Do you actually need an all-terrain tyre on your truck, or will a good all-season cope with the off-roading most owners really do? I put the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 all-season against the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT, the winner of my 2026 all-terrain test, in sand, on a dirt course, on a hill climb, on a side hill and on a real trail, then compared both with the average of seven all-terrain tyres on the road and in snow.
Note: The All Season tyre is SL and the all terrain tyre is load range E. Tire Rack have some data on this.
Wheelhouse Racing School supported the off-road testing with its proving ground near Tooele, Utah, and two identical Ford Ranger Raptors, one on each tyre, both in 265/70 R17. I measured sand drag and dirt handling there, ran a hill climb and a side hill, and then took both trucks onto the trails at the Five Mile Pass Recreation Area. For the road and snow results I have gone back to my 2026 all-terrain tyre test, where the Scorpion AS Plus 3 and the Scorpion XTM AT ran on the same truck alongside six other all-terrain tyres. The third line in the charts is the average of all seven all-terrain tyres from that test, including the XTM AT itself. That matters, because the XTM AT is an outstanding all-terrain, and comparing the all-season with the best all-terrain alone would flatter the category.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 100 → 10 km/h · 14–17 °C
- Wet Braking
- 80 → 10 km/h · 12–15 °C
- Wet Handling
- 10–12 °C
- Snow Braking
- 30 → 10 km/h · -6–-4 °C
- Snow Traction
- 5 → 35 km/h · -6–-4 °C
- Snow Handling
- -3–-2 °C
Score Weighting
Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.
| Test | Within category | Share of overall score |
|---|---|---|
| Dry · 30% | ||
| Dry Braking | 75% | 22.5% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 25% | 7.5% |
| Wet · 35% | ||
| Wet Braking | 50% | 17.5% |
| Wet Handling | 30% | 10.5% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 10% | 3.5% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 3.5% |
| Off road · 12.5% | ||
| Dirt Handling | 50% | 6.25% |
| Sand Drag | 50% | 6.25% |
| Snow · 10% | ||
| Snow Braking | 35% | 3.5% |
| Snow Traction | 35% | 3.5% |
| Snow Handling | 20% | 2% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 10% | 1% |
| Comfort · 10% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 5% |
| Subj. Noise | 25% | 2.5% |
| Noise | 25% | 2.5% |
| Value · 2.5% | ||
| Value | 100% | 2.5% |
Our standard methods
The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.
Dry Braking
For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Subj. Dry Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Wet Braking
For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.
Wet Handling
For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.
Subj. Wet Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Straight Aqua
To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.
Snow Braking
For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.
Snow Traction
For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.
Snow Handling
For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.
Subj. Snow Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Dirt Handling
For dirt handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated dirt handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tyre is retested at regular intervals.
Subj. Comfort
To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.
Subj. Noise
For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tyre is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.
Noise
For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tyre rather than external interference.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.
A few things to know before the results. The road and snow data comes from the big test: snow in Northern Europe, wet and dry in Central Europe, and the comfort and noise drives on roads in Utah. The sand and dirt results are new, and the dirt course here is not the one from the big test, so these lap times will not match that article. The all-terrain average has no sand or dirt figure, because only these two tyres ran them. Sand is very hard to test consistently, so the sand result is averaged across 17 runs. This is a comparison of two kinds of tyre rather than a ranked test, so there is no winner and no award. I did not test mud, which I come back to at the end.
The chart below puts every measured result on one scale. Each spoke is a percentage of the best result, so further out is better. For the road and snow tests the outer ring is the best of all eight tyres in the big test, and for sand and dirt it is the better of these two tyres. The all-season is on or close to the outer ring in every road test, the XTM AT is only clearly ahead of it in snow braking, and the all-terrain average sits inside the XTM AT on every spoke and inside the all-season on all but snow braking.
Sand Drag
Sand drag is a full-throttle launch in all-wheel drive through loose, deep sand, timed over 25 metres. I expected the all-terrain to walk it. It did not. Averaged across 17 runs, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT took 6.25 seconds and the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 took 6.31 seconds, a gap of about 1%.
Even in really loose, fluffy sand, the wheels compress the sand as they turn, and as long as the tyre does not dig down into it, the surface under the tread can get quite firm. That is why the tread pattern made so little difference in a straight line. Where the two did differ was steering. On the all-season I could turn the wheel and the truck carried straight on, while the all-terrain let me change direction in the sand. The traction numbers are essentially the same, but the all-terrain is the one you want when the trail turns.
Sand Drag
Time over 25 m from a standstill in sand
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 6.25 s | Best | |
| 6.31 s | +0.06 s |
All the tyres in the Sand Drag test finished less than 3% apart.
Hill Climb
Next was a steep hill climb on a hard-packed surface, which is really a test of dry traction rather than a realistic trail. Neither tyre got the truck to the top. The all-terrain started to spin and stopped, and the all-season got further before it too had to roll back down. Then I used the Raptor's low range, and the truck simply drove up. On a climb like this, having the truck set up correctly matters far more than which of these two tyres is fitted.
Side Hill
The side hill tilts the truck to a bank angle of more than 30 degrees. The surface is not a realistic one either, so this was about feel rather than measurement. The all-terrain let me steer a little more and gave me more confidence in what the tyre was doing. The all-season felt as though it was struggling on its sidewall at that angle, which is not a surprise, because it is not designed for that.
Dirt Handling
This is a different dirt course from the one in my big all-terrain test. The Wheelhouse proving ground sits on what is effectively a dry lake bed, so the surface is silty and hard-packed with some gravel, which is representative of the last mile of dirt road to a trailhead, a campsite or a boat launch. On that hard surface the all-season was quicker. The Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 lapped in 80.13 seconds and the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT in 80.90 seconds, 0.77 seconds or about 1% slower, and the all-season was consistently quicker lap after lap. On the dirt course in the big test the XTM AT was half a second quicker, so across both courses there is very little between them on dirt.
There are differences in feel. The all-season was noticeably more comfortable over the ruts, and I think its more compliant carcass, which deforms more, is giving it extra grip there too. Once it starts sliding, though, it takes longer to recover, so the all-terrain gives you more control even when it is not giving you more grip.
Dirt Handling
Dirt handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 80.13 s | Best | |
| 80.9 s | +0.77 s |
All the tyres in the Dirt Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
Trail Driving at Five Mile Pass
Test facilities only tell you so much, so Wheelhouse let us take both trucks to a real off-road area they use on their programmes, the Five Mile Pass Recreation Area in Utah. It is exactly where an all-terrain tyre should excel: loose shale that moves under the tyres, a lot of it sharp enough to puncture, plus silt, sand, dirt, rocks, ledges and washouts. Both trucks ran in rear-wheel drive with an open rear differential, and I followed the all-terrain truck in the all-season truck over increasingly difficult obstacles, until I could no longer follow.
That never happened. In a couple of places the opposite did, and the all-terrain truck had trouble with step-ups onto hard rock that the all-season truck climbed. I am not saying this makes the all-season the better rock tyre, there were far too many uncontrolled variables for that, but time after time the all-season got to places the all-terrain was only just managing.
I also expected a puncture. The all-season came back with clear marks on its sidewalls where rocks had pressed into it, but once the tyres were wiped down there was no permanent or even visible damage.
Dry Braking
On the road, the results come from my 2026 all-terrain test. The Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 stopped in 40.28 metres and the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT in 40.99 metres, only 0.71 metres longer. The average of the seven all-terrain tyres was 44.86 metres, which is 4.58 metres or 11% further than the all-season. From 130 km/h, at the point the all-season had stopped, the average all-terrain would still be doing about 42 km/h.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in meters (100 - 10 km/h) [Average Temperature 15.5c]
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40.28 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
| 40.99 m | +0.71 m | 17 km/h | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
44.86 m | +4.58 m | 42 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (4.58 m ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT would still be travelling at 17 km/h when the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry Handling
Dry handling was scored subjectively. The all-season led on 11 points, ahead of the XTM AT on 9.75 and the all-terrain average of 9.32. Compared with the XTM AT it felt more precise to steer, with a more linear response at both low and high speed.
Subj. Dry Handling
Subjective Dry Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Points | Best | |
| 9.75 Points | -1.25 Points | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
9.32 Points | -1.68 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (1.68 Points).
Wet Braking
Wet braking is where the gap is biggest. The all-season stopped in 33.53 metres, the XTM AT, again showing why it won the big test, in 35.77 metres, and the all-terrain average needed 40.69 metres. That is 7.16 metres or 21% further than the all-season. From 130 km/h, the average all-terrain would still be doing about 55 km/h when the all-season had stopped, and the XTM AT about 33 km/h.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in meters (80 - 10 km/h) [Average Temperature 13.5c]
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33.53 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
| 35.77 m | +2.24 m | 33 km/h | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
40.69 m | +7.16 m | 55 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 21.4% (7.16 m ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT would still be travelling at 33 km/h when the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Wet Handling
Wet handling tells the same story. The all-season lapped in 117.67 seconds, the XTM AT was 2.31 seconds slower at 119.98 seconds, and the all-terrain average was 128.15 seconds, more than 10 seconds or 9% slower than the all-season.
The subjective scores are closer, and here the XTM AT was the best of the three on 8.9 points, ahead of the all-season on 8.4 and the average on 7.9. The all-season felt softer on turn-in than the XTM AT, but once it was loaded up in the longer corners it just kept gripping. The XTM AT turned harder and gave more detail at the limit than the other all-terrains, which as a group felt far less dynamic and far less fun than the all-season.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 11c]
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 117.67 s | Best | |
| 119.98 s | +2.31 s | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
128.15 s | +10.48 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.9% (10.48 s).
Subj. Wet Handling
Subjective Wet Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 8.9 Points | Best | |
| 8.4 Points | -0.50 Points | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
7.9 Points | -1.00 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 11.2% (1 Points).
Aquaplaning
Straight-line aquaplaning was not a weakness for the all-season, even though it starts with much less tread. It floated at 102.2 km/h, against 101.6 km/h for the XTM AT and 100.8 km/h for the all-terrain average.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in Km/H
Higher is better ↑| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 102.2 km/h | Best | |
| 101.6 km/h | -0.60 km/h | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
100.8 km/h | -1.40 km/h |
All the tyres in the Straight Aqua test finished less than 3% apart.
Comfort and Noise
Living with the tyres day to day does not get any better for the all-terrains. The all-season was the most comfortable tyre in the big test by a full point, scoring 11 against 9.5 for the XTM AT and an all-terrain average of 8.89. It felt lighter over impacts and better damped, and it made the truck feel less heavy on its feet.
It was also the quietest tyre in the big test. It measured 52.79 dB, 2.16 dB quieter than the XTM AT and 2.77 dB quieter than the all-terrain average. On subjective noise the all-season scored 10 points, the XTM AT 9 and the average 8.36.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Points | Best | |
| 9.5 Points | -1.50 Points | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
8.89 Points | -2.11 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 19.2% (2.11 Points).
Subj. Noise
Subjective in car noise levels
Higher is better ↑| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
8.36 Points | -1.64 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 16.4% (1.64 Points).
Noise
Internal noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 52.79 dB | Best | |
| 54.95 dB | +2.16 dB | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
55.56 dB | +2.77 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 5.2% (2.77 dB).
Rolling Resistance and Value
Rolling resistance follows the same pattern: 8.2 kg/t for the all-season, 9.3 kg/t for the XTM AT and 9.4 kg/t for the all-terrain average, so the all-terrains have 13 to 15% more rolling resistance. The fuel calculator under the chart turns that into a cost for your own mileage.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.2 kg/t | Best | £0 | |
| 9.3 kg/t | +1.10 kg/t | £59 | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
9.4 kg/t | +1.20 kg/t | £65 |
The difference between best and worst was 14.6% (1.2 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT uses about 41 L (£59) more fuel than the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
The all-season is also the cheaper tyre to buy, and with its 70,000-mile tread warranty it is the best value on cost per 1,000 warranted miles: $3.41, against $5.39 for the XTM AT and an all-terrain average of $5.23. That calculation assumes the tyre reaches its warranted mileage, which, as the wear section below shows, is not something I would count on if you take an all-season off road.
Value
Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.41 Price/1000 | Best | $14.77 | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
5.23 Price/1000 | +1.82 Price/1000 | $26.01 |
| 5.39 Price/1000 | +1.98 Price/1000 | $26.30 |
The difference between best and worst was 58.1% (1.98 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tyre to own (Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3) works out $288 cheaper than the most expensive (Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT).
How this is calculated
Tyre life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.
Tyre life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car using 8 l/100km (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $0.95 per litre and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2026 test; financing costs are excluded.
Snow Braking
Every all-terrain tyre in the big test carries the 3PMSF severe snow mark and the all-season does not, so snow is where you would expect the all-terrains to shine. In snow braking they did. The XTM AT stopped in 13.42 metres, the all-terrain average in 14.03 metres, and the all-season needed 14.77 metres, 10% further than the XTM AT. Snow braking is a genuine advantage for the all-terrain.
Snow Braking
Snow braking in meters (30 - 10 km/h) [Average Temperature -5c]
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13.42 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
14.03 m | +0.61 m | 27 km/h |
| 14.77 m | +1.35 m | 39 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (1.35 m). From 130 km/h, the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 would still be travelling at 39 km/h when the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
Snow traction was much closer. The XTM AT was quickest at 5.26 seconds and the all-season was only 0.11 seconds behind at 5.37 seconds, while the all-terrain average was 5.99 seconds. So the all-season beat the average all-terrain by more than half a second.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (5 - 35 km/h) [Average Temperature -5c]
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 5.26 s | Best | |
| 5.37 s | +0.11 s | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
5.99 s | +0.73 s |
The difference between best and worst was 13.9% (0.73 s).
Snow Handling
In snow handling the all-season set the quickest lap of the three, 81.64 seconds against 81.91 seconds for the XTM AT and 83.37 seconds for the all-terrain average, thanks to its lateral grip. The subjective scores went the other way. The XTM AT was my favourite in the snow on 8.7 points, rounded, predictable and easy to recover once sliding, ahead of the average on 8.29 and the all-season on 8.2.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature -2.5c]
Lower is better ↓| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 81.64 s | Best | |
| 81.91 s | +0.27 s | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
83.37 s | +1.73 s |
All the tyres in the Snow Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
Subj. Snow Handling
Subjective Snow Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 8.7 Points | Best | |
RefReference All Terrain Avg |
8.29 Points | -0.41 Points |
| 8.2 Points | -0.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 5.7% (0.5 Points).
Wear and Durability
So far the all-season has matched the all-terrain in the sand, been quicker on the Wheelhouse dirt course, followed it everywhere at Five Mile Pass, been better on wet and dry roads and held its own in snow everywhere except braking. So why would you put an all-terrain on your truck? There are two good reasons. The first is that they look so much better: the aggressive tread pattern, the shoulder blocks and the chunky sidewall. I think most of us would buy an all-terrain for its looks every single time, and I am in that camp.
The second reason is far more important. The all-season starts with 8.7 mm (11/32 inch) of tread and a 70,000-mile warranty. The XTM AT starts with 11.1 mm (14/32 inch) and a 55,000-mile warranty, and the deepest all-terrains in the big test started at 14.3 mm (18/32 inch), yet none of the seven carries a 70,000-mile warranty. On the road alone, the all-season should be the one that lasts.
It is not. The two sets have covered broadly the same mileage through my testing, and the all-season looks battered, especially on the rear axle, which took most of the slip on the dirt and rocks. The centre of the tread is chunking, and it is getting close to the wear indicators. The XTM AT still looks fresh.
For me this is the most important result in the whole test. An all-terrain tyre is not necessarily giving you a big increase in grip every time you go off road. What it gives you is the ability to produce that traction over and over again, in an environment that is trying to destroy the tyre. The construction is stronger, and the XTM AT weighs about 5 kg more per tyre than the all-season. The tread is deeper, and the compound and pattern are designed to resist cutting and chipping. A road-focused all-season is simply not built to take that abuse.
Mud
The one thing I could not test here is mud. I do not currently have access to a mud facility where I can run repeatable tests, and mud is incredibly difficult to test properly, because even the best mud pit changes constantly. I have tested something similar in the past. In my HT vs AT vs MT test, the aggressive all-terrain had around 50% more mud traction than the highway-terrain tyre, and the mud-terrain had nearly double. That was the muddiest of mud pits, but it is worth keeping in mind.
Verdict
The Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 has far more off-road ability than its looks suggest. It matched the XTM AT in the sand, was quicker on the Wheelhouse dirt course and went everywhere it was asked to at Five Mile Pass. On the road it was substantially better in wet braking, better in dry braking, faster in wet handling, quieter, more comfortable and more efficient, and in snow it only lost clearly in braking. Its weakness is durability: after the same work as the XTM AT, it is the one that looks worn out.
The Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT is the best all-terrain I have tested and the closest to an all-season on the road, which is why it beats the all-terrain average on every performance result here, and only trails it slightly on cost per warranted mile. It stopped shorter in the snow than the all-season, was a fraction quicker in the sand drag and steered better in the sand and on the side hill. Its biggest advantage is the one you cannot see in a lap time: it came through the same off-road abuse looking fresh.
So do you need an all-terrain tyre for occasional dirt roads, sand, rocky trails and recreational off-roading? Probably not. A good all-season has far more off-road ability than the internet, or the way it looks, would have you believe, and it is significantly better to live with on the road. If you spend a lot of time on dirt roads, on rough trails or in wet mud, there is a strong argument for an all-terrain, for its durability as much as its grip. Plus, they look cool.
The industry created the rugged-terrain (R/T) segment a few years ago, which I thought was meant to be exactly this blend: the on-road performance of an all-season with the off-road looks of an aggressive all-terrain. I am not sure that is how the segment has played out, and I plan to test it. A tyre that looks like an all-terrain but drives like an all-season on the road is what most of us actually want.
Pirelli Scorpion AS+ 3
265/70 R17 115H
All discipline results (17)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 40.28 m |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 11 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 33.53 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 117.67 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 8.4 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 102.2 km/h |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 14.77 m |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5.37 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 81.64 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 8.2 Points |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 80.13 s |
| Sand DragLower is better | 6.31 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 11 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 10 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 52.79 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 3.41 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 8.2 kg/t |
- Production
- 4525
- Origin
- Brazil
- UTQG
- 800 A A
- Weight
- 18.14 kgs
- Tread
- 8.7 mm
- Price
- 238.42
Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT
265/70 R17 123/120S
All discipline results (17)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 40.99 m |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9.75 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 35.77 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 119.98 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 8.9 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 101.6 km/h |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 13.42 m |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5.26 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 81.91 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 8.7 Points |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 80.9 s |
| Sand DragLower is better | 6.25 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 9.5 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 9 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 54.95 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 5.39 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9.3 kg/t |
- Production
- 4525
- Origin
- Brazil
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 23.13 kgs
- Tread
- 11.1 mm
- Price
- 296.56
Reference All Terrain Avg
265/70 R17
All discipline results (15)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 44.86 m |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9.32 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 40.69 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 128.15 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7.9 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 100.8 km/h |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 14.03 m |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5.99 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 83.37 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 8.29 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 8.89 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 8.36 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 55.56 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 5.23 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9.4 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 23.80 kgs
- Tread
- 13.0 mm
- Price
- 277.22
Discussion
1 comment