Date:         Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:29:39 -0400
Reply-To:     Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: An interesting article on gas mileage vs wheel size
Comments: To: Ken Lewis <kdlewis@northstate.net>
In-Reply-To:  <008801cc9659$e6f28150$0301a8c0@korky2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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"