Tire Size Strategy For Summer/ Winter Tires And Different Wheel Sizes

[fredygump]

I feel like I'm trying to solve a puzzle! Winter is coming and I want to decide on a tire plan/ strategy before I commit to a tire size. There are a few moving parts.


1) How important is the diameter of the spare tire? If I am switching between two different tire diameters, what size spare tire would you have? Would you A) have an average between the two, B) have 2 spare tires, or C) keep the stock spare and hope for the best?


2) If tire diameters are the same, but they are on different wheel sizes, which wheel size would you use for summer vs winter? Choice is between 17" and 18" wheels (I already have both sets of wheels.)


Plan 1: Optimizing traction

Summer: 255/85r17 Baja Boss (34.6")
Winter: 265/70r18 Nokian LT3 (32.6")
Spare: Split the difference?


Plan 2: Optimizing for same size

Summer: 275/70r18 Baja Boss (33.7")
Winter: 285/70r17 Nokian LT3 (33.4")
spare: same diameter

(Both tires come in both sizes, so I can flip which wheel for summer or winter.)

I like the baja boss in 255/85r17 because it is a unicorn, so it's like saving an endangered species! (lol!) But seriously, reviews are good, and they are made in USA. The Nokians are not the cheapest winter tire, but I already have Nokians for my GTI. They are supposed to be one of the best. They've been good, and they have held up for a few seasons.

I am open to suggestions on tires, or clever ideas on tire/ wheel combinations.

Sponsored

 

[GSPHerder]

Ive been doing it every year, I run two sets of tires. Mud terrains for hunting seasons, then AT's for the rest of the year.

I cant ever come close to fitting a spare so i don't even bother. I do carry tire plugs, air compressor, etc. when I'm gonna be out in the woods.

Main reason I run BFG's, I don't worry about flats they are hands down the toughest tires.

Generally speaking looking at rims and manufactures, you'll get more options with a 17" rim so if possible Id lean that way.

As far as tire size, for the MT's I run a big tough 35", for all else AT driving I go to a 9" wide tire just because they are much lighter than the MT's.

 

[Dirt]

I have two sets of AT ten ply's; studded up one set, replaced the spare with an OEM all on 17" wheels. Throw in a set of quality tire chains for the winter. Unless there's a need, keep it simple.

 

[IDontWorkForTheWaterCo]

I just kept the stock size with my snows.

 

[fredygump]

I just kept the stock size with my snows.

If I were smart, I'd do the same.

But I have this silly idea of going with bigger tires. I do not want a lift, but the fact that bigger tires fit easily makes it feel irresponsible not to take advantage. Besies, it's a cheap upgrade. I'm buying the tire anyway, so cost to "upgrade" is just the difference between the stock size and the bigger size.

 

[IDontWorkForTheWaterCo]

If I were smart, I'd do the same.

But I have this silly idea of going with bigger tires. I do not want a lift, but the fact that bigger tires fit easily makes it feel irresponsible not to take advantage. Besies, it's a cheap upgrade. I'm buying the tire anyway, so cost to "upgrade" is just the difference between the stock size and the bigger size.

I completely understand.

In my case, I've decided to keep the stock size to maximize fuel economy and put as much power to the ground as possible.

 

[fredygump]

I completely understand.

In my case, I've decided to keep the stock size to maximize fuel economy and put as much power to the ground as possible.

Not to hijack my own thread, but all the information that I can find indicates that tire size by itself has minimal effect on fuel economy. So I think it'd be fun to do big tires without ruining my fuel economy. I also intend to build an aerodynamic topper, and to me it would be fun to prove the point by getting like 30+ mpg while running big tires.

I'm attaching the video, but the quick summary is that it is all about aerodynamics. Big tires do not automatically hurt aerodynamics. But there are a lot of things offroaders/ overlanders do to disrupt aerodynamics, and those things hurt fuel economy. But they always blame the tires.

 

[IDontWorkForTheWaterCo]

If the wheel/tire combo is heavy, it can affect mileage. Unsprung weight is never a good thing. And taller tires can have an effect on overall gearing, stealing a bit of power to the ground.

But I totally get what you're doing. Not hating on it at all.

 

[GSPHerder]

you'll also get a big difference in gear ratio, rpm, and engine load just by the diameter alone.

 

[Will721]

If the wheel/tire combo is heavy, it can affect mileage. Unsprung weight is never a good thing. And taller tires can have an effect on overall gearing, stealing a bit of power to the ground.

But I totally get what you're doing. Not hating on it at all.

This^

Technically, larger tires themselves do not effect fuel economy at all. That is, so long as the weight is exactly the same. Larger tires weigh more and aftermarket wheels tend to also be heavier as they are wider. Plus the change in diameter will effect the "final drive" ratio for gearing.

If you found a wheel and tire combo that matched your oem ones weight exactly and corrected you final drive ratio with an axle gear swap, it could (in theory) make the same fuel economy.

I recommend simpletire's website for tire selection as they seem to have the most complete manufacturers specifications to determine tire weight. For wheels, I haven't found a good site that has solid accurate specifications. It would be best find a selection of wheels that meet the style you're going for, then back check their manufacturers page to gauge weight. Alloy wheels will be the lightest overall. Of those, forged wheels are the lightest in that category, depending on design of course.

 

[trailhunger]

Not to hijack my own thread, but all the information that I can find indicates that tire size by itself has minimal effect on fuel economy. So I think it'd be fun to do big tires without ruining my fuel economy. I also intend to build an aerodynamic topper, and to me it would be fun to prove the point by getting like 30+ mpg while running big tires.

I'm attaching the video, but the quick summary is that it is all about aerodynamics. Big tires do not automatically hurt aerodynamics. But there are a lot of things offroaders/ overlanders do to disrupt aerodynamics, and those things hurt fuel economy. But they always blame the tires.

Decent video but left they left out a considerable aero knock is underneath the vehicle, to the extent that even if you have a custom bulbous spoiler on the roof it’s null because of the front end air pushing under the rig. That’s why Toyota makes air dams for the sport trims. I modified my own for my TH, takes 5 minutes to remove/reinstall. The even bigger knock to MPGs is weight. You can have the slipperiest kit on an internal combustion rig but if you’re loaded down, your fuel economy will be shit.

Spoilers and air dams, highway compound treads all achieve improvements, albeit incremental percentages but if you’re like bro in the video living in the Appalachians and want to get to NorCal to drive the Rubicon, implementing a combination or all factored in for fuel economy vs the cost of the gear is the deciding factor. I think about it over the long term: an air dam and a slightly better rolling compound will save ~$200-$300 over 50kmi (governing top hwy speed at ~65mph) not worth it for some, but always top of mind when gas is $5/gallon

The last thing I can speak from experience with getting a gen 4 aero as efficient as possible for running an overland-ish kit on a TH, the spoiler does improve MPGs by ~2mpgs HWY with a wedge camper vs w/o, so the software buddy is using in the video is not real world proven, more theoretical, I think they’re overthinking the kit buildout here they should just build if for comfort and the right spec he wants. Also consider crosswinds and long hauls running 70-85mi/hr the facia of the truck is the primary drag component in the wind and if you want to to save money on gas, take the scenic route and go slower. It’s a game of once again: do you have more time than money or have that time to plan out a longer adventure, save a few bucks in the process.

And so circling back to the treads: if you’re weighed down a 10-ply makes sense but if you run leaner a 10 ply is overkill will ride harsh. Big chunky treads will lower your MPGs a bit, but going 70 down the interstate into a solid headwind will lower everyone’s MPGs a lot irrespective of their treads

 

[gmalkmus]

Decent video but left they left out a considerable aero knock is underneath the vehicle, to the extent that even if you have a custom bulbous spoiler on the roof it’s null because of the front end air pushing under the rig. That’s why Toyota makes air dams for the sport trims. I modified my own for my TH, takes 5 minutes to remove/reinstall. The even bigger knock to MPGs is weight. You can have the slipperiest kit on an internal combustion rig but if you’re loaded down, your fuel economy will be shit.

Spoilers and air dams, highway compound treads all achieve improvements, albeit incremental percentages but if you’re like bro in the video living in the Appalachians and want to get to NorCal to drive the Rubicon, implementing a combination or all factored in for fuel economy vs the cost of the gear is the deciding factor. I think about it over the long term: an air dam and a slightly better rolling compound will save ~$200-$300 over 50kmi (governing top hwy speed at ~65mph) not worth it for some, but always top of mind when gas is $5/gallon

The last thing I can speak from experience with getting a gen 4 aero as efficient as possible for running an overland-ish kit on a TH, the spoiler does improve MPGs by ~2mpgs HWY with a wedge camper vs w/o, so the software buddy is using in the video is not real world proven, more theoretical, I think they’re overthinking the kit buildout here they should just build if for comfort and the right spec he wants. Also consider crosswinds and long hauls running 70-85mi/hr the facia of the truck is the primary drag component in the wind and if you want to to save money on gas, take the scenic route and go slower. It’s a game of once again: do you have more time than money or have that time to plan out a longer adventure, save a few bucks in the process.

And so circling back to the treads: if you’re weighed down a 10-ply makes sense but if you run leaner a 10 ply is overkill will ride harsh. Big chunky treads will lower your MPGs a bit, but going 70 down the interstate into a solid headwind will lower everyone’s MPGs a lot irrespective of their treads

An airdam on a Trailhunter?! It looks kinda ricey honestly lol

 

[trailhunger]

An airdam on a Trailhunter?! It looks kinda ricey honestly lol

‘Ricey’ as in rice-burner? lol… it does have some X-Runner vibes although my use case for this 6’ LB TH is currently 95% pavement getting to to trail, mostly wash board & service roads, still has 12” clearance with the chin spoiler. Truck and GFC get put to work up in the high country for the next 8 weeks on a remote jobsite / the added benefit of the the airdam is air channeling to front calipers on these mountain passes. Testing some DuPont Snow & Ice repellent on it & the entire front facia & sensors later this winter…

Sponsored