I just purchased a 2002 1500 2WD and it has the factory 20" rims on brand new 275/55/R20 that the last owner just put on. I do not like the large, chrome 20's and am sure I could scrape up a 1 MPG or more by going smaller. Also, I want to get away from the "street trucl" look.

I would like an 18" rim on a nice, aggressive, all terrain tire. Which size tire would look the best, without rubbing the fender wells? Also, I would like a rough idea on which size all-terrain would be smaller than the 20's but would still give me a small mpg boost.


Any insight on tire size increasing mpg? Any tips?

 

I had 285/75-16 on my 01 1500. Looked good but did not help mileage. Look at 265/70-17 or something similar. Not too tall such that cruising rpms will be too low and cause the engine to struggle at 70 mph.

 

You won't recoup the expense by spending money on wheels/tires to save gas. Larger diameter will save a tiny percent on fuel cost, but the break-even point is way in the future.

 

Off hand I don't think any agressive all terrain tire would = better MPG for you.

 

You will have to stick with 17's or larger. Under 17 will not fit.

 

I love my dick cepek FC-II's. Best dang tires around.

 

I liked mine too- a lot... but- they are STUPID heavy.. mounted on MotoMetal 951's in 10"w x 20"d, one wheel/tire weighed 170#.. seriously.. crazy, no? they wore well, they never wanted for traction (except in soggy snow... I would NOT rec them in soggy snow because they packed up and drove like blocks of ice attached to the hub)..

I replaced them w/ Nitto DuraGrapplers in 285/75/17 form and stage5 rims after having a 'come to Jesus' meeting with myself about how often I was actually off road in that thing.. they weighed in @ a tid over 90#'s each, and were a tid over 34" height.. less weight, FAR less rolling resistance, and my mileage went up no less than 2MPG's..

the DuraGrappler is rated @ 60k miles, I think, but there are tales of folks getting 85k out of them.. great HIGHWAY tire.. don't expect them to do well off road, though.. or even in the rain, for that matter.

 

going from 245x70x17 to 265x70x17 cost me 2mpg the ride is much better but hey Kelly tires have always rode good.. I will see how they wear in the next couple yrs..
Unless you have lower 3:92 4:10 rear gears those big **** tires are killing mileage and not being too kind to the transmission either.. Just my observations over the last 35 yrs of owning trucks..

 

Agreed! I may go back to these, but the top out at like 37s.

Huh? Are you sure you're not off by like 40 lbs?

20" Moto 951 have a shipping weight of ~43 lbs

Not sure the size of the DC FC-2 you were running

http://www.dickcepek.com/tires.php?item=RadialFCII

but roughly 63 to 80 lbs

80+43 = 123 lbs

Crap ton of balancing weights? Perhaps these numbers are just plain wrong and your scale is dead nuts. That weight is horrendous!!

 

I think you're actually right..

the moto's and DC's were twice the weight of the flower pedal wheels and GY ATS's.. I recollect that accurately.. using the weights on the pages you linked would put the moto's+DC's @ around 140# once weights, lugs, caps and filler is added, which would make the oe wheels around 70#.. that could be (and likely is) more accurate..

rotational weight is roughly times 4.. roughly.. there is more to it than that.. but running twice the wheel weight than stock is going to take a toll on parts and economy- twirling those things off the line takes hella energy compared to twirling half the weight.. keeping them rolling around town is tough too.. that equates to bad mileage, and it's all because of wheel/tire rotational weight..

size does matter .. but weight does too, and likely just as much if not a little more.