Got Wheels

[beav626]

Trying to put new wheels on my 01 sierra...

 

 

I have always gone with Chrome 20" (they were always in my budget)

 

recently I found a set of 22" for a good price...

 

will the 22" wheel kill my MPG or will I notice a difference? What other issues will I find different from the 20"

[mikystyle]

The ride will get worse. As rim size increases tire size decreases therefore less cushioning. Having less cushioning can in turn leave the rim more susceptible to damage from bumps and potholes. Knowing that stopped me from going with 20's.

[rzauner]

It really depends on what you are going to use your truck for. I put 22's on my truck and the ride is just as good as the factory 20's. Yes, there is less sidewall, and you run a greater risk of damaging the tire and/or rim. With low profile tires, you will never get alot of miles out of a set of tires (30K average). 22's wont kill your mpg, its the tire width and overall dimension of the tire that kills mpg.

 

my 2 cents

[VMax2007]

It really depends on what you are going to use your truck for. I put 22's on my truck and the ride is just as good as the factory 20's. Yes, there is less sidewall, and you run a greater risk of damaging the tire and/or rim. With low profile tires, you will never get alot of miles out of a set of tires (30K average). 22's wont kill your mpg, its the tire width and overall dimension of the tire that kills mpg.

my 2 cents

 

Not entirely true ( ). larger wheels are usually heavier which creates more rotational mass and more unsprung weight, which kills mileage too.

[BigJayDogg3]

It really depends on what you are going to use your truck for. I put 22's on my truck and the ride is just as good as the factory 20's. Yes, there is less sidewall, and you run a greater risk of damaging the tire and/or rim. With low profile tires, you will never get alot of miles out of a set of tires (30K average). 22's wont kill your mpg, its the tire width and overall dimension of the tire that kills mpg.

my 2 cents

 

Not entirely true ( ). larger wheels are usually heavier which creates more rotational mass and more unsprung weight, which kills mileage too.

 

 

 

Granted, but once you're rolling that doesn't play a hugely significant factor does it?

[Rocco715]

Larger wheels put more stress on components. Brakes especially becuase the bigger you go the heavier they are. My 24's with tires weigh about 70# each.

[geektoad]

It really depends on what you are going to use your truck for. I put 22's on my truck and the ride is just as good as the factory 20's. Yes, there is less sidewall, and you run a greater risk of damaging the tire and/or rim. With low profile tires, you will never get alot of miles out of a set of tires (30K average). 22's wont kill your mpg, its the tire width and overall dimension of the tire that kills mpg.

my 2 cents

 

Not entirely true ( ). larger wheels are usually heavier which creates more rotational mass and more unsprung weight, which kills mileage too.

 

 

 

Granted, but once you're rolling that doesn't play a hugely significant factor does it?

 

 

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

[mikystyle]

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

What he said!

[BigJayDogg3]

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

What he said!

 

 

 

That is what I'm saying though. When you maintain a steady speed, like if you were using cruise control in flatlands, you would have to overcome the increased friction from a wider wheel, but since the wheel is already moving, it is a mimimal amount of extra force being used to keep it rolling.

 

Not trying to argue, just trying to get my facts straight.

 

It is the same way where if you go with a narrower, taller wheel/tire isn't it?

[geektoad]

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

What he said!

 

 

 

That is what I'm saying though. When you maintain a steady speed, like if you were using cruise control in flatlands, you would have to overcome the increased friction from a wider wheel, but since the wheel is already moving, it is a mimimal amount of extra force being used to keep it rolling.

 

Not trying to argue, just trying to get my facts straight.

 

It is the same way where if you go with a narrower, taller wheel/tire isn't it?

 

 

Didn't take it as argumentative at all

 

Yes, when maintaining a steadyspeed, the amount of power required to keep the load moving is going to be minimal comparatively. However, the amount of time spent in the real world in that perfect minimal to no-load state is very low, so the extra rotational mass of heavier rims comes in to play quite a bit when all is said and done, and will effect mileage.

 

The extra rotating mass is a completely seperate issue from the extra height/width of of the tire or the size of the contact patch and friction. Those play a part in theory as well, but the rotating mass is a significantly larger effect on your mileage/performance.

 

If you could get a 22" rim with a 305 tire that weighed the exact same as a 20" rim with a 285, you would not likely see a noticable change in your mileage.

 

On the flip side, if you replaced the rim in your 20"/285 combo with a rim that weighed 15 pounds more than the original one, you would see a noticable drop in mileage, even though you've got the exact same tire dimensions for height/width, contact patch, etc.

 

Hope that explains what i'm trying to say, I'm neither an engineer or a physics wiz, this is just what i've learned over the years racing and trying to learn from people that are engineers and physics wizzes.

[BigJayDogg3]

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

What he said!

 

 

 

That is what I'm saying though. When you maintain a steady speed, like if you were using cruise control in flatlands, you would have to overcome the increased friction from a wider wheel, but since the wheel is already moving, it is a mimimal amount of extra force being used to keep it rolling.

 

Not trying to argue, just trying to get my facts straight.

 

It is the same way where if you go with a narrower, taller wheel/tire isn't it?

 

 

Didn't take it as argumentative at all

 

Yes, when maintaining a steadyspeed, the amount of power required to keep the load moving is going to be minimal comparatively. However, the amount of time spent in the real world in that perfect minimal to no-load state is very low, so the extra rotational mass of heavier rims comes in to play quite a bit when all is said and done, and will effect mileage.

 

The extra rotating mass is a completely seperate issue from the extra height/width of of the tire or the size of the contact patch and friction. Those play a part in theory as well, but the rotating mass is a significantly larger effect on your mileage/performance.

 

If you could get a 22" rim with a 305 tire that weighed the exact same as a 20" rim with a 285, you would not likely see a noticable change in your mileage.

 

On the flip side, if you replaced the rim in your 20"/285 combo with a rim that weighed 15 pounds more than the original one, you would see a noticable drop in mileage, even though you've got the exact same tire dimensions for height/width, contact patch, etc.

 

Hope that explains what i'm trying to say, I'm neither an engineer or a physics wiz, this is just what i've learned over the years racing and trying to learn from people that are engineers and physics wizzes.

 

 

 

Seems like we were agreeing in a roundabout way.

[BigJayDogg3]

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

 

 

What's with the -ed?

[geektoad]

it's a factor every time you hit the gas at all. it's more mass/load that has to be accelerated to increase speed. rotational mass counts an order of magnitude more than non-rotational toward how hard your engine has to work to accelerate. That's why when i raced my 98 camaro, it had titanium valvetrain components, an aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber driveshaft and 19lb forged aluminum rims. all for minimizing rotational mass.

 

 

What's with the -ed?

 

 

Gave it up back in 2002, then sold the car in '03. I miss it, but at the same time it was a damn expensive hobby.