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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-07-2018, 07:31 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 944

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 36.42 mpg (US)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 371 Times in 239 Posts
I have Nokian Hakkapellitas on my truck. They are stamped Ultra Low Rolling Resistance on the sidewalls.

__________________
The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 10,708.4 miles in 2017 at 35.5 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-09-2018, 08:03 PM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 272

Lone Ranger - '97 Ford Ranger XLT step-side
90 day: 28 mpg (US)

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 31.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 28
Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Just looking through Tire Rack for LRR tires. If you search for LRR truck tires many come up (even some in your size), but when you start clicking on the specs and sizes, you find that the tire has LRR sizes, just not YOUR SIZE. I could only find one tire in my size, or anything close enough to not throw off the speedo by more than 5%.

General Grabber HTS. 30 Lbs, 44 psi max pressure, and interestingly it says they have a 9" section width. (Maybe CapriRacer is on to something.) The have fairly good weather ratings. Not quite as good as my other choices, but if the LRR is that big a benefit, then this becomes my best option.

The other two choices I am considering are........

Firestone Destination A/T 205/75/15 24 Lbs, 44 psi max pressure, 6.3" section width.

Kumho Crugen HT 51 225/70/15 27 Lbs, 51 psi max pressure, 7.1" section width.

Both of the other choices have excellent ratings in weather and comfort and tread wear. The Grabbers don't rank quite as high but aren't down very far.

If you had to make the choice.........which would you go with?


Thanks
__________________



  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2018, 05:00 PM   #23 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: arkansas
Posts: 237

"Proper Shitbox" (SOLD) - '96 Honda Civic LX fully optioned no weight reduction
90 day: 41.9 mpg (US)

Plue Brius - '10 Toyota Prius II
90 day: 49.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 85
Thanked 36 Times in 28 Posts
What are you looking for? What size tire do you currently have? The reason why that is your ranger weighs about as much as a 4 door civic. I dont think you need ultra high load ratings either since your payload cap is nothing too.
__________________
2010 Prius. 36W low beams. 185 LRR tires. Aero wheel covers. CR 70 windshield. CR 40 side window. Passenger mirror & wiper delete. Antenna stick removed. Rear wiper & Squirter delete. 50lb weight reduction. 2" hitch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 08:36 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 272

Lone Ranger - '97 Ford Ranger XLT step-side
90 day: 28 mpg (US)

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 31.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 28
Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Resurrecting an old thread......

I'm still contemplating the rear gear swap. After doing some more digging I have found another option. Every rear gear chart I have seen for the Ranger only shows a 3.27 in an 8.8" rear end. I didn't want to tackle that swap and wanted something more direct.

I found this parts site and it showed a 3.27 in a 7.5" rear end. I didn't even know they existed. I know it's for a '95 and mine is an '03 but I would think they should be interchangeable.

Car-Part.com - Used Auto Parts Market

Does anyone have any more information on these and can someone please help me with the math on rpm's with this ratio running in 5th gear (0.79 IIRC) at about 65 mph? Or if you can give me the math formula I can work it out.

Thanks.
__________________



  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 11:45 PM   #25 (permalink)
Cyborg ECU
 
California98Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 4,763

Black and Green - '98 Honda Civic DX Coupe
Team Honda
90 day: 61.47 mpg (US)

Black and Red - '00 Nashbar Custom built eBike
90 day: 3671.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,643
Thanked 1,346 Times in 915 Posts
Lots of good responses. Do the 3.45... it's maybe an 8% reduction in RPMs at speed. Also, what size rims/tires are you runnig and how heavy are they? Taller and if possible lighter tire/rim combos will also bring down RPMs on the freeway without a rotational mass hit.
__________________


See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 04:59 AM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 272

Lone Ranger - '97 Ford Ranger XLT step-side
90 day: 28 mpg (US)

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 31.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 28
Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
I'm running Hankook Kinergy PT's in 235/75/15. Stock size is 225/70/15 so they are about 5% oversized. They are also LRR. 28 lbs each on stock Ranger 8-hole steel rims. I have another set of nicer looking rims but they are heavier. I figured I could try some smooth DIY wheel covers with the steelies, but aesthetically the heavier ones are nicer.

Right now I'm at about 2500 rpm at 65 mph in 5th gear. I'd love to get closer to 2100-2200, but I think the gearing to get there might be too tall for stop and go driving on the weekends. I do have a manual transmission so I can probably just use one lower gear in town.
__________________




Last edited by hat_man; 07-12-2018 at 05:08 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 05:03 AM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,929

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 933
Thanked 504 Times in 381 Posts
Why a pickup at all? Past forty or more years there’s a whole subset out there that believes these trucklets are useful. Crash statistics are abominable, there’s not anything worse. The whiners.

100+ miles per day commute calls for something better. Hell, a Crown Vic would have lasted longer than 300k yet still seen 25+ (and better). Excuses about convenience don’t cut it when safety akways trumps FE, and FE itself trumps perceived “usefulness” (as trailer spec would be what matters).

.
__________________
2004.0 DODGE Ram QC/LB 2500 2WD/NV-5600 305/555 ISB. 7,940-lb. Stock. 200,000 miles/5000-hrs @ 40-mph average.
1990 35' Silver Streak TT 7,900-lb.
11-cpm solo & 19-cpm towing; 21-mpg average past 54k-miles
Sold: 1983 Silver Streak 3411
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 08:32 AM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 944

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 36.42 mpg (US)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 371 Times in 239 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hat_man View Post
I found this parts site and it showed a 3.27 in a 7.5" rear end.

Does anyone have any more information on these and can someone please help me with the math on rpm's with this ratio running in 5th gear (0.79 IIRC) at about 65 mph? Or if you can give me the math formula I can work it out.
Start with the revolutions per mile of your tires. Then multiply by the rear end ratio, and multiply again by the 5th gear ratio. The result is RPM at 60 MPH.

Example: Assume your tires are 700 revolutions per mile (that's a random number I pulled out of a dark place). Then you would get 700 X 3.27 X 0.79 = 1808 RPM at 60 MPH.

To get RPM at 65 MPH, scale by ratio of speeds: 1808 X 65 / 60 = 1959 RPM.
__________________
The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 10,708.4 miles in 2017 at 35.5 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JRMichler For This Useful Post:
hat_man (07-13-2018)
Old 07-13-2018, 07:31 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 272

Lone Ranger - '97 Ford Ranger XLT step-side
90 day: 28 mpg (US)

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 31.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 28
Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Thanks JRMichler. Ill get out the fancy ciphering tools and get to work.

While I do not agree at all with you slowmover, I'll take it under advisement.
__________________



  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 08:00 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 272

Lone Ranger - '97 Ford Ranger XLT step-side
90 day: 28 mpg (US)

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 31.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 28
Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Ok. So after some math homework I come up with this......

3.27 rear end = 2016 rpm / 65 mph

3.45 rear end = 2127 rpm / 65 mph

Now, if I only had a BSFC for my little Ranger I could decide if the 3.27 is pulling me out of the optimal fuel range.

Thanks again for teaching me something new.

__________________



  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com