LR3 285/60-18 versus 265/65-18 MPG

[medicfernando]

Thanks for the feedback. As far as use, mine is around 75% on road, however, I am only a few hours from Moab and am there several times per year. Therefore, I need a tire with a good sidewall like the BFG. I also do a lot of camping, exploring fireroads and such. I do not plan on any hardcore off road (had a rockcrawler for years, been there done that) but I still need a tire that can handle true all terrain. We get a lot of snow in SLC, so snow is important as well. As far as size, I do not need a really tall tire but like the idea of a 265/65 for a little extra sidewall and height. My point with the 285 was, I don't really need that wide of a tire and more width equals more contact, more rolling resistance and less MPG. I think weight is an issue only in that I feel a heavy LR3 should have an E rated tire for optimal all around performance. I will likely go BFG, the question is get them now, or wait for the KO2 to come out on a 265/65.

 

[11b4v]

E rated

Ive had super great wear from my General Grabber AT2s, Im at about 80K on mine and the tread still looks decent. I drive slow and easy, lots of highway miles.

They're basically a knock off of the BFG AT's at less cost.

Mine are E rated, and only complaint is that they are loud now that most of the tread is gone. They were pretty quiet up to about 70K.

Will be replacing this year with same.

 

[mpinco]

Ive had super great wear from my General Grabber AT2s, Im at about 80K on mine and the tread still looks decent. I drive slow and easy, lots of highway miles.

They're basically a knock off of the BFG AT's at less cost.

Mine are E rated, and only complaint is that they are loud now that most of the tread is gone. They were pretty quiet up to about 70K.

Will be replacing this year with same.

Good to hear as I run AT2's. That's very good mileage for the heavy LR3/4.

Now wish the AT2 was available in a LT 265/65-18.

 

[mpinco]

I run 32.1" (275/65r18) duratrac full-time at regular height. Im on my 2nd set. I did move one height sensor wire and the rear heater hose, but it only took about an hour to do it.

With no rubbing at full lock? And stuff?

 

[zelatore]

My first question is what kind of conditions you take the lr3 into. Your sig suggests you have options when it comes to where you're going and for what purpose.

After wearing out a set of BFG AT ko, trying a set of Goodyear Duratracs, and realizing that I don't intend, too often, to take the lr3 where those tires are "required", I went with a MUCH more efficient and safer tire for most of the time. I have multiple sets of wheels so it's easy to swap out to winter, BFG, or the new "all around" tire now in use most of the time. It is the E load, Michelin LTX M/S2.

It's been fantastic on the highway, gravel roads, forest roads, basic off road trails and even on easy rocks. It also improved the fuel economy by about 10% over the already oversized 32" 275/65x18 Duratrac which was an improvement over the smaller diameter BFG 265/65x18. So now on trips 19-20 mpg is not uncommon even rolling at 7000-7500 lbs.

This tire will actually work quite well in all but mud conditions due to the tighter block pattern. They are also much better handling for long highway trips in rain, snow, towing, etc. If I planned a truly rugged off road trip, I might switch to the real AT tires but most of the time these work just fine and will air down somewhat.

I suggest the 2 sets of wheels and tires plan 3 if you include a dedicated winter set too.

Jwestpro, I'd be interested to hear what differences you saw between the BFGs and the GYs, particularly WRT mileage. I too run 275/65-18 Duratracs and my average per the on-board lie-o-meter is around 15-16 mpg at 75 mph. (which I actually expect is pretty accurate seeing how my speedo is only slow by about 2 mph per GPS with the larger tires...it read fast with the stock tires as most vehicles do)

Of course that's only on flat highway. Any hills, stop signs, traffic, etc and it plummets. I often see an over-all average after a trip of 12-13 mpg when I include city driving or some trail running.

I don't think I could average 19-20 even when my truck was stock! I probably got those numbers on the highway, but my average over a full tank was more like 15-16 mpg. About the same as I got from my Hemi powered 2wd Dodge 1500 as I recall.

BTW, still planning to head up your way in June. We'll keep an eye out for you.

 

[zelatore]

I run 32.1" (275/65r18) duratrac full-time at regular height. Im on my 2nd set. I did move one height sensor wire and the rear heater hose, but it only took about an hour to do it.

Curious, what year truck are you driving? I've seen that the earlier trucks don't have the protruding frame horns at the back of the front wheel wells like the '07+ models.

With that same tire I did the heater hose mod and the sensor wire mod that you mentioned. I also trimmed the forward edges of the front inner fender liners (simple to do - you could do it with a razor knife) and took a tiny bit off the very bottom of the passenger front bumper before I changed it to the ARB. I also trimmed the frame horns at the back of the front wheel wells. And I run with Johnson Rods full time. I haven't really run this combo at stock height so I can't say how much rubbing I might get under full lock or stuff, but I would expect some.

 

[johnsoax]

Ive had super great wear from my General Grabber AT2s, Im at about 80K on mine and the tread still looks decent. I drive slow and easy, lots of highway miles.

They're basically a knock off of the BFG AT's at less cost.

Mine are E rated, and only complaint is that they are loud now that most of the tread is gone. They were pretty quiet up to about 70K.

Will be replacing this year with same.

That is good to hear, as this is the tire that I was thinking about purchasing. Had them on my Disco I and was pretty happy with them.

 

[Jwestpro]

I don't think I could average 19-20 even when my truck was stock! I probably got those numbers on the highway, but my average over a full tank was more like 15-16 mpg.

19-20 is specifically on the highway but on 2 lane roads where speed limits are lower anyway, it's not too hard then either if avg speed is more like 55 ish.

I didn't notice much mileage difference between BFG and GY Duratrac. The DT possibly has a more efficient compound but this would have been all offset by the fact that the bfg was 265/65 and the GY 275/65 but then I had the rack, awnings and RTT on so any accurate comparative analysis disappeared.

 

[Jwestpro]

What size Michelin tires are you running? Stock size? I've been running slightly larger/wider 18" Cooper Discoverer AT3's on my LR3 throughout the summer. A couple of weeks ago I put my stock 19" winter tires back on and the fuel consumption improved dramatically. Much more than I thought it would considering we're back into winter gas as well. Thinking of selling the Cooper's and getting something closer to stock size come the spring. I do a lot of commuting and no severe offroading so the Michelin might be a very good choice.

1- That Michelin is only available in TWO 18" LT/E load sizes. Stock not being one of them. I have the 32" 276/65x18. The other size, 275/70x18 (33") will go right on a stock Land Cruiser 200 series.

2- If you did not adjust your mpg math for difference in tires diameter, and used your on board computer for mpg, then the larger tire could actually look like lower mpg due to it's higher rolling resistance tread. Yet for accurate mpg adjustment you'd need to increase the number by the % larger of the tire. The factory tire is likely a more efficient rolling tire, but it's smaller, however also lighter. The AT is larger but heavier and higher friction due to tread design.

For example, using a 5% larger diameter tire will require doing the math to convert the computer mpg. While none of the computer mpg may be accurate, the change difference from one tire to another will be fairly accurate due to the odometer/mpg calculations internally. If stock size is 255/60x18, then 275/65x18 is 6.7% increase in revs/mile or mpg because mpg is based on the tire revolutions per mile. Same as how you have to remember that your speedometer will be showing 6.7% lower than with stock tires. (regardless of actual speed or actual mpg, this is simply the change due to tire size). This is just the % increase due to SIZE.

The Michelin in particular has 2 more advantages over an AT tire that really drive up the mpg: 1-It's compound is very efficient low rolling resistance while providing fantastic traction on wet and dry pavement and snow (and also somehow lasts ~100k+ miles...the only E load tire I know of with a 70k wear warranty), 2-the tread design is obviously going to roll more efficiently (it's also much safer for high speeds making time from home to somewhere 1000 miles away through mountain passes). Interestingly, the Michelin LTX MS2 weighs the same as the Goodtyear Duratrac.

The thing with your stock tires though in overall mpg is that they are also a much lighter weight tire which matters during accelerations and hills, anywhere the engine isn't just loafing along with almost no additional work.

Another way to notice the tire size change is by using a gps for speed, and seeing that at 70 mph, the engine rpm will be lower ... by approximately 6.7% in this case. Run this over 100,000 miles on the odometer and your cpo or extended warranty will actually be covering 106,700 land miles

I think for a "lot of commuting and no severe offroading" this Michelin is actually an awesome choice. The LTX being "LT" may actually all be E range but I'd look through and see. My goal was for largest tire without causing issues. Considering that my Disco 1 came with the really pretty functional Michelin XPC 4x4 and these are built stronger, I think we all get a bit crazy thinking we can't go hardly anywhere off pavement without a burly tire. To me the E load is more important than the beefy AT design unless I know there will be tons of sharp rocks.

 

[Mack73]

I really liked my BFG AT's. Worked good on road and never got stuck with them offroad - but then again I don't do mud pits.

Personally I would look at the new BFG AT KO2. An updated design of the KO- I haven't kept up on when they are going to release a size that will fit on an LR3

 

[Colin Hughes]

1- That Michelin is only available in TWO 18" LT/E load sizes. Stock not being one of them. I have the 32" 276/65x18. The other size, 275/70x18 (33") will go right on a stock Land Cruiser 200 series.

2- If you did not adjust your mpg math for difference in tires diameter, and used your on board computer for mpg, then the larger tire could actually look like lower mpg due to it's higher rolling resistance tread. Yet for accurate mpg adjustment you'd need to increase the number by the % larger of the tire. The factory tire is likely a more efficient rolling tire, but it's smaller, however also lighter. The AT is larger but heavier and higher friction due to tread design.

For example, using a 5% larger diameter tire will require doing the math to convert the computer mpg. While none of the computer mpg may be accurate, the change difference from one tire to another will be fairly accurate due to the odometer/mpg calculations internally. If stock size is 255/60x18, then 275/65x18 is 6.7% increase in revs/mile or mpg because mpg is based on the tire revolutions per mile. Same as how you have to remember that your speedometer will be showing 6.7% lower than with stock tires. (regardless of actual speed or actual mpg, this is simply the change due to tire size). This is just the % increase due to SIZE.

The Michelin in particular has 2 more advantages over an AT tire that really drive up the mpg: 1-It's compound is very efficient low rolling resistance while providing fantastic traction on wet and dry pavement and snow (and also somehow lasts ~100k+ miles...the only E load tire I know of with a 70k wear warranty), 2-the tread design is obviously going to roll more efficiently (it's also much safer for high speeds making time from home to somewhere 1000 miles away through mountain passes). Interestingly, the Michelin LTX MS2 weighs the same as the Goodtyear Duratrac.

The thing with your stock tires though in overall mpg is that they are also a much lighter weight tire which matters during accelerations and hills, anywhere the engine isn't just loafing along with almost no additional work.

Another way to notice the tire size change is by using a gps for speed, and seeing that at 70 mph, the engine rpm will be lower ... by approximately 6.7% in this case. Run this over 100,000 miles on the odometer and your cpo or extended warranty will actually be covering 106,700 land miles

I think for a "lot of commuting and no severe offroading" this Michelin is actually an awesome choice. The LTX being "LT" may actually all be E range but I'd look through and see. My goal was for largest tire without causing issues. Considering that my Disco 1 came with the really pretty functional Michelin XPC 4x4 and these are built stronger, I think we all get a bit crazy thinking we can't go hardly anywhere off pavement without a burly tire. To me the E load is more important than the beefy AT design unless I know there will be tons of sharp rocks.

Thanks for the reply. Does the Michelin 275 65 R18 fit on without any modifications or rubbing? Also considering Cooper Zeon's in 19" stock size.

 

[johnsoax]

Factory size is for soccer moms. 265s or 285s add about 2 inches if you know what I mean.

That didn't answer my question....

 

[PWCAN]

My first question is what kind of conditions you take the lr3 into. Your sig suggests you have options when it comes to where you're going and for what purpose.

After wearing out a set of BFG AT ko, trying a set of Goodyear Duratracs, and realizing that I don't intend, too often, to take the lr3 where those tires are "required", I went with a MUCH more efficient and safer tire for most of the time. I have multiple sets of wheels so it's easy to swap out to winter, BFG, or the new "all around" tire now in use most of the time. It is the E load, Michelin LTX M/S2.

It's been fantastic on the highway, gravel roads, forest roads, basic off road trails and even on easy rocks. It also improved the fuel economy by about 10% over the already oversized 32" 275/65x18 Duratrac which was an improvement over the smaller diameter BFG 265/65x18. So now on trips 19-20 mpg is not uncommon even rolling at 7000-7500 lbs.

This tire will actually work quite well in all but mud conditions due to the tighter block pattern. They are also much better handling for long highway trips in rain, snow, towing, etc. If I planned a truly rugged off road trip, I might switch to the real AT tires but most of the time these work just fine and will air down somewhat.

I suggest the 2 sets of wheels and tires plan 3 if you include a dedicated winter set too.

I found mpg dropped markedly and so did performance when I had 31" BFG MT on my D2 compared with 29" std size Nokian WRG2. Was diameter change or weight that had biggest impact ? - given your comments above I'm thinking weight big factor. .. I now have LR3 HSE and got a set of used 18" rims. Off road I'm sure BFG KO2 AT 265/60/18 will work well (very puncture/damage resistant), but 50lb vs stock 35lb weight is a concern. Considering compromise tire - Goodyear Adventure with Kevlar in 255/65/18 size. a 111T tire but only 40lbs. 65 profile more suitable for air down. Anyone used GY Adventure Kevlar ? may be a bit light duty for off roading a 5800Lb LR3 .. ?