Not your average tire recommendation question

There is also a new rating system in addition to the snowflake symbol that rates the tire for ice traction as well. Might want to look for that.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45861084/winter-tires-new-ice-rating-certification/

 

I disagree - I bought a 4-cylinder/4x4 so I could get the max MPG possible. I changed the tires for more aggressive ones but kept the tire size stock, didn't lift it, got a cab-high camper shell without a roof rack and still get 24-25 MPG at 65 MPH and didn't notice any change in performance. I can go about 490 miles on a tank when we are on a trip.

The difference between 18 and 20 MPG is not negligible, IMO. If you drive 15,000 miles a year, the lighter tire saves 83 gallons a year, or about $250 a year. If you keep the tires for 4 years, the gas savings pays for them.

 

I have the same Firestone tires but in 265/75/16 E-rated. No issues in the snow at all. I use they year-round.

 

Each to their own. OP is asking about tires specifically suited to his multi-month several thousand mile journey. Mpg for the trip should be the least of his concerns. The suitability of the tires should be everything. I did the math based on a 5000 mile trip (his may be longer) , depending on the cost of gas , tires getting 2mpg more on his trip would save him between $100 to about $140. If that little savings is crucial then the OP can’t really afford the trip.
I have never ever given any consideration when selecting tires to mpg. And very very few others do either. Yes some do but few. Look through some of the thousands of tire threads here, it is rare when people ask about tire suggestions that they include anything about mpg. They are interested mainly in 4 things, tire suited for their needs, looks, brand, cost. Other factors too but rarely do you see - and must get good mpg.

 

Why not both? Some 39 lb tires are much better than like 60 lb KO2s or Toyos, IMO. And it's not like he's going to throw away the tires after the trip - might as well factor in the entire lifespan on the things IMO.

 

And the OP mentioned this

"One thought is get a dedicated winter tire for the stock wheel in AK and drive it thru Canada, store them at a tire place if they do that & get a set summer set of wheels and tires there. Make the warm part of the trip and swap when I come back north"

No cost savings there. Even if you use the argument that you wont be wearing out one set when you are running the other you have the cost of an addition set of rims. And snow tires are not know for their low rolling resistance.

And no mention of treadwear rating. You can easily find a tire with a higher treadwear rating. Over its lifetime it could be cheaper to replace a set vs a lower treadwear rating that gives you the 2 mg increase..

I agree that the "The suitability of the tires should be everything"

I run a dedicated summer tire and separate dedicated winters on separate rims.

I don't go off road and want the most suitable and safe tires for the conditions I drive in. When i bought the tires I picked I was looking at performance related things like wet and dry braking etc. To me those matter. Not fuel economy or cost.

 

That's essentially a 30" tire. On a solo trip, any offroad in the SW or Baja would equate to constant having to get out of the truck to spot, stacking rocks, breaking out traction boards, operating a winch (if he has one), etc. Total nightmare. By the end of the trip, he would need a new rear bumper and his skid plates would be beat to hell. 32" tires is the absolute minimum, IMHO.

I should of added to my original post, that if he is driving through western Canada and Baja California, you would have to gave a death wish to go with an SL tire. As others have noted, mpg concerns should play no role in tire selection.

 

The ones I have are E-load and I haven't had issues on medium trails on Colorado, I mean, I'm not doing any hardcore rock crawling and am not flexing it out or anything but have gone through a bunch of water crossings and over mountain passes and stuff out by Ouray, etc.

 

It's 5000 miles one way but I totally get what you are saying.

 

A 32 inch diameter tire is 1.5 inches taller that this one at 30.5 (from tirerack specs). So divide the difference by 2 to get the added height it will provide for ground clearance and that only .75 inches. Shouldn't help at all in the situations you mentioned. An even taller tire maybe but I wouldn't go swapping for a 32 inch replacement for the ones he has already.

 

Maybe go for the 32s. The 32s are 46#. Is the extra 0.55" of ground clearance worth it you?

 

Weight is only an issue to mpg during acceleration. Once up to speed rolling resistance comes into play.
So don't assume a lighter tire will always give better mpg.

Interesting article on fuel efficient tires.. Of course none of these are chunky all terrain or off road tires


https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=121

Tire Test MPG* Gallons/Year @ 15,000 Miles % vs. Most Efficient
Michelin Energy Saver A/S 53.8 278.8 +4.74%
Bridgestone Ecopia EP100 53.5 280.4 +4.12%
Yokohama dB Super E-Spec 52.8 284.0 +2.81%
Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max 51.6 290.7 +0.37%
Goodyear Integrity 51.4 291.8 reference tire
Michelin HydroEdge Green X 51.1 293.5 -0.59%
Goodyear Assurance ComforTred 50.0 300.0 -2.64%

 

Thanks for pointing that out. It's a simple thing, but I see so many posts where guys fail to divide the difference in tire height to get the true height difference.

 

And i wonder how many take the difference in revolutions per mile for different tire sizes into account when they do MPG calculations

 

you live in Rhode Island

 

If you want MPG you get a ford ranger eco boost or Jeep diesel.

the more aggressive the tread the worse the MPG.

if you want off road and inclement weather capability without the MPG loss of aggressive tread I’d look at things like Michelin Defender LTX which simply don’t look as cool making it less popular not to mention size limitations for the 99% of people on here with larger tires that didnt get this truck thinking it’s something it’s not (efficient)

 

And there is a new version.. The michelin defender ltx m s2
Its their #1 pick for highway all season.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/michelin-defender-ltx-m-s2

 

Based on our experience with all year 3PMSF on other vehicles (Michelin CC2) I'd be looking at all seasons 3PMSF models. Our oldest set has 30,000 miles now and aging better than others we've had and known that have all seasons but 3 peak rating or sold as snow specialists. The Trail-Terrain T/A BF Goodrich OEM tire for 2024 TRD OR has a 3PMSF rating and is a year-round tire. It has good crowd-sourced and pro reviews. BFG is a Michelin company so may well share the some of the magic CC2s have.

The OEM models don't have the 3PMSF certifications but reviews are good and I'm impressed with the versatility. I am off road often but also have to do fairly frequent freeway and road trips. If the OEM versions are not good once it's ice time I'll definitely consider same tires with 3PMSF seal. The Trail-Terrain T/A don't have big side lugs making them pleasant on highway but so far are sufficient for not so extreme unpaved roads, trail work and ski area service roads.

Keep in mind the 3PMSF certification has meaning vs a tire marketed as M+S.

 

I had those on a rental for 2000 miles of winter driving. Sorry if I missed the link saying 3PMSF, but the sidewalls of what I had did not have the certification seal. Definitely good tires but also having and knowing Michelin's CC2 with 3PMSF rating they were not in same league when a lot of wet snow followed by ice occurred.

Unless an OEM tire, I'll only get 3PMSF year round models now. I have had experience with the Nokian, Michelin and Goodyears. They are a different league for snow and ice. A dedicated winter tire will beat them on ice but those could not and would not be good for the trip OP is describing because of heat.

 

Don't place to much faith in the 3PMSF. It only indicates that a tire has at least 10% better acceleration on medium packed snow than a reference all season tire. It doesn't tell you if its only 10% or 50% , just that its > 10%. And this is acceleration ONLY. So when it comes time to stop you might regret the additional speed you have built up...

So unless you can dig up real test reports this can work against you. Say you are looking at 2 different tires and one is much cheaper but both have the 3PMSF symbol. You might choose the cheaper one assuming that since they both have that symbol they are both equal performers.

The new ice symbol is probably more important since it requires a minimum of 18% better braking on a smooth ice surface. Ideally you would look for a tire that has both... I would choose braking performance over acceleration every time. But i run dedicated snows so in my case wasn't looking for what are now called all weather vs all season tires.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45861084/winter-tires-new-ice-rating-certification/