TIRES vs MPG

billiebob

My Uncle drove a government issued Jeep in Europe
I've owned Jeeps, 4x4s, pickups for 45 years. My first vehicle in high school was an M38. And I've always been a "gotta do that" guy. So big tires, bigger tires, regear .... My TJR went thru factory tires, 33s, 35s, wide track, factory track, 33/10.50R15s on 7" steel spokers.... trending bigger wider to skinnier, lower. Then I found 16x6.5 rims with the TJ bolt pattern and the stock Wrangler 5.5" BS.... so yes I bought them then found 7.50R16 tires. Stock tires on a 1960s F250.... pretty rare today.

DSC_0014.jpg

Beyond the fact these are 40# lighter than any 33, or $40 per tire cheaper, or rated to go 60K miles and I never got more than 45K miles from anything else..... Beyond all those plusses.... I also gained 5mpg, from 17mpg to 22mpg. I will never buy the ego mania 33s again.... plus the ride is sooo much better, I no longer dodge potholes or bumps in the road.

AND they are so much more stable thru anything you'd rather not float thru, like slush, standing water, snow. The only place flotation tires MIGHT beat them, soft sand... we have none, mud.... I avoid it, rock crawling.... not my thing.

If you want better gas mileage... like 30% better.... buy 7.50R16s or 235R16s.
And when the haters laugh.... tell them you go 250 miles on a tank.
 
Last edited:

jadmt

Well-known member
They really only weigh 11 lbs? Most 255/80-17 are around 50-52lbs. I too would be way disappointed with 250 miles on a tank.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
I learned my lesson years ago about larger/heavier tires. For me, it's not worth the sacrifice in ride quality, performance, or fuel economy.
 

roving1

Well-known member
This whole generation of huge tires sticking 4 inches outside the flares is so dumb.

That being said I will take the weight penalty for my E rated skinnies for the strength they provide and the ride quality issue is way overblown, at least for a narrow E rated tire. With a regear I picked up 1.5 mpg on the highway with the heavier but skinnier tire.
 

jadmt

Well-known member
This whole generation of huge tires sticking 4 inches outside the flares is so dumb.

That being said I will take the weight penalty for my E rated skinnies for the strength they provide and the ride quality issue is way overblown, at least for a narrow E rated tire. With a regear I picked up 1.5 mpg on the highway with the heavier but skinnier tire.
I agree sticking out past the flares is dumb. a 255/80-17 (several companies make them) or ko2 in 34x10.5-17 (actually a small 33) do not stick out which is nice I know there are a few 35's in narrow widths now oh the possibilities :) I also see no difference in ride quality tho people who have never run C, D and E back to back will tell how bad they are.
 

Kmrtnsn

Explorer
It's all compromises. Look at the braking ability you've given up with those skinnies. What do think, 20% increase in stopping distance? It must squeal like hell in a even a not so fast corner.
 

2.ooohhh

Member
It's all compromises. Look at the braking ability you've given up with those skinnies. What do think, 20% increase in stopping distance? It must squeal like hell in a even a not so fast corner.
Actually the braking distance was the same on the last truck I tested. Limited by the abs on the truck rather than the tires.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

billiebob

My Uncle drove a government issued Jeep in Europe
Look at the braking ability you've given up with those skinnies.
really, I've never seen that test but going to a bigger diameter definitely increases stopping distances. Actually skinnies on gravel roads stop way faster with better control than a wide floatation tire, which all 33x12.50s are.
 

roving1

Well-known member
It's all compromises. Look at the braking ability you've given up with those skinnies. What do think, 20% increase in stopping distance? It must squeal like hell in a even a not so fast corner.
I don't stipulate that is 100% true (in my case I know it was not because my stock size BFG AT's were garbage in every metric) but for the sake of argument I'll say it is and I'll take the almost complete inability to hydroplane skinnies, less propensity to hook into snow banks or get sucked into ditches and a better ability to cut through silt piles and gravel to a firm road base, and not coating the entire outside of my vehicle and widows with mud because I drove through a 1" deep puddle any day.

I'll also accept the challenge for closest to stock 60-0 braking distance on slighty oversize skinnies vs anyone rolling on 35's, 37's or 40's. ;)

On this off ramp for my work commute my 2wd 5 lug Taco will start to howl on stock 205 all seasons at at 37MPH, the 4WD on 235 ST Maxx at little over 40, and my Nissan Sentra with 215 high performance summer tires at about 52MPH. Doesn't really feel like I am cheating death with that level of performance to me.

Annotation 2019-09-21 230845.jpg


10399616_42092348750_2156_n.jpgIMG_20190918_103441.jpgIMG_20160427_124917274.jpg
 

billiebob

My Uncle drove a government issued Jeep in Europe
stock 205 all seasons at at 37MPH, the 4WD on 235 ST Maxx at little over 40, and my Nissan Sentra with 215 high performance summer tires at about 52MPH
on that note, I'll state 37MPH is safer than 52MPH.
 

762X39

Explorer
I purchased the skinniest Super Swampers for my Niva (and upped the size from 27" to a monstrous 29") in the mid 90's. They howled on the tarmac a bit but performed off highway better than the lifted Jeeps all around me. When I replaced the tires on my Unimog I went with the skinniest 38" Continental MPT81's I could find. Performance off highway is excellent and I don't pay a penalty cruising on the highway (at a max speed of 80km/hr but I digress). For me, skinny rules...
 
Top