|
|
|
|
|
- HOME
- FORUMS
- GARAGE
- ARTICLES
- CHAT
- CLASSIFIEDS
- VIDEOS
- TECH
- STORE
- SPONSORS - - REGISTER - CALENDAR - SITE HELP - ARCADE - STAFF - MEMBERSHIP - GET A QUOTE |
|
Welcome to the Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum, the fastest growing Ford Diesel Community on the internet! You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us |
|
|||||||
Wheels, Tires, and Brakes Here's where you can post all your topics and questions about wheels, tires and brakes.
Sponsored by Discount Tire |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-04-2009, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
255/85-16's
A little research claims about 1-1 1/2 MPG better when using a 255/85-16 over a 285/75-16. The 255 is about 1/2" taller as well. Does anyone run this size with a 2 1/2" leveling kit? Do they look too skinny? I don't want the truck to look lame, but I'm more about function befor form. Any Pics or opinions would be appreciated.
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, a 33 1/2" tire would benefit the truck by yielding lower engine rpm's at any given speed. Plus, if the tires are a little skinnier, they would have less rolling resistance. Both these factors will provide better fuel efficiency. However.............the factors I would take into account, are availability, price, and load range. If the tires are redily available, and affordable, and come in a suitable load range for your truck, then I don't think it would be a problem. (though you might have to trim your fenders a bit) In my searches, most tires in this size were pretty spendy, especially MT's. Personally, I think I'll stick with the 285/75-16, but if you decide to go to the 255/85-16, let us know how they work out. mike
|
|
11-05-2009, 08:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The theory is sound, taller tire, less width should equal less rolling resistance which would increase fuel mileage, but on the other side of the coin being taller MAY effect fuel mileage when towing due to the lessening of the effective gear ratio.
|
|
11-05-2009, 09:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Slick said is true, but even when NOT towing it could be an issue. If you do nothing but hiway driving you would benefit. But, a taller tire makes your effective gear ratio higher, which means you have to mash the gas a little harder to get rolling. So, every time you take off, you would burn just a bit MORE fuel. I think you would see a wash. Mark
|
|
11-05-2009, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep. Some good points there. Plus, you'll probably also have to deal with the TQ locking, and unlocking more often. Forcing the tranny to downshift more often etc., causing more wear and tear on the tranny, which is expensive at best.
Again, I wouldn't go beyond 285/75-16. No need. I thin it's pretty much the best of both worlds. mike
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
