Jump to content

Stock tires to BF KO2s - mpg?

Waffle34
 Share

Recommended Posts

Waffle34 Enthusiast

Waffle34

Posted
Posted

so im sure youve seen those retro silverados around online. I got a set of the steel wheels already sandblasted and powder coated. They of course are 17" steel rims. I have the usual aluminum 18" rims with 265/65R18 goodyear  tires on my truck now. I am planning to get BF KO2's for the 17" steel rims in 265/70R17 which is virtually the same diameter and circumference. One less revolution per mile so meh.

I do drive alot of highway miles and curious how much of a MPG hit the KO2's will cause. I can pretty easily get 22-24 mpg highway now. 

 

Anyone got any real world figures? Even just staying factory size on the same rims not necessarily doing my exact swap.

CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

If the rolling weight is the same or very similar, probably not much change at all.

 

Just don't buy load range E tires as those are much heavier.

  • Like 1
MikeBMW Senior Enthusiast

MikeBMW

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, CamGTP said:

If the rolling weight is the same or very similar, probably not much change at all.

 

Just don't buy load range E tires as those are much heavier.

I Bought the load range E K02 35X12.5X18s for hauling and towing. New stock black aluminum wheels.
If I was worried about gas mileage, I wouldn't have changed a thing about the stock form and tires.
I just wanted a lift and a better looking truck, IMO.
Still, if one is worried about gas mileage, keep it stock.
I never understand why people wanting to mod their truck are concerned about gas mileage.
It'll be what it will be, I guess.
Currently, I'm at 10 MPG around town, I have yet to take it on a highway drive for any extended length of time but I'll be doing that next month - from Florida to Colorado - to help my Mom out after my Dad passed away. (flew out for the funeral and drove the BMW to the airport because the truck ain't gonna fit in the parking garage - Tampa is 6'8" for short term)
I'll update later.

Edited by MikeBMW
Waffle34 Enthusiast

Waffle34

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, CamGTP said:

If the rolling weight is the same or very similar, probably not much change at all.

 

Just don't buy load range E tires as those are much heavier.

yea i tried finding the factory tires on tirerack but no dice. the BFko2's in load range C are about 46 lbs a tire. Closest i can find on tirerack are about 36-38 lbs for the factory goodyear wranglers.

 

looked at general grabber at/x and they are still 45 lbs each.

 

i did run the steel wheels with the factory load range E tires for a few months and it didnt affect mpg that much (but we were on winter gas too) - those are about the same 45 lbs each now that i think about it. kinda slipped more in the snow.

 

While im not super concerned about mpg it would be nice to know. Ive added the tow mirrors and did a 2" front level kit. neither of those affected mpg too much. I do plan to get an 18 ft open car hauler in the near future to tow a project truck around - trailer and project combined will be close to 6000#.

1-2 mpg drop wont be the end of the world but if its 5-10 like some people are saying elsewhere thats going to be a big deal....

 

Edited by Waffle34
2015 High Miler Enthusiast

2015 High Miler

Posted
Posted

I think its a reasonable question to see what the difference is in a real world comparison.

 

I currently have 32" Michelins that are rated at 43# each. I would like to go up to a 33 or 34" tire.  The weight difference on most tires I've looked at is about 15# each.  I do a lot of long highway runs and losing 1-2 vs 3-5 is a lot of difference. Adding 60# of rotating weight is significant. But, how significant?  1-2 I can live with but 4+ is not worth it to me. 

 

I added BFG AT on our Jeep and lost 2-3.  It went from 21-22 to 18-19. Same height but wider and much heavier that the stock passenger car tire that came on it.  Also, added wheels so there is extra weight there, too.  

 

Point is, asking about MPG loss with a tire change seems like a reasonable request.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

Picture a ping-pong ball on a foot and a half length of 100# test fishing line and your spinning it over your head at say 10 rpm.

 

Now replace the ping-pong ball with a 10# Medicine Ball and imagine that same 10 rpm orbit.

 

Try is with a 50# boat anchor. 

 

Now do it with four weights at a time and that is the basic concept of wheel weight. Even up to speed it will take more effort to keep the heavier weights aloft and at that same 10 RPM. 

 

Basic flywheel math. Speed, mass and distance are all contributors and the higher that total 'flywheel' effect the more fuel it will use. 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
2015 High Miler Enthusiast

2015 High Miler

Posted
Posted

Bear thanks for the reply but it doesnt answer the question of how much difference.

 

Current tires are Michelin Defender LTX 305/50/20 that list at 42#.

Im looking at BFG 33/12.5/20 that list at 56#.  

 

How much difference is expected?  

 

Does anyone have any figures?

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 2015 High Miler said:

Bear thanks for the reply but it doesnt answer the question of how much difference.

 

Current tires are Michelin Defender LTX 305/50/20 that list at 42#.

Im looking at BFG 33/12.5/20 that list at 56#.  

 

How much difference is expected?  

 

Does anyone have any figures?

Not me. 😉 

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...