2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission DRW vs SRW - MPG

[NoSeeUm]

This topic is probably scattered all over, but I still have a question.



I have been tossing around going with either Ricksons (SRW) or Arrowcrafts (DRW). This is because I frequently haul a slide in camper and the 285/16's I am running don't really seem to be wearing well. The tires are a bit big for the rims and I am currently really under inflatinflating them to save the tires, at what I am guessing, the expense of MPG. This does help the ride qualilty though.



To do it right, I stuck buying new rims anyways. The Ricksons are large diameter tires and I am not sure my 5 speed would like them. While with the Arrowcraft Kit I could run 245/16's if I wanted to and get some better gearing for the mountains I often run in.



Which way would likely yield better MPG?



Thanks for your opinions,

Jim

 

[TAbbott]

If you went for the Ricksons with 225's, the tire/wheel assembly is essentially the same diameter as the oem 16" tire/wheels that came on your truck. 245's are about 33" and when it comes to carrying your camper, there would be no comparison between them and the 16"ers in an SRW configuration.

 

[GAmes]

It's not the 5 speed, it is the differential ratio you need to look at. If you have 4. 10s then you can go with a bigger tire. Converting a 2500 to a DRW sounds like a real expensive project to me. If it were me I'd go with the Ricksons and change the differential gears if I had 3. 55s.

 

[charlessmith]

You didn't say how heavy your camper is, and you did't say how fast you are trying to run - that makes it a little hard to answer exactly. However ...



I haul an 11' Lance in my trucks. In my '97 2500, as in my avatar (without the motorcycle on the front), the whole rig weighs right around 12,000 lbs, with almost 7,700 on the rear axle. About 5,000 of that is the slide in camper.



That's too much for SRWs with OEM size wheels. I've got an Arrowcraft DRW kit and have no complaints - other than the kit having Ford sized centering holes in the wheels. That means I can't swap wheels between my '97 and the '96 3500. F



Look very carefully at the load rating of your tires, especially at whatever pressure you are running. If you are running at less than the max allowed tire pressures, then your load capacity is less than the max weight marked on the tire.



I've had a couple rear blowouts when loaded, I think from rock cuts at the edge of the tread or in the sidewall. And this is with Michelin tires running 80 PSI. I think if you blew a loaded SRW at any speed, you would stand a good chance of losing it.



I've found that tire life is much better with DRW, more than double what I got with SRW. On my '97 I got 80K miles from a set of Michelin highway tires, that's probably 30K loaded and 50K with only a light load but with a heavy foot on the go pedal.



FWIW, when trying for mileage with the camper I can get about 14 MPG at a steady 65 MPH on a flat road. 74+/- pulls that down to 12 or less.

 

[NoSeeUm]

I have a 9' Lance and (I believe) a 12" extension to my hitch. With the boat in tow, I am right around 6700# on the rear axles.



I have 3. 55's and the truck pulls fine, so that is not really a big deal to me. However; the 3rd to 4th gear spread and/or trying to pull somewhere between those two gears (35-40 MPH) can be annoying. But generally, that is a very little amount of the total time.



The Toyo 285's I have are rated for 3750# @ 80 psi so they do give me some wiggle room for weight. But they need wider rims to wear correctly. Running empty I have to really let down the air pressure for the correct contact pad to get them to wear correctly. I don't think that helps my mileage much. These tires are fairly expensive and I did notice a drop in MPG after I put them on.



So while I am looking at spending the $$$ for 16" rims I thought I might as well explore all of my options. I do have a set of 3rd Gen 17" steel rims. These rims are a bit wider. I had thought I might get tires for them. But I can't find any that can handle heavy weights for the standard size rims and not be in the same boat I am with the 16" rims.



It sounds like the MPG comparison is pretty much a wash SRW or DRW though. I am kind of leaning toward the ArrowCraft DRW set-up and running 245/16's. I am not going to need tires for a bit, so I have plenty of time to look into it thoroughly.



Thanks;

Jim

 

[Grizzly]

I have a 9' Lance and (I believe) a 12" extension to my hitch. With the boat in tow, I am right around 6700# on the rear axles.

.

.

.

.

.

It sounds like the MPG comparison is pretty much a wash SRW or DRW though. I am kind of leaning toward the ArrowCraft DRW set-up and running 245/16's. I am not going to need tires for a bit, so I have plenty of time to look into it thoroughly. Thanks; Jim

A 9' Lance dose not require a DRW, although a 3500 SRW would be better then a 2500.



A DRW will always be less economical then a SRW because of the added tire friction.

 

[LandShark]

I haul a 3400+ pound Elkhorn camper. I have about 75,000 miles using Ricka dual wheel adapters and another 50,000 miles just using the singles. Mileage difference is minor (less than 1 mpg). I mostly drive 60 to 65 with the camper and average about 15 mpg, with 13. 5 mpg being the worst (in a big head wind) and 16. 5 mpg being the best.

The dual setup sure handles better and was of great benefit when beach camping in Texas and going off road. Have never had a tire problem when running duals.

I've had several tire failures when running singles, including a RIB blowout at 65 mph which destroyed the tire and inner plastic fender liner. No problem handling the truck however. The noise was the most scary part.

I've switched to using 265 tires when running singles, which gives me more tire capacity, and I haven't had a problem with them so far.

The duel setup gave me maybe 1/3 the tire wear of the singles.

BTW: I ran the Ricka setup without any extra fenders and never had a problem with the law (including Canada). The wheels would stick out well beyond the fenders, but not any further out than the camper. Looks a bit weird, but I don't care!

 

[QWaller]

A little ignorant on the subject, but I have a heavy flatbed on my 2500 right now, how difficult would it be to do a DRW conversion? Do the brakes/hubs need anything or is there an adapter kit that makes it relatively simple? I could stand a little more stability, but really would like to keep this particular truck.

 

[TAbbott]

charlessmith said: "I haul an 11' Lance in my trucks. In my '97 2500, as in my avatar (without the motorcycle on the front), the whole rig weighs right around 12,000 lbs, with almost 7,700 on the rear axle. About 5,000 of that is the slide in camper.



That's too much for SRWs. "



If you had said "SRW's with oem tires and wheels" I would have agreed with you. However, my Rickson steel wheels and 265/70R19. 5G's are well with their weight rating at those levels. In fact, they could handle those weights and more at just 80 psi and max pressure is 110 psi, where they could handle 10,000 lbs (wheel limited) on the rear axle (which if it's an AAM 11. 5" is good for 10,800 lbs with either SRW or DRW hubs).

 

[Grizzly]

charlessmith said: "I haul an 11' Lance in my trucks. In my '97 2500, as in my avatar (without the motorcycle on the front), the whole rig weighs right around 12,000 lbs, with almost 7,700 on the rear axle. About 5,000 of that is the slide in camper.



That's too much for SRWs. "



If you had said "SRW's with oem tires and wheels" I would have agreed with you. However, my Rickson steel wheels and 265/70R19. 5G's are well with their weight rating at those levels. In fact, they could handle those weights and more at just 80 psi and max pressure is 110 psi, where they could handle 10,000 lbs (wheel limited) on the rear axle (which if it's an AAM 11. 5" is good for 10,800 lbs with either SRW or DRW hubs).

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[charlessmith]

A little ignorant on the subject, but I have a heavy flatbed on my 2500 right now, how difficult would it be to do a DRW conversion? Do the brakes/hubs need anything or is there an adapter kit that makes it relatively simple? I could stand a little more stability, but really would like to keep this particular truck.

I added the comment "too much for SRW with OEM wheel sizes. You are correct, and I'd love to have some 19. 5's but don't have the $$ for them.

I also added a URL for Arrowcraft - Dual Wheel Conversions - the install of the hub extensions is easy, then you've got to paste the fender extensions on. Easy or difficult depending on your body working experience On a flatbed without the fender extensions, it's a 1 hour job. Of course, you have to either enlarge the center hole in the wheels or use Ford wheels.

 

[LandShark]

A little ignorant on the subject, but I have a heavy flatbed on my 2500 right now, how difficult would it be to do a DRW conversion? Do the brakes/hubs need anything or is there an adapter kit that makes it relatively simple? I could stand a little more stability, but really would like to keep this particular truck.

Take a look at this on the JCWhitney.com site.

#ad

You can use this with stock (swr) wheels and don't need adapters for the front.

 

[NoSeeUm]

A 9' Lance dose not require a DRW, although a 3500 SRW would be better then a 2500.



A DRW will always be less economical then a SRW because of the added tire friction.

I can see that with same size tires, but I am trying to compare middle sized DRW vs sized big SRW. Probably just splitting hairs anyways and all it is for me right now is just a talking point.



My truck handles the camper really well and I have zero complaints about any of that. I have added rear air bags and Rancho 5000's all the way around. Still, with 6700# over the rear axles one has to have the right tires. When I weighed the truck I could feel the blood draining from my head when I looked at the rear axle weight.



At this point, still talking MPG and running empty I am thinking that DRW 245/16's fully inflated will compete pretty well against the bigger but much lower inflated 285/16's. Running loaded I am guessing the terrain, travel and/or wind speed would have the larger impact.



Jim

 

[Grizzly]

I can see that with same size tires, but I am trying to compare middle sized DRW vs sized big SRW. Probably just splitting hairs anyways and all it is for me right now is just a talking point.

My truck handles the camper really well and I have zero complaints about any of that. I have added rear air bags and Rancho 5000's all the way around. Still, with 6700# over the rear axles one has to have the right tires. When I weighed the truck I could feel the blood draining from my head when I looked at the rear axle weight.

At this point, still talking MPG and running empty I am thinking that DRW 245/16's fully inflated will compete pretty well against the bigger but much lower inflated 285/16's. Running loaded I am guessing the terrain, travel and/or wind speed would have the larger impact.

Jim

I just can not agree with you. Air bags do not give you more weight carrying capacity, they just help level off the load. They are not worth having in my opinion. I'd rather put my money in more and heavier springs.

 

[NoSeeUm]

Take a look at this on the JCWhitney.com site.



You can use this with stock (swr) wheels and don't need adapters for the front.

I found these JCWhitney Ricka adapters. You tried these?



Jim

 

[NoSeeUm]

I just can not agree with you. Air bags do not give you more weight carrying capacity, they just help level off the load. They are not worth having in my opinion. I'd rather put my money in more and heavier springs.

Air bags = Springs



Jim

 

[Grizzly]

Air bags = Springs

Jim

I do not believe that.

 

[AABEN]

If you are runing your tires not aired to the tire maker presure you are putting you self and other people lives as stake!!You should run them at the right air pressure. That is the trouble ford had that killed people. Tires will heat up then blow out. Always run manufactory air presure . they have a high and low.

 

[DBazley]

No See Um:



FWIW, I have the Rickson steel wheels & 19. 5 retreads in size 245 / 70 R 19. 5. Michelin factory retreads in the solid center rib, winter tread design.



Very happy with the package. The retreads are faring much better than the New & spendy Bridgestone M724s that originally came on the rims, btw.



Way cheaper, tread is much more solid & longwearing & the sidewalls are not cracking badly.



Funny, the Retreads were all of $ 125 each at a commercial truck supplier & if I keep the casings nice they can be retreaded for about $ 90 each.



The retreads did require a bit more balancing but it was doable. I got the lifetime balancing & rotation at Discount Tire for $ 125, and do it about every 18 months.



How's that for economy ? Once you amortize the cost of the rims & simulators.



(If I were doing it again, I'd skip the simulators. The rims come powder coated (or paint them to match your truck), and run the OEM center cap. That will knock off another $ 400-500 for ya... . )



Load handling is unsurpassed. It feels like a dually. (obviously a dually with 19. 5's would feel more secure even, but I don't tow for a living... . )



Towing a 13,000 goosneck would be way overload with a 'normal' 2500 SRW truck, but this one does it handily, due to the Rickson 19. 5's, Rancho R9000 adustable shocks & Timbren rubber springs.



I do think I could use the next lighter duty tire, however. It'a 14 ply load range 'G' and I bet a LR 'F' 12 ply would still be plenty strong.



I like the width of the 245 / 70 and don't know if they offer that in a 12 ply tire ?



I have the gear vendors 2 speed overdrive, so revs are low on the freeway - MPG is good, 12 mpg towing 22,000 # or 15 mpg gross wt 16,000 #.



Up to 21 mpg empty @ 65-70 mph



Best wishes on figuring it all out... .....



David B.

 

[DBazley]

Just an addendum:

I run my pressure 'low' when unloaded, but not by much.

The sidewalls read 4540 lbs @ 110 psi. If loaded heavily, that's where I run it.

If unloaded (85 % of the time) I run 'em at 90-95 psi to keep the ride reasonable (and it is firm, but pleasant).

The truck's 7200 lbs dry weight is hardly straining the limit of these tires which can handle 9,000 per axle in a theoretical load scenario.

What the poster above might take into consideration was that in the case of the FORD SUV debacle, they had gone with a load rating that was barely able to meet the vehicles dry weight, and when loaded heavily with gear & people, it was significantly over the tire limit, even assuming that 'soccer mom' hadn't let the pressure drop below sidewall / load requirements.

It was an engineering mistake, exacerbated by owner ignorance & neglect.

I know, when I first got my Ram I, being massively ignorant, when and bought the Load Range (C or D), instead of the required load range E 10 plys.

Well, upon my first heavy loading and being at the max 50 psi, the extreme pooching of the tire announced my mistake.

Obviously, the Wal-Mart tire center manager didn't look to make sure he go me the correct tires, either.

Lesson learned. 3 sets of 10 ply tires later (20k miles each set) I switched to the Ricksons and kicked the 'expensive burn'em up tire habit'.

I'm can't afford to burn up 10 plys like a chain smoker !

(45 k miles on my Michelin retread 19. 5's and they're 70 % remaining..... )

DB