Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
nissan navara
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am going to, not thinking of, going from the standard size tyres on the 09 GU3CRD Ute to at least 33's and maybe 35's, most likely 285/75R16 which is about 32.8 inches.

My previous Navara (now owned by my son) had larger tyres fitted, I think 265/70R16, or about 2 sizes up from standard and he lost about 50 kilometres to the tank.

A mate in a 2005 GU 4.2TD has just fitted the 285/75R16's and he too has lost performance and fuel economy.

What is your experience guys in tyres size fitment and it;s impact. I am guessing that if fuel economy is being affected the motor is working harder to push the rubber and this impacts on stress and of course heat,

Would appreciate any advice and no I am hoping not to change final drive ratio's.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
33's will cost you an extra litre or two to turn per 100 K's, depends a bit on individual drivers and don't forget to correct for the extra distance you cover as your Odo and Speedo will be out by about 6% or so depending on actual tyres. If you don't your fuel will look really bad.

35's will cost you a lot more fuel... I know you said you don't want to change ratios but the constant gear changing from 5th to 4th and/or 3rd plus slugging off from the lights, stop signs etc will be a PIA and chews juice.

I had a TD42 with 35's and 4.6's... very nice combination and a much much more pleasant to drive and as that is almost back to factory "RPM to Speed" gives the best economy.

Currently running 285/75/16's on my CRD and have just switched from MT's to AT's... seems a slight difference but not much on the Scangauge possibly because the AT's are an effectively larger circumference over the worn MT's so the less rolling friction equals out

Others may disagree with me tho...
 

·
Registered
nissan navara
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I must admit I went one size too high for the D22, I have a 2" body lift in it and 3" on the suspension, it sits as high as my trol with a 3" in it on standard tyres, this too would impact on economy. I am more concerned for stress on the drive train and increased EGT's more than anything. With standard tyres I am getting an average of 9.3 LP100k around town and 12 on a run and that is corrcted speedometre, so will be very interested if it changes much. I was taken aback that my mates 4.2TD was affected as that motor as we know should pull that extra without an issue, in fact when you think about it they are both utes and not as heavy as any of your wagons.
 

·
Registered
nissan 99gu patrol ute st
Joined
·
865 Posts
Yeah mate i've got a 99, 4.2 turbo/diesel ute with a 4"lift plus a 2"body lift, running 315x75x16 MT mtz's (cuts the wind like a brick).
I also have the 3"exhaust & dump pipe fitted, plus the injection pump & timing done. Now i tend to use the right foot a fair bit, (thats just my driving style). I did not buy the ute for its fuel economy.
With both the main & sub tanks full i get between 1100kms to 1130kms out of it.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
8,930 Posts
fuel economy is still nothing compared to maintenance costs, 1l per hundred isnt worth calculating.

Your mates 4.2 wagon will have retarded 3.9 diffs, fck them off and fit 4.3s. If you have a ZD then fck off the slightly less stupid 4.11s and fit 4.625s.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
1,335 Posts
After running 315s for 12 months Id recommend running 285s.
I find the 315s wander a bit, maybe the extra width causes that, also overtaking when towing the van can be a bit of a worry sometimes too, bit gutless my old 3.0l.

cheers
 

·
"Toxic Personality"
nissan
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
You want bad economy?? try running 37's on a stock everything td42t. About 17liters to the 100. on 33's i get around 12-13liters. and its just as bad in town as the freeway. makes no difference really.
 

·
Registered
Nissan Patrol Y-61
Joined
·
943 Posts
I went in his Nissan with 35 tires
on the speedometer, mileage 2600
Gps-2823 km
(A difference of 223 km)
consumption of 14 liters and turned on the speedometer 15.3 liters
Think about it
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top