MPGs - Many People Griping - A Foundational Knowledge Primer To Assist in Better Efficiency

[Blue Sky]

My 35 tires weight 52lb. Each wheel and tire were 8lb heavier than stock .

What tires are you running? I wasn't aware of any 35s on 18" wheels lighter than the Nokian Nat at 58.4lbs?

 

[Blue Sky]

Wow, that is super light. I've always liked the tread pattern on those Wranglers.

The width of your 315/70r17s tires are ~16% wider than a 265/70R18 stock LC and ~22.5% wider than a stock 1958. The wider contact patch and more aggressive A/T tread will no doubt increase rolling resistance and that will have an impact on MPGs.

 

[RideWithYanu]

It’s been a long time since Car & Driver were a respectable automotive journalism company. I’d not put too much stock into their “tests.”

 

[teghogh]

It’s been a long time since Car & Driver were a respectable automotive journalism company. I’d not put too much stock into their “tests.”

How about MT ?

 

[Justaron123]

SCS 17x8.5 -10 with Maxxis Razor AT SL tire in a 285 70 17 with tire is weight is 64.9 so 65 lbs total weight. Solid tires it’s a m + s three peak rating.

 

[COSmurf]

despite being 315s the thread pattern is actually 285. then again for reference i added my MPG when the truck was stock as well.
also per C&D, and edmunds test that was shared yesterday between 4runner TRD pro and the Gx the freeway MPGs are identical.

Which tires and wheels did your LC ship with? My Michelin Defender LTX that came with my LC weigh 38 lbs and my 18” First Edition black wheels weighed 28-29 lbs. So that is significantly less than your setup you are suggesting is within low single digits of stock and that’s just the weight. The extra 2” of diameter, even if weight is constant, requires more power (fuel) to turn. So that setup I would not expect to get anywhere near the same as EPA estimates. Again, I more or less agree that if you drive an LC pinned at 80 MPH and also a GX at 80 MPH on the same stretch of highway, they will return pretty close MPGs with the same wheel and tire package. It’s just the rest of the time where it’s not even close if you’re comparing apples to apples.

I’m also a little confused by your response above stating the 315s have a 285 tread pattern, mostly since the leading number should indicate the width in MMs and have nothing to do with patterns, so a 315 that is actually a 285 in width would also mean your diameter is also off because the second set of numbers indicates the sidewall height as a ratio of the leading numbers so 70% of 315 is very different math than 70% of 285. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

 

[Bad1975]

Section width and tread width are two separate animals, literally all tires on the market have a smaller tread width than the listed section width, usually around a 1" difference.

Section width is measured at the largest area of the sidewall when inflated under vehicle load and tread width is the width of the tread.

 

[COSmurf]

Section width and tread width are two separate animals, literally all tires on the market have a smaller tread width than the listed section width, usually around a 1" difference.

Section width is measured at the largest area of the sidewall when inflated under vehicle load and tread width is the width of the tread.

Right… and section width is the first numeral and what informs the sidewall height too and tread widths are not published. Either way, all tires have narrower tread than section but since we wouldn’t know how much the taper is without physically measuring, we DO know that the section width of 315 tapering to 285 tread is still considerably wider than stock and would reduce MPGs a lot.

 

[TrailWhale]

SCS 17x8.5 -10 with Maxxis Razor AT SL tire in a 285 70 17 with tire is weight is 64.9 so 65 lbs total weight. Solid tires it’s a m + s three peak rating.

View attachment 42797

As a mountain biker I always do a double take whenever I see Maxxis truck tires in the wild.

 

[Bad1975]

Right… and section width is the first numeral and what informs the sidewall height too and tread widths are not published. Either way, all tires have narrower tread than section but since we wouldn’t know how much the taper is without physically measuring, we DO know that the section width of 315 tapering to 285 tread is still considerably wider than stock and would reduce MPGs a lot.

Fully agree, I'm on 255/80R17 52lb tire and 25lb wheel with a total weight of 77lbs (same as the OEM 20" combo I removed) all verified with a certified scale. Contact patch is smaller than OEM setup and my MPG is not affected by a measurable amount with the AT tread which was the goal.

Those Duratracs being discussed are only 34.4" diameter, and Goodyear doesn't publish the weight but various internet sources list anywhere from 63.25 to 59.5lbs. per at that size (per tire rack 61lbs at that size). Method 703s come in at just under 28lbs. Best case almost 90lbs. per corner, sounds fishy to the claims being made here. I'm not sure which Method is being ran but after seeing the bs on the tires being discussed I lost interest to look any further into it.

This is supposed to be a place to help others make decisions and falsely reported data doesn't do that, just wanted to call out what I'm seeing being talked out about.

 

[Blue Sky]

Fully agree, I'm on 255/80R17 52lb tire and 25lb wheel with a total weight of 77lbs (same as the OEM 20" combo I removed) all verified with a certified scale. Contact patch is smaller than OEM setup and my MPG is not affected by a measurable amount with the AT tread which was the goal.

Those Duratracs being discussed are only 34.4" diameter, and Goodyear doesn't publish the weight but various internet sources list anywhere from 63.25 to 59.5lbs. per at that size (per tire rack 61lbs at that size). Method 703s come in at just under 28lbs. Best case almost 90lbs. per corner, sounds fishy to the claims being made here. I'm not sure which Method is being ran but after seeing the bs on the tires being discussed I lost interest to look any further into it.

This is supposed to be a place to help others make decisions and falsely reported data doesn't do that, just wanted to call out what I'm seeing being talked out about.

Just a quick a note: I think the tires teghogh is referencing are the Bronco specific Wrangler M/T that were a collab between GY and Ford.

 

[Bad1975]

Your correct

So 55lbs as listed for total of almost 83lbs in a more aggressive tread pattern MT? Still way heavier than OEM even with the heaviest OEM option in 20" configuration. Probably even worse in the MPG department.

 

[Justaron123]

As a mountain biker I always do a double take whenever I see Maxxis truck tires in the wild.

They have been a great tire we have a little bit of everything in WV. Mud, clay, sand, Rock only element I haven’t tested is snow. They have even surpassed my expectations in all the rain recently. I also wanted to clarify all my typos. The rim and tire combined is 65lbs it has been a great set up.

 

[teghogh]

Right… and section width is the first numeral and what informs the sidewall height too and tread widths are not published. Either way, all tires have narrower tread than section but since we wouldn’t know how much the taper is without physically measuring, we DO know that the section width of 315 tapering to 285 tread is still considerably wider than stock and would reduce MPGs a lot.

The contact patch of the Goodyear is the same as 285 k02s and that’s the only reason they don’t rub with a small lift

 

[teghogh]

Fully agree, I'm on 255/80R17 52lb tire and 25lb wheel with a total weight of 77lbs (same as the OEM 20" combo I removed) all verified with a certified scale. Contact patch is smaller than OEM setup and my MPG is not affected by a measurable amount with the AT tread which was the goal.

Those Duratracs being discussed are only 34.4" diameter, and Goodyear doesn't publish the weight but various internet sources list anywhere from 63.25 to 59.5lbs. per at that size (per tire rack 61lbs at that size). Method 703s come in at just under 28lbs. Best case almost 90lbs. per corner, sounds fishy to the claims being made here. I'm not sure which Method is being ran but after seeing the bs on the tires being discussed I lost interest to look any further into it.

This is supposed to be a place to help others make decisions and falsely reported data doesn't do that, just wanted to call out what I'm seeing being talked out about.

if you did more searching instead of talking you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of the bolded paragraph
Tire weight 52
Wheel weight 25
Should I do the addition math for you or you are smart enough to figure that out?

 

[RideWithYanu]

 

[COSmurf]

Both tires in these pictures are 315. The one below my truck is stock f150 Raptor ko2 weighing 63lb the other is same size but Goodyear wrangler at 52lb you can clearly see that although the total side to side width is the same the contact patch of the k02 is more than an inch wider than the Goodyear

That still doesn't change the fact that there are 49 million kangaroos in Australia and 3.5 million people in Uruguay which means if the kangaroos were to invade Uruguay, each person will have to fight 14 kangaroos…

This is getting kinda silly. End of the day, your diameter is 35”, your contact patch is of a 285 width tire (vs factory 265 or 245), and you’re on Mud Terrain (worse than A/Ts) tread designs… all of which significantly decrease gas mileage and said it was getting equivalent mileage to the GX. That’s an impressive feat for the LC. I already said that driving a GX and an LC at 80 MPH+ on the same stretch of highway with the same exact wheel and tire setup would yield likely similar MPGs but that for many other situations and lower speeds, the LC will be much better. You seem to insist it doesn’t or won’t and that’s silly.

 

[teghogh]

That still doesn't change the fact that there are 49 million kangaroos in Australia and 3.5 million people in Uruguay which means if the kangaroos were to invade Uruguay, each person will have to fight 14 kangaroos…

This is getting kinda silly. End of the day, your diameter is 35”, your contact patch is of a 285 width tire (vs factory 265 or 245), and you’re on Mud Terrain (worse than A/Ts) tread designs… all of which significantly decrease gas mileage and said it was getting equivalent mileage to the GX. That’s an impressive feat for the LC. I already said that driving a GX and an LC at 80 MPH+ on the same stretch of highway with the same exact wheel and tire setup would yield likely similar MPGs but that for many other situations and lower speeds, the LC will be much better. You seem to insist it doesn’t or won’t and that’s silly.

I started with my stock vs modified numbers I saw about 2-3 mpg hit . And it’s not a mud train tire the Mt stands for max traction and is in lt catagory

 

[Bad1975]

if you did more searching instead of talking you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of the bolded paragraph
Tire weight 52
Wheel weight 25
Should I do the addition math for you or you are smart enough to figure that out?

Not embarrassed one bit, I made a mistake and missed a few details and got tired of researching, simple as that. If I were embarrassed, I'd just delete or edit the post.

Rather than do the math why don't you put a tape measure to the tread width, I would like to see what it actually measures to and may help others trying to decide what tires to run? While you're at it measuring installed height on LC would be nice as well. The pictures of them show quite a bit of taper and allot of sidewall bulge (the amount of bulge could be due to a narrower wheel between what is pictured but that is unknown). Does the spare fit in the stock location in that size and specific tire?

Nice light weight setup! How ever they have only one purpose IMO (MPG improvement) from what I've read, no mileage warranty and a very soft compound (according to reviews) "C" load rated tire. Reviews on wear are pretty terrible from Raptor and Bronco owners running them. Most owners are reporting 33.5" -33.75" when installed under load, which happens to any tire, but they are not 35" tires to begin with and should either be referred to as their metric size or 34" tires when rounding and speaking of the inch conversion equivalent (34.4 rounds to 34).

There are also a few reports of sidewall failure on trails from the same owners.

My tires (pizza cutters) 255/80R17 @ 52lbs. are 10.1" section width (tread measures 7.75") and are 33.2" diameter (dia. measures 32.5" installed) and have 55k mile warranty. They are not the best tire out there in that size by no means but the lightest I could find without other compromises for my use case, and I'll probably go with something else next time as they are quite loud (likely due to tread depth of 18/32") but have otherwise been flawless IMO.

 

[Velmo]

Currently at 9k Miles. I run in Normal mode entirely. We are in the summer months here and I am consistently in the 23-25mpg range on the highway...without trying or thinking about it. This over rolling terrain at usually 65-75mph. My fuelly, which I started on Day 1, has me at a lifetime average of 21.5mpg.