When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Did old fashion method and compared that to the digital read out (avg since fill up). On my 2013 the digital results were exactly the same as manual measurement.
For those who have BFG KO2...what size? How bad is fuel economy drop?
Thanks.
This summer, we did a 6000 mile road trip throughout the western US. The GX was packed to the gills, and we got 20mpg on flat, straight, Interstates. City driving seems to be stuck around 14mpg. On the mountain highways (we crossed the Continental Divide four times), we averaged maybe 18mpg. I'm thinking the difference between stock 265/60 Pirellis originals and our new 265/65 KOs is 1 mpg. The handling seems a tad more solid. The noise is slightly more, but the looks and handling are well worth the slightly increased noise and slightly decreased mpg.
This summer, we did a 6000 mile road trip throughout the western US. The GX was packed to the gills, and we got 20mpg on flat, straight, Interstates. City driving seems to be stuck around 14mpg. On the mountain highways (we crossed the Continental Divide four times), we averaged maybe 18mpg. I'm thinking the difference between stock 265/60 Pirellis originals and our new 265/65 KOs is 1 mpg. The handling seems a tad more solid. The noise is slightly more, but the looks and handling are well worth the slightly increased noise and slightly decreased mpg.
Is the road noise very noticeable? Or just over certain surfaces?
For me the noise is barely noticeable if any difference comparing to stock. I am running 285/70/17 and my mileage took about 1-2MPG hit around city driving. I think these tires are a lot heavier than stock so the added unsprung weight is causing lower mileage as expected especially when doing lots of stop and go.
This summer, we did a 6000 mile road trip throughout the western US. The GX was packed to the gills, and we got 20mpg on flat, straight, Interstates. City driving seems to be stuck around 14mpg. On the mountain highways (we crossed the Continental Divide four times), we averaged maybe 18mpg. I'm thinking the difference between stock 265/60 Pirellis originals and our new 265/65 KOs is 1 mpg. The handling seems a tad more solid. The noise is slightly more, but the looks and handling are well worth the slightly increased noise and slightly decreased mpg.
Are you using the MPG as reported by the computer ? ... how is that calculated ? ... going from 265/60-18 to 265/65-18 is a 3% difference in circumference (distance traveled per rotation) ... so if the computer is calculating MPG based on tire rotations (distance) against fuel consumption, you did not have a drop in MPG with your new tires given you are actually traveling farther than your computer thinks you traveled, so the MPG is better than reported by the computer. 265/60-18 = 661 revs-per-mile ... 265/65-18 = 639 revs-per-mile.
Is the road noise very noticeable? Or just over certain surfaces?
There IS a noticeable noise increase. If the desire is to mount a larger, more aggressive tire and have the exact same noise level as original street tires, you will be disappointed. All I can say is that I am not disappointed in the slight increase in noise. It is just not that big of a thing, considering the improved traction in mud and snow and a better look.
Are you using the MPG as reported by the computer ? ... how is that calculated ? ... going from 265/60-18 to 265/65-18 is a 3% difference in circumference (distance traveled per rotation) ... so if the computer is calculating MPG based on tire rotations (distance) against fuel consumption, you did not have a drop in MPG with your new tires given you are actually traveling farther than your computer thinks you traveled, so the MPG is better than reported by the computer. 265/60-18 = 661 revs-per-mile ... 265/65-18 = 639 revs-per-mile.
I have carefully measured the fuel consumption by actual distance travelled divided by actual fuel consumed. The electronic calculation has matched this exactly, and I agree that it should be off slightly due to slightly higher tire diameter. However, after several comparisons to actual fuel consumption measurement, the digital readout remains identical. The speedo remains accurate compared to actual distance/time measurement also. Not sure how this is happening.
I have carefully measured the fuel consumption by actual distance travelled divided by actual fuel consumed. The electronic calculation has matched this exactly, and I agree that it should be off slightly due to slightly higher tire diameter. However, after several comparisons to actual fuel consumption measurement, the digital readout remains identical. The speedo remains accurate compared to actual distance/time measurement also. Not sure how this is happening.
Have you noticed your car being more sluggish while driving...say merging onto the highway? Do you feel the GX struggling more to pass other cars?
Have you noticed your car being more sluggish while driving...say merging onto the highway? Do you feel the GX struggling more to pass other cars?
The GX performs exactly as it did with the original tires, which is "sluggish". The V8 power is there, but one needs to really put the foot down to get that power. I'm guessing that Lexus has set throttle "tip in" to be very smooth at the expense of responsiveness.
Was a little surprised to see this coming back home in the labor day traffic. Lots of 50-75mph traffic, kept me from my usual 80-90. Included a decent amount of stop and go, plus awhile idling, so not 100% highway.
No doubt you could hypermile these things deep into the high 20s.
04-06-19, 07:05 AM
