# Tire Width vs Fuel Economy?



## WVWSP61 (Jun 17, 2002)

Am considering changing to a wider 215mm width vs the stock 195mm, and as Eric has cautioned me about there being a possibility of the added tread width decreasing average fuel economy, I thought I'd pose the question.








Anyone have any experiences along this line?








All comments are appreciated.












[Modified by WVWSP61, 7:44 PM 6-21-2002]


----------



## VR6guy (Apr 5, 2000)

*Re: Tire Width vs Fuel Economy? (WVWSP61)*

I knew you had to be a TDI guy to even have such a thought cross your mind















I'm sure that the extra rubber will decrease fuel economy to some degree. Let's see, you'll have 20 extra millmeters per corner which is roughly analogous to adding a really skinny tire into the equation, something like your emergency spare. I doubt you'd notice the effects from this alone, probably measured in a handful of miles per tank I should think. This could probably be equal to or even less than the effects of going to a larger, heavier wheel which is quite common and the wheel and tire forum is not rife with posts about dismal fuel economy as a result of larger wheels. Just decide where your priorites lie and let that guide your decision. Do you drive 50mph on the highway with the windows up and the AC off to maximize economy? Are you so poor that a few extra dollars per month into the tank will screw up your life? Do you drive aggresively when conditions allow? Do you drive the speed limit or under most of the time? If you think you'll appreciate and exploit the extra grip, just buy the tires.


----------



## jettafahrer (Mar 30, 2001)

*Re: Unappreciated comments made by VR6guy. (WVWSP61)*

Just a couple of comments about tire width increases and fuel economy.
Have you ever noticed, when you look at all the new hybrid, electric, etc. vehicles, in all cases you will see tires specifically developed for these vehicles.
This usually means very skinny tires inflated to some " astronomical " pressure like 50 - 65 psi.
Speaking from my own experiences over the years, I would wholeheartedly agree, the wider the tire, the greater the rolling resistance, the greater the fuel consumption. For my most recent example, when I switched my truck from 235/75/16 to 275/65/16, my fuel consumption increased by about 5 %, all other things being equal.
This came as no surprise, as I also noticed a decreased vaccum on my vacuum gauge ( decreased vacuum equals increased fuel consumption ).
So there you go, my 2 cents worth. No speculation, just hard facts.


----------



## WVWSP61 (Jun 17, 2002)

*Tire Width and Fuel Economy.*

Couldn't agree with you more.








Same thing happened when I went from the 225/70-16s on the Highlander to 255/60-17s on heavier and wider wheels. Fuel economy went down by the about the same amount (5 %).








Also, when I went from the stock 225/60s on the GTP to 235s on 1 1/2 inch wider wheels, the same.








That's why I'm beginning to think that I might keep just keep the standard 195/65-15 Michelin MXV Plus (91H) which are a fairly expensive tire at $120. The RE-950s are higher rated, but much less expensive, so when it comes to renewal time?


----------



## Spektre (Jan 3, 2002)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (WVWSP61)*

You have good taste - I, too, have a silver Jetta TDI and a silver Highlander!
Anyway, I went from the stock Michelins on the 15" Alloys to 225/45/17s on SSR Integrals and immediately noticed a fairly significant decrease in gas mileage. In normal city driving I had been getting about 43-44 mpg, but my last fillup was closer to 39-40 mpg.
Oh well, I like the car better with the new wheels, and ~40mpg is still pretty nice


----------



## WVWSP61 (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (Spektre)*









When I changed the tires and wheels on the HL, the same thing happened. I just changed them back to stock before I sold it, and the before-the-change fuel economy returned. Those 255/60-17s on 7.5 inch wheels sure changed the character of the Toyota, and I too felt the slight decrease was worth the loss. Couldn't stand those 225/70-16 GY gumballs that came on it from Japan.








Wanta buy my 17 inch wheels and tires for yours?








I think the real problem is spinning the extra weight when one changes wheels and/or tires.









That's why I was asking here. Eric told me that the different tires that I want to use weigh the same as the stock MXV Plus Mchelins, so my only concern was whether the extra 20 mm of width would make a significant mileage change due to the added width?


----------



## Spektre (Jan 3, 2002)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (WVWSP61)*

I'd have to say that my tire/wheel weight combination stayed about the same, as the SSR Integrals I replaced the 15" alloys with are one of the lighter wheels out there. That said, it is safe to conclude that the extra width indeed increases rolling resistance and therefore fuel consumption, even with the 17s inflated to 35psi.


----------



## WVWSP61 (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (Spektre)*

Don't know how much the new tires weigh, but I would assume that they are considerably heavier than the stock tires, and even though the tire and wheel combination might weigh exactly the same, wouldn't that extra weight be on the outside of the 'flywheels' you are turning, taking extra power and fuel to spin?


----------



## VR6guy (Apr 5, 2000)

*Re: Unappreciated comments made by VR6guy. (WVWSP61)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
While I asked for comments, many of yours VR6guy are NOT appreciated. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
I most likely could buy and sell you, but that's not the point here. Just because I want to save 50 percent of what you must spend to run your 'big six' is of no concern to you. 
My previous diesel was the last MBZ diesel brought to North America in 1999, a E300 TDI at almost $50K out-the-door. It wasn't as refined as the VW TDI BTW: 
I didn't like it mainly because it didn't have a lockup T/C, but you probably don't know what I'm referring to.








The only thing that concerns you or anyone else here is IF going to a wider tire by 20 mm tire would affect the performance or fuel economy, and not yours or my wealth, and whether or not I could afford to drop any mpg no matter how little!







[HR][/HR]​You sir, are a douchebag. You wish to imply that I cannot grasp the concept of a lockup torque converter yet you have the insight to ask if adding that much extra rubber will affect performance? What do you think, Mr. Lockup Torque Converter?


----------



## TDI1 (Apr 4, 2002)

*Re: Unappreciated comments made by VR6guy. (VR6guy)*

I switched from stock Avus wheels to 225/45/17 and my mpg are down about 4 -5 mpg. 
The tires stick to the road like glue though, look great and I also have a shine suspension so I think that it's worth it.


----------



## zepol (Feb 3, 2001)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (WVWSP61)*

I went to the re950 on my 1.8T 98 Passat, They handle fine, but the ride noise is awful and I suffered a 4mpg average loss.


----------



## davidV5 (Jun 7, 2001)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (zepol)*

I went from stock 195/65R15 to 205/60R15 fuel consumption increased by 3%. Now, I've gone up to 225/45R17 consumption increased by a further 5%.


----------



## bugged (Mar 20, 2002)

*Re: Tire Width and Fuel Economy. (davidV5)*

The Michelin x's are really pretty poor tires. They do have reasonably low rolling resistance and the V4's have decent terminal grip. But otherwise they are terrible.
If you are worried about mpg, keep the narrower width, but put a better tire on. Do a search by size at the tire rack and get back to us then with your finalists.


----------

