Toyota Nation Forum banner

Mileage decreased after new tires

5K views 39 replies 13 participants last post by  phitat 
#1 ·
I have a 2011 Camry LE with about 13,000 miles on it. I just replaced my tires with Bridgestone Turanza EL400 225/65/16 and now my mileage have drastically decreased, I used to get about 400 miles per tank driving strictly city, but now I'm lucky if I can actually reach 300 miles driving under the same condition (non aggressive city driving). Does increasing the width of the tires actually make this big of a difference in mileage? Thank you in advance for any help.
 
#4 ·
I already got 2 alignments done, balanced the tires as well. The stock tire size was 215/65r16. Can changing to 225/65r16 possibly be this bad? I don't remember what tires came with the car but it gave me 400 miles per tank and now it's not even 280 miles yet and the gas light is on. Can there possibly be something else wrong with my car? It's been maintained at the dealership ever since it was purchased.
 
#8 · (Edited)
According to Tire Rack which is very accurate

2011 Camry LE

Original tire size - 215/60-16
OE tires - Turanza EL400-02 or Michelin Energy MXV4 S8

You put on Turanza EL400 225/65/16

So, what you did is install a tire that was taller and wider. This will certainly impact handling, a wider taller tire will roll over on the sidewall cornering, wearing out the outside of the tire prematurely. Wider could impact gas mileage. Does taller? May appear so, but in reality probably not. Here's why.

A taller tire means less revolutions per mile. Less revolutions impacts several things including accuracy of your speedometer and the gas calculations of your onboard computer.

When your speedometer says your going 70, your really going 73.63 MPH

Your onboard computer stats for "avg mpg" and "miles to empty" are calculated using miles traveled and rate of fuel flow at the injectors. Calculation is miles traveled divided by gallons equals miles per gallon.

Because of the taller tire with less rotation, the onboard computer see less miles traveled but the same rate of fuel flow. Calculation - drop in avg mpg, faster miles to empty. Same goes for the trip calculation. If you use the trip stat with miles to empty or the analog gauge, its less rotations, less miles traveled. The gas is gone with less miles traveled.

Your more than likely still getting 400 miles a tank, just inaccurate stats.

To test this theory.. your analog gas gauge in the dash uses a level sensor in the tank. Compared to the computers "miles to empty" stat there should be a discrepancy. (analog gauge shows 1/4 tank left but only 50 miles to empty on computer, should be 115, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: phitat
#9 ·
leakyseals made a lot of sense so I went out and check my tires size this morning and I was wrong, it's 225/60r16. I'm really sorry for the wrong information. So basically I just went from OE size of 215/60r16 to 225/60r16. If really necessary, I can try and get a new set of tires to get back to the 400 range per tank like before. Again I am really sorry for the wrong information provided.
 
#10 ·
Its ok. Modifying with your width change (60) - won't be quite as bad rolling over on the sidewall and wearing the outside edges, but its still going to happen to some degree. The feeling of rolling over would be tire squeal on a hard corner, as if you have low air pressure. The info I wrote about it being taller (225) is still the same.
 
#12 · (Edited)
#15 · (Edited)
Well ~2% still doesn't account for the ~120 miles loss per tank, does it?
Nope, but that plus new wider tires (which will definitely have a higher rolling resistance than the original tires) plus the OP hasn't been accounting for the speedo/odometer error just might.
Or he is just going by what some mileage computer is telling him. Which will never be right anyways, since that relies on fuel rates that are just estimated by referencing engine RPM, throttle position, gear selection, ambient air temp/pressure, intake air temp, manifold vacuum and probably some other things I have forgotten about.
 
#22 · (Edited)
OP, did you use the trip odo in your car to compute your car's range? If so, using your current wider tires will make it off. If you fill up gas and drive until it's almost empty, how far can you drive? I think this is the distance that you want.

I'm using wider tires too (225 but with 18") and still able to get close to 400 miles per tank (city driving only) and over 500 miles per tank (90% highway driving), given that my tires are sporty which means they stick to the ground more than many touring tires.
 
#23 ·
I don't see how wider tires will affect anything with the odo. I can understand that taller or shorter tires will affect it. I think your fuel mileage is being affected by wider foot print, type of tire, and possibly something was damaged if you hit a curb hard enough to pop a tire. Or, you computed something wrong.
 
#24 ·
I use the trip odometer to see how many miles I get per fill up. Ever since the tires change I get almost 280 miles per tank, the fill up is always completely full, and it says 260 on the trip odometer when the gas light is lit up on the dash and by the time it gets to E, I'd get almost 280 on the trip odometer.
 
#25 ·
I searched Bridgestone's web page and do not see where they sell a Turanza EL400 in 225/60/16. Anyway, see if you can find the tire wear rating of the original tire. You may still have the spare and it is on the sidewall. Check this against what you now have. Lower numbers indicate a softer rubber that wears faster, offer poorer life, and generally have more resistance. Higher numbers are the opposite. You may have traded a 400 rating for a 200 rating. Just a thought.
 
#26 ·
I just got back from the dealer today and they said I need a new lower control arm on the driver side because apparently I damaged it a while back when I hit the curb at high speed. They assured me that replacing this will bring my car back to normal, only problem is that is exactly the same thing they said 2 months ago when they said I have a bent left front strut, I also replaced that. So will this really fix my problem?
 
#27 ·
If it caused a >serious< alignment issue, yes. If not, then it will wear tires more quickly but not affect mileage that much. If it is bent though, you need to fix it. Check tire pressure at 35 psi and keep them there.
 
#28 · (Edited)
My service adviser said since I hit the curb so hard at such a high speed, my front left control arm was severely damaged and thus pushed the position of my left wheel about an in. back, I can see actually this by measuring the gaps between the wheel and the fender well. Does anyone know the Toyota part number of the driver side front control arm?
 
#29 ·
Its amazing that they would sell you the strut and then not mention that the alignment was still off and that you also needed a control arm. :headbang:

Your caster/camber has to be way off and been in red numbers on the alignment spec sheet unless they changed the specs to have the numbers appear good.

I would pay for the control arm but not the alignment. Thats on them now. They should not have let your car leave as if all was ok after replacing the strut.
 
#30 ·
g60txstyle you're right about the caster being way off after the alignment was done but they said they couldn't do anything about it since caster isn't adjustable so they just left it like that, everything else was in green and within specs, except the casters on both side of the front. I'm determine to take care of this. The dealer said I need a new driver side lower control arm. Does anyone know a place where I can get genuine Toyota parts (NON AFTERMARKET)?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top