Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-15-2011, 11:58 AM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Carrickfergus, N Ireland
Posts: 24
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Larger wheels for MPG?

I wonder if you have tried going to larger diameter for lower cruising RPMS?

Is there a benefit? Is it worth the cost?

I have 14" steel wheels on a Ford Focus 1.8tddi and I am considering picking up a set of 15" alloy wheels.

I will see what has been done to my car - I know often when the larger rims go on they try to match the overall rolling diameter by using a lower profile tyre, but what if you just learned the speed offset and kept the extra size to lower lower cruising RPMS?

I am aware that the mph readout will be different.

I am aware that the car will be less torquey feeling as the larger diameter makes it harder to transfer the power. (in crude terms).

Appreciate any thoughts!

Plenty of time to think this over - just put a new set on. 185/65/14

I must add that the guys at Ivan Kerr Tyres in Carrick have been amazing to deal with. I had a ballache (to put it mildly) with a busted rim, it's replacement and the 3rd replacement! Anyway, 3 days of faffing and it is sorted. They put up with a wild load of tyre changes and didn't charge me more than the cost of a new tyre and fitting. Brilliant! (they also didn't mock my car smelling like a chippie!)

__________________
Editor - www.brassmusician.com

Personal - www.michaelbarkley.com

Veg oil, 2000 Ford Focus 1.8 Tddi.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-15-2011, 12:27 PM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
vtec-e's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 507

De Yaris - '04 toyota yaris T2
90 day: 69.55 mpg (US)
Thanks: 111
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
I also thought about this. Nearly due a set of tires and noticed my speedo reads a little high so going up a few mm in diameter might help bring it down a little, while maybe helping mpg?
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 12:29 PM   #3 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Carrickfergus, N Ireland
Posts: 24
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That's interesting - my speedo reads about 4mph high as well!
__________________
Editor - www.brassmusician.com

Personal - www.michaelbarkley.com

Veg oil, 2000 Ford Focus 1.8 Tddi.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 01:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
vskid3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 975

Civic DX (sold) - '97 Honda Civic DX
90 day: 34.15 mpg (US)

GTO (sold) - '04 Pontiac GTO
90 day: 22.62 mpg (US)

Green Brick (sold) - '06 Ford Escape Hybrid
90 day: 31.93 mpg (US)
Thanks: 193
Thanked 312 Times in 221 Posts
Don't rely on the speedometer, look at the odometer over a distance of 10+ miles. Some cars, like my Civic, have the speedo read a few MPH high, but the odometer is exactly what it should be.
__________________


Camry Thread
E-Bike Thread
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 04:59 PM   #5 (permalink)
500 Mile Metro Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sun City, CA
Posts: 183

'89 Dakota LB - blue - '89 Dodge Dakota V6 LE
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

'17 Fiat 124 - SunFiat - '17 Fiat 124 Spider Classica
90 day: 30.51 mpg (US)

'89 Metro - The Egg - '89 Geo Metro Base
90 day: 50.71 mpg (US)

'94 Alto - The Box - '94 Suzuki Alto Ce-L
90 day: 39.5 mpg (US)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
this might help on the speedometer calculation...

http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html

as far as whether or not there is benefit, it's a mixed bag of issues here, so it could help or hurt.

you'll need to be more specific about the suggested alteration to determine if you'll see improvement or not.

wheel weight, diameter, tire width, aspect ratio, and tire design as well will all contribute whether or not there will be benefit.

and... believe it or not, many alloy wheels weigh more than their steel counterparts, so an exact wheel choice will also be needed to help determine if your new wheel is eco friend or foe.

Last edited by zonker; 05-15-2011 at 05:09 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 05:05 PM   #6 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
...or, if you want to "calculate" for yourself:

MPH = [ 60 / (G×A) ]·[ RPM / rpm ]

...where:

MPH = vehicle speed, miles-per-hour
RPM = engine speed, revolutions-per-minute
rpm = tire speed, revolutions-per-mile.
_60 = constant, minutes-per-hour
__G = transmission gear ratio, ie: 1.01:1, etc.
__A = axle ratio, ie: 3.55:1, etc.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 08:01 PM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Big Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Steppes of Central Indiana
Posts: 1,319

The Red Baron - '00 Ford F-350 XLT
90 day: 27.99 mpg (US)

Impala Phase Zero - '96 Chevrolet Impala SS
90 day: 21.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 186 Times in 127 Posts
Increasing tire OD almost always backfires and MPG is reduced.

It might work if you were a long-haul trucker who can maintain the same speed hours on end, but most of us have to deal with stop-and-go situations.

Rotational moment of inertia goes up with the square of diameter. That means those four "flywheels" have to absorb more energy to increase their RPM. Until the tire RPM increases road speed doesn't increase.

Another evergreen myth that deserves a sticky.
__________________
2000 Ford F-350 SC 4x2 6 Speed Manual
4" Slam
3.08:1 gears and Gear Vendor Overdrive
Rubber Conveyor Belt Air Dam
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Big Dave For This Useful Post:
LeeD (03-26-2013)
Old 05-15-2011, 11:41 PM   #8 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
We need to watch how that toothy green box out in Cali does with it's new shoes...
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 12:54 AM   #9 (permalink)
MP$
 
diesel_john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 595
Thanks: 5
Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
Send a message via MSN to diesel_john
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave View Post
Increasing tire OD almost always backfires and MPG is reduced.

It might work if you were a long-haul trucker who can maintain the same speed hours on end, but most of us have to deal with stop-and-go situations.

Rotational moment of inertia goes up with the square of diameter. That means those four "flywheels" have to absorb more energy to increase their RPM. Until the tire RPM increases road speed doesn't increase.

Another evergreen myth that deserves a sticky.
Dave, I think i see what your saying, but wouldn't the tread of the short tire and the tread of the tall tire be going the same ft/sec. at x MPH. The axle would see more torque but at a lower RPM. If the tall tire was wider, more aero drag, or heavier more vehicle weight, or caused more air under the vehicle, then i could see obvious losses. But what if the tall tire was the same width, same weight, the vehicle height could be lowered to stock. And the engine efficiency at the lower RPM was the same. Wouldn't the MPG be the same. Of course, how often could we find a tire that weighted the same.
On the other hand i could see where a narrower, lighter tire that lower the engine RPM to more efficient speed could be beneficial.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 03:58 PM   #10 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 31
Thanks: 2
Thanked 15 Times in 8 Posts
Some gear ratios and other numbers for you:

1.8L Endura-DI 90 PS
1st 3.667
2nd 2.136
3rd 1.448
4th 1.028
5th 0.767
Reverse 3.727
Final drive 3.410

1.8L Endura-DI 75 PS
1st 3.667
2nd 2.047
3rd 1.258
4th 0.864
5th 0.674
Reverse 3.727
Final drive 3.560

shortest 5th 0.674
shortest FD 3.410

Standard fitment rpm/70mph in 5th 90 PS 75 PS 0.674 5th & 3.410 Finaldrive
185/65 R14 1873mm 2622 2405 2304
195/55 R15 1871mm 2625 [+3] 2408 [+3] 2306
195/60 R15 1932mm 2542 [-80] 2332 [-73] 2234

Alternative 15” tyre
195/65 R15 1993mm 2464 [-158] 2260 [-204] 2166
[Dimensions in mm are circumference]

I would keep the 185/65 R14 steel wheels, or go for 15” alloys and tyre for looks, they will weigh about the same, maybe more or less. 195/60 R15 would lower revs at 70 mph marginally, 195/55 R15 would be basically identical to the 185/65 R14. Worthwhile gains could be had by using 195/65 R15, though beware the extra rotating mass and squidgy handling, especially turning into corners. I would recommend looking at the cost of the tyres as this could be a deciding factor.

A much larger reduction in cruising revs is to be found by changing final drives/ 5th gear depending which box you have to start with.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to focus1.6uk For This Useful Post:
barkl0r (05-17-2011)
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
alloy, mpg, rolling, wheel





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com