Firestone Destination AT and BFGoodrich KO2are both All-Terrain tires. The tread depth of both tires is the same but the void ratio of KO2 is higher compared to AT which allows lesser contact patch with the road, making it better for off-road driving.
While AT has a center rib and a lower void ratio in comparison allowing greater contact patch with the road, making it better for on-road traction. The higher built quality and the tread pattern design of KO2 are well suited for off-road traction.
For a further in-depth comparison between these two tires, continue reading.
Comparing Firestone Destination AT with BFG KO2
The AT has a tread compound molded into an asymmetric all-terrain tread pattern. Circumferential and lower void ratio as compared to KO2 enhances its traction while on-road, and also faceted tread blocks and sipes improve wet and soft snow traction, giving good grip and handling. Narrow grooves with a decent look give this tire a great advantage over on-road, producing less noise making the tire more comfortable.
The KO2 has a cut and chip-resistant compound molded in its aggressive tread pattern. KO2 all-terrain tires have interlocking tread blocks with a higher void ratio as compared to AT between them, which enhances its traction while off-road traction and improved-wet grip and handling. KO2 is designed to deliver go-anywhere traction along with outstanding durability and great wear even in mud and soft snow conditions. KO2 tire is also branded with the three-peak mountain snowflake (3PMSF) symbol. The serrated shoulder design and sidewall armor not only delivers additional traction by providing the claw action necessary for the grip during dirt, sand, and soft snow but also protect from cuts during rock terrain. The higher void ratio gives this tire a little disadvantage over on-road comfort because it produces more noise.
On-Road traction comparison:
In the case of AT, the lower void ratio and continuous center rib flanked by independent intermediate blocks allow decent contact between the tread and the road. Due to maximum contact with the surface, it has a great advantage over on-road traction making it more of an on-road-friendly tire. The decent grooves and the number of sipes give this tire capability to let water pass through easily but are not efficient enough to handle extreme wet conditions.
The KO2 has a higher void ratio and decent tread blocks design present which does not allow a large contact area between the blocks and the road, making its on-road dry traction lower. This makes the tire a less attractive choice for on-road travel as compared to AT. However, in the wet condition, the wider grooves along with multiple sipes cause water to easily pass through them giving better grip which allows great wet traction. In conclusion, the AT performs well during on-road wet traction while KO2 lacks.
Off-Road traction comparison:
AT has a lower void ratio as compared to KO2, making the tire lesser effective in muddy conditions. The lower void ratio and center rib design between tires cause hurdles in navigation through the mud because of the lower space available between its tread blocks and shallow sipes. The mud gets stuck inside its grooves, making it inefficient by decreasing its gripping capability. The shoulder design of AT is lesser optimized compared to that of KO2 further decreasing its mud traction capabilities.
The higher void ratio of KO2 allows easy navigation through the mud by effectively throwing it backward with the help of wide grooves, providing a fine grip. The aggressive symmetric tread pattern with interlocking tread blocks and serrated shoulder design help slide and clear the mud from the tires easily. The higher void ratio and multiple deeper sipes not only help to throw mud easily from its spaces but also serrated shoulder design increase the biting strength necessary to develop traction and steering control in dirt and mud.
AT has a lower void ratio and tread design give this tire little disadvantage over snow terrain making it inefficient compared to KO2. The decent standard grooves do throw soft snow backward which is necessary for the grip, but they are not as effective as KO2. Plus, the KO2 tire is also certified with 3PMSF. This tire on other hand outperforms its competitor on ice due to the higher contact patch, providing the necessary grip required.
The higher void ratio and multiple deeper sipes present in KO2, give benefit to the tire to navigate through the soft snow easily. Just like mud, the grooves throw snow backward and improve the traction of the vehicle. The tread pattern design with interlocking tread blocks gives a great advantage over soft snow. The serrated shoulder design delivers additional traction and provides the necessary grip force needed in snowy conditions. The tire, however, struggles on ice due to a lower contact patch, unable to grasp the icy roads properly.
AT has a lower void ratio making it unable to properly grip rocks especially on tricky angles of approach. Stone ejector technology is not quite efficient as that of KO2, which makes it less effective against avoiding the stones from getting stuck into its grooves. The built quality and protection against pebbles and sharp rocks is also not comparable to KO2. That makes KO2 a preferable tire than AT for rocks traction.
KO2 has a higher void ratio and serrated shoulder lugs with decent shape and size which enables better biting grip for tricky angles on rocky terrain. Stone ejector technology used in this tire is also way better at efficiently avoiding the stones and pebble from getting stuck inside the grooves. The thick sidewall armor shoulder guards and protect the tire against impacts and provide protection from cuts.
AT has a lower void ratio and the continuous center rib which causes fewer air particles to get trapped, producing lower noise. But during off-road travel, the comfort level is compromised because of the lower void ratio and tread shoulder design unable to cope with the shocks experienced while traveling over an unbalanced path.
The comfort level of KO2 is not satisfactory during on-road traveling, because of the higher void ratio as compared to AT which causes a higher amount of air to get trapped between the grooves producing noise during traveling at a high speed on the road, hence, compromising the comfort level. But the comfort level of off-road traction is better due to the higher void ratio as it can easily absorb the shocks, soothing the travel experience.
Durability and treadwear:
In AT, the contact patch is higher, increasing the tire’s rolling resistance. Due to higher rolling resistance, the tread wear is high which is inversely proportional to durability and mileage. The body of AT consists two-ply polyester cord casing supporting two high-tensile steel belts. A nylon reinforcement ply provides durability and higher speed capability.
Due to the higher void ratio, the contact patch between the road and the tire is high, making the tire’s rolling resistance minimum. Due to low rolling resistance, the tread wear is also low, making its durability and mileage higher. The body of KO2 consists of 3-ply polyester sidewall ply construction for strength and durability, single strand beads that enhance its overall durability and make it a good choice for tough conditions.
The price of KO2 is higher as compared to AT, because of the internal construction and tread design technology used in this tire. The mileage and durability of KO2 is also higher as compared to the AT tire.
- Both tires are All-Terrain.
- When it comes to on-road dry traction AT performance is quite efficient compared to KO2.
- The off-road performance of the KO2 is more superior to that of AT.
- KO2 performance in snowy and muddy conditions is way better than AT, in comparison, considering they are both all-terrain tires.
- The durability and treadwear resistance of KO2 is also higher.
- In terms of price, AT is a little cheaper in comparison with the KO2 because of its performance and technology specifications.