[Mr. Bills]

I care a lot less about the hit in MPG than I do the loss in performance. That's why I didn't go over 32s. Mine came stock with 31s and I can tell a difference in power goign to 32s. 33s would be more of a power hit than I'm comfortable with.

I knew my math exercise was flawed. :dontknow:

You raise a valid point I had forgotten.

My Offroad is geared differently so the move from 32s to 33s won't have the same effect on acceleration and performance as you moving from 31s to 33s, but it is a valid consideration no matter the tire size increase.

Frankly it isn't the cost difference that's held me back from ditching my current tires for 33s, its the fact that my X is a daily driver and 80% on pavement, and everything is spot on with my 32s including handling, shift points, cruising rpm, speedo accuracy, etc.

The real question for me is whether 33s are worth the extra 1/2" in ground clearance in exchange for moving the power band, increasing the unsprung weight, and other compromises. For the dirt my X actually sees (vs. the trails I used to run when I had a built CJ-7), a rational mind has to answer "probably not." However, we're offroaders and have different needs than mere mortals. Bigger is better and more isn't quite enough! Its tough to resist the temptation for the biggest tires that will fit, and I can't claim to have been good at resisting that temptation in the past. If I show up in Moab with 33s you'll know I wasn't good at it now.

 

[tikidollracer]

Frankly it isn't the cost difference that's held me back from ditching my current tires for 33s, its the fact that my X is a daily driver and 80% on pavement, and everything is spot on with my 32s including handling, shift points, cruising rpm, speedo accuracy, etc.

this. there's nothing girlie about sticking w/ 32's. it's a compromise, and depends on what type of wheelin' you do. a lot of people here need 33's or 35's. a lot of people don't. but don't be fooled into thinking the only things that will change are ground clearance and mileage. once you start messin' w/ the suspension a lot of things change, and it can take a lot of $$ and experimentation to get it right.

-SM-

 

[ATL XTERRA]

The real question for me is whether 33s are worth the extra 1/2" in ground clearance.

I had pretty much decided on 33s till I thought about it and realized that it's only .5".




Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[21SF]

Or a full inch going from 31 to 33 in my case.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[dxm113]

Back for a minute to the thrust of the original post:

Are 33" tires worth the hit in mileage?

How about this word problem:

When a particular truck is rated at a combined 16mpg (such as an '05 Xterra 4x4 Off Road with auto), and the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year, the average price for fuel in his/her area is $3.69/gal, a change from 265/75R16 tires to 285/75R16 typically results in a 2-3% drop in fuel mileage, and the larger tires cost on average $50/set more, what is the additional cost per year for "big meats?"

12,000 miles /16 mpg= 750 gallons per year x $3.69/gal. = $2,767.50 per year for fuel x 0.03 = $83.03 more per year in fuel.

$50 more for larger tires / 3 year average tire life (@ 12,000 miles/year) = $16.67 per year.

$83.03 + $16.67 = $99.70/year in increased cost going from 265/75R16 to 285/75R16, plus slightly more frequent brake/steering/suspension service due to the increased unsprung weight and rolling mass.

About a hundred bucks per year more? Even if my 6th grade math skills are completely bogus it doesn't seem like a lot to me in the total scheme of things, especially if I skip some other accessory that is more bling than function and can resist the temptation to add that $1,500 suspension or a Titan Swap to go with the new tires.

Did I just talk myself into 33s? :idea1:

Im not looking to pick a fight, but I think this may be a bit misleading. A MPG drop of 2-3% would be 16 MPG to 15.5 MPG. I think most people are reporting ~2 MPG loss, not 2% (unless you have other data?).

12000 miles / 16 MPG = 750 gal
12000 miles / 14 MPG = 857 gal

157 gal @ $3.69 (per your example) = $579 additional per year. Over the course of the tire life, say 3-5 years, this cost increase may matter to some.

Just food for thought.




Sent from AutoGuide.com App

 

[Lizardking]

I had pretty much decided on 33s till I thought about it and realized that it's only .5".




Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

Except that my 32s were 31.5 (your experience my vary) and 33s range from 32.8 to 33.3.

I spent a lot of money for 3" of lift so a free(ish) .6" (or .75" in my case or .85 when I have my km2s on) seemed like a good deal. That doesn't mean much on the road and if I didn't have so much fun dragging my rig through the woods I probably would have stuck with 32s (or 31.5s )

Did I mention it looks really cool with 33s?

Small 32s (31.5) on the back. Tall 33s (33.3) on the front.

 

[devildogxd]

I would suggest you go and measure your 32" tire. I had 265 wrangler authoritys and they were only 30.5" tall. I changed to 285 Duratracs and they measure 32" tall. I love them though, they look great, ride great and I really can't tell any difference when I drive. I also have a friend that has a 10 xterra equipped just like me and he can't tell any difference either. I gained almost an inch at the skid plate, now I'm at 10.5" of clearance. I've got a 2" lift coming and am excited about where I'll end up. I've taken measurements to the fenders with the 265's, the 285's and will post everything once I install my
new lift next week. Go for it, you won't regret it. To off set the cost just cut back on a few beers per week and you'll actually save money!

 

[Reese]

That's epic!

Now, to the loss of MPG - Get over it! 33" tires are barely larger than 32" tires. For the sake of making this easy, lets say 33 x 3 = 100, as in 100%. So a 33" tire is approximately 3% larger than a 32" tire. Now say you lose 2-3 MPG with the larger tire. What was your MPG's before? To further alleviate the pain, lets say it was 20 MPG (which we all as X owners know is way too high). So we'll say you only lost 2 MPG or 10%. So... If your odometer is reading 3% less miles than actually driven, You're not losing as many MGG's as you thought. Also, not sure what size tires come with all other X's but the tires that came on my 11' Pro 4-X seem to be slightly smaller than the 275/65/18 Duratracs I had that were true 32" tires. And going 20mm wider (which is only 15mm taller with a 75 series tire) is not going to make a big difference, it is the weight of the tires that does it which most will say is the worthy trade off of running tires that don't pop on the trails.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[21SF]

And look like sex. Dont forget thats the most important

 

[rocknhd]

A philosophical quote pertaining to this discussion...

“Every action has its pleasures and its price.”
― Socrates

 

[brett]

Now, to the loss of MPG - Get over it! 33" tires are barely larger than 32" tires. For the sake of making this easy, lets say 33 x 3 = 100, as in 100%. So a 33" tire is approximately 3% larger than a 32" tire. Now say you lose 2-3 MPG with the larger tire. What was your MPG's before? To further alleviate the pain, lets say it was 20 MPG (which we all as X owners know is way too high). So we'll say you only lost 2 MPG or 10%. So... If your odometer is reading 3% less miles than actually driven, You're not losing as many MGG's as you thought. Also, not sure what size tires come with all other X's but the tires that came on my 11' Pro 4-X seem to be slightly smaller than the 275/65/18 Duratracs I had that were true 32" tires. And going 20mm wider (which is only 15mm taller with a 75 series tire) is not going to make a big difference, it is the weight of the tires that does it which most will say is the worthy trade off of running tires that don't pop on the trails.
Posted via Mobile Device

edit: ^^we were replying at the same time

If you are calculating MPG using your odometer, remember it is not registering enough distance traveled with the taller tire. For example, let's use the ever popular Duratrac in Load E:

LT265/75-16: 659 revs/mile = 8.01 ft per revolution
LT285/75-16: 637 revs/mile = 8.29 ft per revolution

Someone check my math, but that looks like 3.5% further traveled.

So using the example above, in 12,000 miles on the odometer running the 285’s you have really traveled 3.5% farther = 12419 miles. This would increase observed MPG. Fuel consumption would be better checked using GPS mileage, or multiply odometer miles by a factor of 1.035 and then divide by the gallons of fuel used.

 

[Nex]

Slightly off topic here, but I would avoid the Discoverer ATP. They are extremely loud, as loud as the BFG M/Ts on my Rubicon, and I've had to have them rebalanced 6 times in 15k miles. I'm extremely disappointed in them. I've ran like 10 different A/TS over the yrs and while some are better than others, these are COMPLETE JUNK.

Btw, they have only had a decent balance a few times and are currently out of balance again. My Dest A/Ts were completely silent and never needed to be balanced.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

I agree..very loud..so much so that when I put on my winters I said..gee these are quiet...I just then realized how loud the ATP's are

 

[Stupidloud]

Just my two cents, I bought my 2007 Xterra 6 speed to replace my 2001 Excursion v-10 4x4, so 1-2, or even 4 MPG lower still doubles what I was getting before. This thing rocks for gas mileage, and I will still be happy when I put 33's on.

 

[EsotericSYN]

I had a 14.2mpg average on 265/65-17s in a more urban area. Now I live in a smaller town and average 17mpg on 285/70-17s. Red lights and speeding make all the difference. When you're cruising the two sizes are almost identical in terms of fuel usage. Take this into consideration.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[ATL XTERRA]

I agree..very loud..so much so that when I put on my winters I said..gee these are quiet...I just then realized how loud the ATP's are

Good to see that I'm not the only one. I was starting to think that I had a bad tire or a I was crazy.

 

[NYTKSHR]

All of the points in this thread are the things I have been considering for the past 3 years since I bought the X. I want to go 33, but with an S that is a big change that I think will kill acceleration and is going to stress the drive train much more than just going up to a 32.
I do not plan on regearing or Titan Swapping at any time as I like the way it looks without the tires sticking out further.
That being said, this is not a daily driver, the wife has a fiesta and I have a 4 banger Frontier that appears to be getting 21 miles to the gallon, so the gas is the least of the issue.
I just want something that goes when I stomp on it and I can drive to and from the trail as well as have fun on the trail without hearing gears pop.
For those of you S drivers that have went to the 33 inch Duratrac, how much difference did you really see?
I guess the best response would be from someone that has 2 sets of tires, one stock and one 33 that they swap out when they go wheeling as they would see the change regularly.

 

[Fromfrontier2Xterra]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread since I started it and thought I would update. After putting the readylift on this morning I decided on 33's. The mpg difference should be minimal and come summer I try to use the Vulcan as DD, weather permitting.

Just deciding between General Grabbers or Firestone Destinations now. Thanks for all the info and heads up on Coopers!

 

[ramiromunoz]

I have the general AT2 and I'm quite happy with them. I have had them for 40k miles and still have some life left, they drive well in all conditions and they are quiet. When the time comes to replace them I will be between these or duratracs. Just my .02


Sent from AutoGuide.com App

 

[Puckstr]

Back for a minute to the thrust of the original post:

Are 33" tires worth the hit in mileage?

How about this word problem:

When a particular truck is rated at a combined 16mpg (such as an '05 Xterra 4x4 Off Road with auto), and the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year, the average price for fuel in his/her area is $3.69/gal, a change from 265/75R16 tires to 285/75R16 typically results in a 2-3% drop in fuel mileage, and the larger tires cost on average $50/set more, what is the additional cost per year for "big meats?"

12,000 miles /16 mpg= 750 gallons per year x $3.69/gal. = $2,767.50 per year for fuel x 0.03 = $83.03 more per year in fuel.

$50 more for larger tires / 3 year average tire life (@ 12,000 miles/year) = $16.67 per year.

$83.03 + $16.67 = $99.70/year in increased cost going from 265/75R16 to 285/75R16, plus slightly more frequent brake/steering/suspension service due to the increased unsprung weight and rolling mass.

About a hundred bucks per year more? Even if my 6th grade math skills are completely bogus it doesn't seem like a lot to me in the total scheme of things, especially if I skip some other accessory that is more bling than function and can resist the temptation to add that $1,500 suspension or a Titan Swap to go with the new tires.

Did I just talk myself into 33s? :idea1:

Thank YOU!!! That was the best reply. Yes I will be going with 33s.

 

[Mr. Bills]

And if you read posts more recent than 2014 you will learn that I did not talk myself into 33's, but instead chose Cooper Discoverer ST/Maxx LT265/75R16-E, which I replaced 40,000+ miles later with Cooper Discoverer AT3 LT265/75R16-C, and that on a recent month-long overlanding trip in Mexico I had occasion to receive some validation of my decision to stick with 32's when tight clearance in the wheel wells of one Xterra with 33's and the typical 2-3" lift resulted in destruction of the plastic fender liners when the tires tried to turn in wheel wells packed with thick, sticky alkali mud.

But if the question is whether the extra cost of 33's is a big deal rather than the question being whether 33's are really the best decision in all situations out in the middle of nowhere my answer wouldn't change. Economically, the difference in cost isn't that big a deal. Depending upon how many fender liners you replace, of course.