Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysler kid
Rotational mass will increase your inertia and increase the time you can coast and maintain speed. Seeing how you primarily have a highway commute you may not see any benefit from narrower tires. There is a reason why the most fuel efficient vehicles on this site aren't running just 4 spare tires on all 4 wheels
I will also mention my wife's 99 zx2 sport automatic was a good car, but the damn thing shook so hard at idle that we had to get rid of it.
|
ZX2's are bad for having an idle shake. It is usually a combo of the knock sensor and slack in the timing belt.
I would think I would see a greater benefit running narrower tires all around. Here is my logic - When starting out, there is less rotational mass to get up to speed, reducing fuel consumption. At speed, the narrower tire would have less of an aero penalty, helping fuel economy even more. Correct me if I am wrong!
If it affects my coasting any, I'll simply add more and better aero mods to raise my coasting distance back up
And the biggest reason we do not run spare tires is they are high RRC bias ply tires (usually). They simply kill coasting, MetroMPG did a write-up on their coastdown distance... not pretty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltothewolf
RE92's hands down for fuel economy. The tires were DESIGNED for fuel economy, Bridgestone designed them SPECIFICALLY for the insight, which has yet to be beat by any car out there in FE (by EPA ratings).
|
Thanks Balto! I have thought this about the RE92's since I got on Ecomodder by the number of peeps running them. I might need to stick with what is tried and true...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000mc
Maybe if you used the smart cars rear tires on your front, and their fronts for your rears
Wiki lists 2478lbs for a zx2. maybe a bigger factor would be weight distribution, which according to some less reliable sources is 60/40, which seems typical for a fwd. a pair of passengers could add 100-300 lbs to the front.
Using 2478 and 60/40 distribution puts 743 on each front tire before adding the weight of passengers.
For no other considerations but mileage, I doubt you're going to beat the re92's by much with anything. If you're thinking 15s my next idea would be energy savers
|
I had not thought about running the tire's placement backwards, 2000mc
I may have flubbed a bit on my own cars weight
I really should weigh this thing since I have done weight reduction. I'm soon to be removing the p/s and a/c and installing an underdrive crank pulley soon, so I will weigh it after that.
The weight distribution cuts it close, a lot closer than I realized.