Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Has anyone had to mess with their axle ratios when adding bigger tires? I have read that adding bigger tires messes with your axle ratio and throws your transmission and RPM's out of whack. I currently have a 3.23 axle ratio and I'm thinking of going from 275/55/R20 (31.9" Diameter tire) to 275/65/R20 (34.09" Diameter tire). Is there any truth to this? And if so, is it really anything to worry about or consider?

Ya there is. Larger tires will decrease what your speedometer reads (your speedometer will read slower than you're actually moving). With each revolution of the tire, you'll be traveling farther because of the larger circumference. As far as the gear ratios go it's doing the same thing as putting in a taller gear too and you already have a tall gear in there so you're going to feel like you have less power than you feel now.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Ya there is. Larger tires will decrease what your speedometer reads (your speedometer will read slower than you're actually moving). With each revolution of the tire, you'll be traveling farther because of the larger circumference. As far as the gear ratios go it's doing the same thing as putting in a taller gear too and you already have a tall gear in there so you're going to feel like you have less power than you feel now.

Will these changes be significant enough to notice? Or do they only change things very slightly?

Edited by Isidro____
Posted

You will most certainly feel it. It will stay in lower gears when cruising on the interstate and take more gas to get you moving. The diameter has less to do with it then the mass associated with those tires. You will be going from a four ply to a 10 ply tire and they will weigh much more. You will probably see a fair amount of mpg loss as well. But it will look sweet!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

Isidro__ with the leveling kit and tires I lost between 2-3 mpg but the truck looks fantastic compared to before. I considered doing Open Country AT2 instead of the RT's but it looks like an All Terrain should look. Staying with an All Terrain tread will help keep weight down and having the 6.2 helps a bunch. To me regearing isn't needed but I haven't driven but 600 miles since the tire and level mods so I may not be your best source for info.

Posted

Ya there is. Larger tires will decrease what your speedometer reads (your speedometer will read slower than you're actually moving). With each revolution of the tire, you'll be traveling farther because of the larger circumference. As far as the gear ratios go it's doing the same thing as putting in a taller gear too and you already have a tall gear in there so you're going to feel like you have less power than you feel now.

I drive on the same tires and a 2" level. Yeah, you lose some mpg's. it's not horrible, depending on your drive (more freeway vs more city). I still tow our 34 oal trailer and it pulls without hesitation @7500lbs. I have a 5.3 with a standard rear end. The truck has enough tq to handle heavier wheels and loads. The power loss is minimal... not like driving a Honda Civic and turning the air conditioner on.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

without going through all 331 pages of this post question is 2016 sierra all terrain lower control arms are stamped aluminum....use rough country poly carbonate 2" leveling blocks which i've read in some posts wear out faster...or use the billet blocks?

Posted

without going through all 331 pages of this post question is 2016 sierra all terrain lower control arms are stamped aluminum....use rough country poly carbonate 2" leveling blocks which i've read in some posts wear out faster...or use the billet blocks?

There is no "stamped aluminum" but there is stamped steel, aluminum and steel. Aluminum and stamped steel require longer bolts so that's why they need to know which one of the three types you have. Aluminum and stamped steel are thicker and they need the longer bolts over the steel arms. I've never heard of the RC spacers wearing out nor do I see how they could wear out.

  • Like 1
Posted

Tires went on today, had to wait longer than expected but they are finally on ad89b523c9f07454fe97a33793d42616.jpgc87b66b1a32c867baf2720cef2bccf3a.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's see some more pics!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

Guys, I have been pouring over this topic and wanted some clarification before I move forward. I have a new 2017 Silverado 1500 crew. I do not like the steep rake look on the truck or that it rides so low. I would like to raise the truck cab and get it closer to level. I tow occasionally, mostly in the 4000 lb range and I have a decked storage system in the back so I am always carrying 300 lb load in the bed. I am considering the 5100 adjustable bilstein shocks for the front that would be set to he second to highest height setting giving me approximately 1.75 inches of lift in the front. When loaded with my trailer, I am trying to avoid he squat look, so I am considering doing a small lift block in the rear. I want to run the stock tires out until replacements are needed and then replace them with a taller tire with a more aggressive tread. I am mostly on the road but hunt locally on rutted dirt roads 5-6 times a year and head to the Arkansas mud another 3-4 times a year. Am I on the right track for leveling the front of the truck with the 5100s and adding the short block in the rear therefore decreasing the rake but giving me a bit more height and higher rear for when I am carrying a load? What size tires and size would you recommend for my needs? I really appreciate your insight.

  • Like 1
Posted

I did find this information from a previous post. Sounds like this combination of 5100 Bilsteins and spacers will get me where I want to be.

 

 

"Front - 2.5 inch (combination of bilstein 5100 set to 1.25 and 1.25 top spacer)

Rear - 1 inch (replaced 1.25 stock with 2.25) w/bilstein 5100"

 

Not sure how the rear1" was actually accomplished - Does the Silverado 1500 come equipped with a 1.25 inch spacer? top or bottom? Thanks again for any input.

Posted

a68f0351586077184b3b36a52c44f3dc.jpg

86e78d8baafe293b626a4738f7a7ccfd.jpg74f144f2b5db5857502aacadb9c831cf.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That looks good! A lot of local people around here have the 3.5 with 35s and don't seem to have any issues...I might be next. Here are a few pics from a local shops page: afa5955520a78b34a38f4c5a3900b872.jpg7bb6561400e29e4e4183ca7f0ab2a4aa.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

Guys, I have been pouring over this topic and wanted some clarification before I move forward. I have a new 2017 Silverado 1500 crew. I do not like the steep rake look on the truck or that it rides so low. I would like to raise the truck cab and get it closer to level. I tow occasionally, mostly in the 4000 lb range and I have a decked storage system in the back so I am always carrying 300 lb load in the bed. I am considering the 5100 adjustable bilstein shocks for the front that would be set to he second to highest height setting giving me approximately 1.75 inches of lift in the front. When loaded with my trailer, I am trying to avoid he squat look, so I am considering doing a small lift block in the rear. I want to run the stock tires out until replacements are needed and then replace them with a taller tire with a more aggressive tread. I am mostly on the road but hunt locally on rutted dirt roads 5-6 times a year and head to the Arkansas mud another 3-4 times a year. Am I on the right track for leveling the front of the truck with the 5100s and adding the short block in the rear therefore decreasing the rake but giving me a bit more height and higher rear for when I am carrying a load? What size tires and size would you recommend for my needs? I really appreciate your insight.

 

 

I did find this information from a previous post. Sounds like this combination of 5100 Bilsteins and spacers will get me where I want to be.

 

 

"Front - 2.5 inch (combination of bilstein 5100 set to 1.25 and 1.25 top spacer)

Rear - 1 inch (replaced 1.25 stock with 2.25) w/bilstein 5100"

 

Not sure how the rear1" was actually accomplished - Does the Silverado 1500 come equipped with a 1.25 inch spacer? top or bottom? Thanks again for any input.

You probably won't get much response, because that question has been answered dozens of times...and members expect the new guys to search for their answers before asking a common question.

 

I'll give you the short answer...Yes, your truck has a 1.25" rear block, so replacing it with a 2.25" block will give you 1" of rear lift total. And yes, you can run a level kit in the front (and your combination of bilstein & spacer will be fine as long as you don't go higher than 2.5" total). I did something similar on my last two trucks. On my 2009, I ran a 2" spacer in the front and 3" blocks in the rear. Factory rake was about the same (which was nice for towing), but the whole truck sat 2" higher than stock. Then, on my 2012, I ran a 2" front spacer and 2" rear block. That truck only had about 1" of rake, so I added Timbren SES (with 1" spacers) to the rear to help with squat when towing.

 

And, if you tell me your rim size, I can help you with tire sizes...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • That's interesting, I assume that would add to the cost of the oil but also I was forgetting to bring up the issue of the low tension rings allowing more oil past which in turn forces the cats to have more oil additives pass through them that wouldn't otherwise so they are creating that problem and of course its all in the name of fuel economy. Mind you the other issue would be the lack of additives that fight the formation of carbon within the piston ring grooves which turn the engine into an oil burner and with in this GM forums case is your average off the shelf Dexos licensed oil, meanwhile the other off the shelf oil being Valvoline's R&P isn't licensed and the only one that is which is that certain Mobil oil that came out recently ( its not even being marketed in Canada ) and only a fraction of vehicle owners are going to be using it out of all the other oils on the shelf or the quickie lube bay that meet the Dexos spec by way of actual licensing.    Also I suspect that its an easy excuse to pool the non turbo DI engines in with the turbo DI engines and design the oil to not have LSPI issues in the most demanding engines and short change the naturally aspirated DI by not offering a higher concentration of additive package they could handle and still not be at risk of LSPI.    I wonder if Amsoil flipped the switch just lately and did whatever packaging designation at the same time as I wonder what oil formulation I would have bought in May, of course I don't know when it was packaged at the factory vs how long it was in storage at the Edmonton warehouse. I know its been said at least in the past that the big players switch over to a reformulated oil but the packaging has not changed until they make that move as well so there is that cross over time where its a new formulation in a predated formula marked package. 
    • Hmm. A real reason to not just use the odometer to determine OCI?    
    • Sad thing is that this doesn't have to be the case. LSPI can be solved without a reduction in TBN. Swap Ca for Mg.  Cats are not a issue if the OEM can get a ring and valve guide seal even at SN levels of SAPS. Dizzy is purring like a kitten with a bowl of warm milk. 200K of Full SAPS oil and zero detonation issues and nice a clean inside and out. This shouldn't be an issue. It isn't 1920.    Tell ya what AMSOIL SS is excellent at, internal cleanliness. The new formula is even a step up from their already outstanding cleanliness levels. Can't say the OEM offering is quite that clean. There marketing suggest the SS is cleaner.     That is the only defense with at shelf oil. Nothing wrong with them if you ignore the marketing and OEM 'recommended' OCI and use a thimble full of common sense. 😉 You go sir. 
    • I started with a folding cover by BAK PAC on my 2500. It went bad after close to 5 years. Bent and vinyl coming loose. Contacted BAK and they gave me a very good discount on a Revolver. Had it a number of years. Mostly outdoor storage. Some garage storage. Vinyl started to come loose. Still under warranty so they replaced to cover. Sold the 2500, bought the 1500 and got another revolver for it. Had it a couple years now and no issues. I store it indoors. Got a bit of discount when buying it as well. If you are seeing problems, contact BAK or real truck and let them know. Customer service was pretty good. But I think they changed their warranty.
    • I agree, there is no one answer fits all as every rig is different, one may be pulling some little aluminum fishing boat while another is towing a monstrosity that weighs a lot and hopefully the owner if the rig has some prior experience to know what drive mode they should choose.    It also struck me and this is from watching a few of those boat ramp escapades videos in the past, Ford being one of the vehicles that has the auto front axle hubs and sure enough its found out that one hub has crapped out and won't engage and may not have manual hubs to even select on both sides so they are on the boat ramp stuck with no four wheel drive and spinning .... they flat out need a tow to get up the ramp and deal with the vehicles new found issues. That can happen to all brands of pickup, finding out either four wheel drive or 4 low isn't working right at the time its needed it to work as some electronic crap has failed. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...