TYRE SIZE COMPARISON | How much power is lost | Fuel consumption? | BF Goodrich AT | Landcruiser 200
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2020
- In today’s video I talk about the factors to consider when upgrading tyre type and size on your 4x4.
I briefly explain the difference, benefits and negatives for fitting larger, heavier tyres to our 4WD’s.
My 2014 Toyota Landcruiser 200 series came from factory with a 285/60 18 tyre and I have now fitted a larger set of 305/65 18. How much do these actually effect the power of the 4.5L V8 twin turbo diesel and what happens to fuel consumption?
These days it is easy to be swept away in the hype of having to have large excessive tyres on our 4WD’s, but for those who tow caravans or large loads, is this really a good idea?
I hope you got some useful information from this video. If they are any question, please hit us up of Instagram or Facebook.
Here is some of the camera and audio gear used to film and produce our videos:
GoPro Hero 8: ebay.us/RolXxy
GoPro Mic Adapter: ebay.us/tsomax
Rode Videomicro: ebay.us/ZIagAa
Rode Videomic Pro: ebay.us/T8jep7
Rode Videomic Pro Deadcat: ebay.us/WUeLy6
Rode Wireless Go: ebay.us/ptDtzi
Canon EOS 70D: ebay.us/7tb0pR
DJI Mavic 2 Pro: ebay.us/OWPBQK
Follow us on:
Facebook: / xploroz
Instagram: xploringoz...
DISCLAIMER: Links included in this description might be affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with the links that I provide I may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you! Thank you for supporting XploringOz.
All today’s testing was conducted on my 2014 Toyota Landcrusier 200 series Sahara 4.5L V8 twin turbo diesel.
The factory wheels area a 285/60 18 Dunlop Grandtrek AT25.
My aftermarket wheels are a 305/65 18 BF Goodrich AT KO2 (all terrain)
The wheels are a Method Racing Wheel NV305 (matt black) in a 18x9’’ with +25 offset - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Huge effort. Can' never get enough of a well sorted 4*4 tire/wheel video.
Thanks Terry, appreciate that mate.
You have put a lot of effort into producing a very informative video. It’s much appreciated. I found the initial explanation regarding tyre size and so on excellent.
Crikey, what an incredibly thorough comprehensive test. I love the way your mind works.
Thanks mate, hopefully it can of some use 👍
Cheers
Fantastic content. Great idea to test tyre-size implications. Keep it up. Thanks.
Thanks Grant 👍
i appreciated your humble test application bro. it indeed settled me to once & for all retain the stock rims of my truck - 2020 Hilux; and instead upgraded to BFG KO2 265/60/18. guys like you should be given a credit! Great Job Bro! Thank you.
Cheers mate, appreciate the feedback 👍
I'm glad I could help you make your decision for your needs.
Chees, Nathan.
What a great explanation on all factors so interesting and so much effort, thank you .Glad I found your channel thanks again mate.
Cheers mate, I appreciate the positive comments.
Thanks, Nathan.
Don’t forget, bigger tire the speedometer is going to change to. You’re going faster than you say you are and you are going to accumulate less miles than you’re actually going. And your mpg will change.
On my Hilux it came with 20in wheels and road tyres. I changed to 16in wheels and BF ko2 AT tyres, same overall diameter at 31in but the fuel consumption increased from 30mpg to 27mpg respectively. Towing was more stable on the 20's but the BF's are just the coolest. Excellent video. Cheers. D
That’s an interesting difference, wouldn’t have expected that much change.
The BFG’s are great tyres. This is my 5th set amongst testing a few other brands in between. 👍
Fantastic informative video.
Thank you. Nice rig!
Thanks Janet, appreciate it.
Great content as always thanks Nathan.
Thanks mate, appreciate it.
Brand new here. You have extremely respectable content.
Thanks mate. Appreciate the feedback. Welcome to XPLORINGOZ and enjoy the content 👍
@@XploringOz you fitted a 2" lift kit,?.impossible..you cant raise ifs fronts.. you lose 2"of trvel,plus the vehicle becomes unsafe..er...less travel,,more tipi tip tip..plus,it screws up you cv joints..do you know anything about 4x4rs..?..you need to go buy an 80 series,a real 4x4,& keep the 70k refund from the 200.
I love the unique topic!
Cheers mate 👍
Very informative mate good job well done
Cheers mate!
Would be interesting to see what would happen with thinner tyres with the same height, they would weigh less and you might get close to standard power and consumption, appreciate your content always informative.
Thanks mate. So the size in circumference is what generally effects the fuel consumption and power. If I went the same height then the odds would be I would see similar results. The width of the tyres would make little difference.
To increase power and get better fuel economy I would have to look at getting a small tyre.
Cheers, Nathan.
Bravo...Really informative video!
Thanks mate, glad you enjoyed it.
Very informative, thanks!
Awesome, thanks for the feedback mate.
Cheers, Nathan.
Dude great video!
Cheers mate, appreciate it.
Hi. XploringOz,
A wonderful Job. Well experienced Testing. Tonns of information for Hard Coire Drivers. I learnt / Enjoyed / Liked and Subscribed.
Good Job Sir.
Thanks mate! I appreciate the feedback, it always nice to hear when someone has enjoyed the content.
Cheers, Nathan.
quality content mate.
Cheers mate, appreciate that 👍
great video, keep in mind that the BFG are a 3 ply sidewall and LT construction therefore the overall mass & weight of the tyre requires a little more effort to turn, even if they were in the standard OEM spec size.
I switched from 265/75x16 (31.8") to 285/75x16 (33") BFG ATKO2's on my 80 series petrol and have found fuel consumption unchanged plus the ride comfort increased, probably due to the higher sidewall absorbing bumps etc. Speedo is out 4 km/h at 100 but overall dont think ill ever go back to the std sizing
Very well presented, just another little thing that should also be considered is differential ratio. The ratio has been calculated for the standard size wheel and putting on larger diameter wheels on throws those calculations out the window, hence why the engine is working harder and using more fuel. To correct this the diff ratio's need to be change to suit the larger diameter wheels.
Good video again nathan.
Cheers mate 👍
G'day thanks for the video tyre wheel comparison, nice work. I thought i should mention there is a navigation calibration setting within the menu of the LC200 touch screen, under vehicle maintenance i think, this calibration requires you to drive the vehicle, it is intended to adjust distance and speed relevant to tyre ware or tyre size change, i used this function and my speedo matches my Garmin gps, phone app gps and Garmin watch gps to within 1km/h, i have 305/50-20R on at the moment, going back to 18in wheel and tyre combo soon, 50 profile is not enough to absorb bumps etc, great for handling but no good for much else (noticeable)
Cheers mate. I'll have to check that out as it's not something I've experimented with yet.
Cheers, Nathan.
Awesome video very helpful
Awesome, glad to hear it 👍
Good vid mate
Cheers mate
Great scientific style measurement and comparison
Thanks mate, glad you enjoyed it.
Cheers, Nathan.
Hi mate, great job on your videos. I’ve just got my ultragauge, I’d love to see a video on the set up and calibration of it if that interests you. Keep up the good work.
Thanks mate 👍
I do have a video on the set up, mounting and first use of the Ultragauge. Check out my channel, shouldn’t be too hard to find 👍
Cheers, Nathan.
Thanks mate
I’d love to see the test completed again but while towing a caravan. That might give some very surprising results.
Watched this video a while ago and thought, the result was not too bad. But watched again today and when you calculate extra fuel usage over a tank full it comes out at 122 k less per tank. 122/14.5 = 8.41 ;litres pf extra fuel per tank @ $2.20 per litre at moment means you spend $18.50 more per tank.. Times that over a year and just the fuel cost is significant not to mention wear and tear and the cost of the mods. Very good video.
The math is wrong @15:57 by a factor of 15 times (1539%) or more. The correct increase is just 0.38 % not 5% - he forgot to factor in that the speedo is showing the wrong distance. In the first test, he used 13.7/100*50.4 = 6.9048 litres of Diesel. In the second test, over the "exact same distance", he used 14.5/100*47.8 = 6.931 litres of Diesel... a mere 26.2 millilitres more, which is less than even half of one percent (0.38), not the 5% he got by wrongly comparing "13.7" with "14.5". Note that 26.2 millilitres of fuel will take approximately 175 meters, and will take about 5.72 seconds at the speed he was driving.
Long story short - there's no fuel difference at all (that number is so small, it's impossible to measure using the instruments he had and conditions he drove in, especially when he spent a whopping 2 minutes behind a truck, which was 21 times longer that it takes to burn 26.2ml of fuel...)
Hi, your findings are right in certain circomstances but, ive been driving Land Cruisers for about 26 years now and have done many hundreds of thousands of km's, one has done 700.000+ km the other 500.000 km and many trips all over outback oz and ive had many different tyres and sizes on my vehicles. What ive found is that some tyres have a bigger rolling resistance (read worse fuel economy) than others even being the same size. My experience with BFG AT'S multi directional is they have quite a bit of rolling resistance, so have Bridgestone and a few other makes. Like driving with the handbrake on, i liken it. While others specificallly "unidirectional" (one direction) tyres have less. I went from 31" BFG AT 10pr to 33" CF3000 MT 10pr (265-75x16 to 285-75x16 close enough to 33") unidirectional tyres for instance on both my vehicles and after accounting for the discrepancy in the speedo and odometer by using Garmin GPS equipment i have found nearly no difference at all in fuel use or power. In some circumstances its even better. The only issue ive found is because the gearing is taller downhill speed increases and ofcourse less revs at the same (GPS)speed. But as i said only on certain unidirectional tyres. The ones I run at the moment are "Comforcers CF3000" cheap but a great tyre. No flats and no balencing problems, great grip! ( No, I do not get sponsered by them at all 😢) Anyway something to think about. God bless.
Fantastic video. Do you know if there is any way to get your speedo and odometer adjusted to work correctly with larger tyres? This has made me weigh up the pros and cons and we’ll stick with our stock standard tyres. 👍
Thanks! There are ways to change the speedo, it's just a matter of finding the right person/business who can access the areas of the vehicle ECU that can do it.
Nothing wrong with the stock tyres
Comprehensive review well done. It would have been interesting to compare brake distances.
I also tow a van sometimes also and am conscious of going too large an increase.
Thanks mate. That sounds like a good idea for another video.
Going up in tyre size definitely makes a difference to us van owners. Really depends on your style of driving and whether you need that extra clearance for the 4WD tracks.
if you tow a lot,keep std tires. plus, ring the cops,find out your state laws on larger tire sizes,without vehicle mods.. they,ll say,,whats on the tire tag on the door..
Love this channel. Subscribed twice lol. Quick question, are these the method hd wheels or just standard. I think one is 1,100kg rated and the other is 2t. Tou carry a bit of gear so would be keen to know. Cheers
Cheers mate, glad to hear you are enjoying it 👍 These are just the standard ones. I don't believe you can get the 5 stud, with the right pattern and offset in the HD ones.
Cheers, Nathan.
G’day Very well done this video, comparison and explanations. You are right with what you said, but I think you have todo a second part for all of us towing a van. That’s a game changer. In my books a tire upgrade on the 200 series must go with a lock up kit and transmission remap. From own experience 1st. Test 2000 km run MEL-Adelaide-MEL with van and larger tires nothing modified the transmission seldom shifted into 6 gear, running 5th on around 2000rpm and was downshifting to 4th. Gear and revs up sky high. Open torque converter you could see the temp rise as well the fuel consumption. 2nd Test MEL-SYD-MEL Inland and coast road appr 2800km my experience much better driving lower rpm in the sweet spot of torque and 2 ltr less diesel consumption per 100km even it was more hills on the way up SYD.. that to say justified my decision to invest in a lockup kit and ATCU remap. Endurance test not done yet only 10000km clocked yet due to the travel restriction in place. Yes, and of course No failure codes nor any problem experienced yet. PS as said befor . I like your Ultra gauge in that spot with the less expensive bracket fits nicely on left side in a blink of an eye visible where the scan gauge would not fit. I found it troublesome to see the scan gauge over the steering wheel in front of the instrument panel. That location suits more the pilots under us as they be used to such a cluster of instruments and information in the cockpit. But that is my opinion and everybody has experience by himself. Please keep the vids coming as they are really very good and informative. Cheers.
Thanks mate 👍 I definitely agree with you there. A lockup kit and remaps are planned for future mods. Restrictions and other factors have just pushed them back a little.
I’m glad to hear you have had good results with your setup and I’m looking forward to hopefully achieving similar results when I can get them fitted.
May I ask what lockup kit you have installed?
Thanks again 👍
XploringOz Yep, no problem, Richards Auto electric.. He came to MEL by a long time appointment and installed it to my 200 series in my friends workshop in Bayswater area while doing other cars in the area too. Same installation costs. Was done in end 2018. Check for after COV-19 or an installer in your area. There is a German sparky in Perth... Cheers
Thanks mate 👍 all advice taken on board. Cheers
Great video. Just a comment on fuel economy, I would have preferred to see the actual quantity of fuel used for each run, e.g. top up to filler neck and measure each time. The trip computer is really only a guide, mine can be out by over 1.2l/100km when I measure it and can be quite variable. Also the trip computer is not compensating for the added rolling circumference so is assuming an incorrect distance traveled in its calculations.
For sure, actual fuel usage would be preferable, but it’s hard to get this exact figure when filling up with angles of the vehicle, air pockets etc. maybe over a long distance it would be more accurate, but this short distance, it would be easy to miscalculate.
Testing I’ve done with my vehicle shows the trip computer to be very accurate, but I understand your comments about the calculations with the larger tyres.
Have you already calibrated your Ultragauge to reflect change in gearing with the bigger wheels? Just wondering whether your indicated speed are based on 1.00 calibration factor or account for the correction? If you havne't already calibrated its well worth doing to get more accurate speed, odo and DTE with the fat rubber onboard.
For sure. I haven’t actually got around to that yet, but definitely something on the to do list 👍
I put tires with sidewalls smaller by 6% than factory on my racecar, this improved acceleration by 10%. Unfortunately it made my mpg drop on the highway.
Epic video mate! Very interesting to see the vehicle compromises with the 33.5" tires. Definitely worth having 2 sets in my opinion to prevent unnecessary ware and tare.
Thanks Greg 👍
wear & tare on what,?,driveline,?.i have 35" on my 4x4rs,,no issues.. buy a decent truck.
@phantomwalker8251 lol what? Are you implying higher load on the engine doesn't come at increased wear and tear lol. You Muppet!!!!
Definitely looks a bit odd on standard wheels and tyres aye. Another great vid bud 👍
Sure does! I was happy to see the big rubber back on again 🤣
Cheers Paul 👍
Would like you to do one on the 300 series please
Would love to as well, unfortunately don't have access to the vehicle at the moment.. 😞
The only true reason to fit larger diameter tyres is simply to raise the center line of an axle although this effect may be less or more with ifs geometry. The only correct way to do this conversion for that is what it is, is to accept the parameters of the conversion which may involve castor and camber angle reset. Additional attention should be directed to regearing diff and transmission ratios across all gear speeds so correcting the speedo readings etc although I imagine this could also be dealt with through the ECU if the speedo is fully electronic. Regearing should also maintain some equalisation of fuel economy figures. Also do not underestimate the dimensional changes ride height increases input into things such as wheelbase ,propshaft length and stress all added to by the additional wheel dimension. Finally given that there is more rotational mass in the larger wheel/tyre set up, the vehicle may require more stopping power that means bigger brakes including increases in temperature operating levels. Done fully and properly it can give added purpose and ability to any off road vehicle get it wrong can be disappointing if not down right dangerous
For sure, I agree 100%. When modifying these types of vehicles, you want to make sure you are doing it correctly and more importantly, safely, both for you and other road users.
In this instance, I'm happy that I'm only lifting the vehicle 2" in height (suspensions) and increasing the tyre size by 6.7%.
Though both reasonable increases and will increase the wear and effectiveness of parts on the factory equipment, so far the gear is holding up well.
Any larger changes would definitely start requiring further 'supporting' mods to embrace the changes.
Cheers, Nathan.
Great video just interest to know how to change the break fluid in the 200 series. If you can do a video on that. Cheers
Hans
Thanks mate. I've not due just yet, but when the time comes, rest assured I'll film it.
Cheers, Nathan.
Thanks for a great and informative video. I just want to remind everyone thinking about bigger wheels that increasing the wheel diameter (and increasing the final reduction ratio) has also a few more positive consequences. Acceleration potential is decreased, but a higher top speed is reached. In other words, the bigger the tires on a car, the slower it will accelerate, but it will have higher top speeds.
Great point!
Not true at all if the car dosen't have the horsepower or torque to overcome the losses caused by the increased gearing.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the car in the second test thinks it’s gone 2.6km shorter, If you take into account the difference in travel the car thinks it’s done you end up with a very similar result. Ie 14.5 x 47.8/50.4 = 13.75 L/100km, or 0.05L/100km more.
Hi Craig,
So I believe it would work the other way around. There is a comment by Werner on here that explains the difference very well.
Cheers, Nathan.
You are right: his math is wrong. In the first test, he used 13.7/100*50.4 = 6.9048 litres of Diesel. In the second test, over the "exact same distance", he used 14.5/100*47.8 = 6.931 litres of Diesel... a mere 26.2 millilitres - which is about 175 meters, or 5.7 seconds worth of driving, so he's basically shown that the bigger tyres used no extra fuel whatsoever (if you factor in the accuracy of the instruments, and the single-digit precision of the data, and ignore the 2 minutes he spent behind the truck). For reference, note that a 200-series uses about 15ml of diesel per minute at idle...
I think bigger/heavier wheels are actually more efficient when cruising at a constant speed, since it's higher rotational inertia prevents it from slowing down as quickly as a lighter/smaller wheel, letting the engine use less effort in maintaining momentum. Also, bigger wheels cover a greater distance per sec, at the same engine speed.
The only time u will consume more fuel, is when you are increasing speed.
Potentially, however I can't comment personally on this as I haven't tested it. My gut feeling though is that the engine is under my load turning these larger tyres and this would result in higher fuel consumption.
Maybe another test to conduct in the future.
Cheers, Nathan.
@@XploringOz Lower engine revs will result in better economy, however the tread pattern on those tyres will not be as good as the Grand Treks for economy. So not really an apples with apples comparison
Great video! I got a question please I have a 2020 LC200 and I was thinking about getting a 285/65r18 set of tires so that'll raise the car about an inch or so, and I'd rather not get a big suspension lift so do you think I'd have to get a 2 inch lift or a simple OME 1 - 1.5" lift would do? Thanks!
Thanks mate. It's a hard call to make as I haven't had personal experience with that size of tyre. However from my knowledge, I think it would be safer to fit the 2" kit. The tyres are already very close to the guards as they are and full compression may cause contact and damage to the wheel well.
The different tyre size will probably affect the vehicles fuel consumption calculations.
It would be interesting to see how much difference there is between in-car and real world consumption with the bigger tyres.
For sure, there is that potential. It would definitely depend on how and what parameter the vehicle uses to measure fuel consumption.
@@XploringOz Definitely, There is a difference. But when you talk about a 4000CC + power its just a small difference in actual.
Super scientific 👌
Be interesting to redo now you have the lock up kit.
Hmm, would be. I'll consider this for a future vid.
Cheers, Nathan.
How much of a lift do I need on a stock 99 LC to properly fit 18” and larger tyres?
How about Prado 150? What tyre size I can upgrade without having to trim the front bumper?
Hey mate nice content looking at method wheels for my own 200 series and fitting 305/65R18 also what offset are those rims? Postive 60 being standard i believe. Cheers
Cheers mate, glad you enjoyed the video. So I've don't a full video on the wheel and tyres chosen for my vehicle, but in short the offset of +25.
th-cam.com/video/GT_WvgNSafY/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxsSuAD3ajTDfPKjPZ4AaABAg
Yeah +25 is the sweet spot for wheels on a 200 imo
If you have a GVM/GCM upgrade you still must run the size tyres that is stated on the upgrade plate attached to your car as I also have a 2013 Landcruiser Sahara with the upgrade the same as yours and can't run larger tyres such as you do legally..
That’s correct, the standard ARB GVM kit doesn’t allow for larger tyres. However, in WA anyway, you can have the larger tyres certified by and engineer (at a large cost) to be fully legalised 👍
Iove the details very helpful,
Cheers, thanks mate. Glad you enjoyed the video.
Where did you learn the trick to push the sequential up twice to hold top gear better?
Hey mate, so originally I just got this information off some of the forums, however Toyota don't try and hide it. It can be found is some of their vehicle manuals and on their data lists. There are a couple of options to assist with programming modes.
I upped my tire size for the cost savings, lol it's a lot easier and cheaper to buy r15's then my stock r12's. My little Geo Metro with only 45 hp is not really happy with the out come, but better then running trailer tires.
Any implications on registration and/or insurance by getting larger tyres? Last I checked, in Victoria (where I am) anything over a 15mm diameter or 25mm wider increase in considered a modification. Likely different requirements depending on where you live. I'd be thinking there is a good chance anything classed as a modification would need to be cleared for registration and insurance to be valid. Not sure really, definitely worth checking out as you don't want your insurance voided on a technicality when you need it most.
There are implications. A 2” lift and basic mods don’t need any sort of certification in WA, however tyres like this, with the correctly suspension components installed can be certified and stamped off by an engineer 👍
Interesting analysis! Learned a lot but at the end of the day those big tires look a lot more sexy and that is all us blokes care about :D
Haha, so true! 😆
Another awesome review Nathan. I've ordered a new Prado VX with the 18 inch wheels rather than the standard 17 inch. Just because I liked the wheels better to look at 🤣🤣 How shallow is that? Food for thought here, but hey, sometimes you make decisions based on nothing but a gut feel on what looks nice. I'll just have to wear the additional costs I guess! Keep up the great work mate!
Haha awesome mate! As long as your happy with the choice, that's all that matters. I highly doubt that 1" of wheel will prevent you from getting anywhere you want to go.
Hope the new vehicle is everything you wanted and more!
Cheers, Nathan.
Hey bud. I have a 2008 LC 200 series. I just got a Ironman 4x4 front bumper and a 2 inch lift kit. I have not installed the rear metal bumper as yet but I do plan on getting it. I am thinking of getting other tires. Right now I am using 265/75/R18 - but I would like to get 33' inches of tires. What do you recommend?
Good choice of vehicle! So i believe that one of the most popular sizes for vehicle is the 285/65 18 (32.6" metric). Although a little short of 33", still a good improvement, no modifications to fit and easy to source over the country. Otherwise another option would be to go a metric 33" by 12.5 wide.
In terms of brans, look in my opinion they are all much of the same. I know some people have very strong opinions about what works and what doesn't, but I think you'll find that most people don't often drive enough km's to accurately comment on every tyres ability and reliability.
Personally, I recently completely a desert 4Wd trip over 7 days in seriously remote and unchartered terrain where we lost 7 tyres to side wall damage. These included brands of Mickey Thompson, BFG AT's and Coopers.
Although there might be small difference between grip and noise, I have found this difference minimal for what we use and setup these vehicles up for.
Personally I have stuck with BFG's only because I haven't had any major faults and they are known around the world for their performance and reliability. Everyone will have their own opinion.
Good luck with the research.
A larger rolling diameter tyre will give better fuel consumption on the highway all things being equal. In the 200 series, you would need a trans tune and lockup kit installed to keep the bloody transmission in 6th gear however.
I did a video on the 6th gear issue too - th-cam.com/video/ozEfUUzW7UY/w-d-xo.html
I would like to get opinions on What Size, fuel consumption difference, etc. please. On my patrol, the stock tyres are 265 70 R18 (32.6"), and as we know all other countries get the 275 60 R20 (33"). The tyre size I am looking at is A/T 275 65 R20 (34.1"), also recalibrated to suit the tyres..
It really does depend on the intended use for the vehicle. If the vehicle is only going to tow trailers and drove graded roads, then a larger size tyre wont be required.
If your planning on hitting the harder tracks the larger tyres will help a lot. But with this fuel consumption, power and torque will suffer to sole extent.
It’s all a compromise in the end and that will be determined for what you planning on doing in the vehicle 👍
Cheers, Nathan.
@@XploringOz during the week on graded roads, and tow if I need to as it is my daily drive too. On the weekend i try to get out to some true hard dirt tracks, and only once (hopefully twice a year soon) a year to head to far walkabouts like the cape and kimberly or somewhere. I would about 80% of the time on road, the rest would be on dirt or sand. Quite the same as most people do if they think about it.
Cheers.
For sure. For me, I don't mind paying the little extra in fuel to run the bigger tyres as I do try and hit some of the hard tracks from time to time. However this particular size of tyre is also harder to find replacements in remote areas, if that is something that you plan on using your vehicle for. Just another thing to consider.
Great video I have two sets of factory alloy wheels for my hilux the 18 inch with factory tyres 265 60 18 and the 17 inch with ko2 in 265 65 17 same diameter but they weigh six kilograms more each so 36 kilograms more same weight as two jerrycans
For sure mate. The weights are something that are hardly ever spoken about, probably just due to the fact that they are unsprung weight. I did go into this topic a little in my original wheel video.
Cheers, Nathan.
@@XploringOz occasionally I help out in a mates tyre shop the standing deal is when a 33 inch or larger comes in for repair on the rear wheel carrier I buy the beer, so far its never happened its usually on the back seat as its that hard to lift back on to the carrier for oldies and women regards mike
Haha, yeah they are no lightweights. This is another good consideration for those who might not be capable of lifting these tyre/wheel combinations, especially for those travelling in remote areas.
how about regearing your LC?
Possible, but expensive 🤔
How is the ride with the suspension and tyre upgrade?
It's great at the moment. The HD springs are much better suited to the extra weight of the cruiser.
The 14.5 lph trip readout needs to be adjusted for the difference of 50 vs 47km. You will probably find little difference in fuel consumption at hwy speed because although the larger tyre is a larger mass the greater width provides less rolling resistance. The noticeable impact to fuel consumption will be around town.
For sure, there are many aspects that are hard to replicate perfectly between tests.
Adjusting the 14.5L/100km by 5% Speedo inaccuracy actually makes it 15.3L/100km.
Which is basically an 11% increase from stock
@@NickGunn No, Nick, it's actually going in opposite direction. The difference in fuel consumption will be close to 0%.
I like the video, but I still "didn't get an answer" on whether it is worth having the bigger size tyres or not? (only talking about size not build quality). I'm looking at getting some new tyres this week and wondering if I should stay with the stock 265/65/17 size or go the next size up at 265/70/17??? Cheers, Don, Perth WA, MY22 Fortuner (Dons Shed and Xplor Overland)
Hey mate, I guess this topic is a very personal and individual question. It really depends on what you use the vehicle for, how you use the vehicle and what you are hoping to achieve moving forward. The biggest advantage of larger tyres is clearance. If you are hitting the tracks regularly and wanting more clearance under the axles, then larger tyres are the way to go. If you towing frequently and maybe don't 4WD so much, than the extra fuel consumption might not be worth the occasional benefit.
Cheers, Nathan.
@@XploringOz Thanks Nathan 👍 In the end I've decided to go one size up and get the 265/70/17's for our MY22 Fortuner. It will be getting a 2" lift as well at some point, so that should make the tyres not look too small on our lifted car. Cheers, Don 🙂
@@DonsShed Great choice, should not only match the 'look' and proportion, but give the vehicle a little edge off-road too 👍 All the best. Cheers
Does the bigger tyre fit in the spare bay?
Sure does mate. Don't think any tyre bigger than this would fit, but this one just fits in the factory position.
you for got to correct for the fact that when using bigger tyres the car is not calculating the correct kms. so 14L/100km is actually 14L/107km for example, over estimating the fuel consumption. need to apply factor of difference in rolling circumference for fuel consumption.
I fit smaller tyers and get better fuel consumption,
This will definitely work, but also loose underbody clearance for 4WD'ing.
@@XploringOz Yes it works. 265/70/R16 tires instead of 275 so I save weight and therefore less rolling resistance. Acceleration in the city is much easier thus better mpg. I almost never drive on the motorway so that's irrelevant. NO off-road driving so I don't care about losing a few millimeters of ground clearance.
@@greatpariscars For sure, sounds like these slightly smaller tyres would definitely benefit your style of driving.
@@XploringOz Yes, my style is driving in the city and on local roads. Getting spectacular gas mileage. Makes me wet.
So you could have both sets and have daily set and 4x4 set best of both. The 4x4 set will last for a long long time. The daily will be less fuel and cheaper to replace.
For sure, this is definitely an option. To be completely honest, I'm probably a little too lazy to continuously change the wheels and tyres over, but if you are only going on the occasional trip, could be worth the savings in the long run.
Cheers, Nathan.
So wouldnt the L/100km given by the vehicle be inaccurate because the vehicle thinks it only went 47.8 not 50.4? This equates to a 5.15% discrepency, which the vehicle calculates it used x amount of fuel over a shorter distance, when in reality it made it the same ~50.4km
Which means the 14.5 L/100km would in reality be 13.75 L/100km... a negligable difference to the original 13.8 when factoring in how accurate the test could reasonably be.
For sure, there would be discrepancy in there. There is a comment thread in here that explains it quite well.
The only true way to measure it would be to re-fuel after each test.
Cheers for watching 👍
@@XploringOz From the numbers (26.2 millilitres aka 175 meters aka 5.7 seconds of driving aka 0.38%) then no - measurement by refuel would not be anywhere near accurate enough. The difference is so incredibly tiny, you'd need some kind of special calibrated fuel flow instrument, and a properly configured scientific test track and multiple run conditions. Or you could just "not bother", because this test has already shown that there's actually no accurately-measurable difference in fuel usage, so you may as well ignore it.
OMG, the 200LC is bloody slow, my 11 year old jeep grand cherokee V6 diesel does the 0-100 in 9.2 seconds and the later model does it 7.8 seconds, still a great video.
Haha, yeah you should have seen my old GU Nissan Patrol, that was slow. It may not be fast, but it sure gets everywhere and you also have to consider it weigh 3.5t.
Cheers, Nathan.
@@XploringOz It looks pretty stand, so what's in it to get the weight up to 3.5T, that's certainly heavy, must have a lot of good stuff in there.
@@Renegade040 Yeah, it's got a bit of aftermarket gear, but it didn't take much to get the weight up. I did an earlier video where I briefly went over the modifications I have and weighed the vehicle empty on a weigh bridge. Much heavier than I thought... th-cam.com/video/WmeKQ0N-DJw/w-d-xo.html
taking into account the 6.75% increase in tyre diameter you actually got better fuel economy with the larger tyre on the highway
Thanks mate, but if we take into consideration the ECU calculations of distance travelled, this eliminates any apparent gains. Werner commented on this video with some spot on calculations that accurately represent actual fuel used.
Cheers, Nathan.
I similarly I calculate slightly better economy once you correct for the car not knowing the actual distance travelled due to not being calibrated for the higher overall gearing.
I got 5.16%
47.8 - 50.4 = -2.6
-2.6 / 50.4 = -5.16%
So the computer thinks it used that amount of fuel over a 5.16% less distance or only 94.84% the distance of the original.
14.5 x 94.84 = 13.75L/100km 👍
Yes i would have thought the drop in revs would have given better economy.
@@MrRobinski So the load placed upon the engine with the larger tyres is greater. The RPM is only one method of determining work load. The bigger tyres require more engine input at the some RPM of a vehicle with smaller tyres. Essential this will mean that more diesel will be injected into the cylinder in each cycle, resulting in higher power outputs, higher fuel usage and general greater heat.
It would be like driving a manual 4WD in 1 or 2 gears higher than appropriate. The engine will labour and struggle to maintain and build speed, injecting more fuel and generating more power on each combustion cycle.
Hope that makes some sort of sense
Cheers, Nathan.
How legal is it?
That's going to depend on a number of factors such as location and licensing permits/inspections etc.
Hi
Interesting tip you did with the shifter. Does it apply to any 200 series? In what situations do you use it?
Id love to know more about it if dont mind.
Thanks mate, I know it works with these pre-facelift version of the 4.5L V8 twin turbo, I can't comment on the newer models or the petrol engines.
I generally use this feature when highway driving and not towing. I find that the added weight due to accessories and larger tyres effect the shifting patterns. Enabling a lower 6th gear engagement and stronger retention just allows the torque converter to stay locked and prevent the vehicle from 'hunting' gears as often.
Hope this helps.
Thanks, Nathan.
@@XploringOz thanks. Greatly appreciated.
If you have lsd rear diff you can NOT run two different sizes without damaging/destroying your diff. Have 5 tyres the same size
This is correct. It could physically been done if it means limping the vehicle home, however you would not want to do this for an extended period of time.
Cheers, Nathan.
The results aren't correct until you alter the calibration to allow for the increased rolling diameter.
12 secs 0 to 100, are you accelerating flat to the floor?
Yeah, it's not great, but it is a 3.6t 4WD after all
Without adjusting for the gearing of going up in tire size, your figures aren't going to be correct. For example, when your speedo read 100km/h on the larger tires, you were actually doing 107km/h. Same for fuel economy.
Your calculations have to be wrong.
You are letting the on board computer determine L/100 and yet the in the end you clearly show that the onboard computer is wrong in terms of actual distance traveled. Therefore your results have to be incorrect.
You drove 50.4km, both times.
The second time your onboard computer only thought you drove 47.8km on the second trip.
The first trip you used 13.7L x (50.4/100) = 6.9044L of fuel according to your car.
The second trip you used 14.5 x (47.8/100) = 6.931L of fuel according to your car. But in actual fact you covered the same distance (50.4km)
To convert this 6.931L back into L/100 you are looking at 13.75198... L/100
So, at least in terms of highway kms the increase is really marginal.
Unless I am missing something.
I agree with this statement. Back of the napkin calculation gives me:
Stock vs Upgrade: 50.4 km vs 47.8 km (5.4% difference)
Fuel consumption on the upgraded tyres: 14.5 l/100km adjusted by 5.4% -> 15.3 l/100km actual
Taking the tyre comparison chart at the end of the video and working on a circumference difference of 6.7% (which more or less translates to difference in distance measured) that 14.5 l/100km becomes 15.47 l/100km (basically a full l/100km more than measured), which sounds more realistic.
Other than that a very informative video that seems to take into account the remaining measurement differences when fitting larger tyres.
Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback on this.
I have to agree with Werner on this. Your calculations are correct and this makes perfect sense.
Again, thanks for posting this information on the video, hopefully others will read them and get the information.
Cheers, Nathan.
@@XploringOz Good effort on the vid though, keep it up!
@@XploringOz I might want to contradict my own calculations above. Something has been bothering me subconsciously ever since I posted my comment. It all depends on how the computer measures the fuel consumption: if it has a fairly accurate way of measuring actual fuel volume used, the results with the larger tyres used in the test are actually better than the onboard computer displays:
14.5 l/100km over 47.8 km (measured by the odometer with larger tyres) translates to 6.931 liters of fuel used (14.5 * 47.8/100).
However, since we know the actual distance is closer 50.4 km, and assuming the fuel used was measured accurately, that works out to 13.75 l/100km (6.931 * 100/50.4) which is hardly any difference to the original measurement.
In South Africa the stock 200 series has a fuel tank of 93l. Given the consumption values, if my first set of calculations are correct, you'd get just under 80 km LESS out of a tank of fuel with the larger tyres (~600km vs ~680km), whereas if my second set of calculations are correct, that drops to only about 2.5 km less on a tank.
The only true way to know is to drive a distance measured by GPS and tracking the fuel used at a fuel station with both sets of tyres under otherwise identical parameters.
Thanks for the input mate. I understand where you are coming from on this, it will totally depend on the parameters the vehicle uses the measure the fuel consumption.
Although I see your logic behind these calculations, I do believe the vehicle must use different measurements. When driving on these new tyres, you can feel the vehicle working that little harder to keep the vehicle at speed. If I had a guess, I'd say the vehicle is using more fuel consumption with these larger tyres.
Your right though, without doing more kilometres and testing side by side with GPS and fuel stops, we can only speculate.
Thanks again for your input and hopefully I'll be able to provide a more accurate test in the future.
Cheers, Nathan.
If you're driving a powerful truck, slightly bigger tyres aren't as much of a problem. Yes you'll use a little more fuel but you might get more life on a leading all terrain tyre than a highway tyre . If you're driving an older underpowered truck, larger tyres are a real penalty for on road performance. That's why older LandCruisers and land Rovers use skinnies. If you want good highway mileage, slow down and take everything off the roof. At highway speeds most of the car's energy's is used to overcome it's aerodynamic drag.
Agreed. The aerodynamic effect on a vehicle makes a huge difference too. It will all depend on what gear you plan to carry and what vehicle use are using to carry it to then determine the best possible compromise between the two.
Cheers, Nathan.
Not the only way to increase the diff clearances, but you would need to sell both kidneys for portal axles provided someone makes a kit for your vehicle. Your first born and second born if you need someone to develop a kit.
Haha, for sure. That would be awesome. Don’t think anyone makes a kit for our 200’s yet. Would be awesome (and expensive) if they did!
@@XploringOz someone hit up JMACX 👌
You math is wrong @15:57 by a factor of 15 times (1539%) or more. The correct increase is just 0.38 % not 5% - you forgot to factor in that the speedo is showing the wrong distance. In the first test, you used 13.7/100*50.4 = 6.9048 litres of Diesel. In the second test, over the "exact same distance", you used 14.5/100*47.8 = 6.931 litres of Diesel... a mere 26.2 millilitres more, which is less than even half of one percent (0.38), not the 5% you got by wrongly comparing "13.7" with "14.5". Note that 26.2 millilitres of fuel will take you approximately 175 meters, and will take about 5.72 seconds at the speed you were driving.
Long story short - there's no fuel difference at all (that number is so small, it's impossible to measure using the instruments you had and conditions you drove in, especially when you spent a whopping 2 minutes behind a truck, which was 21 times longer that it takes to burn 26.2ml of fuel...)
I just do not understand Australian off-road rigs... Your trucks already have these huge noses that stick out way past your front tires, ruining your approach angle. And instead of doing anything to fix it, you make the problem worse by sticking a huge bumper on the front of your truck that sticks out another 12 inches and hangs down almost as far as the stock bumper.
Is ARB the only bumper manufacturer in Australia? Do no Australians build their own bumpers? Are the words "high clearance" and "approach angles" illegal down under?
When we have the animals sharing the roadways like we do, we need something that can survive a strike and more importantly keep the vehicle in working order to drive the huge distances out of remote areas. Might not to the best for rock crawling, however I'll take the lump of steel and save $$$$ on remote recoveries any day
@@XploringOz Animals exist in the US as well. Many are much larger than what you have in Australia. And it is VERY common for cars to hit deer on the road. In fact, cars hit 1.5 million deer in the US every year.
And I never said the bumper should not be made of steel and be strong. In fact, half the reason I'm not putting an ARB bumper on my truck is because it is made of such thin material and is too flimsy for my liking. The other half is due to the terrible approach angle.
You can have a very strong steel bumper that is also very high clearance and will survive a collision with an animal, tree, or rock.
This is an interesting discussion. I have lived half my life in both countries, and have spent countless hours on long drives in both - not heaps off-road though.
To the point about hitting animals, I will argue that Australia has a much higher risk:
Likelihood: Yes, there are plenty of animals to hit in the US, but not in the densities I've seen in Australia. I might see a few deer or elk on a long drive in the US (granted I haven't been EVERYWHERE in the US), but I've driven stretches of road in Australia at night where just inside my headlight beam, I've counted over 100 roos in less than an hour. I've probably driven 10x more in the US and only ever hit 1 deer, whereas in Australia, I've probably hit 5 or more roos and wallabies.
Severity: If your vehicle gets disabled, you're much further from help. I don't think Americans really get how sparsely populated Australia is. In the 40 states I've travelled in the US I don't think I've ever been more than an hour or so from some kind of settlement, but in Australia you can go days without seeing another vehicle or settlement - let alone anywhere with towing or repair services.
To the point about bumpers being resistant to animal strikes, but also high clearance, I don't really have much experience to speak from. In my observation, it seems like American off-road rigs tend to be built more for dedicated, very difficult off-road trails, and Aussie ones lean more toward travelling vast distances reliably on mildly rough terrain, and tackling occasional difficult obstacles. Just one of millions of subtle cultural differences we have.
You did NOT need a 2in lift to fit larger tires. Not unless it was a 2in body lift. If it was a 2in suspension lift, all you did was push the suspension down 2in within the stock range of travel. When you go off-road you will compress your suspension, moving the tire BACK TO STOCK POSITON or even higher up into the wheel well.
In other words, if your tire doesn't fit at stock height, it doesn't actually fit with a lift.
Might be a bit different for yourself, but I can guarantee you that these tyres will NOT fit within standard guards on stock suspension. I suffer from very minor scrubbing even with this lift now...
@@XploringOz It isn't the lift that creates clearance for large tires on an IFS vehicle.
If you have minor scrubbing now, you would have the same minor scrubbing at stock height.
Watch this video which clearly explains and shows why lift height doesn't matter. th-cam.com/video/33VewJFda1Q/w-d-xo.html