Fuel consumption - Rft vs normal tyres!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by J.Belknap

Especially when you calculate it for the sole purpose of laughing diabolically at the tree huggers and polar bears.

So if I rode a bicycle 52 km this morning just for fun, and then walked both ways to a bicycle and outdoor show this afternoon, am I a tree hugger? Do I have to tell my BMW dealer?

[Lane_A]

I switched from Dunlop RFTs to Michelin Non-RFTs and my gas mileage improved by just over 1 mpg, plus there's no comparison in the comfort and lower noise levels that the Non-RFTs give.

[ukwildcat]

Originally Posted by J.Belknap

Especially when you calculate it for the sole purpose of laughing diabolically at the tree huggers and polar bears.

Bwahahahahaha!

Yes. Next time I'm getting an X5-M. So I can show the glaciers whose boss.

[SJCFlyer]

Originally Posted by cb4

Just to give you an idea how much more the RFTs weigh. *The Michelin
18 inch rft that come on the x5 weigh 13 lbs more per tire over the
non rft Michelin equivalent (source: tirerack.com). 52 lbs of
rotational mass will definitely affect fuel efficiency.

When I went to non rft on my 3er my fuel efficiency went up by ~.5mpg.
I attribute that to the reduction in mass at the corners(total weight loss: ~40lbs).

I myself am keeping the RFT on my x5. *Unfortunately with the 3rd row
there is no room for a spare

I went non-RFT after buying a portable inflator, patch kit and can of goop. Mileage, Ride and price are all MUCH better!