Bighorn and Bighorn 2.0 - Page 6 - Honda Foreman Forums : Rubicon, Rincon, Rancher and Recon Forum
Honda Foreman Forums : Rubicon, Rincon, Rancher and Recon Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2012, 09:41 PM   #51 (permalink)
Super Moderator
 
h22ate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SW, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sooner View Post
I've been running both Bighorns since 2007. Right now I've got 2.0 on the KQ where I wanted a lighter tire. I put the originals on the Outty because turning a heavier tire wasn't an issue. Performance wise, I can't tell any difference between the tires. But if horsepower might be an issue or you need less unsprung weight, I'd go with the 2.0.
Sooner, Was it just my eyes playing tricks on me sunday.... To me it looked like the 2.0s tread bars were skinnier than my originals. Both of us had 27s and his definitely looked like it had a more narrow tread than mine. Like I said it could have been my eyes/
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydglide View Post
No I run the originals,
only difference in the 2 is less lugs on the 2.0's and there a few pounds lighter, and the 2.0v wears faster.

Honestly I think it's just a gimmick to sell tires with less rubber on then to make more money by calling them a "Sport" tire


The original BH's will last forever, and are Great for trail riding, but it comes at a price, less clean out then many of the newer brand tires, quite of roll in off camber, Weight.but if your going to be HARD on a set of tires they can take the punishment.

Hope it helps
Glide
OK I thought you did, I know you were talkin about them. YEa the originals are great, mine have about 2k on them and they show minimal signs of wear.
__________________

08 Rubicon
‚——P--;===ฑ--= <-
!‚–’ฏƒนถ

http://youtu.be/U71bn4ZF4K0
h22ate is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-01-2012, 11:30 PM   #52 (permalink)
Honda Addict
 
Sooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Harrah, OK
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h22ate View Post
Sooner, Was it just my eyes playing tricks on me sunday.... To me it looked like the 2.0s tread bars were skinnier than my originals. Both of us had 27s and his definitely looked like it had a more narrow tread than mine. Like I said it could have been my eyes/
No trick. The tread pattern is very similar, similar rubber compound, but the 2.0s have narrower lugs (or larger spacing). On flat ground the originals put more rubber on the ground. We don't spend much time on flat ground.

On the technical rides, I haven't experienced much difference between the two. If I were forced to choose, I would say the 2.0s had more of a tendency to bite on the steep rocky inclines. But that's not a fair comparison considering I ran original BHs on our Ranchers with a SRA and on the Can-Am with 60 HP. Until I can compare the 2 on the same model, I can't say.
__________________
2007 Suzuki King Quad 450 4x4 - 14" ITP SS112 wheels, 26" Bighorns, Xtreme 3" lift, RT2500 Winch, Twin Air filter, RAM GPS mount, Lowrance GPS, Plano ATV storage box, 2 - Playmate coolers and a RAM self-leveling beer holder
2010 Can Am Outlander 650 Max - 26" Bighorns, 200 watt audio tube by Sooner, BRP rear storage box
2007 Honda Rancher 420 4x4 ES (red), 14" ITP SS112 wheels, 26" Bighorns (Sold)
2007 Honda Rancher 420 4x4 ES (yellow), 14" ITP SS112 wheels, 26" Bighorns (Sold)
Sooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 12:10 AM   #53 (permalink)
Super Moderator
 
h22ate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SW, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sooner View Post
No trick. The tread pattern is very similar, similar rubber compound, but the 2.0s have narrower lugs (or larger spacing). On flat ground the originals put more rubber on the ground. We don't spend much time on flat ground.

On the technical rides, I haven't experienced much difference between the two. If I were forced to choose, I would say the 2.0s had more of a tendency to bite on the steep rocky inclines. But that's not a fair comparison considering I ran original BHs on our Ranchers with a SRA and on the Can-Am with 60 HP. Until I can compare the 2 on the same model, I can't say.
OK good atleast I know I wasnt crackin up
__________________

08 Rubicon
‚——P--;===ฑ--= <-
!‚–’ฏƒนถ

http://youtu.be/U71bn4ZF4K0
h22ate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 09:17 PM   #54 (permalink)
Honda Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: DFW
Posts: 101
Default

Wat late to this thread...
Have to stay with a stock and silent Foreman..... for the same reason I have 9 toes, parked the '63 Sportster, sold the Jag and bought a Ford truck....
I have a personal problem.. you might say a weakness...

But I'd give a case of beer for a single turn at the strip, and match e.t.'s for a second case (and win the first one back!!)
__________________
Paul
-------------
2012 foreman (2) es, power steering
Stock wheels and tires
26x10x12 B-Horns when stock tires are replaced
Warn xt2500 winch (1) w/Warn mounts
Warn 54" snow plow, w/Warn mounts

Three different silencers for stock exhaust under $20 (why pay $150 for silent rider?)

1963 Sportster, '55 K Frame.
Metal work, good wrench, engineer.
pls1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0