MPGs - Many People Griping - A Foundational Knowledge Primer To Assist in Better Efficiency
- Thread starter COSmurf
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #62
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
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.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?
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.
Similar threads
