fuel consumption vs bigger tyres

dusty sweepdusty sweep Junior Member
edited May 2017 in Fuel and Oil
Looking at putting some larger tyres on the rok. 265/70r17 and wondering how much this will affect fuel consumption.

Anyone else gone from stock to 265/70r17 and noticed how much there fuel consumption went up.

Thanks in advance
«1

Comments

  • Lance BLance B Supporting Member
    edited March 2016
    Fuel consumption should probably be better. Remember, your speedo will read the same, but you will actually be going faster. If your tyres are 5% larger in circumference, then you will travel 5% faster than the speedo indicates and you will also have travelled 5% further than the odometer reading. Thus, this nneeds to be taken into account when reading how many kms you've done for a specific amount of litres.
  • ARokyARoky Posting Freak
    edited March 2016
    There is still other factors involved, your right about speedo not being correct. But you need to remember that your engine works harder to turn the bigger tyres (you loose torque) and if you go from road tyres to AT's or even worse MT's this will all affect your economy.
  • BuzzsterBuzzster Supporting Member
    edited March 2016
    Just did this a few weeks ago, notices a very slight increase around town on fuel. Better on the open road though, go figure. Wasn't sure what to expect but seems good so far, noticed an huge improvement from standard on the dirt roads though, seems more comfortable and also a lot less twitchy more sure. Went BFG 265x70x17 AT KO2, lot chucker than the old model but good with road noise too.
  • Lance BLance B Supporting Member
    edited March 2016
    Buzzster wrote: »
    Just did this a few weeks ago, notices a very slight increase around town on fuel. Better on the open road though, go figure.

    This would be because with bigger tyres the initial requirement of power to get going would require more fuel. Once going, then you'd see the better fuel economy and why you see this reflected in better fuel economy on trips.
  • ditch86ditch86 Junior Member
    edited March 2016
    Can anyone comment on how the auto goes with these tyres down hill? Or 285/70/17's I'm due for new tyres and want to go bigger than what I currently have


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • dusty sweepdusty sweep Junior Member
    edited March 2016
    Thanks for replies everyone.

    Buzzster. I assuming you running those 265/70 on standard aldo rims. If so whats the clearance like on the upper control arm. From what Ive read it very close. Bit worried about this.
  • addapptaddappt Junior Member
    edited March 2016
    I'm running those tyres. My speedo is now spot on to gps. My fuel consumption driving 50/50 highway and city is about 8.5/100.
  • McRokMcRok Member
    edited March 2016
    I replaced my standard Pirelli Scorpions with Mickey Thompson 265/70 R17 LT ATZP3 tyres for a Canning trip last year, and measured my distance travelled in absolute terms (with Mud Map) and my fuel use by totalling up how much I put in the car for the entire trip of about 10 000 km. I kept these tyres on the car for a few months afterwards until I recently put the Pirellis back on to wear them out. I can confidently say that:

    -the speedo was more accurate with the bigger tyres, over reading by about 1kph, compared to about 8 over for the Pirellis at 100kph (which shows as 92 on the GPS)
    -the odometer under reads with the bigger tyres by about 5% ie you have travelled further than the odometer says, so the apparent fuel use from the dash display is out a bit
    - the Rok definitely has less acceleration, less effective braking, and changes gears in the auto much more often with the bigger tyres, particularly uphill or even in a headwind on the highway
    -actual fuel consumption overall went up by about 10%, even on the highway. These big LT tyres have a higher rolling resistance than the originals, and are noisy
    -they do fit ok, but there is a bit of rubbing at full lock but no real dramas
    -the big tyres certainly give more clearance underneath, and more resistance to staking. I didnt have a tyre problem on the trip, and they will be going back on when my Pirellis wear out
  • TobeyTobey Senior Member
    edited March 2016
    Uses more fuel, goes slower, rubs on chassis and on rear inner guards; 4wd'ing is about compromise and this compromise is worth it..
  • dusty sweepdusty sweep Junior Member
    edited March 2016
    McRok wrote: »
    I replaced my standard Pirelli Scorpions with Mickey Thompson 265/70 R17 LT ATZP3 tyres for a Canning trip last year, and measured my distance travelled in absolute terms (with Mud Map) and my fuel use by totalling up how much I put in the car for the entire trip of about 10 000 km. I kept these tyres on the car for a few months afterwards until I recently put the Pirellis back on to wear them out. I can confidently say that:

    -the speedo was more accurate with the bigger tyres, over reading by about 1kph, compared to about 8 over for the Pirellis at 100kph (which shows as 92 on the GPS)
    -the odometer under reads with the bigger tyres by about 5% ie you have travelled further than the odometer says, so the apparent fuel use from the dash display is out a bit
    - the Rok definitely has less acceleration, less effective braking, and changes gears in the auto much more often with the bigger tyres, particularly uphill or even in a headwind on the highway
    -actual fuel consumption overall went up by about 10%, even on the highway. These big LT tyres have a higher rolling resistance than the originals, and are noisy
    -they do fit ok, but there is a bit of rubbing at full lock but no real dramas
    -the big tyres certainly give more clearance underneath, and more resistance to staking. I didnt have a tyre problem on the trip, and they will be going back on when my Pirellis wear out

    Thanks for the in depth reply McRok. I think that sums it up. Are you running those tyres on the standard 17 aldo rims. If so any issues with the upper control arm
  • McRokMcRok Member
    edited March 2016
    Yes dusty, standard Aldos. No issues with the upper control arm though there is barely enough clearance to poke a finger through the gap. I've not been thru a heap of mud with them, that might test the setup, but in about 15 000 kms of mixed driving I've had no problems.
  • dusty sweepdusty sweep Junior Member
    edited March 2016
    McRok wrote: »
    Yes dusty, standard Aldos. No issues with the upper control arm though there is barely enough clearance to poke a finger through the gap. I've not been thru a heap of mud with them, that might test the setup, but in about 15 000 kms of mixed driving I've had no problems.

    Thanks McRok
  • CyclopsCyclops Senior Member
    edited March 2016
    Buzzster wrote: »
    Just did this a few weeks ago, notices a very slight increase around town on fuel. Better on the open road though, go figure. Wasn't sure what to expect but seems good so far, noticed an huge improvement from standard on the dirt roads though, seems more comfortable and also a lot less twitchy more sure. Went BFG 265x70x17 AT KO2, lot chucker than the old model but good with road noise too.

    Hey mate thinking of the same. Currently got the same tyre in 245/70/17 but thinking about the 265. Any rubbing anywhere?
  • BuzzsterBuzzster Supporting Member
    edited March 2016
    Hi Cyclops, Aldo's no rubbing at all as yet but close on front upper control arms. Will see how i go just got a slight lift yesterday 35mm all round see if it makes a difference.
  • CyclopsCyclops Senior Member
    edited April 2016
    Buzzster wrote: »
    Hi Cyclops, Aldo's no rubbing at all as yet but close on front upper control arms. Will see how i go just got a slight lift yesterday 35mm all round see if it makes a difference.

    Hey Buzzter, how dix you get on with the tyres, any sign of rubbing or issues?
  • BuzzsterBuzzster Supporting Member
    edited April 2016
    Hi Cyclops, After the lift i have a very slight rub on full left lock (I notice it sometimes only)it doesn't bother me. Seems no issue off road with deflating in general so far and the feel/ride and sure footedness is sooooooo much better.
  • CyclopsCyclops Senior Member
    edited April 2016
    Buzzster wrote: »
    Hi Cyclops, After the lift i have a very slight rub on full left lock (I notice it sometimes only)it doesn't bother me. Seems no issue off road with deflating in general so far and the feel/ride and sure footedness is sooooooo much better.

    Thanks for getting back to me. Currently have them in 245/17/17 and should have my lift fitted in the next weeek or so. Not sure how they will look, worried they may look a little skinny. Time will tell i guess - they have never let mw down so wondering if the 265 will give me anything other that looks and half an inch lift
  • JeddyJeddy Member
    edited April 2016
    265/70/17 BFG K02's fit perfectly on standard rims. Don't touch the body anywhere even when hanging wheels in poor country (40mm lift in the front too however thanks to Outback Armour). Plenty of room between tyre and upper control arm.
  • grey_amarok_1982grey_amarok_1982 Junior Member
    edited May 2016
    i went from 16' road to 17' mud's and i did loose some fuel economy
  • Fire BladeFire Blade Junior Member
    edited November 2016
    Very interesting comments because my fuel consumption has increased dramatically since fitting larger more aggressive tyres. I went from the standard Bridgestone 245/65 to a set of Cooper's S/T Maxx in 265/65R17. The day after I had the tyres fitted the Rok had her 30,000kms service so I am not sure if the fuel use increase came from the tyres, the service or both.
    Before these events I would normally average around 9 L/100kms but now the figure is closer to 11 L/100km. It is almost impossible to get the average fuel consumption under 10 L/100kms. I also agree with McRok in that my speedo is now over-reading by about 3% @ 100 (originally it was over by 7- 8km/hr) and the odometer is now under-reading by about 2.5%. Even taking this factor into account the fuel consumption now seems overly high. I tend to drive conservatively in Drive not Sport and rarely exceed 100km/hr.
    So I would be interested if these figures are similar to what others are finding with bigger tyres.
    I also wonder about the VW service changing something resulting in increased fuel consumption.
    Finally , can anyone recommend a mechanic in Melbourne (preferably on the north side) who is really good with Amaroks?
    Incidentally, I am very happy with the cooper tyres and the 265/65 do not seem to rub on the body at all. They are a little bit noisy but easy to live with and very good in mud and on steep hills.
    I hope that someone can help me get my economy back!
    Appreciate any comments.
    cheers
    FireBlade
  • tikiphiltikiphil Member
    edited November 2016
    I'm running a set of 285/75/16 cooper stt's and average is about 9 to 10L per 100


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • tikiphiltikiphil Member
    edited November 2016
    Was getting around the 11 and 12s for a while then after it got its 30k service it just got better, also ran a dpf cleaner through


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • bazzabazza Senior Member
    edited November 2016
    Getting high 14's at 110km/h with aggressive mt, roof rack, full Barwork and an awning. Drop down to 80 and it goes back to about 11.5. Still 14 is higher than the GQ I had which was way heavier!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • bazzabazza Senior Member
    edited November 2016
    Sorry, 265/75r16 nitto terra grappler MT


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • rpmpestrpmpest Banned
    edited November 2016
    I'm on 265/65/17 BFG KO2's, standard everything else and no roof racks or bullbar, I am getting around 8.5-8.9L/100 on average. I look more at the total kms out of a tank and on a recent trip which was highway and urban with very windy weather I managed to get just under 1000kms out of the tank. Super happy with that - it's really gotten better once it ticked over 10,000kms.
  • AmacrokAmacrok Junior Member
    edited November 2016
    I have never gotten 1000kms out of my tank as the dealer said I would I generally get around 700kms and under

    Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk
  • santariasantaria Member
    edited November 2016
    Yeah. Ours is only 15,000ks in but we get around 840 out of a tank. Average around 9.4l/100.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
  • JcaddJcadd Senior Member
    edited November 2016
    Got 960Km's out of my first tank. Then set up the Amarok in work mode with all my tools of trade, fitted 285/60 18" on the original Durbans. Only getting around 620Km's now or 13.3 Litres per 100Km's, {13,700 Km's on the clock}.
    Drops down to around 14.8 Litres per 100Km's when I tow my caravan (1.6 ton). Worst I've had is 17.2 Litre per 100 Km's towing the caravan on one stint traveling around Armidale.

    Hoping a tune and exhaust will improve things, uses more fuel than my old 2011 Hilux did in the same mode.
  • CanberraNoviceCanberraNovice Senior Member
    edited December 2016
    I started reading this thread because I want to put larger tyers on when I need to replace my current stock ones.
    So I'm reading about the kind of impact that it could have and if i need to do anything besides just forking out a whole ton of money and have them installed.

    I have noticed everyone seems to get fuel economy between 8 and 11 either before or after changing.
    I currently get 11 to 12/13 on average... is there something wrong or am i just a huge lead foot?
  • tikiphiltikiphil Member
    edited May 2017
    I started reading this thread because I want to put larger tyers on when I need to replace my current stock ones.
    So I'm reading about the kind of impact that it could have and if i need to do anything besides just forking out a whole ton of money and have them installed.

    I have noticed everyone seems to get fuel economy between 8 and 11 either before or after changing.
    I currently get 11 to 12/13 on average... is there something wrong or am i just a huge lead foot?

    I had 285s now running 315s still getting from 10 to 12l per 100, that's highway kms though


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sign In or Register to comment.