[WilsonTheDog]

Anyone have these or have any experience with them? I see a lot of stuff about the STT's here on the site but can't find anything about these.

http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT-Tires/Cooper-Discoverer.htm

 

[tacomaoffroad]

yea not too many people run the st's. i was gonna buy them, got real close as a matter of fact but when i saw the stt's and when i heard they were nice and quiet. i had to go for the cooler looking tire. lol.

 

[Rem3Dy]

are the STT's really quiet like you say? I really like the tire, but the loud road noise traveling down the freeway is something I dont want.

 

[pacosmachotaco]

are the STT's really quiet like you say? I really like the tire, but the loud road noise traveling down the freeway is something I dont want.

They are not as quiet as my rugged trails were, but they are also not as loud the BFG MT's i had on my old truck. I can hardly hear them at 75 on the freeway with the radio on. Also going down the streets at 25-45 i cant really hear them at all.

 

[Rem3Dy]

thanks for the reply. Sounds like that might be my next set of tires.

 

[Sand-Taco]

I have the Cooper Discoverer S/T's and I really like them! I have over 10K miles on them already and they have proved to be a really good tire! They weren't that expensive and I have used them in Mud, Snow, and lots of rain and they really handle well. Not a lot of tire noise (compared to the Dayton M/T's I used to have). And the wear on them is minimal for 10k Miles!

 

[WilsonTheDog]

^Thanks. The tire noise is a big issue for me but I definitely want an A/T so I'm trying to find a decent compromise. The local tire shop seems to be offering me a good deal on these which is why I'm looking into them.

 

[jpsmith]

These are nice lookin' tires and are a lot cheaper than BFG AT/KOs. I prefer the clunky, blocky look of the BFGs and General Grabber AT2s over the more modern, agressive look of Revos, Toyo Open Countries, or Nitto Terra Grapplers. I didn't realize Cooper made these. Now I have one more tire to consider, and having options is A Good Thing (tm).

I noticed on coppertire.com that there is a Discoverer S/T and a Discoverer S/T-C. The C has the same basic tread pattern, but looks a little more aggressive. It has bigger voids and they claim it is more cut and chip resistant.

Edit: They're called "Discoverer S/T" and "Discoverer S/T-C." Can we change the name of this thread to help future searchers?

 

[WilsonTheDog]

Yeah, I knew that. Sometimes the fingers don't type what the mind is thinking, lol.

I'm heading to the tire shop tomorrow morning to check things out. I'll make a decision when I see it in person.

 

[jpsmith]

I was correcting myself as much as anyone else. At first I was just calling them "Discover ST." If you search the web for reviews, you'll see people calling them Discover, Discovery, Discoverer, etc.

 

[hooch364]

You should check Pep Boys for the Definity A/T. Looks just like the Discovery A/T....in fact the Definitiy tire is made by Cooper, just rebranded.

Pep Boys is usually always running buy 3 get 1 free deals. I think they run about 120 a piece with a 40k or 50k warranty....cant beat it.

 

[WilsonTheDog]

Unfortunately, no Pep Boys around here. Thanks for the idea, though.

 

[jpsmith]

I'm looking at the tread pattern on the Definity Dakota A/T and it's not the same as the Discoverer S/T. The Definity looks more like a knock-off of the BFG AT/KO tread pattern.

For those that don't need the extra strength of an LT tire and just want an AT for looks on your street-driven truck, it looks like Cooper makes the Discoverer S/T in a passenger-rated tire. www.discountedwheelwarehouse.com has the LT tire for $136 and the S-speed-rated for $98. They sell the BFG AT/KO D-rated for $184.

Another really cool thing about the Discoverer S/T is that it's available in pizza-cutter size - 255/85/16. I only knew of two tires available in that size and they're both M/T tires. This is the first A/T I've seen in this size.

 

[WilsonTheDog]

I decided to go with Firestone Destination A/t's, P265/75/16. $500 installed, includes road hazard warranty, at the local Firestone shop. Best price I could find in the area but they had to order them so they'll be installed next Saturday. The only Cooper dealer I found locally wanted $719 installed for the Discoverer S/T's in the same size so that's out. I could've bought them online but by the time I pay for shipping and install I'd be at least at $500 anyway.

I have to say that those STT's are really mean looking, though. I was tempted but then I don't go off road much so I wanted something quieter. The tire shop guy said they give you a free pair of ear plugs with every set, lol.

Thanks for help, guys.

 

[jpsmith]

Can anybody explain to me why the cheaper, higher speed-rated Discoverer ST also carries a significantly higher load rating than the more-expensive N speed rated tire? This is from www.onlinetires.com:

Type: All Season
Price Per Tire: $94
TIRE SIZE: LT265/75R16
SPEED RATING: S
LOAD INDEX: 116
SIDEWALL: OWL
UTQG: n/a

Compare that to:
Type: All Season
Price Per Tire: $125
TIRE SIZE: LT265/75R16
SPEED RATING: N
LOAD INDEX: 112
SIDEWALL: OWL
UTQG: n/a

If the first one has a higher load index, why is it so much cheaper?

...


Ah, I got it, found it on www.coopertire.com under the detailed specs for the Discoverer S/T listed under Light Trucks versus the one listed under SUVs. The 116S tire has a tread depth of 15/32, while the 112N has a tread depth of 18/32. The extra money must be for the tread depth.

Even though I found my answer, I'm still posting this in case anyone else might be wondering the same thing later on.

For a truck that's never wheeled hardcore, but spends a fair share of time in the dirt on logging roads and such, but is used mostly as a daily driver and has it's bed filled up to max capacity on the weekends, would not having that 3/32 of tread be a bad thing?


Edit: I just noticed by comparing detailed spec charts on coopertire.com that the $94 tire is a STD-load P-metric tire, while the $125 tire is a Load Range C tire. There is also a 123N Load Range E version available. My next question: The p-metric tire has a max load that is way more than enough for a Tacoma even if you put 2000lbs in the bed, which is way over max-payload. Its max load is 2756, while the max load for the Load Range C tire is 2470. That means four of the p-metric tires can handle over 11000 lbs, right? So, is there any reason to go with the Load Range C tire over the p-metric tire for the way I use my truck, often loading the bed up to max payload?

 

[jpsmith]

OK, I have an answer about why the P-metric tire has a higher max load than the load range C tire. I sent this to Cooper using their online form:

Hello. I am interested in purchasing a set of 265/75R16 Discoverer S/T tires for my 2006 Toyota Tacoma 4x4. However, I am not sure which tire will suit my needs. I am trying to decide between the P-metric tire and the Load Range C light truck tire. Both of these tires have a much higher maximum load rating than the OEM passenger tires that came with my truck.

The source of my confusion comes from the tire selector chart on your coopertires.com. It seems that the 4ply P-metric tire has a significantly higher maximum load than the 6ply load range C tire. The passenger tire is rated to carry 11.6% more load than the load range C tire. Given that you are supposed to choose a P-metric tire with at least 10% more load capacity if you are replacing an LT tire, am I correct in assuming that I will get the same results with either of these tires?

I notice that the LT tire has 3/32 more tread depth. Apart from this, is there anything that differentiates these two tires that I should be aware of when making my choice? Can you tell me the actual weight of each tire?

And I got this back from them:

1. The LT 6ply load rating uses an "LT" load equation which has a more conservative margin built into the load rating due to the intended light truck use. The LT 6 ply load rating takes into account the rougher anticipated use, stiffer suspension spring rates, and heavier axle mass of true light truck use, which explains the reasoning behind the LT 6 ply having a lower stated load carrying capacity compared to standard load tires AND why LT types of tires are better suited for true light truck use over standard load tires.
2. Additionally, any standard load tire stated capacity must be lowered by 10% per RMA standards when used in light truck applications.
3. Also, LT tires are designed to better resist the affects of load and impacts to a greater degree; as a result the margin for load carrying and safety is greater.
4. 265/75R16 - 40lbs.
LT265/75R16- 47lbs.

 

[AtomicAge]

I'm having the S/Ts put on this week. - AA

 

[morerevs]

I got a new set of S/T's in 265/75/16, load range 'C'. I bought 'em through
tirecentral.net (Donald) for $123 ea. I've only had 'em on for a couple of weeks, but I've been able to form a few opinions from daily commuting and a weekend trip in the desert....

tread: a nice 'tweener' pattern; more aggressive than an A/T, but not quite an M/T. When I first saw 'em I thought they were too aggressive for my needs, especially when stood side by side with a BFG A/T.

noise: not bad at all.... just a slight hum at certain speeds. 'Never had to adjust the radio to overcome it.

driveability: I was contemplating a 255/85, I'm glad I settled for the 265 since even with the 265 steering response and braking is noticeably slower. Grip is okay, but the suspension is a bit more lethargic.

gas mileage: 'Haven't been able to make a scientific comparison, but I'd estimate it might be down only slightly.... 1to 2 mpg.

off road: I'm definitely a newb offroad, but out in the desert the S/T's did well, they kept me from getting stuck and they didn't disintegrate! I took 'em in sand and over some pretty rocky trails.