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

Now available from EcoModder: ScanGauge II fuel economy gauge.  Click for details.  

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2012, 05:53 PM   #11 (permalink)
ooo ooo ooo ah ah ah
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 7,357

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

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

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

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

Moon Unit - '98 Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 636
Thanked 848 Times in 591 Posts
I think old school stuff without overdrive gears and/or lockup converters are more likely to see an fe benefit than newer stuff that already has a decently tall top gear.


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 07:50 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Diesel_Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 623

White Whale - '07 Ram 2500 ST Quad Cab 2wd, short bed
Team Cummins
90 day: 33.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 35
Thanked 119 Times in 67 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrews View Post
actually dave, quite a few have.
As a general note, frank lee commented that trucks doent see a benift.
But the trick to the equation is how much highway miles you are driving vs city driving.
Also you cant be going from 15 rims to 17 rims, because then the issue is the extra wieght. But a 4-7% increase in diameter (given hwy driving) absolutely will result in betterr mpg.

Just common sense alone would have to question your 1 in 10 statement.
My "1 in 10" statement was directed at pickups. I know Big Dave tested different things, including putting an overdrive and 3:03 gears in his truck. I can't remember the particulars, but he found worse FE with larger tires. I've heard similar from other truck owners.

I do agree that the benefit (or lack thereof) would depend on city/highway mix as larger tires/rims add extra weight and rotational mass. That would likely lead to a decrease in FE in city conditions. Also, the gearing benefit would not show up much in city driving, as you're not in top gear much anyway. Of course, putting taller tires only on the rear would contribute only half the additional weight/rotational mass, while giving you all the gearing benefit.

My thinking is that taller tires only on the rear would also have little affect on aero (maybe even a slightly positive one?).
__________________
Diesel Dave

~Life is an optimization problem.~

~Who says that just because your vehicle weighs over 3 tons that you can't get good mileage?~

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 08:36 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mcrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: northern california
Posts: 1,362

The Q - '02 Q45 Sport
90 day: 23.08 mpg (US)
Thanks: 331
Thanked 183 Times in 127 Posts
on the areo idea.
someone had oposted that one of the car mags back in the 70-80??? did a econ project car over several months.
they either raised the rear or lowered the front as one of the mods.... BUT the result was slightly better mileasge.

I lowered the fron of my Q45 for this last trip to texas. about 1 1/4 inches. I broke 32mpg on the trip. last yr it was 30.9mpg
Now I also run a body kit so I'm sure that helped.
__________________
ECO MODS PERFORMED:
First, Grille Block
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...e-10912-2.html

Second, Full underbelly pan
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...q45-11402.html

third, rear skirts and 30.4mpg on trip! http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post247938
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 11:55 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Rick323's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northeast Pa
Posts: 43

tacoma - '05 Tacoma 4x4 TRD
90 day: 21 mpg (US)

The silver boat - '99 F250 xlt
90 day: 19.93 mpg (US)

Bluebird - '04 sunfire se
90 day: 37.56 mpg (US)

Versys - '08 versys
90 day: 57.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Both my Tacoma and my Dodge w250 (4wd, 4.10 gears, diesel: bought new in 1992-sold in 2004) got better fuel mileage with larger tires (all four tires). Both are manual transmissions. I got the same size tires for my ford (rear only; auto trany) in hopes that it'll get better fuel mileage too. I didn't have the stock size on the ford long enough to compare the two different tire sizes for fuel mileage.
__________________



  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 10:18 AM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
royanddoreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: glovertown nl canada
Posts: 14

The Rig - '010 glk 350 4matic
90 day: 24.01 mpg (US)

z - '03 350z touring
90 day: 28.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Don,t it seem that many cars and trucks etc are probably geared for higher rpm than need be to compensate for load or 20 degree hills. If need be we could always down shift. Don't hear of anyone complaining of wind resistance when driving the max speed limit I drive my Z around rural areas.in 5th and 6th gears getting the best mileage that is without stop and go traffic. Then on the highway I'm wishing I had a 7th gear to get my revs down. Only solution I see are larger o d tires. I can always go back to stock if that don't help.


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 

Last edited by royanddoreen; 01-30-2012 at 10:08 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com