I've been searching threads for the past hour but can you please chime in with the tallest, skinniest tire that you know of that will fit on my stock truck (don't want new rims either so 17' only). I want the height for looks and to drop the RPMs and I'd like to go narrow for wind resistance. I think Toyo makes a 285-75-17. Any others?

 

BFG makes a 305/70/17.

 

Thats what I have been searching for,too.
I'm gonna try to change up to the Michelin LTX A/T2 in 285/70-17
They claim its 32.76x11.1
A little more aggressive but still rides nice and long tread wear like the stock LTX A/S

I'm gonna go see tomorrow if I can get them through the warrany for the sidewall cracking that my new A/Ss have

 

I've been told the mass of a bigger tire cancels out any gearing benefits, and reduces milage. I was about to do the same.

 

I have a hard time believing wind resistance will be effected that much, hope yur joking. If anything the lbs/inch will be kept the same and have better traction.

 

annabell they are 305 65 not 70 and that means they are the same heighth as the 285 70 17s kind of defeats the purpose

best thing I have heard is the toyo oc 285 75 17 good luck

 

That’s probably true (not so much mass but rolling resistance) for an auto with 3.73s. You may see an mpg improvement with a 4.10 rear and certainly on a G56 manual truck. The taller tire in those applications get you into a better mpg rpm in everyday driving.

 

As far as riding, handling, and treadwear the Toyo OC All terrain is superb to the BF 305/65/17. I have the 285/75/17 and it is taller just not as wide as 305. The BFG is just too agressive. The Toyo is great and especially 80 psi for heavier loads man it has no comparison. Aaron

 

Not joking. Yes, I understand that a 305 is only 20mm wider but I think drag is one of, if not the biggest MPG factors, in highway driving. Wider does have better traction (in most cases, sand, dry roads) but that isn't what I'm looking for. I want more MPG, if only slightly more.

 

In some aspects yes, if you are doing a lot of city driving or around town where you have stop and go traffic the the answer is yes your mileage will get hurt. This is just simple physics, larger mas requires a larger amount of force to move from a stop than a smaller mass, so you must give more fuel to get the same acceleration and thats why you loose mileage in town. On the other hand on the highway, take my truck for example when i was running 35s, and 37s, my RPMs on my truck (03 4x4 dually with georend bros tranny and 3 73 gears) would get run around 1600- 1800 at 70 mph. Now I have 40s on 22.5s and at 70 mph i run a wopping 1500 rpms, yeah you heard me 1500 rpms. But unfortunately thats not where a Cummins engine likes to live, they like the 1600-1800 rpm range. Thats where you get the best (most efficient/ most power) burn of your fuel. Which gives you the better mileage (ON THE HIGHWAY). When I was running my 35s and 37s i would average around 21-24 mpg with my 40s I have dropped to between 17-21 mpg, and yes this is calculated on paper not of the lying computer in the console. As Far as the "WIND RESISTANCE" comment made think about it, if you haul with your truck don't you want weight distributed better than a small skinny space, plus traction is a big thing too. On top of that , I don't have any proof but im sure that wind resistance of your tires on trucks our size is a very minute factor on your mileage.

 

Big,

You're making a good point about the gearing. So many times guys think higher gearing ALWAYS means better mileage. Not true. It's appropriate gearing that is the best. Cruising in the power band, starting out easily, no lugging, etc.

Modifications to the gear ratio in the form of OD or bigger tires bring the baggage of also adding more resistance. This resistance must be overcome to get any benefit. So you might be sacrificing a small increase in resistance for a larger benefit in efficiency. It all has to be part of the equation. This is what OD gives us. A 3% or so increase in resistance through the tranny but a lowering of the engine RPM to bring the engine to a greater efficiency that outweighs the loss. This is also why it sounds silly to add a Gear Venders OD unit. If you want more gears, fine, but if you want better mileage through higher gearing, change the diffs and avoid the losses associated with another OD. Tires are a perfect example of this. Big tires bring more mass to get rolling, more wind resistance because of agressive tread and greater width, and just more rolling resistance with the aggressive tread. So, if mileage is the goal, (and wider tires are a poor way to achieve this) they must increase the engine efficiency enough to give a net benefit. The best mileage scheme of all is to slow down, and it has no initial cost, except it's toll on my patience.


John

 

Have you seen my posts on them? Pic on my gallery. Sears did my Michelin warranty work and they let me upgrade to the AT/2's. 285/70/17. I went with 255/85/16's on my 95 Ram 1500. Really liked those tires but, as we've all learned, there's nothing like them for the 17's.

Now that I have the 285's, I'm glad I went with them. Truck rides a bit better too. 32.7" tall, just .1" shorter than the 305/65/17's, fwiw.

 

Yeah, I saw your pics.
Perfect for size comparison.
Thats what helped me make the decision to go with the A/T2s
Thanks much!

 

Are those AT/2's a load range E tire?

 

Boy you Texas boys sure do know how to stretch on the MPGs Are sure your not calculating in KMPG
For a while I too was really concerned with my mileage, but a I was talking with some old guy a while back and he said "17-18 mpg on a truck that weighs over 7000lbs!!!! You should not worry about mileage my pos car barely gets that." Anyway he was making the point that these vehicles are built for two reasons; Towing, Hauling heavy. Not built for BEST MPG out there. If you are so concerned with MPG trade in your truck for a TDi Passat or Jetta.
No hard feelings about it just my 2cents