Truck snow tires

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

The benefits of lightweight wheels on bikes is oversold.

---

Depends are you trying to eek out fractions of a second from aero losses on a time trial course on a bike? Or are you trying to have a better bike ride with less unsprung weight and more responsive pedalling?

That generalizes poorly to a motor vehicle, except Unsprung weight is totally a thing for suspension performance.

That being said, lots of stop and go will definitely affect your mpg with a heavy wheel more than highway driving which probably doesn't care about wheel wheight but does care about the other factors you listed in your other post.

My studs saved me from sliding into an intersection on an unexpected non-obvious ice patch today. This disproves the argument that "you only need studs for ice road truck driving." No, my tires need to have the maximum safety factor and the most dangerous moment that I can expect to certainly encounter, even if irregular!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Ok, so the two tire sizes are:

BFG 275/60/20
Blizzak 275/55/20

So the BFG is slightly larger, would that make such a noticeable difference? Or is that just one contributing factor, along with weight and tread and whatever.

---

Assuming both tires are equally worn, and that the actual tire size matches the dimension, which they often don't, the size difference accounts for a 3.4% mpg difference in favor of the Blizzak because of differences in the indicated mile traveled vs true.

The BFGs are 5# heavier per tire than the Blizzaks (assuming a DMV2). That would have minimal effect I think. Wheels can easily 10# different between alloy wheels... and steel vs a lightweight alloy even bigger difference.

You gave 14 vs 16 mpg, a 13% difference... now I think probably you need to re-measure that and calculate to 3 significant digits. Because 14.4 vs 15.5 (largely explained by size and weight) is way different than 13.5 vs 16.4 (explained by the factors Jong listed)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

It's just one factor.

Are you basing your observed MPG on a dashboard readout of MPG? Or based on hand calculated driven miles + actual fuel consumed?

---

I hand calculate almost every tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Assuming both tires are equally worn, and that the actual tire size matches the dimension, which they often don't, the size difference accounts for a 3.4% mpg difference in favor of the Blizzak because of differences in the indicated mile traveled vs true.

The BFGs are 5# heavier per tire than the Blizzaks (assuming a DMV2). That would have minimal effect I think. Wheels can easily 10# different between alloy wheels... and steel vs a lightweight alloy even bigger difference.

You gave 14 vs 16 mpg, a 13% difference... now I think probably you need to re-measure that and calculate to 3 significant digits. Because 14.4 vs 15.5 (largely explained by size and weight) is way different than 13.5 vs 16.4 (explained by the factors Jong listed)!

---

Thanks for the info. I think the wheels are the same, the BFGs came with the car and I believe were just OEM wheels, and the second set was purchased from a guy with a similar Sequoia, so also OEM.

The BFGs are more worn, about 50% tread while the Blizzaks are close to new. But that difference would make the MPG difference less not more (ie the BFGs are now closer in size to the Blizzaks).

It's not easy to more precisely calculate for a couple of reasons. One, every tank is different, with a different mix of miles and driving conditions. And two, I didn't notice this until I put the Blizzaks on, so I did not have the opportunity to try and create a "control tank". There is no question a noticeable difference, way more than 3%, but beyond that it is hard to be precise. Maybe in April, before I switch back, I will try to drive a specific route that I repeat often with fillups on both ends, and then do the same after I switch.

In any event, if the MPG difference is real or partially real, I may be looking at a non-AT tire for my next summer choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I hand calculate almost every tank.



Thanks for the info. I think the wheels are the same, the BFGs came with the car and I believe were just OEM wheels, and the second set was purchased from a guy with a similar Sequoia, so also OEM.

The BFGs are more worn, about 50% tread while the Blizzaks are close to new. But that difference would make the MPG difference less not more (ie the BFGs are now closer in size to the Blizzaks).

It's not easy to more precisely calculate for a couple of reasons. One, every tank is different, with a different mix of miles and driving conditions. And two, I didn't notice this until I put the Blizzaks on, so I did not have the opportunity to try and create a "control tank". There is no question a noticeable difference, way more than 3%, but beyond that it is hard to be precise. Maybe in April, before I switch back, I will try to drive a specific route that I repeat often with fillups on both ends, and then do the same after I switch.

In any event, if the MPG difference is real or partially real, I may be looking at a non-AT tire for my next summer choice.

---

BFGs (33") half worn (~32.8") vs new Blizzaks (31.9"), the 3.4% difference falls to 2.8-2.9%

19.95 for a tire rotation in Taos. All 4 for 20$. Was blown away. I've been in the Bozeman bubble.

My cooper snowclaws are lightly studded. Yrs ago I had heavily studded nokiens. Horrible resonance..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byates1

19.95 for a tire rotation in Taos. All 4 for 20$. Was blown away. I've been in the Bozeman bubble.

---

It's probably worth paying that extra $0.05 so they rotate all four tires, and not just one tire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

My studs saved me from sliding into an intersection on an unexpected non-obvious ice patch today. This disproves the argument that "you only need studs for ice road truck driving." No, my tires need to have the maximum safety factor and the most dangerous moment that I can expect to certainly encounter, even if irregular!
)!

---

I figured you folks down there had figured out how to somehow miss the driving on ice part of winter

around here even a silly girl in a 20 yr sold sunfire will have studded snows

I didn't think 18 wheelers ran studs but they definalty carry chains and have to chain up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

It's probably worth paying that extra $0.05 so they rotate all four tires, and not just one tire.

---

I feel like one tire at a time is more cost effective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Yeah, I’m aware. My previous career was race car engineering.

---

Cool! I was merely a driver.

Twenty-One’ Tundra Trail Edition tire time….Here’s my wishlist for an All Terrain that is rated for snow?

-Cooper Discoverer Rugged Trek
-BFG All Terrain T/A KO Three
-BFG All Terrain T/A KO Two

Am I missing any obvious contenders? Ordering ASAP……

(The number emoji thing going on….is ridiculous)

I'd check these out: https://na.nokiantyres.com/all-terra...s-outpost-nat/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC.

Twenty-One’ Tundra Trail Edition tire time….Here’s my wishlist for an All Terrain that is rated for snow?

-Cooper Discoverer Rugged Trek
-BFG All Terrain T/A KO Three
-BFG All Terrain T/A KO Two

Am I missing any obvious contenders? Ordering ASAP……

(The number emoji thing going on….is ridiculous)

---

Not the KO2

Also look at Nokian Outpost nAT, that's what is going on my Tundra for a 3 season tire

Sweet/ thx guys…will adjust my search. The Nokian has a nice look/ also sounds like what I am searching for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC.

Sweet/ thx guys…will adjust my search. The Nokian has a nice look/ also sounds like what I am searching for.

---

Not a lot of real world on the K03 yet. They're on my truck, but only for the last 500 miles. They've seen a few slick spots and so far, so good.

I'm curious about those Nokians. I've just recently been opened up to sell Nokian. I'll get them on a few vehicles.

I liked the K02 in LT applications except that they didn't hold balance well or last long (25k tops). If you put a LT on a light truck like a Tundra I was regularly seeing 50k out of them. From all personal accounts they were good in snow/ice. The tire is no longer supported which makes me leary of installing them these days.

I'm curious about the Cooper Endeavor, but they're currently only in LT sizes.

Ko3 is interesting

https://youtu.be/-BtKIFXlyIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

Ko3 is interesting

https://youtu.be/-BtKIFXlyIA

---

They have a 50k mile treadwear warranty. I feel like I'll be getting some of my money back with that one. I'll be amazed if I'm wrong. Besides, by the time they get to that point traction will be shit. The only tire that survived two winters on my old truck was the Falken AT3W. Performance was only mildly diminished. IMO, they should have left that tire alone and not replaced it. If the K03 can match that performance and lifespan, it'll be my new go-to, especially for HD trucks and Sprinters. Time will tell.

The new Duratrac RT looks interesting, too. I'm waiting to learn more about tread compound. The original Duratrac was first class when it was intro'd (more than a decade ago).

The Nokian Outpost nAT was my research eventually settled on last year but they were transferring factories & it wasn’t available. So based on this thread I went for the Open Country AT lll and I’m pretty stoked on them.

My 6900 lb (fully loaded) van gets a lot of PNW miles and occasional ID and UT miles; Oregon cascades seem to be the shitfuckiest IME & these were pretty impressive on some days near Flachelor when vehicles were sliding out everywhere.

Sounds like you made a great choice with the Open Country AT III! They’re solid for heavy loads and PNW conditions, especially in tough spots like the Oregon Cascades.

With yall running different sized winter tires compared to your summer tires, what are you doing about your spare?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

OG checkin da spare

A plug kit and a compressor takes up a lot less room than a spare. Less weight too.

^^^^^ had a car salesman call it a bottle of Jesus juice. You pray that it works.

Not all flats are repairable. Having both options is best.

As for size differences? Depends how big. And whether it’s on the drive wheels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine

Tire size (rolling diameter and width), weight and tread design. My truck lost almost 2MPG going from 34" tall highway tires at 80psi to 35" tall AT's at 65psi.

---

Whoa, I’ve never even gotten close to those psi’s on my truck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ma8103

Whoa, I’ve never even gotten close to those psi’s on my truck.

---

Is your truck a 3/4 or 1 ton? The tire psi threshold for warning in my 2500 is 65psi. Max load psi is 80.

I carry a plug kit and compressor in all of my vehicles, but what I've found is that the tpms indicator comes on and tells you that you're low (assuming you arent driving a Flinstone mobile). Most leaks are slow and give you time to get the tire pulled and patched. In my experience plugs are temporary, though my Jeep still has a plug from running over a pair of pliers. It has beadlocks and I'm too lazy to remove the +/- 30 bolts to repair the tire properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine

Is your truck a 3/4 or 1 ton? The tire psi threshold for warning in my 2500 is 65psi. Max load psi is 80.

I carry a plug kit and compressor in all of my vehicles, but what I've found is that the tpms indicator comes on and tells you that you're low (assuming you arent driving a Flinstone mobile). Most leaks are slow and give you time to get the tire pulled and patched. In my experience plugs are temporary, though my Jeep still has a plug from running over a pair of pliers. It has beadlocks and I'm too lazy to remove the +/- 30 bolts to repair the tire properly.

---

Ha, nope. I’m in a little old 1999 Tacoma. Running over pliers?! That’s gnarly!