounted on the Ford have plenty of tread remaining. In fact the fronts are essentially new, two years old but with less than 1,000 miles on them, and the spare and rears have 17/32” of tread, literally tens of thousands of miles ahead if I continued to drive on them (new 285/75R16 F-C II come with 20/32”!).

20/32″ of tread depth on a new Dick Cepek F-C II

As much as I love the F-C II tread pattern, the 285s are squeezed on the OE 7-inch wide wheels, and technically 285s shouldn’t be on a wheels less than 7.5-inches wide. It’s not the worst match ever and lots of people do this, but it’s not ideal, particularly when airing down. When running low pressures (20-ish) with this combination on such a heavy truck off-highway, the rim abnormally squeezes and folds the sidewall of the tire under the rim, worse on the front, making the sidewall and shoulder of the tire abnormally vulnerable. The larger sidewall budge is even more of a concern with normal-duty tires like the F-C II which has reasonably rugged sidewall tread, but not the massive sidewall lugs we’ve come to expect on modern, aggressive mud-terrain tires. Regardless of the tire or sidewall design it’s ideal to drive on the tread, not the sidewalls, as all sidewalls are inherently vulnerable, even those with lugs and tread.

I’ve considered new 16×8-inch wheels, 17×8-inch wheels (good for the 17-inch future and some 17” tires I already have on another rig) but I’m not certain having a different set of wheels for the old Ford is a good plan. The original 16×7-inch forged aluminum wheels made by Alcoa are very strong, very light, and are about perfect for this truck except for running a wider, 285 tire. Before repairing Pull Dog’s major coolant leak recently, I sold two sets of used 255s last year (LT255/85R16 Tire Delivery Part 1), including one set of serviceable Maxxis Bighorns that were on the F350. Since my fleet inventory contains plenty of 285 treads in the 16 and 17 inch flavors, 8-inch wide wheels make lots of sense for the F350 even though I don’t like tires & wheels that extend beyond the fenders.

LT285/75R16E Toyo M/T on the OE 7″ F350 wheel at 15 psi, shoved into a hillside

Of course buying new 16×8 wheels would fit the current F-C II 285s perfectly, and would also happily accept 255s in the future. However, wider wheels—even with the same positive backspacing as the OE wheels if I could find any I like—will not be as tucked and tight to the body, and will stick out on the front axle. After studying the offset and backspacing on several sets of wheels, it looks like the best case would be 8-inch wide wheels with zero offset. These would push the tires & wheels 3/4-inch outboard compared to the stock, positive offset 7-inch wheels. Of course there are other advantages to running a 255/85 over a 285 tire, including potentially better fuel economy, better tracking on/off-highway, they typically cost and weigh less, etc.

Width matters. Toyo M/T: 265/75R16, 255/85R16, 285/75R16

Will the best 255/85R16 please roll-up and kiss me

Maxxis Bighorns are still a load-range D tire, which I prefer for the ride on a firmly-sprung 1-ton truck. There are pros and cons to running different load ranges, for more on this see this post: Dick Cepek and Mickey Thompson Change Load Range D For E.

The Toyo M/T is a load-range E, a stiff load-range E (not all are created equal), with thick 3-ply sidewalls and a 7-ply tread. Toyos have a well deserved reputation as a very rugged tire both on-highway and off. Toyo M/Ts are also relatively expensive, but in the moderate 255/85R16 size they can be found for under $300 each, not bad these days for a top quality heavy-duty light-truck tire. Maxxis Bighorns are less expensive, but not nearly as enticing as they were a few years ago when they could be purchased for a mere $150 each, but all tires are notably more expensive than just a few years ago.

If new Toyo M/T treads didn’t cost $1,200 my old F350 would be sportin’ a new set of 255/85s right now…I’d like to have them before a rapidly approaching hunting trip. To help push myself over-the-edge I offered a few friends my set of five Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R16D tires, which would take a big bite out of a Toyo M/T bill. One guy wants them but he doesn’t have cash. Money talks and…

255/85R16E Toyo M/T & Dick Cepek F-C II 285/75R176D

And after all this, I’m not completely convinced I should make the swap even if I can sell my F-C IIs. The F-C IIs have plenty of capacity (3,305# per tire @ 65 psi) ride much better (softer) than Toyo M/Ts when unloaded and at moderate speeds off-highway, are already mounted & balanced, track well on the Ford, have tons of tread remaining, and are flexible (good traction). The only cons are that the F-C II are not as rugged and they’re squeezed on narrow rims.

New Treads, Alignment, and Wear

If I mount new Toyos on Pull Dog will I need an alignment? If not needed I probably should have the alignment checked, it’s been years… I suggest getting the alignment whenever one mounts new or different tires, it’s foolish to jeopardize new, expensive tread with sloppy front-end maintenance. While I’m a very enthusiastic fan of the Dick Cepek F-C II tread design, I’ve been running them on my lighter 4Runner and second generation Tundra, and it would be nice to see how they perform for me on a heavier truck with low gears, a manual transmission, and serious diesel torque. Will they last as long? Compared to the Toyo M/T tires, I have no doubt the F-C II will wear much longer, and their winter traction will be superior. The only areas where the F-C II can’t compete with the Toyo M/T is ruggedness and serious slop traction, and I’m not sure I need those features 99 percent of the time, though they would be nice while traveling in the backcountry. Oh yeah, and the perfect fit of a 255/85 on the OE 7-inch wheels on a 1996 F350.

A 255/85 fits and works perfectly on the old Ford F350

One thing is for sure, when it comes to putting down my credit card for a new set of tries for the 1996 F350 I’ve moved the Toyo M/T to the top, thus it’s my (current) favorite LT255/85R16 for this truck. There, I said it.

Copyright © 2012 James Langan

My favorite LT255/85R16?

Check out my current favorites below

Link: Mastercraft CXT and Cooper S/T MAXX

 

I was asked about my favorite 255/85R16 tire these days. Favorite? Just one? Singular? This was a tough assignment for me. All my buddies know it’s impossible for me to have only one set of truck tires in my shop. It depends on the application, but what’s my final answer?

For most of us price is at least somewhat of a consideration, if not a major factor, when choosing tires. I’ll give cost some consideration, though I prefer to buy the rubber I want, and think of the relative value over 40,000 miles or more. Sometimes a little faster rate of wear is a fair tradeoff for performance.

Maxxis Bravo MA-761 and Toyo M55 in 255/85R16

Mostly Muds

While I wish there were more all-terrain or commercial traction treads in the 255/85 size there are only a couple. The Toyo M55 is one commercial traction tire that comes to mind, and the load-range D, 3-ply sidewall Maxxis Bravo MA-761 is a the only stout, low-void tire in this size. The rest are essentially mud-terrain tires.

Regional availability varies and I suggest considering this before a purchase. With few exceptions, most stores will need to order a set of 255/85 tires. In my part of The West, 255/85R16 Toyo M/T, M55, and Maxxis Bighorns can be found at many Les Schwab Tires stores, and if not in stock, will arrive a few days after an order is placed. I’d be willing to bet cash that few (if any) local tire stores stock the BFG Mud-Terrain. However the online tire giant, Tire Rack, has a warehouse nearby, and a short drive any business day would put a set of 255/85 KM2s in my pickup.

LT255/85R16E BFG KM2 treads on a 2006 4Runner

Toyo M/T 

If you’re looking for very heavy-duty construction (and heavy), smooth running on pavement, and a reputation for balancing well, the Toyo M/T is a top choice. Tread wear can be very good, or lousy depending on the rig and the driver. Their tendency to pull, often right, on (my) Toyota 4WDs and many Dodge trucks has made me reconsider my praise for Toyos in recent years where I used to swear by them. Their cost is a little scary too, though the 255/85 size is small enough to be affordable; all tires have become more expensive.

When the stoutest tire is not needed, I don’t like the extremely low pressures needed to make the Toyo M/T ride nice and flex the way I prefer off-pavement. At normal pressures on-highway ride is also firm, this is the price that must be paid for extreme-duty construction, the 3-ply sidewalls, and 7-ply tread. Some dislike the appearance of the Toyo M/T, but I think it’s a sharp looking tire. Noise is moderate for a mud terrain tire.

The previous BFG KM Mud-Terrain and the Toyo M/T in 255/85R16.

BFGoodrich KM2

With enough saddle time above a set of 255/85R16s and 285/75R16s to know how they perform off-highway, the BFG KM2 has impressed me as a load-range E, 3-ply sidewall tire that flexes well when the air pressure is dropped. BFG claims this in their advertising and it’s true. So while I’m not a BFG fan, this flexibility has my respect because I like flexible tires that are tough enough.

BFG also deserves credit for their commitment to the 255/85R16 size, as they made it for many years in the previous Mud Terrain design, for years now in the KM2 pattern, and offer essentially the same 17-inch tire, a 255/80R17. I’ve not had any failures with BFGs, but they’ve also never been my favorite tires, so I never put more than a few thousand miles on a set.

Most seem to be satisfied with how KM2s perform and last, but for years I’ve heard reports of inconsistent balance with BFGs. I experienced this myself with a set of 255/85 KMs (not KM2), which were only slightly worn and started to require more lead to balance after a few thousand miles. BFGoodrich deserves credit for taking chances when designing the KM2 which is a nice, different looking tire that has plenty of sidewall tread. A good price for a set of 255/85 KM2s should be much less than Toyo M/Ts.

Maxxis Bighorn load-range D and BFGoodrich KM2 load-range E LT255/85R16 tires.

Maxxis Bighorn MT-762

When Les Schwab Tires started selling the Bighorn a few years ago, including the 255/85R16 size (blackwalls too!), I was quick to buy a set. At the time they did full-time duty on my built 4Runner and were an exceptional value, about $150 per tire. On many occasions I was thoroughly impressed by the grip the Bighorns delivered. Part of their traction advantage comes from the relatively soft, flexible tread compound, which also results in pretty fast wear. Bighorns are also a little loud, not howling ‘swamper’ loud, but a typical mud tire hum, a bit more to listen to than either the Toyo M/T and KM2, particularly as they wear. As I mature, I’m less tolerant of everyday tire noise, and actually prefer something quieter than all three of my examples here. If you’re not averse to a little mud tire noise, the Bighorns are a great tire. They are still a load-range D 255/85, only a 2-ply sidewall design, though I’ve yet to rip one open. I’d like to see Maxxis update their design and add thicker tread material on the upper sidewalls.

My first set of Bighorns made me a fan of Maxxis light-truck tires, when they balanced with very little weight. This spurred me to purchased a set of Bravo all-terrains, which also required little weight to balance and were great on the road. My second set of 255/85 Bighorns also balanced well, but never saw much use before being traded. A third set of Bighorns, used 285/75R17s, that I acquired for testing a few months ago also balanced very well even though they had some uneven wear. A little noisy and fast wearing they may be, but they are still a decent value if you don’t have to pay full retail, and even better if you’re able to use them mostly off-highway.

Copyright © 2012 James Langan