Low rolling resistance LRR tires

2001FZ1

Original poster
Member
Dec 27, 2011
43
Anyone using LRR tires on their truck? Did you notice a difference in fuel mileage?
 

million-miles

Member
Jan 10, 2012
189
I used them on the 2000 durango that i traded them in on the TB. Yes i went from 31 1050 15 mud tires to 235 75 15 conti pro contact i think and got 3-4 mpg with the 4.7 v8. they road quite and handled great. Its no summer tire in handling but when i need set for my tb or my wifes van thats what im going with.
 

Sparky

Member
Dec 4, 2011
12,927
LRR by definition has less traction (increased traction = increased rolling resistance), so I'd be a little wary of them in low traction situations such as wet or snowy roads.

Personally I'd prefer to have better traction than gain maybe 1mpg over a standard tire.
 

million-miles

Member
Jan 10, 2012
189
I had excellent wet weather traction with the conti tires. I think they would do so-so in the snow. And with ice its just better to stay home with any tire shy of a studded tire
 

2001FZ1

Original poster
Member
Dec 27, 2011
43
Ok, I might give them a try. Although, I have been very happy with the Bridgestone Alenza tires...
 

Foz

Member
Dec 4, 2011
38
I have the General Grabber HTS on my TB and they are a LRR tire. Have to say i love them. As for gas mileage, I went from the stock 245/65-17 (29.5inch) tires to 265/60-18's (30.5 inch) Using the 3.22% difference in speedo i am about .5 mpg better on a much larger tire. I'm mostly highway driving and they've done well in rain and what little snow we've gotten in Buffalo since i put them on. That said i will be putting snow tires on my stockers next winter anyways.
 

gmcman

Member
Dec 12, 2011
4,656
I can say I went from a LRR tire to a non-LRR tire and I lost 30 miles per tank, that's roughly 2 MPG. Happened back when Katrina knocked out a refinery in the gulf or rig whatever and jacked the fuel prices to $4.50/gal so it was a knock to the wallet. I ditched those tires (Kumho Ecsta) after 17K and cut my losses. Originally had the Cross-Terrains and figured I would save a couple hundred not going with the Michelin's again.

That's roughly 75 gallons extra over 17K.....17 MPG average city down to 15. With the price of fuel at that time averaging almost $4/gal that's alot of coin....more than made up for the price difference.

I would strongly encourage a LRR tire unless you are off-roading...then the point is moot.
 

2001FZ1

Original poster
Member
Dec 27, 2011
43
gmcman said:
I can say I went from a LRR tire to a non-LRR tire and I lost 30 miles per tank, that's roughly 2 MPG. Happened back when Katrina knocked out a refinery in the gulf or rig whatever and jacked the fuel prices to $4.50/gal so it was a knock to the wallet. I ditched those tires (Kumho Ecsta) after 17K and cut my losses. Originally had the Cross-Terrains and figured I would save a couple hundred not going with the Michelin's again.

That's roughly 75 gallons extra over 17K.....17 MPG average city down to 15. With the price of fuel at that time averaging almost $4/gal that's alot of coin....more than made up for the price difference.

I would strongly encourage a LRR tire unless you are off-roading...then the point is moot.

75 gallons is about $300 right now. :crazy:

I don't offroad the buick too much. Just down to the pond pulling the jon boat. I keep that area mowed down to about 6 inches tall weeds.
 

Sparky

Member
Dec 4, 2011
12,927
My Firestone Destination ATs are not rated as LRR tires but I got 21.4mpg on my recent long trip. I average 17-18mpg with my normal driving. Can't really complain I guess.
 

million-miles

Member
Jan 10, 2012
189
Had the continetal cross contact LRR put on the wifes van about 2 weeks ago and for the first tank so far about .5-.8 better mpg mostly city and country little hwy. Drove in the rain today and they did great no pulling when hitting puddles. They are on a 2008 toyota seinna.
 

Forum Statistics

Threads
23,388
Posts
638,719
Members
18,596
Latest member
david herman

Members Online