Hi, Ive got a 89 chevy s10 pickup and with gas prices these days, 20
mpg hurts when im still in college and driving everywhere.
Ive been thinking about getting bigger tires since the wheels i have
now are 12" but my truck can handle probably up to 14" or 15" wheels
and thinking that that might help out with the mileage. However, other
than that I have no idea what I can do for it. I really like the truck
and dont want to switch to a car just because i cant afford gas, so any
help on this would be much appreciated. thanks.
aight ill admit im new to cars and trucks, the wheel being 12" was me
measuring the radius of the wheel and tire combined. wheel itself is
14" (24" measuring from ground to top).
and in answering a couple of the questions, it only has 51k miles on
it, i have no idea about the plugs/wire or cap, and i know less aobut
the 02 sensor. the inside of my door reads a 195 - 75 - 14 (actually
P195 / 75 R14 ) and the rims 14x6JJ.
Spyder, I wouldn't be surprised if it got better mileage with 26"-tall
tires, same width (NOT a wide-tread design). But remember to multiply
odometer mileage driven by 26/24, as the taller tire moves the pkp further
than the shorter tire for each revolution; and revolutions driven are what
ultimately read out as miles driven. Do same with speedometer's reading of
MPH. Not a whole lot of difference, but about 8% increase in both distance
and speed. s
That truck, with stock diff'l., has approx. 4.10:1 gearing; and with the
cutdown wheelsize, 12-inch you stated, that'd be another cut to like (stock
15-" are like 26 " tall with tires, so 12-" would be about 20" tall) 26/20 X
4.10 = 5.33:1 gearing. No wonder the mileage is so down. Try standard 15"
wheels with about 25-26" tall when mounted with tires. Mileage should
dramatically increase. If gas mileage were directly proportional to final
drive ratio(which it realy isn't, altho' in that direction), 26/20 would be
1.3 times the mileage you are now getting, or 26. HTH, s
Thanks, Sarge. My figures assumed the 12-inch wheels had an overall
tire height of 20 inches. ("...so 12-" would be about 20" tall..."). But
you and I both wonder even about 12-inch WHEELS, huh? Must've come off
Chrysler's new 'smart car'!? s
Yeah, 12" rims do seem a tad on the small side. I suppose if they
were fairly wide rims and had big semi knobby tires with gobs of
sidewall.... but I think that probably is getting a bit far from the
Drivng strictly highway at 55 mph I have been able to milk 29.5 mpg out
of my '03 2.2L S-10. Usually get 27-28 at 60 and below. If I drive 65-70 mph
the mpg drops to 24-25 mpg highway.
Increased speed and head winds seem to make a significant difference in
the mpg of this model/engine combo.
Used Toyota or Pre 2000 VW are your best options for 4 wheels. GM, Ford,
etc. all have tech for high gas mileage and safe vehicles that run on
bonafide gasoline. But US wants tanks, not cars. Your kids will pay for
Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Snore..... Burp. You really need to come up with a better
assault than that, against the American automotive industry. Some of the
long lasting design issues might be a good one, but the "tanks" line is
quite irrelevant. Maybe a trip to any GM or Ford dealer would be
enlightening for you.
A simple measure of vehicle weight, engine displacement, and unneeded power
eating gas mileage is all I need. We were talking about an older S-10. "89
chevy s10 pickup" which you conveniently snipped out.
Even today's "high mileage" GM vehicles are do not really contend that well.
Which apparently where you were going. Especially since such gas mileage
has been available for 2 decades at least. Very loud yawn........ (tit for
tat) But that wasn't the thread topic, so am not going down your limited
view of the world, later dude/dudette.
So... in what way was the '89 S-10 the tank that you refered to? As a truck
for its time it was far superior to any Toyota entry. Your original
statement that the OP would be better served with a used Toyota or a
pre-2000 VW showed your intent to do nothing more than to throw out tired
old lines designed to slam GM irrespective of their accuracy.
Tit for tat is fair game, but I don't see where it's applicable to this
discourse. You're back pedaling now. You're going from "tanks" to
performance that has been available for 20 years. Try to stay on track.
The only one going down limited views is you. Your tank comment had nothing
to do with the original post, rather it was the tired old line thrown out by
those with a bend toward Toyota. Toyotas are fine vehicles and a preference
for them is fine as well, but droids who simply drone on with the same old
irrelevant dribble should not suggest others have a limited view.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.