[miles]

So I dont know if you can really answer this question, but here it is anyway...for those of you who think this might be a stupid question...pardon my stupidity and answer anyways.
If its impossible to answer than just say that.
So here it goes.....

which do you bielieve would give you better fuel economy?

MTZ tire @ 265/75/16

or an

AT tire @ 285/75/16

I am sure there are many other factors that effect the fuel economy of a vehicle, but if this was the only one which one would you choose?

thanks :cheers:

 

[marzterra]

MTZ tire @ 265/75/16 ----smaller uses less gas....correct me if i am wrong.....

 

[miles]

thats what I was thinking but on another site where I posted this question....most said the AT would be better...anyone elese car to chime in.

 

[marzterra]

I am goin to bed....happy easter if you celebrate it....otherwise happy sunday!

 

[miles]

same to you

 

[rckev]

smaller size and weight better mileage then theres the whole rolling resistance thing
go to tirerack .com and you can see the weight diff. between popular tires you will be surprised

 

[miles]

ok

 

[kneebuster]

All other things being equal (which they are not) a bigger tire will have less rolling resistance. Once you are up to speed, a bigger diameter, heavier tire is actually better for mileage. The problem comes in acceleration. The bigger tire is heavier, with the majority of the weight in the tread, so it takes more torque/energy to accelerate it. Tread design and rubber compound are other issues to contend with.

 

[DBAX]

DOES THIS HELP?
OR THIS?

 

[CanadianX]

I don't know Kneebuster I have to take the other position and say bigger tire = more rolling resistance and more weight = more energy to keep it turning. Centifical forces won't be as favorable on something that weighs more, the weight itself won't add to the propensity to stay in motion... I think??? Any mechanical engineer types care to weigh in?

 

[IZVERG]

285/75/16 BFG AT all the way, baby!

 

[DBAX]

Is that all you can add to this, really?

 

[IZVERG]

Is that all you can to this, really?

???

 

[kneebuster]

I don't know Kneebuster I have to take the other position and say bigger tire = more rolling resistance and more weight = more energy to keep it turning. Centifical forces won't be as favorable on something that weighs more, the weight itself won't add to the propensity to stay in motion... I think??? Any mechanical engineer types care to weigh in?

I am a mechanical engineering type, that's why I weighed in. Of course, there are many factors in this argument.

Dealing with the diameter issue only, let's take it to an extreme. Assume the tire doesn't deform for now (it's made of steel). Now imagine a 1" lip in the road. A 2" tire will not be able to climb that lip, resistance will be infinite. A 2' tire will barely notice the lip, e.g. much less resistance. That's why rock crawlers go with really big tires.
Now let's bring deformation back into it. A larger tire will deform less (as a percentage of it's size) than will a smaller one. Deformation causes losses therefore more deformation = more resistance.

Of course, both of these arguments are completely academic for the size differences we're talking about here, 31", 32", 33" (6% change going from 31 to 33). In our case, the difference in weight (actually, interia) is much more significant if you change tire types. All that weight in the tread causes a high moment of inertia which in turn makes it harder to get the tire spinning, but helps keep it moving once it is going. If a tire is hurting your mileage at steady speeds it is more a factor of material, tread design, and width.

 

[JIMBO]

- :clown: Well, Miles, a simple question !!!

So I dont know if you can really answer this question, but here it is anyway...for those of you who think this might be a stupid question...pardon my stupidity and answer anyways.
If its impossible to answer than just say that.
So here it goes.....

which do you bielieve would give you better fuel economy?

MTZ tire @ 265/75/16

or an

AT tire @ 285/75/16

I am sure there are many other factors that effect the fuel economy of a vehicle, but if this was the only one which one would you choose?

thanks :cheers:

:clown:


--A simple answer-the MTZ tire @ 265/75/16 would be the most economical for a vehicle !!


-- --JIMBO

 

[calijetfxr]

Mileage loss if any will be negligible for either choice when compared with the loss experienced at the hands of the additional shrock weight, or the aerodynamic drag of your rooftop basket. Buy what you like best.

 

[miles]

kneebuster
makes some sense thanks for the informative answer

 

[nightrider21]

Tire weight it critical. You should start looking at the different weights for each size tire and make. I was doing some research myself on the subject and found out a couple of interesting facts.
BFG long trail 265/70/16 (stock) weighs 36 pounds per tire.
BFG AT 265/75/16: 51lbs
BFG AT 285/75/16: 55lbs
BFG MT 285/75/16: 56lbs

Toyo AT 265/75/16: 39lbs
Toyo AT 285/75/16: 53lbs
Toyo MT 265/75/16: 58lbs
Toyo MT 285/75/16: 68lbs

With this being said I went with the Toyo MT 265/75/16 from stock and my gas milage got killed. I get about 13.5 mile per gallon highway. The toyo is probably the best quality tire out there but definaitly has the most rubber/the most wieght. Its awesome off road, is quiet on the street, balances easily,and gets the worst gas milage. My next tire will be the 285 toyo AT cause I dont go wheelin that much.

 

[miles]

so the more rubber equals more weight which equals worse fuel mileage...makes sense.
The rugged trails are not even an option...thanks

 

[d-rap]

Both the Toyos nightrider21 lists are Load Range E, real heavy pick-up tires. I have the 265s on my Jeep Grand Cherokee and they are amazingly strong, if a bit heavy and rough for the vehicle.

The Toyo Open Country MTs, for example, are generally utilitarian truck tires in the 16" sizes; in the 15s, they're more flexible for wheeling and can be got in Load Range D and C (high flotation tires). So even in individual tires, there are many variations. Perhaps unfortunately, most of us are pretty stuck with 16s, (some of us 17s, of course) so since most manufacturers treat 16s as truck tires, we get some pretty heavy meats. I mean, those Toyos are what I'd get if I were a rancher.

The up side is heavy = dependable and strong. I tolerate some loss of mpg and sidewall flex to get durability. And aired down, even a Load Range E tire flexes great for my purposes, heavy though they may be.