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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2012, 06:13 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 593
Thanks: 106
Thanked 114 Times in 72 Posts
When considering the flotation of tires, comparing skinny vs. wide, always remember what the letters "PSI" mean and that the "P" is fixed by the weight of your vehicle.

__________________
Work From Home mod has saved more fuel than everything else put together.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-07-2012, 10:56 PM   #12 (permalink)
eco....something or other
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colfax, WI
Posts: 724

wood hauler - '91 Ford F-250
Team Pontiac
90 day: 26.69 mpg (US)

Rav - '06 Toyota Rav4 Base
90 day: 26.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 39
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
But you also have to remember that flotation and traction are two different animals.
__________________



1991 F-250:
4.9L, Mazda 5 speed, 4.10 10.25" rear
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 06:21 PM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts
On a half-ton truck I'd avoid high load index tires (Load Range E). Stick with original size range as well, but in an LT designation.

The trade-off between LRR truck tires -- let's designate closed shoulder "highway rib" tires as such in the interim -- and traction tires needs to be cleared up by the OP as to whether low-traction but high miles/high mpg tires are a good choice.

With so few miles to accummulate over seven years (projected tire life) I don't think this is going to matter in any significant way.

.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 12:59 PM   #14 (permalink)
eco....something or other
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colfax, WI
Posts: 724

wood hauler - '91 Ford F-250
Team Pontiac
90 day: 26.69 mpg (US)

Rav - '06 Toyota Rav4 Base
90 day: 26.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 39
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
I have done a bit of driving this week with my new tires and they make the truck work harder all the time.

I did the math and I should only be losing ~6% of my rear wheel power. It does not sound like much, but it is noticeable. Climbing hills is harder and I often have to downshift, but level ground is not too bad. Getting up to speed takes more effort and time. I had a hard time going 60 mph with a load of wood on Saturday.

I had 235-80/16 on there before and it felt fine. The new ones should only be a hair bigger, but they stand 2+ inches taller. I think it is the deep tread that makes them a good inch taller alone.

I think this whole problem will get better as the tires wear, but I will be getting smaller tires when these are gone.
__________________



1991 F-250:
4.9L, Mazda 5 speed, 4.10 10.25" rear
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 04:56 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NY state
Posts: 501

XJ Cherokee - '00 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 12.96 mpg (US)

FoFO - '11 Ford Focus SE
90 day: 36.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
On a half-ton truck I'd avoid high load index tires (Load Range E). Stick with original size range as well, but in an LT designation.



.
Want a bouncy ride? Run load range E truck tires on a 3200 pound Jeep.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






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