help with my drive tire choice

I do have one question about your math, though. In order to "save" $10,000 in 2 years, at $4/gallon, you'd have to gain at least .5 mpg just in the tire swap alone...not considering any other factors which might also affect fuel mileage...in order to even come close to that. When you add in the cost of replacing the tires in fewer miles, the mpg "savings" has to be even greater in order to still "save" as much as you think you might be saving. For example, if the tires have a similar purchase price but only last half as long, you could be looking at a full mpg difference (or more) you'll have to make up JUST to save that $10,000 in 2 years because the tire's cost-per-mile is so much greater. So the question I've never been able to find the answer to is just how much fuel-mileage difference is there for every 10 points on the rolling resistance? The drive tires the OP is looking at are in the 130-140 range, while you state your tires are down in there at 95. I've never been able to find any explanation as to how those numbers were calculated or what they ACTUALLY mean in real-world results. What sort of fuel savings could one expect from putting a 95 RR tire on their truck instead of a 140 RR tire? What does the 45 RR difference mean in ACTUAL fuel mileage results?

I understand what your saying, the example you used should give you a return of 3-5 tenths of a mile greater depending how you drive. In 2 years time say you drive 120k a year the difference in .5m/gal is roughly $13,600. The XDA-Es drives I have pushed over 400k on and the yokahama y-103 steers over 200k. Both low RRs, cost more than most tires on the market, running 100-120k a year just do the math. Than translate the figure in cents/32cnd in tread depth.

 

Someone posted a link several months, possibly even years ago, the famous "RR rating" is a rating system that Michelin came up with comparing their tires rolling resistance with the competitions'. It's useful for maybe a general guideline but really what more?? as we have no way of knowing precisely what this means in various real world conditions.

 

Going from a 140 to the 95 rr , should see a .5 to .6 on most trucks. Lets look at it another way . You need tires now. We put the low RR tires on , they are 100 more apiece ( round number , know its not that) . 10 x 100 = 1000 more . Say we don't shop around , the reg set we buy is 5000 , the lo RR set is 6000 . You come up with 13000 something , we may not turn s many miles so ( round numbers) back it to 10000 savings in fuel. The price difference was 1000 . Subtract 1000 from 10000, = 9000. They ware out in half the time ( only get 200000 out of them). Need new set , 9000-6000 . =3000. But over the life of them they save another 10000 over what we would have bought to start with. So 10000+3000=13000. Now the reg set would been shot so we would have to buy tires again . Cost 1000 more. 13000 -1000 =12000. Even buying tires twice as often , the lo RR tires pay .
Now for some they need the off road bility of a good lug and RR be ###### . The wrecker bills would et ny savings. But a little diff look at it. Hope this helps.

 

This has been my thoughts as well. Everyone points at RR and may even generalize the benefit of around 0.5 mpg. However, there's no evidence I've found from any manufacturers about what that RR means in terms of mpg.

The only thing we can go on are first hand accounts like jseney shared. Even then, too many variables to really place a value on it. I'm tempted to give some spendier, low RR tires a try. From all accounts it seems the worst case is that your cost of ownership will be at least compatible, but with a likely upside. Where staying with your previous, don't care what the RR number is tires, will certainly net no change at all.

 

Check SAE J1269 and SAE J 2452.

 

Bfg all the way out of those choices, I run the 444 and 244 doing local and for the money there the best I've found

 

I recommend the round rubbery ones with self replicating tread.

 

I have them on my truck right now. They wore a little fast to start out with then they leveled out and have been fine. They are an excellent traction tire on ice and snow.

My only complaint is that they will throw some rocks on gravel roads.