AT to MT mpg difference?

how much difference in MPG will there be if you change your all terrain tires to Mud terrain as a daily driver?

 

Was looking forward to another Auto vs Manual thread and now I'm just disappointed

But you MT to AT tires, you'll lose a few MPG. Its going to mostly depend on how big of a tire and how heavy it is. I think most people are in the 2-5 MPG loss range.

 

WHEW!! the 4 or 5 MPG is alot!!! lol i want the aggressive look but not wanna lose alot on MPG since my truck is my daily car.

 

Same...they are usually entertaining.

@batong_23
The actual tread pattern doesn't make much difference for MPG. It's all about the weight.

 

Aggressive AT is the best compromise.

Been pleased with my C load Duratracs but everyone has their fav (KO2, AT3 etc.)

 

^ditto^ I was looking for another MT vs AT fight I lost 2 mpg going from the stock Rugged Fails to BFG AT's. Going to mud tires is going to cost you at the gas pump.

 

I soooooo want a K02 A/T 255/80 16 in C load!

 

I will stay with Auto. I had an S-10 one time that was a five speed manual. I put 95,xxx miles on it. I said never again.

 

Reading is overrated.

 

What if it was a dual clutch paddle shifter!

With MT tires (to keep it on topic)

 

Refer back to post #8. Autos are quicker anyway.

 

Get a set of Falken AT3W (they are an AT tire). That's what I put on my truck. They've got the look and performance but don't add a lot of weight. My fuel economy is basically unchanged and they are quiet on the highway (MT tires typically are very loud on road)

 

On my 17 DCSB OR I changed the factory 265/70-16 street tires for General Grabber AT2 245/75-16; I think they're about the same weight as the factory tires, about 44 lbs I think, and the same height as factory; 30 1/2". A much better off road tire, they look very similar to AT KO2's, but not as heavy (also not as strong), I don't think they affected the mpg's much if at all.

 

Lies!

 

Been happy with my KO2's in a C load, at 48 pounds. I do have them in "skinnies" with a 255/75/17. I am sure having a little less rolling resistance helps. But overall the weight of an E rated tire is what will cause your MPG's to drop.

 

You wont see a significant difference in MPGs assuming they are the same tire size. However MTs will wear significantly more.

Most MTs are E rated so try to find a tire that is P or C rated. Unless you really need MT I wouldnt bother with them.

If you want to look sexy just get some Duratracs

 

2-5 MPG seems way off. I'm assuming he's asking about the tread itself, not the size. Keeping the overall size the same, I bet you're only 1-2MPG, if that.

Look at the BFG offerings. In size 265/75/16, both KO2 and KM3 are 53lbs. I'm sure there is slightly more rolling resistance with the blocky mud tread on the KM3, but shouldn't equate to 20%+ mpg loss.

 

i have the cooper discoverer AT3 right now and i saw an add for a set of Federal Mud Terrain with about 70% thread life for $200. same size (265/70/17). Looking at the new ones, the feredal is about 15lbs heavier than the cooper, im just not sure if the 30% wear reduced a good amount of weight..

 

I have 295/70/17 (MTs). I’m getting around 2-3 MPG less than when it was stock. I know this isn’t the comparison you’re asking for. Just sayin because I don’t think you’d notice much of a difference if you went from AT to MT in the same size tire. Maybe .5-1MPG. But hey, this is just a guess and I’ve been wrong before.

 

I'm liking my Firestone's..

I'm glad I went this route over an AT..

I went with load E 245/75/16... My OR came with P265/70/16.. Very minimal difference in mileage..

Traction on the other hand... Huge difference.. I go through some deep mud sometimes..