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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2012, 06:53 PM   #11 (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 3,556 Times in 2,218 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.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-15-2012, 08:50 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Diesel_Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,194

White Whale - '07 Dodge Ram 2500 ST Quad Cab 2wd, short bed
Team Cummins
90 day: 37.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 112
Thanked 511 Times in 213 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

My version of energy storage is called "momentum".
My version of regenerative braking is called "bump starting".

1 Year Avg (Every Mile Traveled) = 47.8 mpg

BEST TANK: 2,009.6 mi on 35 gal (57.42 mpg): http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...5-a-26259.html


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 09:36 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mcrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523

The Q Sold - '02 Infiniti Q45 Sport
90 day: 23.08 mpg (US)

blackie - '14 nissan altima sv
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 663 Times in 478 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.
__________________
MetroMPG: "Get the MPG gauge - it turns driving into a fuel & money saving game."

ECO MODS PERFORMED:
First: ScangaugeII
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...eii-23306.html

Second: Grille Block
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...e-10912-2.html

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

Fourth: rear skirts and 30.4mpg on trip!
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post247938
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 12:55 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Rick323's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northeast Pa
Posts: 62

Black Cruze - '18 chevrolet cruze ls
90 day: 36.23 mpg (US)

The Ram - '22 ram 2500 tradesman
90 day: 11.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 5 Times in 4 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, 11:18 AM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
royanddoreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: glovertown nl canada
Posts: 91

z - '03 nissan 350z touring
90 day: 36.21 mpg (US)

Diniro - '18 Kia Niro Ex
90 day: 47.99 mpg (US)
Thanks: 37
Thanked 6 Times in 4 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.


Last edited by royanddoreen; 01-30-2012 at 11:08 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com