They make a 255 tire with a 114 load rating?
Smaller tires installed, same to worse mileage?
- Thread starter 6lug
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
And the smaller tires will be less wear and tear on hard parts... actually more wear on many parts... in a former life on race engines we went by "cycles" not miles run ie... how many total RPMs has a rotating part made... this went for bearings gears rod cranks anything that turned... the only less wear I can see is less lateral force on a few unsprung parts...
just say'n
Just make peace with 12 MPG. Everything else about these rigs rocks. Except the OEM stereo, front wheel travel, rear AC controls, starter location, etc etc... seriously though, 12 is the price for an awesome ride...
- Thread starter
- #24
I'm going to politely disagree. I can see how cycles on a race engine is prudent. Its much easier to do preventive maintenance on a high maintenance item like a race engine and to provide more risk control by just replacing items at a certain cycle count. But I'm not driving a racing vehicle that sees those kinds of stresses. My extra 100 engine RPMs aren't going to blow my car up any sooner than it already would have. And it WILL reduce wear on things like brakes and drive train strain that the extra leverage of larger tires put on those components.
As I said except a few "unsprung parts" meaning some parts south of the shock/spring ... a very few parts... and we kept count not only on engine cycles but drive shafts/gears and all bearings... personally thinking it is very rare when a smaller diameter tire ever helps anything street driven especially a 6000lb truck ... even 50 extra rpms equates to millions per year that every rotating part in your engine/drive train may have to make... all to save a little wear on your brakes.... hard to make a case for that... and according to your speedo you are putting more miles on the truck than you are...maybe lowering it's resale value
I think this is trivial, not worth spending $5 on. Spend the money on fuel, not tires.
Isn't all of this mute anyways? All the 255 tires that I am aware of with a load index of 114 or greater is a LT tire . LT tires are going to be heavier therefore not saving you any unsprung weight benefit. Like teckis300 said, get an on road oriented tire with low rolling resistance if you want to save fuel. Else AT and/or LT tires are not designed for fuel savings. If you want the look or need to capability of a AT tire, then you will probably have to live with it.
For reference I have 275/55R20 bridgstones alenza it is a road tire similar to Michelin ltx tires and get 15mpg city 17 MPG highway under 65 MPH and 13 MPG highway at 80mph. Heavey OEM 20 inch Tundra wheels so my rim and tire combo is probably heavier then a 275/70R16 set up
For reference I have 275/55R20 bridgstones alenza it is a road tire similar to Michelin ltx tires and get 15mpg city 17 MPG highway under 65 MPH and 13 MPG highway at 80mph. Heavey OEM 20 inch Tundra wheels so my rim and tire combo is probably heavier then a 275/70R16 set up
- Thread starter
- #28
Dude, I think you are missing something here. You are way off base. My tires are 265/75's. That is actually still BIGGER than the OEM 265/70 tires that come on the truck. So not only am I NOT putting more miles on my truck than normal or "lowering its resale value", I am actually still putting LESS indicated miles on the truck being that my tires are still bigger than stock. And you are STILL wrong about wear and tear. What happens when someone sticks 40's on a stock set of axles??? You increase leverage on all parts of the drivetrain from where the tire touches the pavement all the way to the friggin crankshaft. This includes bearings, u joints, CV joints, gears, etc, etc. There is no way around it. Why do people regear according to your logic? Why do people upgrade axles and u joints and transfer cases and transmissions and and and...??? BIGGER TIRES dictate it to keep your hsit from blowing up when youre in the dirt because leverage = wear & tear.
My tires are 1" larger in diameter than the OEM tires, so my RPM is less than it would be if I had OEM tires on it, and Toyota designed the damn thing to run with said smaller tires, so I think I will be alright in the "reliability" department.
To all else, thanks for the input. I will stick with the tires installed and just suck it up.
Same tire size, 2002 LX. I keep it around 70 and on long trips I consistently get almost 17mpg. I think it's mostly about smoothness of driving. I'd suspect something about fuel/air mix.
- Thread starter
- #30
I cleaned the MAF and reset the computer again today. I will see what happens this coming week with it. I hardly ever put my foot into it when moving around town, and the interstate is a steady drive with low impact hills, so I'm thinking it has to be something clogged or dirty or unhappy in the engine operation. Especially when I see numbers like yours...even if that was embellished, 15 mpg would make me happy. I will try out 70 mph too....Ill just have to keep an eye on the rearview.