Wheel & Tire weight vs weight in the bed ?

[R.L.K.]

Everyone knows adding larger / hevier wheel & tire combo makes you loose performance & mpg , so is it a good comparrison to adding wt . in the bed ?

My next tire change I plan on getting new wheels 17x10 -12mm and 35" tires ( haven't decided on types yet )

I'm guessing this will add 40-60 lbs at each location over my stock 20x9 +19mm on factory Goodyear's ??
So worse case cenario a +240lb increase in wt . @ 60lbs per ...

Now I didn't buy a 4door 4wd for high performance or great mpgs obviously , but just wondering if putting approx 240 lbs in the bed would be a good comparrison ?

Interested in seeing what you guys would think [emoji1303]

My truck : 2014 QC 5.7L 4x4. 6 speed xsmn with 3.55 diffs 62,000 miles . With a Bilstines level set at +2.8" & a 1.5" rear coil spacer and zero performance mods .

I am NOT an aggressive driver by anyone's standards as I avg. 19.5 - 20.5 mpgs (Evic #s) 3 seasons out of the year , in the winter i avg. about 17 - 17.5 ish due to more idle time warming the truck up when cold , winter fuel additives and deer season driving on dirt/mud / gravel roads with a 4 wheeler in the bed .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Sillygoose]

Not the same at all

 

[BWL]

Kind of up for debate, but I believe the rotational mass is equal to about 2.5X a static load so 240 lbs of wheel and tire should equal about 600lbs in the box or a couple larger friends in the back seat.

 

[BiGMERF]

nope not the same at all imo...

 

[mohemipar]

I don’t know how different a 2500 would feel to a 1500, but when I did my wheels and tires it did not feel like extra weight was “in” the truck. It just felt like the truck was more planted and had a bigger foot print more so than there was weight INSIDE it or a performance loss. You can actually feel it underneath you. After a few weeks you get totally used to it and it now feels no different than I remember the stock truck being. 1500 and 2500 are different trucks though, so I don’t know if you can take my experience at full value.

 

[CanadianNick]

I agree with all the previous posters, not the same at all. You can put 240lbs in your bed and probably won’t even know it’s there. You will however notice the heavier wheel/tire combo quite a bit

 

[69GWC]

I will say this you are going to feel the loss of power.
My truck still runs good but not like it did and fuel mikeage has for sure went down, but I knew all that going in.

 

[MADDOG]

Nope...not a good comparison at all.

It's turning the rotational mass at all 4 corners that creates the loss of performance.

 

[R.L.K.]

Kind of up for debate, but I believe the rotational mass is equal to about 2.5X a static load so 240 lbs of wheel and tire should equal about 600lbs in the box or a couple larger friends in the back seat.

Well if that's true then I'm kinda doing that now [emoji16]
I've had my 700lb 4wheeler in my bed for a week testing the performance drop ( not much imo) and testing the mpg drop for a drop on all around type driving , not a massive mpg drop imo . I've been averaging so far 18ish mpg (Evic #s) .

Thanks for all the replies [emoji1303]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[shadowhawk]

Well if that's true then I'm kinda doing that now [emoji16]
I've had my 700lb 4wheeler in my bed for a week testing the performance drop ( not much imo) and testing the mpg drop for a drop on all around type driving , not a massive mpg drop imo . I've been averaging so far 18.5++ (Evic #s) .

Thanks for all the replies [emoji1303]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I see it this way- the larger wheels and tires cause different friction on pavement vs a smaller tire and a load in the bed. you have more footprint on pavement with the different tires

 

[Joes1500]

Rotational weight and static are two completely different things . There really is not a true comparison.


https://www.w8ji.com/rotating_mass_acceleration.htm

 

[BWL]

Rotational weight and static are two completely different things . There really is not a true comparison.


https://www.w8ji.com/rotating_mass_acceleration.htm

There are formulas to calculate equivalents, but there's a lot of factors including where the weight is (sidewall, rim, tread) wheel size and width effects rolling resistance. Inertial effects on braking etc. Complicated, but can be figured out.

 

[Joes1500]

There are formulas to calculate equivalents, but there's a lot of factors including where the weight is (sidewall, rim, tread) wheel size and width effects rolling resistance. Inertial effects on braking etc. Complicated, but can be figured out.

Yea that's what that link explains

 

[R.L.K.]

Rotational weight and static are two completely different things . There really is not a true comparison.


https://www.w8ji.com/rotating_mass_acceleration.htm

Sir that was a fantastic read ! Everyone should read this artical 100% start to finish !

With that said I have a new appreciation for my future new wheel and tire combo . I knew I didn't want to go super heavy on my wheel and tire combo , but I didn't know the more weight of the two needed to be closer to the centerline of the hub .
My plan to get a 17" wheel and a light wt 35" tire is perfect [emoji16] because the weight of the aluminum wheel per one inch in diameter is actually hevier than the rubber tire per one inch in diameter , even though the heviest part of the tire is it's outermost layer ( being the furthest away ) from the hubs centerline .
Turns out The most beneficial thing to do to offset the heviar O.D. of the wheel & tire combo when upsizing in overall tire diameter is to go with a smaller ( heavier ) wheel diameter due to the rotational effort & power needed to turn the overall mass .
In short a smaller diameter wheel in a larger O.D. of the wheel & tire combo shifts the avreage increase of the mass closer to the centerline of the hub where it takes less hp to rotate the added overall mass and takes less friction to stop the overall mass when braking .
This works out very well for me because I much prefer the smaller wheel look over the giant 20"+ wheel look. Imo it makes your 35" or 37" tires look larger than they really are .

Thanks again for this link Sir !
It she'd little light on the diff between rotational mass and static mass as far as mpg & performance goes . More on how weight and distance of where the weight is effects acceleration and deceleration ..which if fine for me , as I'm a more by the seat of my pants comparrison type guy , but this artical did help he immensely on understanding how power is distributed based on the location and size of a mass as compared to how the weight is distributed when changing the size of components such as wheel & tires , driveshafts and crank shafts .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk