Skinny vs wide tires pros/cons

[nickw]

I'll call bunk on that 'research'. Longer? 'contact patch' is an area measurement, not just a chord. What about wider? And that's not even counting deflation. I started out a long time ago on relatively narrower Norsemans in the desert southwest and very soon migrated to wider tires - 31x10.50x15 being the king for a long time - because I got tired of sinking in sands. Hell the whole ******** Cepek boom in the 80s and 90s was predicated on their wider tire offerings. before the proto-BroTruck movement was even born. Their 33- and 36-12.50-15s were the mall cruiser gold standard back then.
Then there's pretty much most of military history in the 20th century where the movement has been mostly to wider tires and tank treads, for the same reasons of lower ground pressures and 'flotation' on looser soils and mud.
(shrug)

Lots of the modern military tires are not wide relative to their height either....many being 85 and 75 aspect ratios which most would put in the "skinny" camp....

 

[shade]

Bunk-free research is to be found in the lengthy article by Scott Brady I posted earlier.

Skinny vs wide tires pros/cons

I’m looking at a few tires and in a few different sizes for my 16” wheels. I’m thinking 235/85/16, 265/75/16 or 245/75/16(probably not this as I want larger diameter) I’ve got bridgestone revo 3’s in 265/75, and had cooper at3’s in the past in 235/85 Cooper’s were 10 ply and bridgestone are 4...

www.expeditionportal.com

 

[Metcalf]

I daily drove this for 12000+ miles last year with 40x13.5R17 tires ( 10K miles on Black Label ( stickier ) Milestar Patagonia MTs, and 2.5K on a set of ProComp MT2s )



It did great. Drove it through one on the worst Colorado winters in a decade. Pulled lots of people out of the ditch. It will do 80+mph down the interstate for hours with two fingers on the wheel. Mileage is in the mid teens with the 5.3LS/6L80e combo and barn door aero.

I don't see how people can be arguing about the difference between a 235 and 265 wide tire.....

 

[billiebob]

everything else being equal, you should get slightly better mileage with a narrower tire, due to less rolling resistance and the smaller contact patch.

I do. I went from 33x10.50 to 7.50R16s and went from 17mpg to 22mpg. No other change. That added 95 miles to range between gas stops. And I found myself pounding the brakes to stop for red lights, the rolling resistance was sooo much less.
Way better ride too.

 

[nickw]

I do. I went from 33x10.50 to 7.50R16s and went from 17mpg to 22mpg. No other change. That added 95 miles to range between gas stops. And I found myself pounding the brakes to stop for red lights, the rolling resistance was sooo much less.
Way better ride too.

View attachment 575510

Cool tires - what brand?

 

[rruff]

I do. I went from 33x10.50 to 7.50R16s and went from 17mpg to 22mpg.

I went from 255/70r18 street tires to 325/65r18 ATs. Gas mileage went from ~16mpg, to 16.5mpg.

I think tire design is the main factor here.

 

[Regcabguy]

With a heavy 3/4 ton truck there's no substitute for a flotation tire in sand and silt. The floats seem predominant on the heavier rigs.
That being said no reason to run them I guess if you don't frequent those conditions. I've pulled out a couple of heavy rigs that got too close to the sand in Baja. Both of them wore the pizza cutters.

 

[Grassland]

I went from 255/70r18 street tires to 325/65r18 ATs. Gas mileage went from ~16mpg, to 16.5mpg.

I think tire design is the main factor here.

Did you correct your odometer for the tire size change?

 

[Robert Bills]

. . . I started out a long time ago on relatively narrower Norsemans in the desert southwest and very soon migrated to wider tires - 31x10.50x15 being the king for a long time - because I got tired of sinking in sands. Hell the whole ******** Cepek boom in the 80s and 90s was predicated on their wider tire offerings. before the proto-BroTruck movement was even born. Their 33- and 36-12.50-15s were the mall cruiser gold standard back then. . . .

You can claim the "wise old timer" mantle when you can relay your own story of driving to ******** Cepek's home in South Gate CA one evening in 1965 when ******** was just getting his start selling Armstrong 11.00-15 farm implement/"flotation" tires as a side business out of his one car garage.

Armstrong Norsemen and Tru-Tracs weren't released until later. Neither were Gates Commandos.

 

[Regcabguy]

You can claim the "wise old timer" mantle when you can relay your own story of driving to ******** Cepek's home in South Gate CA one evening in 1965 when ******** was just getting his start selling Armstrong 11.00-15 farm implement/"flotation" tires as a side business out of his one car garage.

Armstrong Norsemen and Tru-Tracs weren't released until later. Neither were Gates Commandos.

I have memories of pickups using those farm implement tires in the sand at San Quintin,BC. There were local Americans with VW buses using them with body cutouts on the rear. They worked.

 

[gwittman]

I switch back and forth between 31" and 33" tires a couple times a year because the 31s are my street tires and the 33s are my off-road tires. They are both 10.5" wide and I get better gas mileage with the 33" tires than with the 31" tires. The reason is; the gearing is set up for the 33" tires with 4.56 gears. When I run the 31" tires, the rpm is higher and it sucks more gas. The only time it gets better gas mileage with the 31" tires, as compared to the 33" tires, is when I am towing my race car. I can say though that when I ran the proper 4.10 gears with the 31" tires, I got better gas mileage than I do with the 4.56 gears and the 33 inch tires.

I do recalibrate my speedometer when I change tires. I have a Dakota Digital calibrator that electronically resets the input to the speedometer for any size tire I want to put on my truck.

My point is, larger tires can provide better mileage depending on how the vehicle is set up. Each vehicle and engine has an optimum final drive combination (which includes the diameter of the tire) for maximum gas mileage. You can also maximize acceleration by changing gears and tire size and that usually decreases gas mileage. A common conception about tires size is; larger diameter tires lower highway rpm to improve gas mileage. That can be true but you can also go too tall and get out of the efficient engine rpm and lower mpg. That is without taking rolling resistance/mass, vehicle height, etc. into consideration.

Just to stay on the subject, I like the looks of wide tires, but like the characteristics of narrower tires. 10.5/33" tires are not wide tires but I don't think they can be considered skinny tires either. I also believe some performance is reduce by going too narrow.

 

[rruff]

Did you correct your odometer for the tire size change?

Of course.

 

[Grassland]

Not getting how a 3" taller tire that's a good 1.5 wider gained better fuel economy, unless you had really steep gears and now with the new tires you have the equivalent of a tall ratio and drive loads of highway

 

[rruff]

Not getting how a 3" taller tire that's a good 1.5 wider gained better fuel economy, unless you had really steep gears and now with the new tires you have the equivalent of a tall ratio and drive loads of highway

No to both. Gearing is optimized for the smaller tires, and most of my driving is at modest speeds where rolling resistance is most important.
The rolling resistance of wider tires is actually lower than narrow ones, and the Hankook ATMs must use low hysteresis compounds, compared to the stock Bridgestones.

 

[Grassland]

No to both. Gearing is optimized for the smaller tires, and most of my driving is at modest speeds where rolling resistance is most important.
The rolling resistance of wider tires is actually lower than narrow ones, and the Hankook ATMs must use low hysteresis compounds, compared to the stock Bridgestones.

I went from P235/75R17 street tires to LT235/80R17 KO2s and my fuel economy went up very slightly.
When I then switched to 34x10.5R17 KO2s my fuel economy went down.
All same truck.