Yokohama Geolandar X-AT vs BF Goodrich KO2


Yokohama X-AT G016 is an rugged terrain tire built for 3/4 ton, 1-ton pick-up trucks. Such tires are more aggressive than all-terrain but less than mud-terrain, and performance wise it’s the same scenario. Let’s see what more this tire has to offer!

BF Goodrich KO2

Being a tire engineer, in my opinion the BF Goodrich KO2 offers a stronger construction, better handling and grip, and longer mileage and has dual compound for wet traction (which is not although that great but still better here). The Yokohama Geolandar X-AT on the other side, is better off road but the tire overall really lacks in the lateral traction component with it’s less aggressive sidewalls both externally and internally.

Tire’s Info

Yokohama Geolandar X-AT G016 ranges 15 to 22 inches (rim diameter).

One thing to note is that all of the sizes come with the speed rating of just Q, which is low for rugged terrains. (Mud tires get to have that rating).

Rating of tire range from C to F, which takes the weight from 40 to 83 pounds.

Tread depth is an important factor for a tire because it determines the amount of traction the tire can provide. The tread depth of all sizes range from 16 to 19/32″ where mostly the sizes are seen with 19/32″.

Yokohama and their warranty on tread life is no different. The vast majority of their tires provide you with good wear life, but if your tire does happen to wear out before 45k miles, they will offer a warranty replacement for you with this tire (which is okay for a rugged terrain tire).

On the other side, the BF Goodrich KO2 offers 90 sizes, more in comparison, (but has same 15 to 22″ rim sizes availability).

Talking about KO2 ratings: Speed ratings are either R, S, or Q while load ratings vary from C to E, with the lightest tire weighing 35 lbs and the largest weighing 67 lbs.

And as for tread depth except for 4 sizes, all get to have 15/32″

Fun Fact: Do you know, Yokohama is actually a city in Japan with a population of nearly 3.6 million people.

Tread Appearance:

Yokohama Geolandar X-AT, on sides, form lugs with sharp edges sticking out on sidewalls, they are chunky enough but not so great for a R/T.

yokohama geolandar x-at
Yokohama Geolandar X-AT

also note although these lugs are staggered, you can’t even find the difference between them (as they don’t make prominent scoops).

In the middle the tire makes ribs of L and S shapes.

All these blocks have similar pattern of siping like sen on the shoulders, thinner rectilinear sipes get thicker towards edges (making a mixture of wet and snow siping).

Though the tire does not offer 3 peak mountain snowflake rating (like the BF Goodrich KO2).

All these ribs combined make 2 wide longitudinal grooves where a little compact placement of blocks is seen in the middle compared to outer sides.

Also one more thing here although the angle of the image isn’t showing the stone ejectors they are embedded around each shoulder rib.

Moving on towards the all terrain beast, the BFG KO2, starting from the center…

BF Goodrich KO2
BF Goodrich KO2

Here the tire offers 3 ribs of somewhat similar shape, with notches and slits on them.

These slits or sipes are full depth and casually divides all it’s ribs to aid traction.

So they make a complex map of grooves where things get a little open towards the edges.

Here on open areas, there are dual stone ejector placements, one triangularly shaped and the other are conventional ones (and are between all shoulder ribs).

Speaking of which the tire clearly makes more aggressive lugs.

Towards inner edges the shoulder make dual angled traction notches, while towards outside, it’s lugs are very prominent.

Although the are similar in thickness compared to Yokohama’s boy here, the are slanted and have deep biters embedded in them.

I’m personally a big fan of BF Goodrich tires and their lug design is no exception. The slanted shape and thickness is great for off road terrains (where they also add to durability).


The BF Goodrich KO2 tires are known for their durability, which is why they have been used by off-road enthusiasts, as well as in the military. That’s because the tire meet the powerful standard of 3 ply polyester casing which is not only seen on R/Ts like the Yokohama Geolandar X-AT but also on M/Ts like the BFG KM3 (you can find the reviews of all these tires separately).

On these 3 ply polyester there are 2 steel belts for both tires, but on the very top (beneath the rubber of course), the is only a single nylon cap ply for Geolandar, while the KO2 provides you with 2 caps, which are also spirally wound.

So even being the R/T, the tire can not compete the toughness of durability.

Maybe that’s why BFG markets it as the toughest tire ever made.

Ride Quality

Comfortable tires absorb bumps in the road. They are able to do this because they have a flexible outer layer. This provides a smoother ride for drivers.

But out of these two the Yokohama X AT offers better efficacy, as it has only a single cap ply and a softer over composition of lugs on top. So the vibrations of the road is absorbed by the tire efficiently.

On the other side, the BFG KO2 with spirally wound nylon is stiff on sides, and is not able to produce similar results, the tire also has less tread depth, so less rubber sits between you and the road, where bumps aren’t that efficiently diminished (comparatively).


Noise output from tires is influenced by their rolling resistance, vibration, and shape of the grooves.

So here it makes sense why BF Goodrich KO2 shows better efficacy.

The tire’s harder rubber is produces less resonance, and with smaller gaps between grooves, air is not as free to move and strike around (which makes noise).

The Geolandar X AT although is slightly off here, its not too bad for a RT, it deals with noise with its well engineered pitch sequencing, where with slight variations in geometry (of ribs), all blocks make different tones when air strikes on them, and these sound waves cancel each other out to dampen the noise levels.

Highway Performance

In recent years, all-terrain tires have become more popular for regular on-road use. They provide better traction and handling, and they can be used in a wider range of climates.

But how would these two perform here? Well it all depends on traction, steering response and the handling stability, so let check them all out.

Steering Response

The steering response is the way the vehicle responds to driver input. It is measured in degrees per second, and it is usually expressed as a ratio of how many degrees the wheels turn for every degree the steering wheel is turned.

Here the Yokohama X-AT although has a single layer of cap ply, the tire is still heavier with a thicker layer of rubber on top. So while handling, these tires tend to understeer more in comparison.

On the other side, the BF Goodrich KO2 shows a better performance as it responds to inputs with less delay.

Dry Grip

Dry grip depends on the tread exposure with the road as well as the rubber composition, so here although the Yokohama X-AT offers a soaking rubber which sticks on the road, it’s wider gaps between the ribs don’t allow it to make as much contact with the road.

The BFG KO2 does better here overall, as it’s stiffer rubber is firmer on roads (which stay stable even with more heat in summers), and the tire’s closed up ribs ensure more friction is produced over.

Dry Handling

When a tire corners, most of the pressure is on the shoulder blocks. So its crucial to check out how much rubber to road contact is made over there.

Now here the Yokohama AT-X being a rugged terrain does not provide optimal values, as it’s ribs on shoulders have wider lateral gaps in between.

The BFG KO2 meets the road more here, and it’s stiffer sides don’t let the blocks deform too much, resulting in precise steering.

Snow Performance

The BF Goodrich KO2 is very capable even in extreme winter weather, that’s why the tire is branded with 3 peak mountain snowflake rating despite having a lot of siping (like winter tires do).

So although it’s sipes are not too optimized for wet, they do very well on this terrain. They basically trap in the snow efficiently, and provide snow to snow contact.

These not only go for the sipes but also its grooves, which make an interlocking pattern (designed in a way to trap in snow, but expel dirt and rocks).

The Yokohama Geolandar X-AT on the other side, is not branded with sever winter rating, but the tire does okay with deeper snow, still.

It’s wider slits (attached to sipes) everywhere does a similar job of grabbing on to the snow, but with wider grooves, the tire does this on deeper terrains.

Wet Performance

Wet performance is divided into two categories: grip and hydroplaning. These two aspects play a more important part in determining the wet abilities of the tire when combined with other factors

Let’s check out both.

Wet Traction

The softer composition of the tire’s tread makes it more flexible and able to absorb the water more effectively.

The BF Goodrich KO2 is a type of tire with a hard compound and stiff, brick-like sidewalls. There is not much silica in this tire’s composition, which contributes to its hardness. It has multiple layers that help make the sidewalls stiffer, as well.

But still the tire does one thing right here, it offers a lot more siping.

So even without the flexibility this tire produces better results in comparison (although its not so great compared to other AT tires).

The Yokohama AT-X on the other side although offers a more flexible rubber top, the tire lacks with less number of sipes.


Hydroplaning is a rare but serious condition that can result from driving on wet pavement. When a tire hydroplanes, it loses contact with the ground and instead rides on a thin film of water. This can cause the vehicle to skid, spin out of control, or lose directional control.

That’s why tires have grooves.

Luckily for these two boys over here, there is no deficiency of grooves, as both of them are pretty bald.

But with a more voided tread, the Yokohama Geolandar AT-X offers a better resistance to hydroplaning overall.

The BF Goodrich KO2 is also great with it’s interlinked grooves which offer enough water evacuation, the tire lacks slightly directionally, where it’s produces similar performance on curves.

Tread Wear & Fuel Efficiency

Tread wear occurs when there is excessive contact with the ground which causes a layer of rubber to be worn off, so here weight of the tire and the rubber composition are the two key areas to look for.

As both of them tell you about rolling resistance, and more o that means more fuel consumption and less overall mileage.

Here it’s obvious why Yokohama Geolandar X-AT does not offer a better overall deal, as it goes up to 80+ lbs in weight even with a single cap ply, and has a softer rubber which is more prone to wear as it sticks on the roads.

So with larger weight, the tire offers more pressure on the tread blocks (which have wider gaps), and this combined with softer rubber, its obvious why this tire is not able to outlast KO2.

But still as the tire offers a slightly more tread depth of 19/32″, it still takes some time to wear off.

That’s why the company confidently give you 45k miles warranty with all Geolandar X-AT sizes.

On the other hand, KO2 takes a lot of time to wear off. The tire has first of all dual rubber compound, where it’s still somewhat softer on top and harder underneath (even though it’s not that soft on the top).

So it takes more time to wear off overall.

Off Road Traction

Traction is an important factor for off-road tires. If you are driving on mud, dirt, rocks and sand, the traction of your tires will determine how well you can steer and stop your vehicle.

But all terrains are different and even though they require a different skill level from driver side as well, tires play a much more crucial role here.

Let’s check out all of these challenging terrains.

Rock Traction

On rocky terrains, there are a lot of things to look for. First stop is durability, and with 3 ply sidewalls both tires are good to go, even though KO2 is more dependable.

Second, is the traction, and again both tires do great here, KO2 offers a web of grooves and it’s ribs where full depth sipes further divides, grip the rocks in all directions.

The Yokohama X-AT does this with a bigger groove mouth which wraps around the rocks (where it’s softer rubber also helps).

Third point to look for rocks is tire’s ability to grip with lower pressure, and here KO2 provides slightly better efficacy.

The Yokohama Geolandar although has good enough lugs, they are not as biting and don’t provide as much footprint when you lower down the PSI values.

The KO2’s lugs are pasted on a larger area, and they have sharp biters in between. Moreover, it’s slanted lugs are also joined together, so you get a lot of things going on for it in terms of flexing.

Sand Traction

On sand, you’ll need a tire that’s soft enough to provide rubber contact with the ground and wide enough to scoop it away.

You also need less sharpness of lugs overall (especially on sides), as you don’t want to dig on this terrain you need forward momentum.

Now here a few key areas are in favor of KO2 while some also favor Yokohama X AT.

Ko2 is better in terms of durability, shoulder lugs, and sidewalls. Let me explain why.

On sand you always air down the tire, and less PSI pressure would offer better overall rubber to sand contact, resulting in enhanced grip. So KO2 with stronger rim locks allows you to go pretty low.

Moreover, it’s sidewall lugs further make things better overall by increasing the footprint of the tire.

But the tire is still stiff, and that’s where Yokohama Geolandar comes in.

As its soft, has good enough lugs as well, and it’s sides are not digging, so you can climb better on sand with these tires.

Muddy Terrain Performance

Mud needs to leave the tread as soon as possible. If it stays, you are done, as mud to mud contact loses all traction.

BFG KO2 does very poorly on mud in comparison, the tire with interlocking design where it was great for snow, it’s not good here.

Yokohama does better with wider grooves, providing more area for mud to leave.

To conclude

BF Goodrich is better suited overall for roads, in terms of traction, noise, and fuel efficiency (though wet traction of the tire is not that impressive).

Yokohama X AT on the other side, does things better with hydroplaning and has upper hand off road especially on mud, where both tires are good enough for rocks and sand.

On snow, the tire is better suited for deeper terrains despite not having 3pmsf rating, whereas KO2 offers better friction on packed snow.

2 thoughts on “Yokohama Geolandar X-AT vs BF Goodrich KO2”

  1. Have you had the opportunity to test the Yokohama geolander AT xd go17? If yes, do you think that it has answered all the design defiencies of the x at that you mention in this article?


Leave a Comment