Jump to content

Are E-rated 34s worth it over 33s?

pablo_mondragon

Recommended Posts

pablo_mondragon Enthusiast

pablo_mondragon

Posted
Posted

Hey guys, I know there are about a million different topics about tires but I haven't found an exact answer after days of research.

I just picked up a 16 Sierra 1500 Z71 5.3L (Pictured below). This is my daily driver and MPGs are semi important, but I also didn't buy a truck because of its great fuel economy. I come from an old Grand Cherokee with a 5.7 Hemi.

 

I am planning on adding a 2-inch leveling kit, mainly for looks, and to have more clearance in the front. From what I've researched, by two best tire options with the stock wheels are 275/60r20 and 275/65r20. 33s and 34s respectively. Most people report no rubbing with either setup.

Honestly I just love the look of the 34s way more and they are not that much more price-wise, but they are all E-rated LT and all weight about 15-20lbs more than their 33 counterpart. The most towing I see myself doing is a 6x12 Uhaul and a small 18ft. boat, but I do take my trucks offroading/overlanding and in the snow quite a bit. I also do a lot of highway driving.

 

In reality, I would only gain 0.5" of extra clearance with the 34s, and I am concerned about how much the extra weight will affect my truck's performance, especially with the 5.3. Is there any reason why I should pick the E-rated LT 34s over the lightweight 33s, other than the fact that they look awesome? Could a tuner make up some of the MPG loss? Some report a better ride from E-rated tires, and treads are deeper as well. 

 

Thanks!!

 

1.thumb.jpg.c2b5866c07abcb7188942f3676f14ce2.jpg 

 

2018GMC Senior Enthusiast

2018GMC

Posted
Posted

I have BFG E rated 33” tires on my 2018 Sierra for winter. 285/70/17 Yes mpg went down maybe 1 - 2mpg on highway. Gas is cheap and I’d rather have a tougher tire for nearly the same money as the lower load range.

I’m running 265/65/18 Goodyear fortitude ht on AT4 wheels for summer. Mpg is up +2 over the BFG. Big part is that these are smaller diameter 31.5 vs the BFG 32.8”. I did account for the speedo off when calculating mpg with the larger tires.

Go with the ones you like instead of settling [emoji106]

pablo_mondragon Enthusiast

pablo_mondragon

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, 2018GMC said:

I have BFG E rated 33” tires on my 2018 Sierra for winter. 285/70/17 Yes mpg went down maybe 1 - 2mpg on highway. Gas is cheap and I’d rather have a tougher tire for nearly the same money as the lower load range.

I’m running 265/65/18 Goodyear fortitude ht on AT4 wheels for summer. Mpg is up +2 over the BFG. Big part is that these are smaller diameter 31.5 vs the BFG 32.8”. I did account for the speedo off when calculating mpg with the larger tires.

Go with the ones you like instead of settling emoji106.png

Thanks! That's encouraging. Going with the lightweight 33s does feel like settling, and having a tougher tire for similar price seems like it worth it. And I can live with a slight mpg loss. Nice looking truck!

2018GMC Senior Enthusiast

2018GMC

Posted
Posted
Thanks! That's encouraging. Going with the lightweight 33s does feel like settling, and having a tougher tire for similar price seems like it worth it. And I can live with a slight mpg loss. Nice looking truck!

Thanks!

Post some pics before and after!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...