Because reviving threads from literally six months ago is fun?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
OEM GM Tires. 2014
- Thread starter Mr_Joe
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I just saw this, and noticed it's me. Update. I made well with my tires, I will keep them, rotate as needed and get the most out of them..
I already got 2 Winter tires mounted on OEM wheels for when the snow flies. I'll put them on myself, Blizzacks.
I already got 2 Winter tires mounted on OEM wheels for when the snow flies. I'll put them on myself, Blizzacks.
I have to disagree with one of the above posts. The standard tires on my Silverado when I purchased it new in 2011 were Goodyear (275/55/20) LS "P" rated tires. By any Internet search - some very lousy tires. That being said I towed my 5,500 pound travel trailer to the East Coast with them - and replaced them in New Hampshire. They had 35,000 miles on them. I replaced them with Nitto CrossTeks (From NTB- a tire exclusive to them) which I find to be an excellent tire. They have an "XL" designation. I air them up to 90% of capacity to tow my trailer and they do an excellent job. An "E" rated tire is overkill for a half-ton pick up and will result in a rougher ride and way too much capacity for what you can tow since you will reach payload well before your towing max.
Last edited:
Putting E-rated tires on a 1500 makes sense to me because I have higher
expectations or needs than the stock P-rated tires provide.
The first item on the list is tread depth. The brand new P-rated tires that came on the truck have 13/32 when new.
That depth provides 9/32 of wear at 4000 miles per 1/32.
Or 36,000 miles of use before new tires are required.
New 265/60/20 Good Year SRAs have a new tread depth of 16/32.
Using the same wear rate, at 12,000 miles the E-rared tread has the same tread depth
as the new P-rated tire has.
For winter use that extra new tread depth of 3/32 is welcome.
New tread depth for Good Year DuraTrac and Toyo OC/CT (3 ply side-wall) are both
18/32, which gives 14/32 of tread wear compared to 9/32 for the stock tires.
The optional 18 inch 265/70/18, the two above choices are available.
If a 275/65/18 tire on an 18X9 wheel appeals to you, the Nitto Dura Grappler would
likely last over 100,000 miles on a 1500.
The 275/65/18 seem to have the largest selection of tough E-Rated tires for off-road,
highway or winter use that fit GMC 1500s with no clearance issues.
One of my all-round tire picks in the above size is the Geolander that comes with 18/32.
Some people are not fans of D or E rated tires on 1500s, and that is fine with me
because it is not my concern what other people like or dislike.
But the question keeps coming up every 6 months or so about E rated tires on half-tons.
Instead of starting a new thread on the subject, I thought I would continue on with
this one instead and share my experiences on the topic.
In the old days when 15 and 16 inch tires fit GMC half tons, 31X10.50X15s and 255/85/16s
were my old stand-by first choice tires.
expectations or needs than the stock P-rated tires provide.
The first item on the list is tread depth. The brand new P-rated tires that came on the truck have 13/32 when new.
That depth provides 9/32 of wear at 4000 miles per 1/32.
Or 36,000 miles of use before new tires are required.
New 265/60/20 Good Year SRAs have a new tread depth of 16/32.
Using the same wear rate, at 12,000 miles the E-rared tread has the same tread depth
as the new P-rated tire has.
For winter use that extra new tread depth of 3/32 is welcome.
New tread depth for Good Year DuraTrac and Toyo OC/CT (3 ply side-wall) are both
18/32, which gives 14/32 of tread wear compared to 9/32 for the stock tires.
The optional 18 inch 265/70/18, the two above choices are available.
If a 275/65/18 tire on an 18X9 wheel appeals to you, the Nitto Dura Grappler would
likely last over 100,000 miles on a 1500.
The 275/65/18 seem to have the largest selection of tough E-Rated tires for off-road,
highway or winter use that fit GMC 1500s with no clearance issues.
One of my all-round tire picks in the above size is the Geolander that comes with 18/32.
Some people are not fans of D or E rated tires on 1500s, and that is fine with me
because it is not my concern what other people like or dislike.
But the question keeps coming up every 6 months or so about E rated tires on half-tons.
Instead of starting a new thread on the subject, I thought I would continue on with
this one instead and share my experiences on the topic.
In the old days when 15 and 16 inch tires fit GMC half tons, 31X10.50X15s and 255/85/16s
were my old stand-by first choice tires.
A couple of thoughts:
First is that when it comes to OE tires, it is foolish to compare tires - even the same tire on a different vehicle can be completely different. GM does a pretty decent job of specing tires, but occasionally they muff one.
Second is that aftermarket tires are completely different than OE tires - and comparing an OE tire to an aftermarket tire is also foolish.
First is that when it comes to OE tires, it is foolish to compare tires - even the same tire on a different vehicle can be completely different. GM does a pretty decent job of specing tires, but occasionally they muff one.
Second is that aftermarket tires are completely different than OE tires - and comparing an OE tire to an aftermarket tire is also foolish.
Foolish as it may seem, I doubt that a high percentage of drivers when buying new tires
chose the OEM tire their vehicle came with.
Instead they shop around for a tire that suits their needs, tastes, budget or fancy.
In short, they disagree with the manufactures needs, tastes, budget or fancy.
What may sound foolish to one person may make perfect sense to another.
I'll list the attributes that I find appealing to me, state the reasons why
and post them for others to ponder over.
It does not affect me in any shape or form what other people say, do or think,
especially on the internet.
chose the OEM tire their vehicle came with.
Instead they shop around for a tire that suits their needs, tastes, budget or fancy.
In short, they disagree with the manufactures needs, tastes, budget or fancy.
What may sound foolish to one person may make perfect sense to another.
I'll list the attributes that I find appealing to me, state the reasons why
and post them for others to ponder over.
It does not affect me in any shape or form what other people say, do or think,
especially on the internet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Foolish as it may seem, I doubt that a high percentage of drivers when buying new tires chose the OEM tire their vehicle came with......
I think you missed my point. Let me explain it this way:
You've purchased a new vehicle with Goodstone FireEagle ST's. You have an opinion of them.
Another guy buys a different make and model vehicle - and it also came with Goodstone FireEagle ST's. The tires on your vehicle are not like the tires on the other vehicle - other than the name. They are so different it would be foolish to draw conclusions about what those tires do - other than the specific size.
Foolish as it may seem, I doubt that a high percentage of drivers when buying new tires chose the OEM tire their vehicle came with......
I think you missed my point. Let me explain it this way:
You've purchased a new vehicle with Goodstone FireEagle ST's. You have an opinion of them.
Another guy buys a different make and model vehicle - and it also came with Goodstone FireEagle ST's. The tires on your vehicle are not like the tires on the other vehicle - other than the name. They are so different it would be foolish to draw conclusions about what those tires do - other than the specific size.
Got it.
The Michelin tires on the logging truck my son drives are 11R/24.5 on the triple
drivers, and 425-24.5 wide-base on the steering axle.
That truck can drive through waist deep snow.
My pickup truck also has Michelin tires, 275/65/20s
I can't go anywhere in waist deep snow, but if I could put his tires on my truck
it still would not help, because his tires are Michelins which are no good in
waist deep snow.
How do I know that?
Because I have Michelin tires on my truck, and the only difference is the size.
My tires came stock OEM on my pickup truck, and the Kenworth came with the tires that
are on it now.
Passenger trains have steel wheels.
Steel wheels have a harsh ride. No give.
Everybody is sleeping except the train crew.
What am I missing?
The Michelin tires on the logging truck my son drives are 11R/24.5 on the triple
drivers, and 425-24.5 wide-base on the steering axle.
That truck can drive through waist deep snow.
My pickup truck also has Michelin tires, 275/65/20s
I can't go anywhere in waist deep snow, but if I could put his tires on my truck
it still would not help, because his tires are Michelins which are no good in
waist deep snow.
How do I know that?
Because I have Michelin tires on my truck, and the only difference is the size.
My tires came stock OEM on my pickup truck, and the Kenworth came with the tires that
are on it now.
Passenger trains have steel wheels.
Steel wheels have a harsh ride. No give.
Everybody is sleeping except the train crew.
What am I missing?
What the California study did not address is the number of traffic accidents
that tries which are less fuel efficient, but safer would have prevented.
In other countries such as Norway and here in Canada
the snow flake high traction winter rubber is recommended and possibly mandatory
in some jurisdictions.
Every aspect has to be plotted against what is best for the country.
It's not just fuel economy vs tire life and the supply chain.
Lets go back to our pickup truck with four tire options:
285/75/16
285/70/17
285/65/18
285/55/20
For simplicity all four tires are mounted on 9" wide rims, are E rated, of the same
brand, construction and have an od of 32.5"
Empty, the truck weighs 6,000 lbs or 1,500 lbs per tire.
Loaded the truck weighs 8,800 lbs or 2,200 lbs per tire.
Half of the time the truck is loaded.
All of the tires cost the same.
Tire pressure is not adjusted for loaded or empty operation.
Which of the above four tires will provide the best fuel economy?
If a second test is performed using the following two tires
also mounted on 9" wide rims:
265/70/18
265/60/20
Also 32.5" od, would the narrow 265 or wide 285 tires be more fuel efficient?
that tries which are less fuel efficient, but safer would have prevented.
In other countries such as Norway and here in Canada
the snow flake high traction winter rubber is recommended and possibly mandatory
in some jurisdictions.
Every aspect has to be plotted against what is best for the country.
It's not just fuel economy vs tire life and the supply chain.
Lets go back to our pickup truck with four tire options:
285/75/16
285/70/17
285/65/18
285/55/20
For simplicity all four tires are mounted on 9" wide rims, are E rated, of the same
brand, construction and have an od of 32.5"
Empty, the truck weighs 6,000 lbs or 1,500 lbs per tire.
Loaded the truck weighs 8,800 lbs or 2,200 lbs per tire.
Half of the time the truck is loaded.
All of the tires cost the same.
Tire pressure is not adjusted for loaded or empty operation.
Which of the above four tires will provide the best fuel economy?
If a second test is performed using the following two tires
also mounted on 9" wide rims:
265/70/18
265/60/20
Also 32.5" od, would the narrow 265 or wide 285 tires be more fuel efficient?
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to edit this post so it is easier to see what I am responding to.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
..... Lets go back to our pickup truck with four tire options:
285/75/16
285/70/17
285/65/18
285/55/20
For simplicity all four tires are mounted on 9" wide rims, are E rated, of the same
brand, construction and have an od of 32.5"....
OK, first problem:
LT285/75/16 Load Range E - OD 32.8", Measuring rim 8.0", Max Load Single 3750# @ 80 psi (LR D = 3305# @ 65 psi)
LT285/70/17 Load Range E - OD 32.8", Measuring rim 8.5", Max Load Single (LR E doesn't exist, but LR D = 3195# @ 65 psi)
LT285/65/18 Load Range E - OD 32.6", Measuring rim 8.5", Max Load Single (LR E doesn't exist, but LR D = 3195# @ 65 psi)
LT285/55/20 Load Range E - OD 32.4", Measuring rim 9.0", Max Load Single (LR E doesn't exist, but LR D = 2835# @ 65 psi)
If we assume we have all Load D tires, the only one of the 4 that stands out as different is the last one. Let's not use that one. The others are close enough.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
..... Which of the above four tires will provide the best fuel economy?...
I don't know of anyone that has cataloged what happens in that size range. The only study I know about is for smaller passenger car tires, and if I assume that single is anywhere near accurate:
The 17" is 3% better for RR, and the 18" is 7% better.
Keep in mind that a tread compound change would be many times those values, and that tires are a mere fraction of the total fuel consumption in the vehicle. For practical purposes, those differences in tire size are small enough to ignore.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
..... If a second test is performed using the following two tires
also mounted on 9" wide rims:
265/70/18
265/60/20
Also 32.5" od, would the narrow 265 or wide 285 tires be more fuel efficient?....
OK, more problems:
The 18" only exists in P metric sizing.
But if I assume we are trying to test comparable LT tires:
Then the 20" is 7% better for RR than the 18", and 11% better than the LT285/75R16.
Again, because tires only contribute a fraction of the fuel consumption, even an 11% difference is small enough to ignore - on the order of 2% total FE change for the vehicle.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
..... Lets go back to our pickup truck with four tire options:
285/75/16
285/70/17
285/65/18
285/55/20
For simplicity all four tires are mounted on 9" wide rims, are E rated, of the same
brand, construction and have an od of 32.5"....
OK, first problem:
LT285/75/16 Load Range E - OD 32.8", Measuring rim 8.0", Max Load Single 3750# @ 80 psi (LR D = 3305# @ 65 psi)
LT285/70/17 Load Range E - OD 32.8", Measuring rim 8.5", Max Load Single (LR E doesn't exist, but LR D = 3195# @ 65 psi)
LT285/65/18 Load Range E - OD 32.6", Measuring rim 8.5", Max Load Single (LR E doesn't exist, but LR D = 3195# @ 65 psi)
LT285/55/20 Load Range E - OD 32.4", Measuring rim 9.0", Max Load Single (LR E doesn't exist, but LR D = 2835# @ 65 psi)
If we assume we have all Load D tires, the only one of the 4 that stands out as different is the last one. Let's not use that one. The others are close enough.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
..... Which of the above four tires will provide the best fuel economy?...
I don't know of anyone that has cataloged what happens in that size range. The only study I know about is for smaller passenger car tires, and if I assume that single is anywhere near accurate:
The 17" is 3% better for RR, and the 18" is 7% better.
Keep in mind that a tread compound change would be many times those values, and that tires are a mere fraction of the total fuel consumption in the vehicle. For practical purposes, those differences in tire size are small enough to ignore.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
..... If a second test is performed using the following two tires
also mounted on 9" wide rims:
265/70/18
265/60/20
Also 32.5" od, would the narrow 265 or wide 285 tires be more fuel efficient?....
OK, more problems:
The 18" only exists in P metric sizing.
But if I assume we are trying to test comparable LT tires:
Then the 20" is 7% better for RR than the 18", and 11% better than the LT285/75R16.
Again, because tires only contribute a fraction of the fuel consumption, even an 11% difference is small enough to ignore - on the order of 2% total FE change for the vehicle.
Well that explain why OEMs are switching to larger rim diameters.
Discussed to death the topic of engine oil viscosity vs fuel economy as a measurement
motorists cannot calculate accurately because it is 2% or less.
Add to that 2% another 1% in fuel savings for the tires.
The average person spending $200.00 a month for motor fuel would not likely notice
a four to six dollar a month saving, or say $50-$100 per year.
If shopping for a second set of tires and wheels, a one or two percent fuel savings
over the life of the purchase should factor in to the total cost.
The $100 million per tire size for development and "world-wide" distribution is not
all that daft of a figure for the 1st year including sales and re-stocking.
Too many people think that the world ends here.
And since when was $100 million a lot of money?
Discussed to death the topic of engine oil viscosity vs fuel economy as a measurement
motorists cannot calculate accurately because it is 2% or less.
Add to that 2% another 1% in fuel savings for the tires.
The average person spending $200.00 a month for motor fuel would not likely notice
a four to six dollar a month saving, or say $50-$100 per year.
If shopping for a second set of tires and wheels, a one or two percent fuel savings
over the life of the purchase should factor in to the total cost.
The $100 million per tire size for development and "world-wide" distribution is not
all that daft of a figure for the 1st year including sales and re-stocking.
Too many people think that the world ends here.
And since when was $100 million a lot of money?
Originally Posted By: used_0il
And since when was $100 million a lot of money?
It's not a lot when you spread it out over the ~16 million new vehicles sold in the US every year.
And OEMs are going to bigger wheel diameters because of styling concerns, and (to a lesser extent) the fact that brake packages are getting bigger to compensate for the perpetual creep up in vehicle weight.
And since when was $100 million a lot of money?
It's not a lot when you spread it out over the ~16 million new vehicles sold in the US every year.
And OEMs are going to bigger wheel diameters because of styling concerns, and (to a lesser extent) the fact that brake packages are getting bigger to compensate for the perpetual creep up in vehicle weight.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 3K