Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You're not really going to lose any HP, it'll be the same amount going to the rear. The 285/55's will be taller then the 275/55's and take a little more rpm to turn them. You might lose 1-3mpg depending on the truck…

Posted

I need some help. I have a '14 SLT 5.3 with 3.42 gears and 2.5 level. My question is, I have stock 275/55/20 tires that weigh 39 lbs. I want to put on 285/55/20 Terra grapplers that weigh 58 lbs. That is 19 lbs more per corner but I'm leaving the diameter the same. How much rear wheel HP will I lose to the ground and how much will the weight effect MPG as well.

I have the same engine/gears but with a 6.5" lift, I went with 35" tires on 18" wheels and I couldn't really notice the power loss driving around town. It's on the highway when you'll go to pass someone that the loss will really be noticeable. As for your MPG loss I can't say because I have a 6.5" lift not the 2.5" level, I did however drop down to 17-19 mpg on the highway from 22-24.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Posted

I have the same engine/gears but with a 6.5" lift, I went with 35" tires on 18" wheels and I couldn't really notice the power loss driving around town. It's on the highway when you'll go to pass someone that the loss will really be noticeable. As for your MPG loss I can't say because I have a 6.5" lift not the 2.5" level, I did however drop down to 17-19 mpg on the highway from 22-24.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Thanks man that helps.
Posted

You're not really going to lose any HP, it'll be the same amount going to the rear. The 285/55's will be taller then the 275/55's and take a little more rpm to turn them. You might lose 1-3mpg depending on the truck…

Thanks for the reply that helps
Posted (edited)

Just regear and tune you'll be fine lol. My buddies 09 just got regear'd to 4:11. Though the tune is what's doing it. He Managed 18mpg from Tallahassee FL to MS with 295/70/17 toyo mts. I managed 16mpg when I went to Tallahassee with stock everything.

Edited by 5RWill
  • Like 1
Posted

Fuel "Rampage" 20"x12" (-44offset) wrapped in Toyo Open Country M/T 33x12.5R20

Your truck looks amazing with the combo you picked!

  • Like 1
Posted

Your truck looks amazing with the combo you picked!

Thanks, I absolutely love the way these wheels look with the Brownstone color!

Posted (edited)

attachicon.gifImageUploadedByTapatalk1450486091.556568.jpg

 

Stock gmc 18 on 35x12.5 bf

 

Need some more details! Lift? No hub knuckle rub with stock rims? Metric size or 35x12.50r18?

Edited by bcbz71
Posted (edited)

zone 3.5 inch combo 2 inch level 1.5 inch body lift rims motto metal 20x10 -24mm tires 305 55 20 nitro terra grappler g2 not shown but are installed now. i had to get new tire these in the picture are atturo trail blade XT's they are crap tires. they where unbalanceable. i had to send them back. i will take more pictures after i wash it. it sits level and i love it.

post-130995-0-74375800-1450656429_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-23090100-1450656439_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-74375800-1450656429_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-23090100-1450656439_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-74375800-1450656429_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-23090100-1450656439_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-74375800-1450656429_thumb.jpg

post-130995-0-23090100-1450656439_thumb.jpg

Edited by Chris the navy mech
  • Like 2
Posted

zone 3.5 inch combo 2 inch level 1.5 inch body lift rims motto metal 20x10 -24mm tires 305 55 20 nitro terra grappler g2 not shown but are installed now. i had to get new tire these in the picture are atturo trail blade XT's they are crap tires. they where unbalanceable. i had to send them back. i will take more pictures after i wash it. it sits level and i love it.

Looks great! Ive heard Aturos were garbage. My local truck accessories shop says they too have issues with balancing. The owner said they were almost square when they come in lol

Posted

Looks great! Ive heard Aturos were garbage. My local truck accessories shop says they too have issues with balancing. The owner said they were almost square when they come in lol

thanks man. yeah they were terrible.I tried to have them road force balanced and the machine said i need 96 lbs on one tire and 76 lbs, 43lbs, 39lbs on the other ones.

Posted (edited)

I've got a 2014 Silverado Z71 LTZ. Added the Rough Country 2.5" leveling kit, 20x9" Rockstar II wheels with a -12 offset, and 295/55 Toyo Open Counry M/T tires. Rubs a little at full lock right now, especially in reverse. I have aftermarket bumpers coming that should fix most of it, and will need to do a little trimming for the rubbing while in reverse. I'll try to take pics of the rubbing/trimming when I get some time. For now, here's a few pics of it in the shop (all I got for now) as well as some pics to show how much it sticks out with my setup.

 

Enjoy!

 

post-150383-0-21598600-1450679248_thumb.jpg

 

post-150383-0-99782000-1450678865_thumb.jpg

post-150383-0-99782000-1450678865_thumb.jpg

post-150383-0-21598600-1450679248_thumb.jpg

post-150383-0-99782000-1450678865_thumb.jpg

post-150383-0-21598600-1450679248_thumb.jpg

post-150383-0-99782000-1450678865_thumb.jpg

post-150383-0-21598600-1450679248_thumb.jpg

Edited by iversun
  • Like 3

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

    • hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...