Tire Size and Fuel Economy

[deegaw11]

I find it weird that I average only about 15 mix and 17 highway with a 265/70/17 tire with a 3" lift but most people here with way bigger tires are getting the same mpgs as me. I'm up to date on my maintenance, I drive like a grandma and it's only a v6. I only get like 330 to the tank before I need to fill up when I'm driving all highway. If I drive all city I can barely get pass 250 miles before I need to fill up. I use to get 400+ all highway and over 300 mix before the lift and bigger tires.

 

[TheGrayBeast]

I'm running 285/70R17's and I'm getting 13.5MPG city and 17MPG Highway (V8).

 

[V8RUNN]

diff tires means little to the v8

i have seen no difference in fuel econ in the 4 years and 70k miles i have driven, 14mpg all day everyday.

no lift and 265/65/17, 265/75/16, 285/75/16 either ht's or at's - even my 265/75/16 and 285/75/16 mudders (toyo mts) 1"-2" and now 3" to 3.5" lift im +/-.5 mpg of 14 every tank

currently with ko2's 285/75r16 LoadE 10ply

i even rock a rook rack with light bar jack and spare now, no change...

i say run what ever tire you want! if you have the v8...

 

[progress4m]

To OP: if you are concerned about gas mileage then I would take serious look at 255/75RR17 tires;

From my understanding most of people who had switched to that size (from HT stock (265/65R17) to AT 255/75-R17) has reported no gas mileage drop and some actually noticed small gain;
in addition a lot of people has reported sharper response from the steering input and over all better feel of the truck.
All things above are logical and expected from narrower and lighter tire: less rotation weight and less rolling resistance.

I am considering that size myself when it is time to get new tires; IMHO: small drop in width (10 mm) should not impact performance of tire in mud to much… one of the area where narrower tire would be underperforming vs. wider tire…. IMHO: When it comes to mud: pattern of the tire tread is most important part of the equation, especially when you are talking about 10mm difference in width.

The only other area of the narrow tire debate is serious rock crawling… which I do not believe OP was planning to do anyway.

My $.02

 

[Dylan]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Some good thoughts on going with the skinnier tire, 255/75/17. Personally, though, I don't like the look of the skinnier tire. Looking at a spec sheet here for the duratracs...I see the 255/75s are a 32" tire, and comes in P rated. The 265/70s are a 31.7 inch tire. So the difference in tire height are pretty negligible as far as I can tell.

Again, take a look at a 32" C-Rated LT like the Destination...

The 255/75r17 is 32.1" tall, 10" wide, weighs 43lbs. - C Rated
compared to a "33-inch E Rated"...
The 285/70r17 is 32.8" tall, 11.5" wide, and 52lbs. - E Rated

The height difference between the "32" and "33" is about as negligible as the difference between the 31 and 32 you described...we're talking a half inch realistically.

Plus the E rated adds an extra 9lbs per wheel. Not to mention the 1.5" extra width which works as rolling resistance to lower MPG. You get extra height and durability without all the extra weight and rolling resistance that most 33's have.

 

[benjamin247]

I have a set of barely used LT275/70-18 (Firestone Transforce stock tires from my truck) that I plan on putting on my T4R. I just bought a 2006 Sport Edition V8 and am really enjoying the umph it has. Is there a noticeable loss of power when using this tire size?

 

[Dylan]

I have a set of barely used LT275/70-18 (Firestone Transforce stock tires from my truck) that I plan on putting on my T4R. I just bought a 2006 Sport Edition V8 and am really enjoying the umph it has. Is there a noticeable loss of power when using this tire size?

I didn't notice much of any loss in power. Having the V8 helps the acceleration not suffer much.