Jump to content

Gas mileage if changing to 35s ?

ugaDAWGS09
 Share

Recommended Posts

TxTruckMan Senior Enthusiast

TxTruckMan

Posted
Posted

Actually, I've studied tires and their affect on MPG for quite a while.  Weight plays a factor, but it's not a huge factor.  Rolling resistance and aerodynamics are the largest contributors.

 

On my 2015 6.2L Denali I ran 22" Bridgestone Alenzas (street tires) 2/3 of the year.  That combo weighed in at something like 88-90 pounds per tire.  I easily got 21/22 mpg on the highway and 16/17 overall average.  I'm a spirited driver.

 

In the winter and when going camping I also had a pair of GMC 18" All-Terrain wheels with Goodyear Duratracs that I'd flip on.  Stock sizes.  Each tire weighed in at a much lower 60 pounds or so.  I would always drop 1-2 MPG with the lighter, off-road tire setup.  Much lighter, but the aggressive tread pattern hurt my MPG somewhat.

 

Now I have a 2021 6.2L AT4 with stock 20" Goodyear Wrangler TrailRunner tires.  I don't know the weight, I assume it's in the 60 pound range, but I know that my mileage sucks balls.  I struggle to get 17/18 mpg on the highway and 14/15 in mixed driving.  It's got to be a combination of the factory lift, aerodynamics, and non-highway tire.

 

Summary - my heaviest tire got the best mileage because it had the best aerodynamics and lowest rolling resistance.

  • Like 1
DustSierra Enthusiast

DustSierra

Posted
Posted (edited)

Run 275/65/R20 Goodyear Duratracs with 2" level on mine. 34.5" tire that is essentially the most aggressive All-Terrain tire they make A.K.A. the best looking non-mud tire money can buy. Looks considerably more aggressive than Toyo Open Country, K02's, etc. Uber popular tire on other off-road platforms. 

 

Lost about .5-1 mpg over the stock 275/60/R20 Wrangler AT

 

Worth every penny in gas mileage that I lose. Truck looks so much better that I would have gladly done it over again even if I was losing 5x the mileage. 

 

If you are worried about gas mileage, you shouldn't be driving a truck. You could lift your truck 8-10" and throw on 37's and I'm sure you would still be getting 10-12 MPG although you would do much better with a deisel. 

Edited by DustSierra
  • 2 weeks later...
Supercup Enthusiast

Supercup

Posted
Posted

My past experiece has been 1.5 - 2.0 mpg loss going up 2" - the move up of the front and imact to areo is the biggest impact on mpg.

 

I just sold my 2020 AT4 Carbon Pro - 6.2L - here is a photo of my "life of use" mileage - About 45% of time I was towing - half of that was enclsoed 24' trailer at 7,000 - 10,000 lbs.   Towing mileage in and around S.Cal hills was 6.2-6.5 mpg - got about 8 on flat ground and 4.5 +/- on hills.  I had 2.5" BDS lift with stock Duratracs - great truck - but with 24 gallon tank and poor mileage - had to stop 150 miles or less for gas with enclosed trailer - so just jumped up to HD and diesel motor. 

 

Loved the truck - but was not the right tool for towing! 

 

 

2020 Mileage.jpg

2020 Mileage - towing flat ground.jpg

Truck Fox 4.JPG

truck & Trailer.jpg

  • 6 months later...
Spurshot Senior Enthusiast

Spurshot

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/3/2021 at 10:33 AM, TxTruckMan said:

Actually, I've studied tires and their affect on MPG for quite a while.  Weight plays a factor, but it's not a huge factor.  Rolling resistance and aerodynamics are the largest contributors.

 

On my 2015 6.2L Denali I ran 22" Bridgestone Alenzas (street tires) 2/3 of the year.  That combo weighed in at something like 88-90 pounds per tire.  I easily got 21/22 mpg on the highway and 16/17 overall average.  I'm a spirited driver.

 

In the winter and when going camping I also had a pair of GMC 18" All-Terrain wheels with Goodyear Duratracs that I'd flip on.  Stock sizes.  Each tire weighed in at a much lower 60 pounds or so.  I would always drop 1-2 MPG with the lighter, off-road tire setup.  Much lighter, but the aggressive tread pattern hurt my MPG somewhat.

 

Now I have a 2021 6.2L AT4 with stock 20" Goodyear Wrangler TrailRunner tires.  I don't know the weight, I assume it's in the 60 pound range, but I know that my mileage sucks balls.  I struggle to get 17/18 mpg on the highway and 14/15 in mixed driving.  It's got to be a combination of the factory lift, aerodynamics, and non-highway tire.

 

Summary - my heaviest tire got the best mileage because it had the best aerodynamics and lowest rolling resistance.

 

I agree with TxTruckMan.

 

Old thread, but I thought I'd weigh in on the subject of tires and fuel economy.  There's a whole lot of misinformation out there on increased tire weight being the biggest factor for decreasing fuel economy.  It's in every forum I've seen.  Somebody puts a mud tire that's 30 lbs heavier 3" wider and 3" taller than the street tires that were on it, then proclaims that the weight is the culprit for the loss in fuel economy.  Nothing could be further misconstrued. 

 

First, consider that a taller tire has a mechanical disadvantage in leverage to turn the tire.  It's the same thing as using a longer breaker bar to torque a fastener...in reverse.  If you apply force on a breaker bar, it will generate torque on the fastener.  Increase the length of the wrench and apply the same force and the torque on the fastener goes up.  Imagine the radius of the tire is the "wrench" length.  The larger the radius of the tire, the more torque on the axle it will take to move it.  

 

Wider tires generate more resistance to rolling.  Aggressive tread cause more rolling resistance. Weight? that's a long way down the list of influence on fuel economy. 

Edited by Spurshot

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      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. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      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.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...