Tire Weight vs Fuel Mileage

Okay, here is my situation, I'm looking at a few possible tire choices: BFG A/T, GY Duratrac, and General Grabber A/T2 all in 285/75/16.
The prices up here are and weights as follows (and yes I know they are more expensive here than south of the boarder)

G-$800, 61lbs
BFG-$1100, 56lbs (what I currently have)
GY-$1150, 54lbs

As you can see the cheapest tire is the heaviest and the most expensive is the lightest. The question is, over the 50-75k mile lifespan will I save the extra $300~ in gas?

2nd question is, would I even see a mileage difference between my current BFG A/T and the heavier (but cheaper) Grabbers?

 

Honestly, If you are worried about fuel mileage, you looking at the wrong size tires. But since you are looking at 285's you probably already have a 3" lift. That being said. Every 10lbs on the wheels is roughly equivalent to 400lbs in the bed. That is a general rule of thumb.

Also what load range are they? Do you haul heavy loads or air down to wheel?

 

They are all E load range because there nothing else to choose from in that size.
I'm not worried about fuel mileage, but if I had three choices why wouldn't I choose the one that could save me the most cash. I can't see it being 400lb for 10lbs wheel weight. That would mean I am currently running about 3200lbs over stock in my bed. I don't think the poor ole truck would move. haha (20lbs per wheel extra)

Not helpful or relevant to the question. I see no reason to spend more $$ on LED tail lights.



Ignore the sizes, ignore that its on a truck. Will 5-10lbs extra tire weight on a vehicle end up costing $300 extra in fuel over the life of the tires.

 

Sorry for not clarifying,
a better way to explain the 10lbs = 400 in the bed rule:
ex: grabbers vs your current tires
(61lbs-56lbs)= 5lbs difference per tire => 5lbs*4 wheels= 20lb increase of rotational mass. which is about the equivalent of pulling around and extra 800 lbs around. (think towing an 800 lb trailer, but neglect wind resistance) because your engine will constantly be working harder to turn the extra 20 lbs.

I think it will be a neglegible difference between the BFG and Duratracs.
Driving habits would make more of a difference.
I know the Duratracs have a high rolling resistance but not sure how they compare to BFG. Everyone seems to LOVE the duratracs in the snow tho.

 

I know what you meant. I mean the 285s I have now are about 20lbs more each than the stock 265s so that would be 20lbs*4 wheels=80lbs to a total of 3200lbs bed weight by your math. Which cant be right, maybe it plateaus after initially starting to roll.
My BFGs are meh in the snow at best. I think the Grabbers would be roughly the same but they are significantly cheaper than the other two. I just don't know if the extra 5-7lbs per would actually burn an extra $300 in fuel over the life of the tires.
I know rotational mass is a huge factor in mileage, acceleration and breaking I just don't know if 6~lbs will make a noticeable difference.

 

I dont know your mpg, fuel capacity specs, CAD to US but, for my truck:
say i get 18mpg. (2nd gen access cab)
if changing tires i lost 1 mpg
75,000/18=4166 gallons
75,000/17=4411 gallons
So losing 1 mpg, i need 245 gallons more to travel same distance
245 gallons/17 gallons=14.5 more tanks of fuel. (2nd gens take about 17 gallons empty to full)
17 gallons* $3.20 a gallon=54.4 so say $55
14.5 * $55= $770 dollars more.

 

$770 over 75,000 comes to about 1 cent per mile extra, 1.026 cents to be exact. Dosent seem so bad in the penny world.
75,000 is a lot of miles on one set of tires too.
1.56 cents if you go only 50,000 on the tires.

I wont revive old thread without out new ideas…

All the "what tire" threads are for wider Tonka tires.
I am interested to see and hear about tall, narrow tires on a Frontier. My old truck was a 3/4 ton 4x4 with tall skinnies (255/85/17). It looked good also, cause that matters too. Great hwy performance and all the off-road traction a fat tire would offer (not sand).

They make a 235/80/16. Most or all are E rated though, so heavier than a C would be.
You can see it visually here by putting in stock size and new size to see a depiction. 30.6 stock, vs 31.7 pizza cutter one.

A skinny tire gives best hwy mpg.
A taller tire rolls over stuff off road.
The contact patch should be the same mathematically, though the shape changes, so off-road traction should be unchanged, and some argue better with skinny tire.
A wide tire corners better.

It is not unusual for me to drive 20 hrs for a trip, then want to do some off-roading a little. I want a taller tire that has great mpg that still does good off road.

Anyone have goofy tires like this? Share pics if so, and experiences.
(opinions not really going to do anyone any use, so really looking for real-life experience)
thanks

 

I've been buying trucks, and tires for them since the 1970's. I've never once observed any measurable difference in fuel mileage between similar tires with a "P" rating and a much heavier "E" rated tire. I currently have E rated LT265/75/16 tires on my Tacoma that weigh 15 lbs each more than the P265/70/16 tires that came from the factory. I still get the same fuel mileage as before and after experimenting with air pressure the ride is just fine. Same exact observation with my F150 now running much heavier LT tires.

When you go to a significantly taller/wider tire that has a more aggressive mud tread you lose fuel mileage because those tires have more rolling resistance. They also are going to be much heavier, but it isn't the weight that hurts you. Yea, it takes a bit more engine power to get the heavier tires rolling, but once rolling they tend to want to keep moving. It is a wash in the end. I suppose that if you only drive in city traffic there might be a small loss of fuel mileage, but you'd have to use 2-3 numbers to the right of the decimal point to show it.

On both trucks I'm running a tire only 1"-1.5" taller than factory, but the same narrow width. And since I stayed with a moderately aggressive AT tread my fuel mileage is the same.

In your case the difference between a 54 and 61 lb tire is simply insignificant. You have already taken a hit on fuel mileage with the wider 285 tire. Any difference between the 3 you're considering will come down to rolling resistance. And the amount of air you put in them will have a huge effect on that. A difference of 5 PSI can mean 2-3 mpg.

BS

 

The OP might be long gone now, but I am still interested.
I am looking at going from a 265/70/16 to a 235/85/16.
30.6 vs 31.7 height.

I am not sure the current tire weight but going to the E tires, which is all there are in the bigger 235 size, will prob add 2 or 4 lbs each. The lightest I have seen is 40, with 42-46 lbs common, and the stock size is 36-40 lbs, so I gain 3x4= 12lbs.
I think at a constant highway speed this will not be so significant.

The more narrow will do better on mpg, offset by taller and heavier.
I wish there were a C tire in this size.

I like the tall skinny Willie look.

 

I went from 265/70R16 BFG AT's @ 56#/tire to 265/70R16 Michelin Defender LTX @ 38#/tire. That's 18# per tire and a total of 72# less rotating mass. It made next to no difference in MPG. It did improve the ride and tire noise though.

I don't think tires are the place to look when trying to improve fuel economy.

 

Interesting figures, is this mixed, or highway? That's a huge weight difference to see no difference.

Tires wear out and then you buy new ones, thats why one would buy new tires… mpg differences is a factor when selecting a new size.

 

All I know is that when I put on 285s my gas mileage bottomed out. Looks badass though.

 

285 is a wide tire. that width, no matter the height, is a lot of rolling resistance.
I am choosing a narrow tire to offset some of the losses a taller tire might bring.
My old Hardbody 3.0 has 32x11.5s at one point, back then gas was cheap so it really didnt matter about mpg, 15-16 hwy maybe, and when I went to a 31x something narrower mpg improved a huge amount, 19-20 hwy, same tires I was getting 23 on hypermiling and leaning out the mix later. I just never got to use 5th gear with those 32s unless I had a good downhill.

 

Mostly driving in the suburbs. Not stop and go like city traffic, but lots of stop and go between red lights and stop signs. I seriously considered going with the pizza cutter look, but in the end decided against it. My truck is pretty much stock and it works so well for me that I don't want to mess with it.

 

even if the weight was equal, wider tires not only add rolling resistance, they also add aero resistance.

Tread pattern and efficiency is going to matter within a few %. Tire rack posts info about this. What they fail to put on the report is weight. When looking for tires for my truck, I of course have been looking into A/T tires.
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=249

whatayaknow - the lightest one scored the best. Geolandar was the worst, somehow, even with the skinniest tread width.

Directly from the above link but with weights

Tire Test MPG* Gallons/Year
@ 15,000 Miles % vs. Most Efficient
44 or 46lbs (2 listed ) BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 18.3 819.7 -3.3%
37lbs Firestone Destination A/T2 18.9 793.7 --
39lbs Hankook Dynapro AT2 18.6 806.5 -1.6%
41lbs Yokohana Geolandar A/T G015 17.9 838.0 -5.6%
Our evaluation used Race Technology DL1 data loggers to record true distance traveled.
Fuel economy figures were close across the board, with a 1 mpg difference from the most- to least-efficient. This difference would result in an additional 44.3 gallons of gasoline used per year for a vehicle driven 15,000 miles annually.


Driving habits change from time to time as well. My commute is WAY worse than it used to be for stop and go traffic so if I put the same miles on, I'd expect to see a decrease in mpg. I don't think a lot of people that report on MPG changes are actually cataloging in their brain if they were rougher or had this or that change done within the year and etc and then reporting it here. Lots of people are short on here and it adds confusion. it's the internet.