17inch wheels without losing mpg?

[Blue09]

Finally paying off my 09 hatchback this summer and looking to upgrade to some possibly 16 but preferably 17 inch wheels. The only thing Im worried about is losing gas milage with the bigger rims. It is my understanding that as long as you stay within the same over all diameter with tires as factory and under the same over all weight as factory you wont lose any mileage. Is that correct? Any thoughts on the situation? Thanks!

[WeeYari]

With a 17" rim, you'll be increasing the contact patch between the tire and the pavement significantly. This equates to increased rolling resistance and an inherent hit to mpg.

[thebarber]

Not to mention the weight and subsequently rotational mass

[G-Ammo]

Indeed... I had 16x6 rims before with 205/55/16 tyres... (Original Toyota rims with Yokohama tyres)

Now I'm running 15x7 rims with 185/45/15 tyres... (Rota Grid-V with Nangkang tyres)


Going for 15'' with smaller tyres gives you a noticable increase in acceleration and alot of increase on mpg :)

[Blue09]

Well damn, I was afraid of that. What kinda mpg hit are we talkin between 15 and 17 inchers? 2 mpg? 5 mpg? Thanks again guys

[G-Ammo]

I dont know in miles... but I noticed my range went from 610km to almost 700km on 1 tank :) so thats quite alot if you ask me :D

[thebarber]

On our available I went from super heavy sixteens to light weight fourteens and the difference was about 5 miles per gallon

[WeeYari]

On our available

On our aveo

[cali yaris]

With a 17" rim, you'll be increasing the contact patch between the tire and the pavement significantly.

How does the diameter of the rim determine contact patch? I thought the width of the tire (and related, the width of the rim) determined that.

I run 17's on my Prius C with no loss in mpg. So does our customer Mike on his.

Not to mention the weight and subsequently rotational mass

There are 15's that are way heavier than some 17's. A blanket statement like this is completely misleading.

[WeeYari]

How does the diameter of the rim determine contact patch? I thought the width of the tire (and related, the width of the rim) determined that.

I run 17's on my Prius C with no loss in mpg. So does our customer Mike on his.



There are 15's that are way heavier than some 17's. A blanket statement like this is completely misleading.

At 17" diameter, you cannot get a tire as skinny as the 185s the OP probably has.

Also, most people do not end up investing the kind of money it takes to get a wheel/tire combo that does not result in increased weight over stock.

[cali yaris]

So you're confirming that it is the width of the tire that determines contact patch; thank you. :smile:

Yokohama S Drives are 195/45/17, perfect for a 17" application on a Yaris.

Mike runs those; I run Sumitomos. He runs Advanti wheels, which are NOT expensive.
Neither of us has experienced a loss in fuel economy.

[WeeYari]

Neither of us has experienced a loss in fuel economy.

The Prius is using battery to get itself rolling is it not? You've got inertia working in your favour when actually burning gas.

Who is Mike?

[cali yaris]

Mike is a customer. I've used 17's on the Yaris as well with no loss in mpg. Heavy wheels and/or oversized (more than ONE width larger) tires WILL cause a loss in fuel economy. Tire brand and treadwear rating will also make a difference.

The OP has plenty of answers to work with now, that's for sure.

[thebarber]

Always add lightness

[cali yaris]

^ ha, I like that

[Kaotic Lazagna]

I've gone through, and am still using 17's. Compared to the OEM 15" steelies that came with my car.....

17x7, ET40; 205/40/17. Did not see any mpg loss:
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/17237_1365941594917_3935882_n.jpg

17x7, ET42; 205/40/17. Got a little better mpg:
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/74875_1719299228637_7982809_n.jpg

17x7.5, ET38; 205/40/17. Slightly less mpg:
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/248716_2130237741843_4566922_n.jpg

17x7.5, ET unknown; 205/40/17 and 215/40/17. About the same, maybe very slightly better:
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/s720x720/408294_3197513703075_1672588477_n.jpg

This is what I currently have on, and the heaviest set up I've had at 43.5 lbs per tire/wheel combo. I get about the same as the 15" steelies on the freeway, really tanks in city driving tho. 17x7, ET47, 17x8, ET47; 205/40/17
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/p480x480/523084_3864867546504_2095895662_n.jpg

[venezbras2013]

Kaotic: cool versions of your Yaris! Question on those 17x7.5 with ET38mm... any issues at all running those wheels? I'm asking because i bought some Enkei GTC01 with ET38mm and was thinking on running the same tire size you run 205/40R17... any rubbing with that setup? what type of suspension do you have? by the way, I have a 5dr hatchback (SE model). Thanks.

[thebarber]

should have added that all of my driving mileage was in the city, so with all the accelerating and decelerating you really notice the wait wheels. if you drive mostly highway the way to really doesn't matter as much

[Flipper_1938]

I had heavy 17's on my echo for a little while (one set of tires worth) and I could tell it in hwy mpg too. It went from 43-44 mpg to 35-37 mpg.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Kaotic: cool versions of your Yaris! Question on those 17x7.5 with ET38mm... any issues at all running those wheels? I'm asking because i bought some Enkei GTC01 with ET38mm and was thinking on running the same tire size you run 205/40R17... any rubbing with that setup? what type of suspension do you have? by the way, I have a 5dr hatchback (SE model). Thanks.

Thanks. With those specs, I had some front fender liner rubbing on freeway dips. No biggie. I just let the tires wear out the fender liner a little, then I cut out those areas. I didn't have any issues with the rear until I put 10mm hub spacers :laugh:. I solved that by rolling the rear fender lips.

[Blue09]

Wow thanks for all the posts dudes! Think I'm still gonna go with the 17s since most of my drivin is on the highway so even if I do lose a few mpg not too big of a deal. That said wtf is up with toyota not having cruise control be standard on a car that has power everything else? JERKS! Lol. Not a deal breaker though Im lookin at tocomas now. But im rambling. Thanks

[Kaotic Lazagna]

imo, cruise control would use up more gas because it'll constantly alter the throttle position to maintain the speed.

Which Tacoma are you looking at?

[cali yaris]

^ I agree that pulse and glide works better, BUT with cruise control I drive less aggressively, so that's a good thing.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

^ I agree that pulse and glide works better, BUT with cruise control I drive less aggressively, so that's a good thing.

:laugh: Yeah, I suppose for the lead footed people, CC would work. :tongue:

[Blue09]

imo, cruise control would use up more gas because it'll constantly alter the throttle position to maintain the speed.

Which Tacoma are you looking at?

Well I was thinkin extended cab 4x4 with V6 at first but now I'm leanin towards reg cab 4x4 with the 4 banger but still not sure. Going used in the 2005-2009 area so payments wont be so bad as new with a nice down payment. Wont be my DD so I plan to supe it up with exhaust n maybe a chip n stuff since I already have a good mileage vehicle. Most work itll see will be hauling my two dogs around and taking out the trash so pretty much itll be a toy lol. Manual transmission as always.

[Exiwolfman]

if u get Taco...stick is great clutch pedal little odd placement ( push in up ) i find. As for engine size i love the six lots of power and really only little worse on gas , i find with the four u gone drive it harder cos its under power for the truck basically u will burn more gas with the four ...lol
i love the four door short box 4x4 stick...for V6 set up as for 4 cyl the only way i would get it is reg cab short box 4x4 , little lift ..light on its feet.
Reason i dont drive one....way to much money :(

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Well I was thinkin extended cab 4x4 with V6 at first but now I'm leanin towards reg cab 4x4 with the 4 banger but still not sure. Going used in the 2005-2009 area so payments wont be so bad as new with a nice down payment. Wont be my DD so I plan to supe it up with exhaust n maybe a chip n stuff since I already have a good mileage vehicle. Most work itll see will be hauling my two dogs around and taking out the trash so pretty much itll be a toy lol. Manual transmission as always.


You'll be sacrificing a lot of power/tq by going with the 4-cylinder. Since it's not your DD, I'd get a V6. You'll have 3,000 lbs more towing capacity (6500 vs 3500). mpg are 18/21 and 16/21 respectively, so it's not like you'll be gaining very much gas savings going with the 4-cylinder. However, I don't think you can get a regular cab with a V6 and stick shift, smallest would be the access cab. Of course, this is for the 2014 Tacoma.

Of course, the V6 will cost more than the 4-cylinder, but it'll also have a higher resell value down the line. That's just my take.

[Blue09]

Yea from what I can tell they didnt make any reg cab V6 Tacomas at all atleast in recent years. Which sucks cuz the access cab isnt big enuff for my 2 big ass dogs to ride back there and I dont like the look of the double cabs so they were gonna be in the back either way. So a reg cab 4x4 with V6 would be perfect.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Yea from what I can tell they didnt make any reg cab V6 Tacomas at all atleast in recent years. Which sucks cuz the access cab isnt big enuff for my 2 big ass dogs to ride back there and I dont like the look of the double cabs so they were gonna be in the back either way. So a reg cab 4x4 with V6 would be perfect.

How about a Tundra regular cab with a 4.0? :wink: