I may not be as bad off with my long lasting lugs going over 300,000 miles with a 146 r.r. as compared to a less r.r. with less tire life. according to this.
Don't fully believe it. When my dad went from worn out XDN2's to new XDA3's he immediately picked up MPG. Of course replacement intervals factor into this, with the price of fuel knocking on $4 a gallon tire life goes to the backburner. They used 95 cent per gallon fuel in the example!
Don't fully believe it. When my dad went from worn out XDN2's to new XDA3's he immediately picked up MPG. Of course replacement intervals factor into this, with the price of fuel knocking on $4 a gallon tire life goes to the backburner. They used 95 cent per gallon fuel in the example!
The price of fuel is irrelevant. The point of the article is that as a tire wears, the fuel efficiency advantage attributable to tread design and compound (low rr tires) decreases while the efficiency simply due to the tread wearing down increases. So, the longer a tire wears, the less important its rolling resistance when new is to overall cost of ownership. Having said that, the article is over 10 years old so it's possible that new tread designs and compounds have rendered those findings irrelevant.
You also have to remember that once your tires get down to 5/32's you wheels are turning more revolutions, thus your odometer is off too as well as speedometer. Not sure it's a HUGE difference, but just a thought.
We had an O/O who swapped out his 11R22.5 for some 295/75/22.5 and didn't reset his speedometer and he thought he was getting AMAZING MPG, till he realized it only changed by .2 once he updated the ECM LOL
I never looked at the date of study. thought it was new, cause it was news to me.
I'm not saying that the study is invalid, just that newer technology may discount some of the data. But the main point is still valid. The best tire for the money is a combination of several factors; not just rolling resistance as some radio personalities would have you believe.
I suppose not. I am just about ready to go over 400,000 miles on my M720's with a 110 r.r. and not ready to change them yet. Still have 9/32on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heavyhaulerss
I may not be as bad off with my long lasting lugs going over 300,000 miles with a 146 r.r. as compared to a less r.r. with less tire life. according to this.
just dumb kiwi but reading through my jeep service manual i see radial tyres decrease rolling resistance so with your remarks about that and fuel savings do you lot use as we call them cross ply tyres you no old type haha without the white walls .diesel just hit 1.60 a litre here in New Zealand
surprise to me on tire info
