« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres  (Read 2687 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mallory Black

  • Hard Floor Camper User
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Gender: Male
Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« on: January 12, 2014, 09:37:12 PM »
Been doing some calcs and looks like the LT all terrain tyres we have on our (petrol V6) 90 Prado might be knocking our fuel consumption around  little.
Has anyone done some comparable consumption tests between a lighter highway treaded non LT tyre and AT or MT tyres with an LT case?

there would be a difference but not sure how much of a difference
Logged
1998 3.4V6 Prado & homebuilt rear fold soft floor

Offline Hutch

  • Swag User
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Gender: Male
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2014, 09:45:01 PM »
Every car will be different but somewhere around .5 to 1 lt per hundred.

Hutch- Prado 150 with some TJM Kit.

Logged
Hutch-2012 Prado V6 with some TJM kit - looking for a CT to drag behind.

Offline Black Diamond

  • "IF IT HAS TITS OR WHEELS IT WILL GIVE YOU TROUBLE........"
  • 2017 National Meet Volunteer
  • Hard Top Camper User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5916
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Cruisin through Life in the 80.......
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2014, 09:51:04 PM »
Up to 5% are claimed but with Highway tyres. Can't see there being a massive difference between A/T's or MT's with a similar pattern.
Logged
1996 80 series Cruiser
2005 Coota Camper - The legend lives on.....

Offline Mallory Black

  • Hard Floor Camper User
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2014, 07:14:44 AM »
I think for me it's about 1.5l/100
will keep checking
Logged
1998 3.4V6 Prado & homebuilt rear fold soft floor

Offline RebsWA

  • Hard Floor Camper User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Thanked: 66 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2014, 08:10:47 AM »
Is there really such a thing?
With fuel economy being such a big ticket item these days with new cars you would think there would be a lot more publicity about tyres if one was better than the another.
I think economy is all about the pressure you run in them.
Logged
You don't stop laughing because you grow old
You grow old because you stop laughing

2006 TD LandCruiser Troopy LX  -  2015 Jayco Starcraft Outback (a Caravan...)

Offline Landyline

  • Tent User
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2014, 09:04:06 AM »
I would assume it is related to both weight and rolling resistance.

It definitely affects the fuel use. It is just more obvious on a petrol 4wd due to the already high use compared to a hatchback where you often see this advertised on tyres.  Our Corolla had Michelin Eco (?) tyres on it.
Logged
Customline camper trailer

Offline Nomad

  • Hard Top Camper User
  • ******
  • Posts: 2622
  • Thanked: 94 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2014, 09:58:39 AM »
I have noticed over a litre difference.
But work pays for fuel so I don't care.

That was from Grandcraps to BFG AT's.
 :cheers:
Logged

Offline Robin Miller

  • Sleeping Bag User
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tyres
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2014, 10:03:26 AM »
As bending in rubber on both sides of contact patch is where the energy is lost , then as Reb says air pressure is biggest factor and you have control over it.

Sure it won't be as smooth but if your tyre placard says 30 then 40psi will make a significant difference and lower fuel use.

For same reason as a thinner tyre of same style will have less rolling resistance than fatter  (assumes air pressure adjused on each for same tyre load rating)

Same applies to trailer tyres.

The lower rolling resistant tyres are designed to minimize energy loss in bending rubber, e.g. one factor is thinner is easier to bend.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »