Running w/o CV axels

[Will L.]

For wheel/tire weight affecting mpg: I put on aluminum rims with 6" wide tread 36 1/2" tall and ran for a
Week. 2 tanks one city driving 1 highway. CompAred to my 2 piece steel wheels with off road tire pattern 12" wide and rubber run flat/bead locks in it. 109 lbs more EACH WHEEL/TIRE.

Lighter & skinny set up tires improved city mpg by 1.2 mpg. The heavy off road monster did better by 1.4 on the hiway. Weight in motion working as flywheel is my theory. I would think those other tires could hold you up some but as much as you are describing???

I hope you found it with all the front end chaos.

 

[Paveltolz]

Will, you're spot on where discussions with others have pointed too, heavy wheel/tires with high rolling resistance, mass, inertia etc. It makes sense from the standpoint of getting mass moving takes a lot more energy than keeping it moving once it is up to speed or to accelerate an already in motion object. I've observed that once up and rolling, it is a happier feeling truck, increases speed ok and will run up to and above most posted speed limits in this hemisphere.

The wheels I have are 17x9 Dick Cepeks (24lbs each). The tires are 31 x 11.5 x 17 (I forget the metric 285 x 70 x 17?). I haven't weighed them with the wheels but with all the 'wax on wax off' I've done these past few days with the front end, I can tell you they are heavier than I recall when the BFG A/Ts were mounted on them. They certainly don't seem to role as well but we'll see if there's any improvements with the brakes and hubs repaired.

I have a stock set of 17 x 8 Chevy aluminum rims that I'm going to use with a stock dimensioned tire and see what the effects are other than the flares are going to look stoooopid.

I'll drive the truck tomorrow over some known distance/grade areas I've been using for comparison analysis to see what the differences are before picking up the tires.

 

[Paveltolz]

Found the Grinding. Wrong brake pads. Too wide at 50mm vs 42 for the correct. They were riding on top of the rotor hub and cutting a grove. Also prevented them from evenly squeezing the rotor surface and pulling HARD right.

New Pads and Rotors swapped in at a total of 30 min for both sides...of course, this is a K1500 so the rotors aren't the challenge to remove like the 2500 & 3500 get reported as being. "We doesn't know and we doesn't wants to know."

0370.20 = :nonod:
0369.20 = :agreed:




:mad2:

 

[btfarm]

Ehhh :dunno: They woulda' worn in eventually...:hihi:

 

[Paveltolz]

Will, you're spot on where discussions with others have pointed too, heavy wheel/tires with high rolling resistance, mass, inertia etc. It makes sense from the standpoint of getting mass moving takes a lot more energy than keeping it moving once it is up to speed or to accelerate an already in motion object. I've observed that once up and rolling, it is a happier feeling truck, increases speed ok and will run up to and above most posted speed limits in this hemisphere.

The wheels I have are 17x9 Dick Cepeks (24lbs each). The tires are 31 x 11.5 x 17 (I forget the metric 285 x 70 x 17?). I haven't weighed them with the wheels but with all the 'wax on wax off' I've done these past few days with the front end, I can tell you they are heavier than I recall when the BFG A/Ts were mounted on them. They certainly don't seem to role as well but we'll see if there's any improvements with the brakes and hubs repaired.

I have a stock set of 17 x 8 Chevy aluminum rims that I'm going to use with a stock dimensioned tire and see what the effects are other than the flares are going to look stoooopid.

I'll drive the truck tomorrow over some known distance/grade areas I've been using for comparison analysis to see what the differences are before picking up the tires.

Giving credit where it is do, I should have included Great White in the above post. Meant too, failed... My apologies Amigo.

Mike, yeah, they would have worn down eventually but the grinding would have continued for the thousands of miles as they cut the trench wider. I'm a fan of the Grand Canyon and the work the river helped make of it but I don't want to see/hear it daily being recreated on my rotors. But I do appreciate the thought...really.:thumbsup:

 

[ak diesel driver]

Ehhh :dunno: They woulda' worn in eventually...:hihi:

LOL

 

[great white]

Giving credit where it is do, I should have included Great White in the above post. Meant too, failed... My apologies Amigo.

No worries.

 

[tanman_2006]

Will, you're spot on where discussions with others have pointed too, heavy wheel/tires with high rolling resistance, mass, inertia etc. It makes sense from the standpoint of getting mass moving takes a lot more energy than keeping it moving once it is up to speed or to accelerate an already in motion object. I've observed that once up and rolling, it is a happier feeling truck, increases speed ok and will run up to and above most posted speed limits in this hemisphere.

The wheels I have are 17x9 Dick Cepeks (24lbs each). The tires are 31 x 11.5 x 17 (I forget the metric 285 x 70 x 17?). I haven't weighed them with the wheels but with all the 'wax on wax off' I've done these past few days with the front end, I can tell you they are heavier than I recall when the BFG A/Ts were mounted on them. They certainly don't seem to role as well but we'll see if there's any improvements with the brakes and hubs repaired.

I have a stock set of 17 x 8 Chevy aluminum rims that I'm going to use with a stock dimensioned tire and see what the effects are other than the flares are going to look stoooopid.

I'll drive the truck tomorrow over some known distance/grade areas I've been using for comparison analysis to see what the differences are before picking up the tires.

A little off topic but, what yr model truck has a 17x8 6 lug?

 

[btfarm]

A little off topic but, what yr model truck has a 17x8 6 lug?

1/2 ton GMT900s all had them IIRC

 

[turbovanman]

A little late to the party but on cheap, China brand wheel bearings, RUN RUN away, yes, they are cheap but there is a reason why. I refuse to put them on customers vehicles UNLESS they are selling it or flat broke and I will not warranty it, they are JUNK and do not belong on any truck at any time, they are dangerous.

A restriction in the return line from the hydrobooster will cause slow release of the brakes. Some people mod their hydrobooster for quicker brake release. Issues with the hydrobooster itself can also cause slow release.

How?

That's just mean spirited...answer is nope.
I've driven four trucks with the cam upgrades now and mine, being the fourth is the pig. It was with the old motor, it still is now. At 65 it feels lively as hell and even with the GM-5 it pulls hard up to where I quit pushing at 90-95 (Cops, traffic, tires...gotta say "When"). On clear roads with 635 waaayyy out in front I did touch 120 and it was still pulling. So, no, it isn't the cam.

What gear ratio? Sorry if I missed it.

Cams are a trade off, to get more power, they move the powerband up, there is NO way around it, so that could be a big part of the problem, as lets say the stock cam is from 800-3000 rpm, so of course, it will pull like a mofo off idle, now put in the hi po cam and its probably from 1500/2000-4500 rpm, so off idle, its going to be a dog until the engine catch's up. That's why we have VTEC and Variable cam timing, to get the best of both worlds.