

| Subject: | Re: An interesting article on gas mileage vs wheel size |
| From: | Chris S |
| Date: | Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:29:39 -0400 |
Under some circumstances you will actually reduce the tire/wheel package weight. I lost 6lb per corner in rotational weight by replacing stock steel wheels and 195R14 tires with Mercedes CLK 16'' forged alloys and 215/65 R 16 tires. 2011/10/29 Ken Lewis <kdlewis@northstate.net> > I found this article while researching what it would take to get 17"x7.5" > Audi A4 wheels to work on my crewcab. > > This line caught my eye;" What's immediately apparent from the results is > that as the wheel-and-tire packages get larger and heavier, acceleration > and > fuel economy suffer. Neither is a huge surprise, but we measured a > 10-percent drop in fuel economy and a four-percent degradation in > 0-to-60-mph acceleration from the 15s to the 19s". > > I looked at these this morning. > http://winstonsalem.**craigslist.org/pts/2618213904.**html<http://winstonsalem.craigslist.org/pts/2618213904.html>. Nice looking BIG > wheels. Some road rash. He also has the longer lug bolts. > > The bolt hole size is good but it appears the center bore (~57mm) would > need > to be opened up. I need to actualy take a front wheel off my truck and do > some measuring . I have read the grease cap can be shortened to get rid of > the lip. > > I arrived at a back spacing of 137.25mm on the Audi wheels . By my > calculations I would need a 14mm spacer? Anyone? > > Thanks Ken > -- Chris S. "No solution is too complex to be executed incorrectly"
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »