Dodge/Ram Diesel Tech Discussions on all generations of Cummins Diesel powered Rams plus the new Eco Diesel

315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 10-17-2006, 12:46 AM
R3LzX's Avatar
R3LzX
R3LzX is offline
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

Well the tires are the same price @ discount tire and I was wondering what one could expect ny going with the 315/70/17 I know there may be a little gas milage loss, but how much?

this would be the only thing that I have changes on with my 2006 4X4 2500 series Quad Cab

BF Goodrich All terrain TA KO

right now I am getting about 19 to 20 MPG and would very much like it to stay that way.

What do you guys think?
 
  #2  
Old 10-17-2006, 01:17 AM
mjh1019's Avatar
mjh1019
mjh1019 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

I would expect a 1.5 to 2 mpg drop. That's what i lost going from stock to 35's
 
  #3  
Old 10-19-2006, 07:19 AM
JT824Megacab's Avatar
JT824Megacab
JT824Megacab is offline
Professional
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

I have 315/70/17 on my 06' Megacab. It added a nice 2" lift without doing a lift kit. Fuel mileage to go down a tab but I like the look
 
  #4  
Old 10-19-2006, 12:26 PM
BlkRam69's Avatar
BlkRam69
BlkRam69 is offline
Professional
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

I lost from 1-2 mpg's when I went to 33"s (305/70/17) but the tread is a bit more aggresive than the BFG's and I think there a bit wider as well.

One thing to note is the BFG is a "D" rated tire. The load range is a little dif. and the side walls are a little thinner so you may get a little more bounce in the ride.

Great look though. Love mine. Easy trade for a loss in MPG's.

I dont know why DC doesnt go with a bigger tire / rim on these trucks to start. Looks funny. I mean look at the Fords. There comming with 18" wheels and they really fill up the tire well.
 
  #5  
Old 10-20-2006, 06:06 PM
R3LzX's Avatar
R3LzX
R3LzX is offline
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

Many thanks I have noticed about a gallon or two drop not much considering...
 
  #6  
Old 10-20-2006, 07:31 PM
DBLR's Avatar
DBLR
DBLR is offline
Record Breaker
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North Plains, Oregon
Posts: 1,497
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

ORIGINAL: BlkRam69

I dont know why DC doesnt go with a bigger tire / rim on these trucks to start. Looks funny. I mean look at the Fords. There comming with 18" wheels and they really fill up the tire well.
I just saw a new 07 3500 CTD with duels at the local stealer that had 235/80/17 [sm=badidea.gif] yet my 06 2500 has 285/70/17 and so did another 07 2500 sitting next to it[sm=dontgetit.gif]
 
  #7  
Old 11-04-2006, 03:54 AM
2006powerwagon's Avatar
2006powerwagon
2006powerwagon is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

Wouldn't mileage increase by replacing 285/70/17 tires with 305/70/17?
 
  #8  
Old 11-04-2006, 05:08 AM
steve05ram360's Avatar
steve05ram360
steve05ram360 is offline
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,816
Received 224 Likes on 209 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

no, your spinning a heavier tire at a lower tpms. plus it's wider and will present a wider surface area to wind resistance. the added height of the tire will lift the front end slightly increasing the wind drag... more of the axle is esposed... 4x4.
 
  #9  
Old 11-04-2006, 03:39 PM
ramtradxb's Avatar
ramtradxb
ramtradxb is offline
Professional
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S

My mileage change was negligible going to 35's - but then I think the factors Steve0 outlines have a greater effect when you have the 3:73 rear versus the 4:10 - seems like my 4:10 mileage was not-so-great to begin with, and the larger tires couldn't make it worse. But one of the many things I've learned from this forum is what a difference in driving technique can make in the mileage - and not following the logic of gassers where if you take it easier you get better mileage. Like the guys here have claimed, when I push it my mileage actually gets better to the tune of almost one MPG. (but so many years of driving like a granny after racking up too many tickets makes it hard to get used to pushing it)
 
  #10  
Old 11-05-2006, 03:03 AM
ga_noplugs's Avatar
ga_noplugs
ga_noplugs is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S


ORIGINAL: ramtradxb


But one of the many things I've learned from this forum is what a difference in driving technique can make in the mileage - and not following the logic of gassers where if you take it easier you get better mileage. Like the guys here have claimed, when I push it my mileage actually gets better to the tune of almost one MPG. (but so many years of driving like a granny after racking up too many tickets makes it hard to get used to pushing it)
How are you driving it differently than a gasser? I don't quite get what you're saying.[sm=dontgetit.gif]
r
 


Quick Reply: 315/70/17 Verses 285/70/17 BFG'S



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.