275/70/18 Fuel Economy

[Bighorn Tremor]

I’m getting these tires put on today, what air pressure do you use?

I played with pressures and finally went back to 35psi that the door placard recommends. Tires rode harder at 40 psi.

 

[Chappy]

I run about 35-37 with the Toyo OC III's in SL. I still only have 2500 miles on my LC so I'm not providing much useful input.

 

[robrob]

Just an update on my '26 1958 with 285s. Gas mileage has increased to around 20 mpg. Not sure if it's break in or we learned how to drive it, but I'm happy with the mileage now. I plan to replace the 285s with 275s when replacement is needed.

I did replace my 245 stock spare with a 275 on the stock rim, and it fits nicely and actually looks cool peaking out from below the bumper.

 

[Scrappopatamus]

275/70/18 Toyo Open Country AT3 EV running 40 psi is yielding 18.9 to 19.2 MPG operating in normal transmission Mode. OTT Tune, Banks Boost Tubes and Magnaflo Exhaust. Not quite the mileage my '18 4Runner TRD PRO offered, but close. I'm. not doing any calculations, just going with the vehicle's computer reading. I also run 93 octane and sometimes Ethanol Free if I'm in the area for a fill when fueling.

 

[sweet5ltr]

Interesting thread, just for comparison I'm running an E-load Yokohama Geolander AT XD in 265/70R18 and getting anywhere from 18.5-21 mpg (@ 72-mph) hand calculated on the interstate. If I drive 80, that number drops down to 14.5-15 mpg.

Thought about going to a 275/70R18 but didn't want a tire larger than OEM for warranty reasons.

 

[DubDub]

Interesting thread, just for comparison I'm running an E-load Yokohama Geolander AT XD in 265/70R18 and getting anywhere from 18.5-21 mpg (@ 72-mph) hand calculated on the interstate. If I drive 80, that number drops down to 14.5-15 mpg.

Thought about going to a 275/70R18 but didn't want a tire larger than OEM for warranty reasons.

Interesting take. Out of curiosity, how did a 56lb E-load tire not meet the criteria for warranty concerns? Considering the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, I’d be more concerned by adding 17lbs/corner than I would ever be adding 3/5” diameter and 2/5” width. For the record, I’m not concerned by either, but interested to hear how you draw your distinction of risk.

 

[sweet5ltr]

Interesting take. Out of curiosity, how did a 56lb E-load tire not meet the criteria for warranty concerns? Considering the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, I’d be more concerned by adding 17lbs/corner than I would ever be adding 3/5” diameter and 2/5” width. For the record, I’m not concerned by either, but interested to hear how you draw your distinction of risk.

No real risk with running an OEM size that Toyota offers on the LC, tire weight has little to do with that perception at a dealer level. Toyota will do anything and everything to void a warranty anymore, don't want to give them that opportunity.

 

[ultane]

Just an update on my '26 1958 with 285s. Gas mileage has increased to around 20 mpg. Not sure if it's break in or we learned how to drive it, but I'm happy with the mileage now. I plan to replace the 285s with 275s when replacement is needed.

I did replace my 245 stock spare with a 275 on the stock rim, and it fits nicely and actually looks cool peaking out from below the bumper.

Welcome to the asylum.

 

[DubDub]

No real risk with running an OEM size that Toyota offers on the LC, tire weight has little to do with that perception at a dealer level.

Agree to disagree. You aren’t having a warranty argument with a dealership anyway, at least not where it counts. Again, because of Magnuson-Moss, scientific/engineering arguments are credible. A much better argument exists that damage to the powertrain, suspension, differentials, etc, can be attributed to installing a 44% heavier tire than by adding a <2% taller tire at 10% weight gain.

Again, for the record, I think neither are substantial warranty concerns.

Toyota will do anything and everything to void a warranty anymore, don't want to give them that opportunity.

I agree with this point, except that with Magnuson-Moss you don’t have to have that argument with a dealership.

I mean zero offense. Your LC, your opinions, your canvass. Interesting distinction w/ (hopefully) a civil conceptual debate at work. If I’m unwittingly picking a fight just tell me to go pack sand.

 

[H2O_Doc]

No real risk with running an OEM size that Toyota offers on the LC, tire weight has little to do with that perception at a dealer level. Toyota will do anything and everything to void a warranty anymore, don't want to give them that opportunity.

I think there is still a lot of mythology on “voiding” of warranties. It’s really typically more denial of claims. I’ve owned Jeeps and Toyotas for most of the last 49 years and have never had a warranty denial, even on modified vehicles. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, it certainly does. But what’s being discussed here seems highly unlikely to be denied.

And the dealerships want your warranty work. Corporate claims folks might be another matter, but an educated consumer will likely prevail on almost anything reasonable FROM MY EXPERIENCE, to be clear.

 

[sweet5ltr]

Agree to disagree. You aren’t having a warranty argument with a dealership anyway, at least not where it counts. Again, because of Magnuson-Moss, scientific/engineering arguments are credible. A much better argument exists that damage to the powertrain, suspension, differentials, etc, can be attributed to installing a 44% heavier tire than by adding a <2% taller tire at 10% weight gain.

Again, for the record, I think neither are substantial warranty concerns.


I agree with this point, except that with Magnuson-Moss you don’t have to have that argument with a dealership.

I mean zero offense. Your LC, your opinions, your canvass. Interesting distinction w/ (hopefully) a civil conceptual debate at work. If I’m unwittingly picking a fight just tell me to go pack sand.

I agree completely, and sorry, I'm not trying to post a detailed summary as this thread is about MPG's. There were several other reasons, that was just one of them. OEM tire size for zero warranty related hassles, less rotational weight in the specific tire I selected, fits OEM spare location, can use OEM jack, and doesn't reduce departure angle even further (... Also a bit of aesthetics involved there as well for the spare tire hanging low, probably the most important of all ). - but yes, not trying to derail the thread, it's been interesting seeing everyone's economy and how we all lost about the same. I'm sure I could get better in Florida but out West, you're dealing with high winds and constant elevation changes. 21-mpg hand calculated to me driving 72-mph, is great. I legit only get 14.5-mpg by driving 8-mph faster.

If I wanted a bigger tire I'd probably go straight to a light and skinny 34" but that would require a 17" wheel (for my use) and a spare tire carrier ($2,500 bumper with swing out) which I don't want, all that for another .5" of clearance under the diff. It's a snowball effect. The economy would probably be similar or slightly better on the interstate, just not around town. Then I come to the realization that there is nothing I could do with that tire, that I can't already do now. I've been to Moab five times, on the trails I do, unless I was running 37's a slightly larger tire would not do anything for me on the obstacles I've come across. I don't want to lift it higher as I have great articulation only lifting 1.65" (1.1-1.2" net with my bumper and winch) and it's super stable on high off-camber banks.

 

[DubDub]

I agree completely, and sorry, I'm not trying to post a detailed summary as this thread is about MPG's. There were several other reasons, that was just one of them. OEM tire size for zero warranty related hassles, less rotational weight in the specific tire I selected, fits OEM spare location, can use OEM jack, and doesn't reduce departure angle even further (... Also a bit of aesthetics involved there as well for the spare tire hanging low, probably the most important of all ). - but yes, not trying to derail the thread, it's been interesting seeing everyone's economy and how we all lost about the same. I'm sure I could get better in Florida but out West, you're dealing with high winds and constant elevation changes. 21-mpg hand calculated to me driving 72-mph, is great. I legit only get 14.5-mpg by driving 8-mph faster.

Thread derailment is my specialty, so I assume all the blame there