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

Tires - 265/70 vs. 265/75 - honest opinions wanted

Old May 3, 2004 | 11:11 AM
  #21  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
Christian,
Didn't you switch from alloys to steel wheels at the same time? Do you think that had any significance?
Mike-

That switch definitely made a difference. Those steelies were seriously heavy. But, that did not occur at the same time. I really think my next set of tires is going to be BFG KO's in the 70 series size.

Steel wheels alone lost me about 10 miles per tank. Its nice to have that back.
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 11:14 AM
  #22  
goldtaco9's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
From: SEPA
Thanks. I have BFG KO's on my Syncro Vanagon and they are nice. I have read so much good press here about the REVO's that I wanted to try those. I guess I could stick with the KO's. I never had any problems with them on the Synco but then again, it's AWD. Hmmmmmmmm.
Mike
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 11:43 AM
  #23  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
I put my KO's through hell and back on my locked 98 Taco and never had a problem. I ran over cacti, rocks, and miscellaneous vegetation. The desert is harsh, and they passed the test.

Cool! A VW with KO's?
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 12:47 PM
  #24  
PistonSlap's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by mgspann
On pinstonslap's note, does anyone have a formula for calculating speedometer error by tire size? I'm going from stock to 3 inch lift and 285/75-16 Revos next week and am wondering how much my speedometer and odometer will be in error.

thanks
now you are making my brain hurt. I can't remember it off the top of my head, I will have to consult the BFG fitment guide when I get home.
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 12:57 PM
  #25  
PistonSlap's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by <96 Runner>
It is significant to me. Besides, I posted a thread a while back where some math guru's helped me with my math calculations. There are a number of factors were are dealing with in these slightly larger tires:

More rotational mass, greater contact patch (friction), and a slightly larger diameter. Place all these together and you have a noticeable difference in power and mileage.
You will never notice a 1/2 inch difference in radius unless you have an engine that has about 6hp. Even then it would be so slight.

The tire is 1 inch larger in diameter. The contact patch is the same since they are both 265s. If anything, at highway speeds you would probably see better mileage since your larger tires are going to take you farther in one revolution than the smaller tires did at the same RPM.

In any case, a 5% change in aspect ratio at a section width of 265mm is small, very small. You will see that much of a difference from different tires of the same size.
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 01:00 PM
  #26  
4RunnerFever's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
From: Santa Cruz, CA
thanks pistonslap!
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 01:30 PM
  #27  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by PistonSlap
You will never notice a 1/2 inch difference in radius unless you have an engine that has about 6hp. Even then it would be so slight.

The tire is 1 inch larger in diameter. The contact patch is the same since they are both 265s. If anything, at highway speeds you would probably see better mileage since your larger tires are going to take you farther in one revolution than the smaller tires did at the same RPM.

In any case, a 5% change in aspect ratio at a section width of 265mm is small, very small. You will see that much of a difference from different tires of the same size.
Well data is data. And I have provided it (corrected). I still disagree with you. Maybe we can agree that we can disagree? I noticed a power loss, not huge, but I could tell and the MPG calculations prove it. Why drag this out?
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 02:09 PM
  #28  
Bob_98SR5's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,036
Likes: 5
From: Los Angeles
ditto to what christian said. calculations and formulas are one thing, rear world data is another and like christian, i experienced a little power loss and mpg.

bob
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 04:34 PM
  #29  
Tacoma Dude's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,345
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
I took off my 75 muds and put on stock 70s and noticed a little increase in power. More so, I noticed the stopping distance has decreased.
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 04:58 PM
  #30  
PistonSlap's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Bob_98SR5
ditto to what christian said. calculations and formulas are one thing, rear world data is another and like christian, i experienced a little power loss and mpg.

bob
Just curious, but do you notice a change in mileage and power when you replace tires of the same size? We are talking about a difference of size that is about equal to that of the difference between a 70/75 aspect ratio with a 265mm section width and a new tire vs. old.

Realistically true gas mileage is almost impossible to calculate. There are so many variables that it would be impossible to accurately detect a .5-1 mpg difference and determine that a 1/2 inch increase in tire radius would change your mpg either way.
Reply
Old May 3, 2004 | 05:06 PM
  #31  
Bob_98SR5's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,036
Likes: 5
From: Los Angeles
Piston,

Actually yes. I purchased my current 98 used from a guy in LA. There was about a 3 week lag time before I gave my 99 to my brother.

I drove the new 98 w/ the tires that it came with for almost 2 weeks before I changed out the rims/tires from my 99 (i liked the 5 spoke rims). Both had nearly the same mileage.

Given that its only two tires within a few weeks time, i'd hardly say its statistically significant. However, when I purchased the 32s, there was a difference I felt in the 4runner's ability to accelerate and the gas mileage.

Anyways, I hear where you're coming and I did look at other reasons why my mileage was lower, but from my experience, the tires seem to be the main culprit.

Bob
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 11:29 AM
  #32  
JSharp's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Lost in rural Illinois...
As others have said, I notice with 265/75's my truck is slower and gets worse mileage than with the 265/70's. I don't see the small additional height gained by running a 75 series tire to be worth it...
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 11:42 AM
  #33  
goldtaco9's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
From: SEPA
Originally Posted by JSharp
As others have said, I notice with 265/75's my truck is slower and gets worse mileage than with the 265/70's. I don't see the small additional height gained by running a 75 series tire to be worth it...
Did you switch to those black steelies at the same time?

On a side note, do you still race? I ran a GT4 Bug in the PA Hillclimb series for years. I also ran it at Pocono (all three infield courses), Summit (Jefferson track) & New Hampshire's road course.

Mike
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 11:45 AM
  #34  
Tacoma Dude's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,345
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
I noticed a slight drop in mileage too BUT doing the math off the tire calculator I am supposed to be gaining some miles.
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 11:49 AM
  #35  
sn0w_m0nkey's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: new mexico
i'm on 265/70 16's BFG AT k/o's. just put on my second set of these tires, no complaints really, until i found them hard to balance as the tread wore down over the years.
i chose the 70's because i drive alot of highway up to the mountains, so alot of high speed stuff and cornering on the way to the ski base. i feared 75's would wear on corners more because of tire roll, and more rotational mass affects braking too.
my .02
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 11:49 AM
  #36  
SD4Runner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Just a quick 2 cents - couldn't the main factor for a possible speed/gas loss be the weight? I know that when my friend put Revos one size up (1inch) on his 04, that tire was VASTLY heavier than my stock tire (michelin). When we were putting them all back on , and then putting on mine, you could REALLY tell the difference. Usually when you go to a larger size tire you tend (or maybe just me?) to go from either stock or to something more agressive (more tread etc) Just something to think about.
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 11:53 AM
  #37  
rimpainter.com's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 1
You are correct, its called the "moment of interia" in physics.

Additional rotational mass will take away from acceleration. That is what I was trying to say all along.
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 12:04 PM
  #38  
JSharp's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Lost in rural Illinois...
Originally Posted by goldtaco9
Did you switch to those black steelies at the same time?

On a side note, do you still race? I ran a GT4 Bug in the PA Hillclimb series for years. I also ran it at Pocono (all three infield courses), Summit (Jefferson track) & New Hampshire's road course.

Mike
Yep, I run the black steelies in the winter and off road with a more aggresive tire, and Revos on the stock rims in the summer. I'm sure the extra weight of the black wheels doesn't help.

I've been helping some friends with their road racing cars but I've nothing but an old and basicly stock Mustang to autocross right now. Once I get my kid through school I'll look for something to run. It'll either be a newer Mustang or Corvette to autocross, or an A/Sedan Mustang. Love those American V8's even though a lot of the small cars are faster and cheaper...
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 12:10 PM
  #39  
goldtaco9's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
From: SEPA
Originally Posted by JSharp
Yep, I run the black steelies in the winter and off road with a more aggresive tire, and Revos on the stock rims in the summer. I'm sure the extra weight of the black wheels doesn't help.

I've been helping some friends with their road racing cars but I've nothing but an old and basicly stock Mustang to autocross right now. Once I get my kid through school I'll look for something to run. It'll either be a newer Mustang or Corvette to autocross, or an A/Sedan Mustang. Love those American V8's even though a lot of the small cars are faster and cheaper...
Your Revo's are 70's on the stock rims? Any pics?

I autocrossed for many moons. Also in a bug. I ran D/SP before building my GT4 car which I ran in E/P. One of my teammates (in Iraq right now ) ran mustangs for a long time in SOLO II. V8's in auto-x are always fun to watch.

Thanks,
Mike
Reply
Old May 5, 2004 | 12:23 PM
  #40  
JSharp's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Lost in rural Illinois...
Originally Posted by goldtaco9
Your Revo's are 70's on the stock rims? Any pics?

I autocrossed for many moons. Also in a bug. I ran D/SP before building my GT4 car which I ran in E/P. One of my teammates (in Iraq right now ) ran mustangs for a long time in SOLO II. V8's in auto-x are always fun to watch.

Thanks,
Mike
My Revos are 70's but I've yet to get any pics up of them. I just got them this spring and couldn't be happier with them. Nice tire, I don't know why for all around use anyone would get anything else. I tried the Dunlop RVXT's before the Revos and never could get them balanced. Sent them back to Tirerack and got the Revos.

You've done a lot more than I have. I've always had wives and kids to cut into my racing budget. The V8 cars are tons of fun to drive. They feel and sound like they're going fast anyway...
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM.