UNBREAKABLE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Location
- Granite Falls
trans will be fine..its getting built
22.5's or regearing(whichever pans out first)
yea, I'm rockin out a solid 13 mpg. SUCKISH! I'm hoping the trans and the bigger tars will help out with that. 65mph=2600rpm
Like I said going by what my buddy told me and 1200 is mighty expensive considering I bought my 18" rims and tires mounted and balanced on the truck for 1400, and they werent cheap no names it was Gear Alloy rims and Nitto dune grapplers, I'm just saying and I get 18 mpg all day long on a stock truck. But as I said before the 22.5s do look sweet but I don't think they will help the problem your trying to address.Already priced the tires..I don't know where you're buyin 22.5s but I've already found all 6 of mine for under 1200
-Yeah 1 buddy, try 3 and all three got worse mileage one who changed from stock 19.5'sso because your one "buddy" got worse mileage switching to 22.5's, that now applies to all scenarios? while your buddy's rpm's might have dropped also, it's hardly comparable considering his 4.10's/35 inch tires to this truck's 4.88's/31's. lowering rpm's alone isn't really the important part, it's where they're at currently and where they're going to be after. the truck in this thread is pretty much redlined at highway speeds. dropping the rpms back into a normal cruising range will help significantly. not only at highway speeds, but around town also since the truck will be able to spend more time in the powerband and shift less.
he's already said the static weight of the new wheel/tire combo is comparable to the existing. while it's likely the 22.5's will have more weight further from the hub (thus making them act heavier than the 19.5's when in motion), i'd say it's a pretty fat chance it will overcome the gains realized from getting the rpms down. conceding any additional rotational mass at all is only due to the larger overall diameter of the combo. while it may be the culprit a lot of times, larger rim diameter alone equaling more mass can't really be used as a standard rule. for example, my personal truck has a set of 24's and the stock 16's that i use. both have tires with nearly identical diameters of a little more than 34 inches and tread widths around 12 inches. overall weight is comparable. the 16's get a consistent 1-1.5mpg worse than the 24's. certainly there's other factors to consider such as tread pattern, wheel design, etc. but the bulk of that can definitely be attributed to the additional rubber on the 16's weighing more than the additional metal on the 24's. it takes a tire almost 2 inches less in diameter on the 16's to get the same mpg as the 24's.
also, if ~$200 per tire is expensive, you'll have to share with the rest of us where you're shopping for tires. besides, you're comparing apples to oranges again. 6 medium/heavy duty 22.5 inch tires only VS. 4 light duty 18 inch tires and wheels...??