Thread: Real world consumption

I reckon depending on use and compound they'll do a set of tyres about every 60,000ks.

I don’t think you’d get much difference in fuel use between those 2 tyre options…probably a greater impact depending if you’re listening to AC/DC or Beethoven.

Sorry should have specified fuel consumption

We know, but it's a "how long is a piece of string" question. Aside from any change in frictional losses due to tread footprint and inertial loss due to rotating mass, there would be SFA real world difference. It still takes the same amount of energy to accelerate the vehicle mass. The vehicle still has the same wind resistance, so aside from minor bordering on irrelevant changes to gearing I'd wager AC/DC would use more fuel than Beethoven because you'd be inclined to be a bit heavier on the loud pedal.

You're talking a 3.3% difference in rolling circumference (2433mm vs 2517mm)

Edit: and it'll ride 14mm higher.

Haha love it.

Yah that kinda what I was thinking.

After the last car and bigger tyres I’m missing rubber…

Getting the spare in the hole might be an issue.. Someone on here would have listed it as an issue in another thread

I’ve had both. The larger being slightly more aggressive.

I’ll be going back to 60 profile next set as I’ve seen no real offroad gain, however economy, handling and acceleration are all marginally impacted with the 65 profile.

For record dropping my vehicle 15mm at highway speed gains me 0.5l/100km - but then a moderate/decent bump will have the rear tyres hit under the guards.

Should have mentioned spare will be on the rear bar.

My main reason for wanting to go up a size is having a bit more sidewall and ‘bag’ out when off road. I’m finding the combo of air suspension and smaller tyres rather firm off road.

But from what I’ve heard and you lot are saying is there is not much to be gained from going to a 65 profile.

Rich