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

View Poll Results: What PSI are your tires at?
<35 PSI 0 0%
35-40 PSI 21 32.81%
41-45 PSI 19 29.69%
46-50 PSI 10 15.63%
>51 PSI 14 21.88%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-02-2019, 09:54 PM   #61 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: ABQ
Posts: 9

shaggin waggin - '12 VW Jetta Sportwagen
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDulcimer View Post
I'll be honest, I don't see any point in raising tire pressure. Any pressure above what the car manufacturer tells you, and you're simply eating up your tires. You'll save a penny on gas and spend 10 cents on tires.

Run it at stock pressure.

If you want to save a buck on gas, buy it in bulk whenever it's cheap. That has a LOT more to do with your cost per mile for gas than your tire pressure.
Reminds me of an episode from "it's always sunny in Philadelphia" the gang solves the gas crisis, one the more memorable shows in the series.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-03-2019, 12:13 AM   #62 (permalink)
eco....something or other
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colfax, WI
Posts: 703

wood hauler - '91 Ford F-250
Team Pontiac
90 day: 18.97 mpg (US)

Rav - '06 Toyota Rav4 Base
90 day: 26.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 52 Times in 39 Posts
What's a guy doing on here telling people to run low tire pressure? Lol.

In all seriousness, anything under 35 is low/flat.
__________________



1991 F-250:
4.9L, Mazda 5 speed, 4.10 10.25" rear
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 07:49 AM   #63 (permalink)
Duck duck duck
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,508

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 53.73 mpg (US)

It - '09 Hyundai I10 Active Cool
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.77 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,353
Thanked 1,869 Times in 1,199 Posts
"Do not modify your car for economy"
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.14 Gm or 0.09 MM.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RedDevil For This Useful Post:
Fat Charlie (12-03-2019)
Old 12-03-2019, 03:05 PM   #64 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 3,426

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,332
Thanked 1,475 Times in 939 Posts
Cargo capacity aside, the biggest difference between passenger vehicles and big rigs is focus. Work trucks are meant to haul as much stuff as possible as cheaply and reliably as possible, while passenger vehicles are about "image" and a cushy ride.

If I had a long-haul freight truck, I wouldn't second guess the engineers on efficiency. But your average, run of the mill car is a sloppy POS designed to be cute or manly or whatever. Mod the hell out of it.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
Ecky (12-03-2019), elhigh (12-05-2019), RedDevil (12-10-2019), Xist (12-05-2019)
Old 12-03-2019, 09:56 PM   #65 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 298

Jeep - '97 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 56 Times in 50 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Charlie View Post
Cargo capacity aside, the biggest difference between passenger vehicles and big rigs is focus. Work trucks are meant to haul as much stuff as possible as cheaply and reliably as possible, while passenger vehicles are about "image" and a cushy ride.

If I had a long-haul freight truck, I wouldn't second guess the engineers on efficiency. But your average, run of the mill car is a sloppy POS designed to be cute or manly or whatever. Mod the hell out of it.
It is impossible to know just how much engineers sacrifice on cars to limit NVH...

It is interesting to note that out of 60 votes, nobody here inflates their tires under 35 PSI. I'll admit that I used to keep mine at 32 PSI. I have them at 38 now, and it seems better. I would like to experiment with higher pressures when I get new tires since mine are so worn down.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 10:31 AM   #66 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Piotrsko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: 1826 miles WSW of Normal
Posts: 833
Thanks: 36
Thanked 207 Times in 173 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
It is impossible to know just how much engineers sacrifice on cars to limit NVH...

It is interesting to note that out of 60 votes, nobody here inflates their tires under 35 PSI. I'll admit that I used to keep mine at 32 PSI. I have them at 38 now, and it seems better. I would like to experiment with higher pressures when I get new tires since mine are so worn down.
That's because I don't own a jeep or pinto anymore with grossly oversize tires which both ran at 10-15 psi

I cant drive the f250 @ 32, it's flat for all intents and purposes.
__________________
2000 F250 7.3 CC 20+ MPG @ 10000 #
2013 Golf tdi 47.5 mpg neutered, 1500 mi beer run
1988 Ranger EV Volt batts>> 18,000 MPG and climbing. Rag overhaul.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2019, 07:44 PM   #67 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
slowmover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,407

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,368
Thanked 707 Times in 535 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsko View Post
70 front 55 rear unloaded in F250, 40 front 36 rear Golf, 45 all 4 in Ranger.

All based on actual 100% tread contact with road.
An unreliable method. The single one accurate is to pressurize to heaviest tire load per axle. See CapriRacer posts and website.
__________________
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 12-09-2019, 10:57 AM   #68 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Piotrsko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: 1826 miles WSW of Normal
Posts: 833
Thanks: 36
Thanked 207 Times in 173 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
An unreliable method. The single one accurate is to pressurize to heaviest tire load per axle. See CapriRacer posts and website.
Why is it unreliable other than the limits of the thermal scan accuracy? I axle weighed the F250, this was the result unloaded. When it's loaded the pressures increase on the rear, but not much on the front, the result of weighing the axles loaded.
__________________
2000 F250 7.3 CC 20+ MPG @ 10000 #
2013 Golf tdi 47.5 mpg neutered, 1500 mi beer run
1988 Ranger EV Volt batts>> 18,000 MPG and climbing. Rag overhaul.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2019, 11:45 PM   #69 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Quinte West, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8

Dimples - '07 Ford Ranger Sport
90 day: 20.18 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Weirdly enough.. My trucks door panel says 35 psi. But I noticed on my last ones that the outer edges on all four tires are worn.. I religiously kept them at 35, but now Im at 40 to see if it makes a difference in tire wear. Regardless of the fuel economy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2019, 09:47 AM   #70 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 720
Thanks: 0
Thanked 297 Times in 188 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsko View Post
Why is it unreliable other than the limits of the thermal scan accuracy? I axle weighed the F250, this was the result unloaded. When it's loaded the pressures increase on the rear, but not much on the front, the result of weighing the axles loaded.
It's unreliable because it assumes that even loading/even pressure distribution/even wear is what the tire was designed to do. As a tire engineer, I've designed tires to purposely wear unevenly when loaded per the load charts in order to improve rolling resistance.

Second, it is also possible to design a tire that has good contact for a large range of loadings/inflation pressures. In that case, it would be hard to determine what the optimum inflation pressure would be. I certainly would expect a layman to be satisfied long before he actually gets the optimum value.

__________________
CapriRacer

Visit my website: www.BarrysTireTech.com
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CapriRacer For This Useful Post:
Xist (12-10-2019)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com