95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 4th gen pickups and 3rd gen 4Runners

MPG calculation: Help needed please

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 04:43 PM
  #1  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
MPG calculation: Help needed please

My rig new had 265/70/16's. The tires were upgraded by the previous owner to 265/75/16's. I have been dividing my accumulated mileage per tank by the number of gallons used. I believe my odometer is slightly off due to the slight increase in tire size. My question is: How much is it off?

I will add the % increase to my excel spreadsheets to "correct" the equation.

I suck at math, and I really suck at story problems. Please
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:03 PM
  #2  
Glenn's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,647
Likes: 0
From: ELN
Why not check it with GPS?
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:07 PM
  #3  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
Because I dont have GPS.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:07 PM
  #4  
MTL_4runner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 3
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Originally Posted by <96 Runner>
My rig new had 265/70/16's. The tires were upgraded by the previous owner to 265/75/16's. I have been dividing my accumulated mileage per tank by the number of gallons used. I believe my odometer is slightly off due to the slight increase in tire size. My question is: How much is it off?

I will add the % increase to my excel spreadsheets to "correct" the equation.

I suck at math, and I really suck at story problems. Please
Ok, I will take a stab at it.

original tires:
radius wheel = 265mm*%70= 185.5 mm or 7.3 in of sidewall + 8 inches or rim = 15.3 in
cirumference is 2*pie*radius = 96.08 inches

New tires:
radius wheel = 265mm*%75= 198.75 mm or 7.8 in of sidewall + 8 inches or rim = 15.8 in
cirumference is 2*pie*radius = 99.22 inches

so I get a difference of 99.22/96.08 = 1.032 or 3.2% larger

Last edited by MTL_4runner; Mar 5, 2004 at 05:10 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:08 PM
  #5  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
Really? That much? Wow...anybody else?
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:09 PM
  #6  
MTL_4runner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 3
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Originally Posted by <96 Runner>
Really? That much? Wow...anybody else?
Sorry, needed to recheck my math!
Made a calculation mistake.

Should be about 3.2%

Last edited by MTL_4runner; Mar 5, 2004 at 05:11 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:11 PM
  #7  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
Thanks Jamie. So I should add 3% to my excel spreadsheet right?
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:11 PM
  #8  
bamachem's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 1
yup... about 3.5% difference... multiply your mileage calculation by 1.035
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:12 PM
  #9  
MTL_4runner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 3
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Originally Posted by bamachem
yup... about 3.5% difference... multiply your mileage calculation by 1.035
Exactly!
Hey, engineering does come in hand after all.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:16 PM
  #10  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
Awesome, thanks a ton guys. I incorporated it into my spreadsheet.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 05:18 PM
  #11  
MTL_4runner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 3
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Originally Posted by <96 Runner>
Awesome, thanks a ton guys. I incorporated it into my spreadsheet.
Just a by the way, I used 25.4 for converting mm to inches and 3.14 as pie.
I don't think you need to be any more precise than that tho.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2004 | 06:01 PM
  #12  
bamachem's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 1
The toyota odometer and speedometer aren't synchronized exactly either - or so I've read... Supposedly, with 265/70's the speedo is off by about 3-4% (you're going slower than it says) and the odo is dead on. With 265/75's, the speedo is now DEAD on and the odo is reporting 3-4% less distance than you actually traveled...
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 08:19 AM
  #13  
hypnotoad's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
From: NY State
How much do you subtract, and at what rate, for the wear of the tires themselves? They aren't the same diam when they're worn as when new. In other words, it ain't accurate to begin with so all this math is like tuning up the band while the ship is sinking - fruitless.
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 08:24 AM
  #14  
MTL_4runner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 3
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Originally Posted by hypnotoad
How much do you subtract, and at what rate, for the wear of the tires themselves? They aren't the same diam when they're worn as when new. In other words, it ain't accurate to begin with so all this math is like tuning up the band while the ship is sinking - fruitless.
You are right, they do change diameter but it is so small relative to the size of the tire that it becomes negligible.

bamachem, has a good point. You need to know what tires came stock on the vehicle to calculate the total difference between your current tires and the stock tires (assuming the odometer and speedometer were dead on when new). Otherwise the best you can do is calculate the relative difference between the MPG of the old and new tires.
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 08:29 AM
  #15  
kford's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
From: Louisville, KY
WTF

Post size must be 15 characters...
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 08:32 AM
  #16  
hypnotoad's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
From: NY State
Originally Posted by MTL_4runner
You are right, they do change diameter but it is so small relative to the size of the tire that it becomes negligible.
I figure the overall diam reduces by at least an inch (1/2 inch or more all the way around) - sounds ligible to me. (is that the opposite of negligible?)
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 08:38 AM
  #17  
MTL_4runner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 3
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Originally Posted by hypnotoad
sounds ligible to me. (is that the opposite of negligible?)
good one!

I suppose if you go from brand new monster mudders to totally bald nobbies you would see a decent difference. It would take quite a while to show tho. You might be looking at a max difference of like 1-2% at the worst case.
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 09:55 AM
  #18  
ALBPM's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
This is a handy tool..

http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html

Last edited by ALBPM; Mar 6, 2004 at 11:24 AM.
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 11:17 AM
  #19  
RidgeRunner's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Fairview, OR
I use 3% increase average, got that tip from Dr. Z.

Mick
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2004 | 04:26 PM
  #20  
mike_d's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Mountains outside of Boulder
Originally Posted by MTL_4runner
Just a by the way, I used 25.4 for converting mm to inches and 3.14 as pie.
I don't think you need to be any more precise than that tho.
doesn't matter, both divide out since all you care about it a ratio between old and new.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:21 AM.