For all you math majors out there.....
#11
10-10-2010, 01:06 AM
Well, i'm not that, but i'd guess that you could run about 5 miles faster with the same RPM, or drop about a 100 RPM at the same speed....
__________________
Pessimist,- is just well informed optimist! 
#12
10-10-2010, 04:13 PM
All right ... let's see... The diameter of the tires isn't as useful as the REVOLUTIONS PER MILE of each particular tire. Usually 22.5 LP tires do about 510, while11R 24.5 spin at 475 revs/mile. So, assuming you have a 3.73 axle ratio and 0.73 top gear
510 x 3.73 x 0.73 = 1388 RPM at 60 MPH 1388 / 60 * 63 = 1458 RPM at 63 MPH If you switch to tall rubber (appr. 475 revs/mile) the formula above will now look like this: 475 x 3.73 x 0.73 = 1293 RPM at 60 MPH or 1293 / 60 * 63 = 1358 RPM You can multiply the result of 1293/60 by any speed number and this will give you your RPM at that speed. 1293 / 60 = 21.55 So, if you want to know your speed at 65 MPH, you multiply 21.55 by 65 and you get 1,400 RPM. Or: 21.55 x 70 gives you 1508 RPM at 70 MPH. All this looks pretty good on paper but with taller rubber you will get: - less torque at the wheels (you change your axle ratio!); and - worse fuel mileage due to higher resistance and heavier weight of the tires. When I was faced with a similar choice I went for axle ratio change (from 3.73 to 3.42) and I"m pretty happy cruising at 1,325 RPM at 62 MPH (I got a Cat). This is what he said: Now instead of changing the gears, and seeing I'm due for new tires, I was debating on going to a 11R24.5 rim/tire..... any idea what the RPM would be (or speed if it's easier) at 1,500rpm???? We don't even need to guess what his gear ratios are. If he says the number of wheel rotations in an hour is constant (1500 rpms with the transmission and differential that he has) and the low pros will take him 63 miles in one hour, just knowing the ratio of the diameters of the two different tires will tell us the ratio of the distance the truck will travel in an hour. I mean, the stuff you said was fine, and the advice you gave was fine, but he said "this truck" and "this rpm" and that just makes it all easier.
#13
10-13-2010, 02:13 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 778
Thanks for the info guys........ I think I'm going to go for it, and I will post the changes in MPG. I don't plan on driving any faster than now, and just figured that if I could drop the RPM's down about 200 then I could do a little better.
#14
10-13-2010, 05:41 PM
...I'm sorry if there's anyone sick of people repeating Kevin Rutherford, it's just I have no other knowledge of the situation... ...anyway, he says the higher MPG always comes from the reduced rolling resistance of the smaller tire even when considering the lower RPM... I believe he only recommends lowering the RPMs by changing your differential. Anyway, I just felt the need to repeat the obvious at this point. Tell us what you find, Bon Jovi fan. LOL ;-)
#15
10-13-2010, 07:13 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 778
Will do...... and I don't believe most of what Rutherford says.
I called his show 3yrs ago and told him I had a falt-top Pete and was thinking about buying a Turbo Wing for the roof since i pulled van trailers. He told me that it would be a waste of money as it would take too long and make such little difference to make it worth the $1200 i was gonna pay. Well i bought it anyways and it netted me another .6mpg on my truck. Paid for itself in the first 4 months and since then, I don't believe everything he says. Sure, by going slower you save fuel, and by having lower resistance tires you could save maybe .2mpg, but at the sametime, driving into a 20mph wind will lose me .3mpg, so really I think the less wear on my engine at 60mph is better and saving $5,000 by NOT changing the gears and just swapping the tires will be more helpfull....... In this case, buy going to a 3.55 gearset and then replacing my tires, will put me more in the hole than I will make up in MPG i believe. See, my truck with the loaded trailer and 300gals of fuel weighs in at just under 32,000lbs........
#16
10-13-2010, 11:59 PM
Board Regular
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa Valley Ontario, Canada
Posts: 253
#17
10-14-2010, 02:46 AM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 778
My truck originally came with 11R22.5 and when I sold my KW I just took the brand new 22.5LP's off it and put them on the FLD. My speedo was off so I removed it from the dash and just flipped the tabs from 390 to 395 and it's dead on the money. I'm guessing with the 11R24.5's i will have to go to 385 and work it from there.
#18
10-15-2010, 02:28 AM
Does that mean it leaks?
Will do...... and I don't believe most of what Rutherford says.
I called his show 3yrs ago and told him I had a falt-top Pete and was thinking about buying a Turbo Wing for the roof since i pulled van trailers. He told me that it would be a waste of money as it would take too long and make such little difference to make it worth the $1200 i was gonna pay. Well i bought it anyways and it netted me another .6mpg on my truck. Paid for itself in the first 4 months and since then, I don't believe everything he says. BTW I have a Taylor wing for sale in great shape in mid TN. Size for a stand up Pete or F-liner or IH.... taller than stand up - forget it. Would work on flat top too.
__________________
The reason I'm a narcissist is cause everyone else is so lame. Last edited by YerDaddy; 10-15-2010 at 02:38 AM.
#19
05-03-2011, 12:04 PM
Anyone who actually listens to Rutherford has more serious issues than fuel mileage, the guy is a shill for anyone who "sponsors" him. Look at the "TURDBLOW3000"
__________________
:bow: Somedays it doesn't pay to chew through the restraits::AR15: |
|
