TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post Reply
User avatar
Tony
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 14:58
Full Name: Antonio Barone
Nickname: Tony
Home Town: Randburg
Current 4x4: Nissan Patrol 4.8 GRX
Home Language: English
Been thanked: 27 times

TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Tony » 19 May 2018 12:23

Ok guys, here's an interesting one regarding all the hype about tyre width and HT / AT / MT's and their related fuel consumption.
So ..... Wider uses more fuel - correct?? AND MT's use more than AT's, which in turn use more than HT's - this is a fact .... right??
Ok, here's what I have found out on my last two runs down to the W/Cape. You guys all know my GU - it came with BFG 305 65 17 KM2 muddies. I drove down in December on these tyres and had a blowout on my return trip and promptly replaced all 5 tyres with Cooper STMaxx's these are classified as AT's and I went a little narrower i.e. 285 70 17. Last month I drove down again on the new ones, both trips were towing a trailer. In December we were 4 up inside with a number of light items on the roofrack as well as a bicycle lying on top of the trailer. Last months trip we were 2 up inside and nothing on top.
Here are my findings:

Jhb to Hanover (BFG MT 305's) ODO = 669.10 GPS = 712.10 Litres = 134.72

Jhb to Hanover (Cooper AT 285's) ODO = 672.10 GPS = 715.15 Litres = 133.24

Is this a "busted myth" or what!!

Rodney
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 11:01
Full Name: Rodney Smith
Nickname: Rodney
Home Town: Port Elizabeth
Current 4x4: 2013 3.0D GL
Home Language: English
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Rodney » 19 May 2018 16:04

I am no expert but lots of small things make a difference.

I have a 2000 Citroen C3 diesel that comfortably does 20km on 1 litre at 130/140km/h. But hit the southwester or southeaster near Cape Town and that easily drops to 16/17 km litre.

I have noticed on my Y61 3.0l that a side or front wind whilst the roofrack is on( but empty ) noticeably negatively affects my consumption travelling for about 125 km on the same route on a regular basis. When I turn around and travel mostly with the wind consumption back to normal. So I remove the roofrack for daily travelling (absolute schlepp).

User avatar
Alex Roux
Patrolman 1000+
Patrolman 1000+
Posts: 2625
Joined: 11 Jul 2011 10:54
Full Name: Alexander Roux
Nickname: Witblits
Home Town: Johannesburg
Current 4x4: 2004 GU 3TDi (Lexus) - aka "Witblits"
1996: GQ TB48 conversion - aka "Skilpad"
1993: GQ SWB TB42 - aka "Shortie"
Home Language: Afrikaans
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Alex Roux » 19 May 2018 16:13

I moved from 33" (Muddies) to 31" (ATs) on Shortie.
They are narrower too.
Highway consumption improved from 6 km/l to 7 km/l.
Skilpad & Shortie

User avatar
Peter Connan
Moderator
Posts: 5374
Joined: 10 Sep 2010 07:21
Full Name: Peter Connan
Nickname: Piet
Home Town: Kempton Park
Current 4x4: 1996 Patrol 4.5SGL
Home Language: Afrikaans
Location: Kempton Park
Has thanked: 278 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Peter Connan » 19 May 2018 18:31

I went from 33x12.5 AT's to 32x11.5 Muddies to 265/70R16 HT's to 255/85R16 muddies.

No repeatable difference in fuel consumption, except in soft sand, where the narrow tyres have a noticeable advantage.
Mag ons ons kenniskry met lekkerkry aanhoukry.

User avatar
Tinus lotz
Moderator
Posts: 7035
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 13:07
Full Name: Tinus lotz
Nickname: Tinus lotz
Home Town: Centurion
Current 4x4: Nissan patrol 4.8 GRX 2005

Toyota 2.7 legend 35 LWB 4X4
Home Language: Afrikaans
Has thanked: 554 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Tinus lotz » 19 May 2018 20:16

Check asb net eers julle odo teen julle speedo met verskillende bande julle sal skrik ..my bakkie meet 9% onder met 285 75 16 teen die speedo ...maw die odo wys 100km en gps wys 109

SJC
Patrolman 1000+
Patrolman 1000+
Posts: 2766
Joined: 23 Nov 2014 14:20
Full Name: Fanus
Nickname: Fanus
Home Town: .
Current 4x4: 2000 Nissan Patrol 4500GRX
Home Language: Afrikaans/English
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by SJC » 20 May 2018 08:41

Tony wrote:
19 May 2018 12:23
Ok guys, here's an interesting one regarding all the hype about tyre width and HT / AT / MT's and their related fuel consumption.
So ..... Wider uses more fuel - correct?? AND MT's use more than AT's, which in turn use more than HT's - this is a fact .... right??
Ok, here's what I have found out on my last two runs down to the W/Cape. You guys all know my GU - it came with BFG 305 65 17 KM2 muddies. I drove down in December on these tyres and had a blowout on my return trip and promptly replaced all 5 tyres with Cooper STMaxx's these are classified as AT's and I went a little narrower i.e. 285 70 17. Last month I drove down again on the new ones, both trips were towing a trailer. In December we were 4 up inside with a number of light items on the roofrack as well as a bicycle lying on top of the trailer. Last months trip we were 2 up inside and nothing on top.
Here are my findings:

Jhb to Hanover (BFG MT 305's) ODO = 669.10 GPS = 712.10 Litres = 134.72

Jhb to Hanover (Cooper AT 285's) ODO = 672.10 GPS = 715.15 Litres = 133.24

Is this a "busted myth" or what!!
I had 255/85r16 on both my patrols previously (st maxx & dunlop mt2's), currently got a second hand set of 285/75r16 BFG km2's on.
My consumption is slightly more with the current set, maybe 0.3km/l more. not 100% sure.

Got better fuel consumption with the dunlop mt2's, than with the st maxx's. (there goes the at give better fuel consumption than mt theory.. :biggrin: ) The MT2's got quite an aggressive mt threat/pattern compared to the st maxx's.. But they are slightly narrower than the st maxx's although it is theoretically the same size tyre.
IMG_3098.JPG
IMG_3098.JPG (424.39 KiB) Viewed 1348 times
But as Tinus said, double check the odo compare with gps distance traveled. These two sizes are not the same diameter tyre.
285 305 17.jpg

mvcoller
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 07 Apr 2009 07:13
Full Name: Malcolm van Coller
Nickname: mvcoller
Home Town: Kensington, Jhb
Current 4x4: 2008 3.0 Di Patrol GL
and
2011 2.5 Di Pathfinder LE
Home Language: Afr & Eng
Location: Kensington, Jhb
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 36 times
Contact:

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by mvcoller » 22 May 2018 09:58

The OP compared 285/70 x 17 with 305/65 x 17

when comparing the two, the OD size for each size is:
305/65 - 828.30mm or 32.61"
285/70 - 830.80mm or 32.71"

So the size is very similar, the 285/70 is 2,5mm (or 1/10th on an inch) taller than the 305/65. I bet you if you fit new tyres, after just 5000km, that will be the OD difference between your front and rear tyres. It is really insignificant.....

User avatar
Jules
Patrolman 1000+
Patrolman 1000+
Posts: 1846
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 09:13
Full Name: Julius
Nickname: Jules
Home Town: Rietjiesvlei, Zoeloeland
Current 4x4: GQ Patrol
Home Language: AFR
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Jules » 22 May 2018 12:00

Please explain this

Jhb to Hanover (BFG MT 305's) ODO = 669.10 GPS = 712.10 Litres = 134.72

Jhb to Hanover (Cooper AT 285's) ODO = 672.10 GPS = 715.15 Litres = 133.24

Is the 669.10 GPS the kilometres travelled and 712.10 Litres used to travel that ???? what then is the 134.72 ??

Shalom
Walk by FAITH not by sight
Patrol 1995 SGL
aka "Nomakanjani"
ProComp Extreme A/T 31x10.5R15
ARB Bullbar
OME, Frontrunner Roofrack
60L Snomaster Freezer/Fridge

Picasso
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 308
Joined: 27 Jul 2014 15:56
Full Name: HS
Nickname: Picasso
Home Town: Pretoria
Current 4x4: Nissan Patrol
T3 Syncro
Home Language: German
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by Picasso » 22 May 2018 12:36

Jules wrote:
22 May 2018 12:00
Please explain this

Jhb to Hanover (BFG MT 305's) ODO = 669.10 GPS = 712.10 Litres = 134.72

Jhb to Hanover (Cooper AT 285's) ODO = 672.10 GPS = 715.15 Litres = 133.24

Is the 669.10 GPS the kilometres travelled and 712.10 Litres used to travel that ???? what then is the 134.72 ??

Shalom
Well.. I understood it in the following way

BFG
The distance traveled indicating on the trip meter (ODO) was 669.1 km
The actual distance traveled according to the GPS = 712.1 km
The difference between ODO and GPS is most likely due to the bigger Tyre diameter ~ 6 %
The fuel consumed over this distance was 134.72 liters or between 19 and 20 Liters / 100 km depending on km reading.

same principle for the Cooper tyres

:salute:

User avatar
iandvl
Patrolman 1000+
Patrolman 1000+
Posts: 1279
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:26
Full Name: Ian de Villiers
Nickname: Ian
Home Town: Brits
Current 4x4: Nissan Patrol 4.5 GRX
Nissan Patrol 4.8 GRX
Nissan Hardbody 2.4 4x4 D/C
Home Language: English
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 195 times

Re: TYRE WIDTH/TYPE VS FUEL CONSUMPTION

Post by iandvl » 22 May 2018 12:38

Jules wrote:
22 May 2018 12:00
Please explain this

Jhb to Hanover (BFG MT 305's)

ODO km = 669.10
GPS km = 712.10
Litres = 134.72


Jhb to Hanover (Cooper AT 285's)

ODO km = 672.10
GPS km = 715.15
Litres = 133.24


Is the 669.10 GPS the kilometres travelled and 712.10 Litres used to travel that ???? what then is the 134.72 ??

Shalom
I understood it as I highlighted it above.

Post Reply

Return to “14. Rims & Tyres”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest