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
 
Old Oct 17, 2006 | 12:46 AM
  #1  
R3LzX's Avatar
R3LzX
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From:
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?
 
Reply
Old Oct 17, 2006 | 01:17 AM
  #2  
mjh1019's Avatar
mjh1019
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From:
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
 
Reply
Old Oct 19, 2006 | 07:19 AM
  #3  
JT824Megacab's Avatar
JT824Megacab
Professional
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From:
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
 
Reply
Old Oct 19, 2006 | 12:26 PM
  #4  
BlkRam69's Avatar
BlkRam69
Professional
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
From:
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.
 
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2006 | 06:06 PM
  #5  
R3LzX's Avatar
R3LzX
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From:
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...
 
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2006 | 07:31 PM
  #6  
DBLR's Avatar
DBLR
Record Breaker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
From: North Plains, Oregon
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]
 
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2006 | 03:54 AM
  #7  
2006powerwagon's Avatar
2006powerwagon
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
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?
 
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2006 | 05:08 AM
  #8  
steve05ram360's Avatar
steve05ram360
Hall Of Fame
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,946
Likes: 309
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.
 
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2006 | 03:39 PM
  #9  
ramtradxb's Avatar
ramtradxb
Professional
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From:
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)
 
Reply
Old Nov 5, 2006 | 03:03 AM
  #10  
ga_noplugs's Avatar
ga_noplugs
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
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
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 PM.