In the 18" E ply range there is only AT/2 and LTX MS/2 available now to clear it up. Also a note on my AT/2's . They wore on the outer ***** only. The inner 2 rows were fine. The outer wore down to the body of the tire so basically with only 2 rows in the middle the tire looked bald for a AT tire. This is why Sears told me to call them. I did notice the outer ***** getting chaffed from new.
Sears said it is the design of the outer rows that allow it to wear down. If you look at the AT/2's outer snipe's you will see they don't go down deep as the inner row snipe's do. So I don't believe it's the torque as is the design of the AT/2's. This is what Sears showed me and it makes sense on looking and measureing the tread design.

 

Is it just me, or is there something to the theory that the rubber they install at the factory (regardless of tire brand) is made from a compound that seems to wear much faster than that of a tire you buy after the fact?

In every new vehicle I have ever owned, it seems that if I get 30k out of the original tires, I am lucky. I am seeing some guys say they are getting about 20k out of these 20" Michelin tires and they are bald.

-Rob

 

My new 2011 came with the Michelin LTX AT/2's. We'll see. My 2005 F350 had the Conti's, and aside from the poor winter traction, they were great the rest of the year. I regularly got 60K miles out of them.

 

So these were aftermarket purchased from Sears? When did you buy them? I ask because I bought some 18" LTX AT/2 tires aftermarket for my 2007 Tundra in 2009. I put about 20k on them before trading in the truck, and they looked great. Also (please don't get offended), do you check your tire pressure regularly? outer tread block wear can be a sign of chronic underinflation. of course, it can be other things, too... just saying that I never saw this on the ones I had.

Yes! what's up with that? I still think this might be why my aftermarket LTX A/T2 tires wore so much better than my OEM ones.

Attempting to consolidate my experience with Michelin LTX A/T2 tires:

2007 Tundra 400 lb/ft tq.
275/65-18 Michelin LTX A/T2
purchased aftermarket to replace OEM tires @ approximately 35k
traded the truck in at 56k, tires looked used but in very good condition. I had rotated them every 5k miles. About 5k of the 21k was towing. I didn't measure, but I'd have guessed 10/32 of tread depth remaining

2011 F-250 800 lb/ft tq.
275/65-20 Michelin LTX A/T2
OEM tires, replaced at 13.5k. about 5k of that 13.5k was towing. Never rotated , purely by accident. When replaced, the fronts were at 9/32" and the rears were at 4/32" depth, and the right rear was not holding air - losing about 5 lbs per day.

Heavier truck, heavier trailer (sometimes), and double the torque. It does seem like I stacked the odds against the tires... but 13.5k between brand new and completely shot? I dunno.

 

Actually to destroy all the myths here my AT/2's didn't look bad at 20K but if you looked real close and meausred the snipeing on the outer treads you will see what I mean. I had 28K when I started to complain and 36K when Sears call Michelin. Another manager the last time saw measured and agreed. He is the one who told me about the snipeing being poorly designed.
Yes I always had the tire pressure up high so it rolled on the inner tire. A SuperDuty weigh's a little more then a Tundra and will take more toll on wear but the bottom line is the design. Maybe the rubber. My LTX MS/2's they gave me seemed to wear fast and if you look at the old LTX MS's (which I've had many sets on all my trucks/SUV's they have more thread and better aggressive design.
The bottom line is they want part of the fuel economy market com on's..look at the ad's for LTX/2's...Save weight and less tread aggressiveness and you get better fuel economy but crap on the snow.
I'm going to get into another brand for the next set after 25 years useing Michelin.