H3 MPG < H2 MPG

Something's wrong with your H3 maybe. I'm running stock 32's on my H3 and averaging 14-16mpg over last 16 months.

Don't think the 35's should hurt the mileage that much, just make it more gutless from a street acceleration standpoint.

S.

[Field Scout]

IMO two things may be at play here, first is the diameter difference in tires, since w/315/75/16 you are going 3.5 mph faster than w/285/75/16 therefore farther distance traveled with each revolution your odo is not showing true distance making your mpg caculations off (to my knowledge no one recalibrates speedo for h3 as of this time) second when you went to 35's did you also go M/T I was getting about 17.5mpg on highway w/stock 33's, changed to 33 in bfg mt and dropped to 14.85 mpg on highway(higher resistance tire = worse mpg)

[usetosellhummer]

wondering if I should but fat tires on the beatch

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by Field Scout

IMO two things may be at play here, first is the diameter difference in tires, since w/315/75/16 you are going 3.5 mph faster than w/285/75/16 therefore farther distance traveled with each revolution your odo is not showing true distance making your mpg caculations off (to my knowledge no one recalibrates speedo for h3 as of this time) second when you went to 35's did you also go M/T I was getting about 17.5mpg on highway w/stock 33's, changed to 33 in bfg mt and dropped to 14.85 mpg on highway(higher resistance tire = worse mpg)

Just guessing, but another problem could be the torsion lift changing the aerodynamics of the front end and underbody.

[dеiтайожни]

It's pretty obvious. The less MPG your vehicle gets, the cooler it is. The cooler your vehicle is, the less MPG it gets.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Just did some calculations on your estimated tire diameter (C = pi * d). Assuming an actual diameter of 33 and 35 inches, your tire circumference changed from 103.62 to 109.9 inches, so you're now travelling 6.28 inches further with each tire revolution than your odometer reads.

To convert your mpg, find the ratio of one circumference to the other and multiply by your odometer's mileage.

109.9/103.62 = 1.06%

9 mpg * 1.06 = 9.5 mpg (corrected)

That's not very much. Maybe aerodynamics from the t-bar lift makes a bigger difference. Other factors could be tire pressure, cargo load and driving patterns.

Somebody please check my math. My algegra's a little rusty.

[Field Scout]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Just guessing, but another problem could be the torsion lift changing the aerodynamics of the front end and underbody.

I have a 5 turns on t-bar as well as roof rack w/pull pall and highlift jack I noticed a slight drop after t-bar crank (1/4 mpg) but never put crank/aerodynamics together. figured I was just getting a little more into the skinny pedal than before. major drop after I added M/T's