LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Tire choices, height and weight
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20334		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  trailpixie [ Wed May 02, 2007 10:10 am ]
Post subject:  Tire choices, height and weight
I have been assembling a little table of some of the AT tires that are available with their relative weights and heights. I am a bit concerned that a significant wieght increase would drastically lower fuel economy. When I went from the stock SR/A tire to a silent armor, my fuel economy went down by about 2 MPG. That sucked. I found an article at Tire Rack about performance cars and tire/wheel weight. Check it out here: http://www.tirerack.com/wheels-techpage-1/108.shtml Look at the table at the bottom for the fuel economy information. Basically, a 17% increase in tire/wheel weight decreased fuel economy by 7.5%.

So I threw together this little comparison to see what the best size/weight tradeoff might be.

Image

My surmise...the 235/75R16 for the following reasons:
    Narrower tire increases contact patch pressure for better snow performance
    Weighs the least of decent AT tires, so fuel economy hit will be less
    Good compromise on height..not as tall as 245/75, but taller than 245/70
    Available in the well regarded Destination AT
Author:  trailpixie [ Wed May 02, 2007 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  One other thing
...and wow, those TA KOs , LTX/AT, and Grabbers are portly little things
Author:  tommudd [ Wed May 02, 2007 3:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good chart, I had done something similar but yours is so much better than the one I did on a napkin! :lol: :lol:
Author:  meh_kick [ Wed May 02, 2007 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
When searching for your tires in person, ask for different load ranges too.

Higher load ranges usually indicate more tire plies and HEAVY TIRE. If you find a good AT tire, ask if it's made in a lesser load range to save some weight and avoid a stiff ride.

My tire was offered in Passenger (4 ply) and Light Truck Range E, (10 ply) at the store, they had a Range C (6 ply) tire in the shop a day later and I saved 10 pounds per tire (C range = 39 lbs, E range = 49 lbs).
Author:  trailpixie [ Wed May 09, 2007 11:17 am ]
Post subject: 
meh_kick wrote:
When searching for your tires in person, ask for different load ranges too.

Higher load ranges usually indicate more tire plies and HEAVY TIRE. If you find a good AT tire, ask if it's made in a lesser load range to save some weight and avoid a stiff ride.

My tire was offered in Passenger (4 ply) and Light Truck Range E, (10 ply) at the store, they had a Range C (6 ply) tire in the shop a day later and I saved 10 pounds per tire (C range = 39 lbs, E range = 49 lbs).


That was my mistake with my Michelin LTX/ATs on my Cherokee. They rode like bricks.
Author:  renegadekj [ Wed May 09, 2007 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
WOW is that all the difference between the 235/75/16's and the 245/75/16's------ .6"!!? Why do the 245's look so much larger? I just purchased silent armors in october and now tha i have the lift i wanted to go with 245/75/16's to try and fill the wheel well's a bit more, but for that much difference i think i might wait a year and so before i get some new ones. Its amazing how such ALITTLE bit bigger tire looks sooo much better with a lift!
Author:  tjkj2002 [ Wed May 09, 2007 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
You also got to factor in what type of wheeling you plan(if any).Here in CO it's best to be safe and go for those 10-ply tires,less problems on those sharp rocks.I'll take that mpg hit with my 27 lbs steel rims and 55lbs 265/75R16 MT/R's,beat the living snot out of the tires and rims and there still going strong(no flats or slow leaks) even with 31,000 miles on them(40% tread left).Bent a rim bead over on 1 trail,got the 2lbs hammer out and pounded it back straight,still running it and no problems.
Author:  trailpixie [ Thu May 10, 2007 6:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
renegadekj wrote:
WOW is that all the difference between the 235/75/16's and the 245/75/16's------ .6"!!? Why do the 245's look so much larger? I just purchased silent armors in october and now tha i have the lift i wanted to go with 245/75/16's to try and fill the wheel well's a bit more, but for that much difference i think i might wait a year and so before i get some new ones. Its amazing how such ALITTLE bit bigger tire looks sooo much better with a lift!


Where did you get Silent Armors in 235/75R16. tirerack doesn't show them available. I love my current silent armors, but didn't see them in this size. do you have any rubbing with the 235/75R16? It seems like a perfect tire size to mate with a 2"lift.
Author:  q50055 [ Mon May 14, 2007 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
ALways wondered about the rim/tire weights. Anyone know what the 2002 stock limited rims weigh?

Trailpixie - your sig picture reminds me of the many great weekends spent climbing at Mouth of Senca - twenty year ago. :lol:
Author:  trailpixie [ Thu May 17, 2007 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  taller tires improve fuel economy....if they are not heavier
You are the second person who has recognized Seneca Rocks. It is a pretty cool place.

I was thinking some more about this 235/75R16 size in Destination AT tires. I actually think it may improve fuel economy. Taller tires actually improve mileage, except where weight is a problem. In this case, the Destination AT is lighter than my current 235/70R16 tires and almost an inch taller. I estimate that it could improve fuel economy by approx 4% or 5%. That could be a rationalization for me to get them to replace my Silent Armors....but I really like the silent armors....they are quiet and behave well in all conditions.
Author:  JimKJSVT [ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:26 am ]
Post subject: 
Has anybody tried putting 235/75R16 size on a stock height non-lifted kj? I'm curious wether they would fit.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/