roadtraveler.net Open in urlscan Pro
66.84.6.30  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://roadtraveler.net/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://roadtraveler.net/">
  <label for="search-form-1">
    <span class="screen-reader-text"> Search for: </span>
  </label>
  <input type="search" id="search-form-1" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  <button type="submit" class="search-submit"><svg class="icon icon-search" aria-hidden="true" role="img">
      <use xlink:href="#icon-search"></use>
    </svg><span class="screen-reader-text"> Search </span></button>
</form>

Text Content

Skip to content

RoadTraveler.net

Trucks, Tech, Reviews, ADV Travel

Menu
 * About
 * Privacy Policy


CATEGORY: MPG/FUEL ECONOMY

Posted on September 14, 2020October 14, 2020


TRUCK CAMPER MPG TESTING.


SOMETIMES RESULTS ARE NOT WHAT MOST WOULD EXPECT.

RELATED LINK – TREAD MATTERS: TIRE SELECTION AND FUEL ECONOMY.







RESEARCH THE STT PRO HERE: COOPER DISCOVERER STT PRO

RESEARCH THE FUN COUNTRY HERE: DICK CEPEK FUN COUNTRY

Tell ’em you saw it on RoadTraveler.net

Please consider becoming a patron.

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler. All Rights Reserved

Resources:

Cooper Tire

Dick Cepek Tires & Wheels

 

 

 


Posted on July 16, 2020


FLATBED CUSTOM FUEL TANK PROJECT, PART 1.

The custom auxiliary fuel tank project for our 2017 Ram/Cummins 2500 is
underway! June 2019 I added two additional aluminum toolboxes aft-axle on my
Hallmark Nevada Hillsboro flatbed camper outfit. My idea was to eventually
remove one of the large, 30-inch-long front boxes and replace it with a fuel
tank, preferably a commercially available aluminum saddle tank for a medium-duty
truck.

The tank project was moved to the back burner and a year passed quickly. For a
while I considered a much smaller 10 or 12-gallon tank, hoping to fit one under
the chassis between the frame rails, and in front of the spare tire. Just 100
miles of additional range would be a game changer during long highway trips.

Evan a commercially available tank would have required custom mounts and
modifications, and surely some compromises. After discussing the project with
Chris at High Sierra Fabrication several weeks ago, we decided on a custom tank
for my original under-bed location. The goal was to fabricate a tank that looks
extremely similar to the toolbox that was removed, and the matching 30-inch box
still on the passenger-side.

Custom costs more, takes time, and is never snag-free, but if you have the right
business and people involved, the results can be fantastic.

A beautiful tank was constructed using 3/16-inch diamond plate aluminum. Then
High Sierra Fabrication proceeded to drill and cut holes in the box, weld-in
fittings, a sump, and clean-out port, etc. We are getting close, but still
working on it. 

After High Sierra Fabrication completes most of installation, I will still need
to plumb and wire the external pump to transfer the auxiliary fuel into the 2017
Ram’s factory tank. 

Tell ’em you saw it on RoadTraveler.net

Become a RoadTraveler patron. Thanks!

James Langan

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler. All Rights Reserved

Resource:

High Sierra Fabrication (Facebook page)

 

 

 

 


Posted on June 28, 2020September 15, 2020


COOPER TIRES STT PRO TRUCK CAMPER MPG TEST

Attempted to establish a baseline for fuel economy/mpg at 65 mph, with the
35.4″-tall, 295/65R20 Cooper STT PRO tires under a heavy Hallmark flatbed truck
camper outfit. There was too much wind for this to be a true baseline, but
efficiency was still good for this not-aerodynamic configuration; just under 13
mpg. I probably will revisit this in the future.

Subsequent test with better conditions can be viewed here: Truck Camper MPG
Testing

RESEARCH THE STT PRO HERE: COOPER DISCOVERER STT PRO

Tell ’em you saw it on RoadTraveler.net

Please consider becoming a patron.

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler. All Rights Reserved

Resource:

Cooper Tire

 

 


Posted on March 8, 2019March 10, 2019


DODGE RAM CUMMINS FLATBED CAMPER MPG

Backgrounder

A recent Nevada Highway 95 trip from Northern Nevada to Southern Nevada, and
back, a very familiar route, produced some interesting data. People often make
contrary statements about shared fuel economy information, generally well
intentioned but not always accurate, including:

1) My similar truck/camper does much better (or worse). 2) An aftermarket engine
tune would produce superior results (doubtful but possible). I could write
several such hearsay proclamations.

Let us remember that similar is not the same, and this includes engine tunes,
programming, and power ratings. Modifying engine performance is not an option as
long as I want to keep my emissions equipment on my truck and continue
registering it in the zip code where I live. However, my 350 horsepower, G56
manual truck has plenty of torque and power, and if I wanted more I’d likely
regear the differentials.

Now, let’s review some fuel economy 101.

Everything that is different can matter, including:

-Driver

-Tires

-Speed

-Engine output (also brand, configuration, etc.)

-Gearing

-Terrain/conditions

-Weight (less critical than many think, depending on the outfit)

However, the two big ones often not fully appreciated are:

–Engine speed: pumping losses

–Vehicle speed: aerodynamic losses

Engine pumping losses are of minimal concern for this rig. The 2017 Ram/Cummins
has the tall factory 3.42:1 gears, a 6-speed manual transmission, and runs
35-inch tires, resulting in low rpm in overdrive.

The aerodynamics are horrible. This is a heavy-duty truck with a big winch
bumper/grille guard, sliders, and a flatbed with mud flaps; these are important
details. However, the frontal area and drag coefficient of the truck camper (and
truck) are a huge factors.

It is possible to get similar (or better) mpg with a heavier truck and trailer
combination that is more aerodynamic; that’s how critical wind load and speed
are.

Fuel Economy Data

The test below was informal, if you want something more detailed, with
additional focus on controlling variables, you’ll likely enjoy this post: Tread
Matters

Southbound: Fernley to Beatty, Nevada

Vehicle: 2017 Ram 2500 Cummins/6-speed manual

Date: March 2, 2019

Distance: 295.6 miles (odometer corrected)

Cruising speed, where legal: 65 mph

RPM: 1,650

Approx. gross weight: 11,500 pounds

MPG: 13.47

Northbound: Las Vegas to Hawthorne, Nevada

Vehicle: 2017 Ram 2500 Cummins/6-speed manual

Date: March 4, 2019

Distance: 302.0 miles (odometer corrected)

Cruising speed, where legal: 63 mph

RPM: 1,600

Approx. gross weight: 11,500 pounds

MPG: 13.26

Speed Eats MPG

Because the terrain and conditions over Nevada Hiighway 95 have repeatedly given
better fuel economy going southbound than northbound, I intentionally reduced my
speed going north to try to limit the difference. It worked, two mph made a
difference. My educated estimate is that at 65 mph, fuel economy would have been
in the high twelves on the trip north, and going as fast a 70 mph would have
droped mpg into the mid to low twelves.

Want a quick example of how much speed and conditions matter? The same outfit
when it weighed less and was slightly more aerodynamic with the stock front
bumper, cruising almost completely at a constant 75 mph on Interstate 80 across
Northern Nevada, Elko to Reno, including maintaining 75 mph up and over mountain
passes, and a bit of off-highway travel to camp, yielded 11.57 mpg over a
distance of 300.4 miles. Considering the use and conditions, that was an
appropriate result, inline what was requested from the chassis.

Moosnrise, long exposure, White Pine County, Eastern Nevada, 2018.

James Langan

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler All Rights Reserved

Resource linK:

Hallmark Campers

 

 

 


Posted on May 7, 2018January 11, 2020


23 MPG RAM CUMMINS 2500

23.21 MPG from a 2017 Ram/Cummins. 65-mph highway baseline test, Sept. 5, 2017

222.7 miles, 9.593 gallons

65-mph freeway/highway test

light/no wind

A/C on

Tires: F 60 R 40 cold

Regular cab, long bed, 7,400-lb. GVW

Newer diesel trucks are not as efficient (due to emissions systems) as previous
generations? Maybe. Probably. Though it depends on the exact year, model, and
version. The true potential is better than some think, and the conditions, load,
and nearly everything else matters.

Tests must be repeatable and confirmable. The ECM was slightly pessimistic here,
and the odometer a little fast with the stock tires.

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler.net

All Rights Reserved.

 


Posted on October 30, 2017September 6, 2018


TREAD MATTERS: TIRE SELECTION AND FUEL ECONOMY

2014 Ram mpg test platform.


TREAD MATTERS: TIRE SELECTION AND FUEL ECONOMY

Tires have been a popular subject in magazines for decades, and forums
continually see new threads seeking information and expertise. This is partly
because they are expensive. They can also provide dramatic style and performance
improvements and are an easy upgrade. With so much talk, it is surprisingly
difficult to get unbiased, detailed, and authoritative information.

Fuel economy is another perpetually popular topic. Since tire choice affects
mpg, or so we have always believed, the subjects are intrinsically linked. Some
folks don’t care about mpg, but many care a lot. Except for the purchase of a
new(er) truck or major repairs, fuel is our biggest operational expense.

What if it was possible to improve your highway mpg by 5 or 10%? Not a possible
increase from the latest magic program pushed by a snake-oil salesman, but
simply by choosing a different tread design? An improvement that could be
measured and verified, repeatedly, with real world testing, not just theory or
laboratory results that are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate.

What Affects MPG?

In the enthusiast truck world it is commonly accepted that bigger rubber reduces
miles-per-gallon. Maybe, but bigger is not specific, sometimes it means wider,
taller, or both. Taller tires will increase the overall final-drive-ratio, which
can help or hurt efficiency depending on the platform and usage.

Previous tests with my 3.42:1-geared, 2014 Ram/Cummins 2500 used for this
article indicate that taller meats up to 35” helped economy, or at least hurt
mpg less than one might expect when unloaded. Tradeoffs include less torque and
slower acceleration from higher final-gearing, though current generation trucks
make plenty of torque and horsepower for most reasonable loads. My sense is that
stepping-up to 37s would require lower differential gears for optimal
performance.

When folks upgrade their tires, particularly on a four-wheel-drive, they often
switch to a higher-void pattern; sometimes the more aggressive tread is chosen
simply for looks. Even if we don’t mind the road noise or faster wear of an
aggressive pattern, how much fuel does looking cool consume if one rarely or
never drives off-road? With multiple, simultaneous changes, it’s impossible to
say what caused a reduction in fuel economy. Instead of belaboring what
modifications can do to our trucks, or what affects what, I’ll briefly quote
myself, “Modifications lead to modifications.”

Beefier tires might cost you more mpg than you think. Three great tread choices
depending on your priorities.

Controlling Variables With Cooper Discoverer Tires

With generous support from Cooper Tires, I performed a series of real-world
tests to document how tread design (or pattern) or tread width impacts fuel
economy. I invested a substantial amount of time and money to prove or disprove
commonly accepted hearsay and to produce solid data I could not find anywhere.
The pattern design tests are complete, and my procedures are detailed below
together with the results in Table Two. The width results are concerning, or at
least surprising, and additional work may be necessary to become comfortable
with the facts.

Worth $11. Love knowing what it really weighs.

The primary variable to be controlled for the design test was the size, but
weights, odometer and speedometer error, wind, and temperatures were also
logged. The bullet list below offers details.

 * Weather forecasts were monitored until several similar days were on the
   horizon. Because wind is common in Nevada, and typically increases with the
   afternoon temperatures, just one test was performed each morning, avoiding
   the higher winds and heat that would influence outcomes if I conducted
   multiple runs each day.
 * Three used sets of the same 29.8-pound, forged-aluminum (WBJ) Ram Bighorn 18”
   wheels were purchased from Craigslist, allowing all tires to remain mounted
   and balanced in case a test needed repeating.
 * Odometer error was measured for every design using mile-markers (MM) and GPS,
   as different treads in a certain size are not dimensionally identical. A
   single, constant-GPS distance was used for all mpg calculations. Road speed
   was monitored with GPS and corrected speedometer measurements.
 * To reduce the possibly of substantial inaccuracies during fueling, and to
   increase the validity of the data, the roundtrip route distance was
   222.7-miles, over mostly level freeway.
 * Refueling was done at a particular pump, on the slowest fill rate to prevent
   foaming, and never topped-off. The freeway onramp is just one mile and three
   stoplights from the filling station.
 * Appropriate, not maximum, pressures were used for the modified but unloaded
   truck- 8,900-pound GVW.
 * The tailgate was up and the A/C was on.
 * Cruise control was used and only adjusted or turned-off briefly when
   absolutely necessary, and notes were logged regarding any irregularities. If
   an accident, construction, or other mishap would have caused stopping or a
   substantial speed adjustment for an extended distance, I would have aborted
   and repeated the test.

Same GPS distance used for all runs. EVIC mpg info is often inaccurate, doing
the math is better.

All-Terrain, Commercial Traction, Or Mud-Terrain?

When enthusiasts upgrade their rubber it’s common for choices to fit into one of
three categories; all-terrain, commercial traction (hybrid), or mud-terrain. I
chose the LT295/70R18E size, which is approximately 34” tall and 12” wide, with
an impressive 4,080 pound capacity at 80 psi. Cooper offers three of their
popular, yet distinctly different Discoverer patterns in this size: the
Discoverer A/T3, Discoverer S/T MAXX, and Discoverer STT PRO.

Readers should remember than although every effort was made to limit variables,
these were real-world tests using off-the-shelf products; some differences
naturally exist. One easily overlooked fact is that tire compounds are
proprietary, and each has its own special cocktail. Tread depth, and sidewall
and tread plies also vary depending on the terrain and audience targeted. So the
differences affecting performance and mpg are not just the visible patterns, but
they include the compounds and the overall construction of each tire.

Cooper A/T3, S/T MAXX, and STT PRO designs.

Discoverer 295/70R18E Measurements

The differences between tires of a particular size are often small, though one
should be careful when comparing those from different manufacturers and/or a
vastly different pattern. Over the past decade I’ve evaluated several sets of
Cooper-branded and Cooper-manufactured tires, and my measured values have
repeatedly matched the published specifications. Occasional, slight variations
appear to be from measuring tools, mounting on narrower rims, etc. Manufactures
know precisely what they are producing; they want to be as accurate as possible.
Careful measurements were made of each Cooper design, and the details are in
Table One.

Reading forums leads me to believe that some consumers don’t measure accurately,
and/or expect the on-vehicle dimensions to be identical as the wheel-mounted,
off-vehicle measurements; these folks cry foul when they are not. That is silly,
as the weight of the vehicle, psi, and wheel width all affect the on-vehicle
stature, and this is something the manufactures have no control over.

If you read carefully, and do some math, you may notice that the measured weight
of a solo tire, plus the 29.8-pound wheel, does not match the mounted data,
there are a few extra pounds in the sums. I’ve seen this many times before, as
measuring bare wheels is difficult, and generally I must hold them against my
chest and subtract my body weight. The figures listed in table one are what my
shop scale, a good bathroom scale, indicated, plenty accurate for weighing heavy
auto parts. Emphasis should be placed on the mounted weights, as nobody drives
on wheels without tires. The few pound difference between these designs is
negligible on a heavy-duty truck with prodigious torque and weighing nearly
9,000 pounds.

All 295/70R18 tread designs were about 34.25” tall. Straight edge, a rule, and a
keen eye were used to record height and width.

Table One, 295/70R18 Measurements

Cooper Discoverer 295/70R18 A/T 3 S/T MAXX STT PRO Weight (pounds) 60.2 66.4
68.8 Weight mounted (pounds) 92.0 97.4 99.8 Height unmounted 33 11/16” 33 13/16”
34” Height mounted @60 34 4/16” 34 5/16” 34 5/16” Tread width 9 7/16” 9 10/16”
10 3/16” Tread depth 17/32” 18.5/32” 21/32”

Table Two, Tread Affecting MPG Test Data

Tread Matters MPG 295/70R18 A/T3 S/T MAXX STT PRO Test GVW (pounds) 8,900 8,900
8,900 Tire PSI F/R 60/40 60/40 60/40 Date 9-28-16 9-27-16 9-29-16 Time 0832–1202
0859–1230 0837–1208 Temperatures F 54-59-72-70-76-72 52-58-67-73-75-78
58-60-56-69-79-76 Wind/Gusts 1/2-5/5-2/5-4/4-1/2 4/4-2/3-0/0-1/2-0/0
0/0-3/4-5/6-3/8-0/0 Odometer 27,241–27,459 26,950–27,168 27,503–27,721 Trip
Odometer 217.6 217.7 217.5 Odo error % MM & GPS 2.24/2.34 2.17/2.29 2.28/2.39
GPS (miles) 222.7 222.7 222.7 MPH indicated 64 64 64 MPH GPS 65.0–65.5 65.0–65.5
65.0–65.5 RPM Tach/Edge Insight 1,700/1,677 1,700/1,680 1,700/1,677 Fuel used
(gallons) 10.380 11.033 11.533 ECM indicated MPG 23.2 22.4 21.0 MPG calculated
21.45 20.18 19.30

The less aggressive Cooper A/T3 delivered much better mpg.

Tread Results Commentary

Choosing the Cooper S/T MAXX over the STT PRO mudder offers a 4.6% bump in fuel
economy. Running the A/T3 instead of the S/T MAXX delivered a 6.3% increase. The
leap from the STT PRO up to the A/T3 is 11.1%. Wow!

It’s impressive that a modified, heavy-duty, 4WD pickup with prodigious
capabilities, weighing 8,900 pounds empty, with 34” x 12” tires mounted, can
still reach or exceed 20 mpg during highway travel. Obviously most driving
involves at least a few and stops and starts, but these repeatable tests
demonstrate what is possible if speed and idling are minimized. If I picked the
Discoverer A/T3, it appears that long distance highway runs, even with a couple
pit stops, could top 20 mpg.

If one needs the extra grip offered by the STT PRO or S/T MAXX, choosing the
A/T3 all-terrain might not be an acceptable tradeoff. Yet, if one is so inclined
and has the space, these numbers seem to reinforce the practice of having two
sets of tires and wheels. Whether they are all-terrains and mudders for your
truck, or highway and winter rubber for your car, strong arguments can be made
about picking the right tool for the job. We don’t wear flip-flops to go
mountain climbing, and our clodhoppers are out of place in a gymnasium.

Off-highway traction is great with a mudder, but you will pay at the pump.

Does Width Matter?

The initial primary platform for measuring how tread width affects mpg was my
modified, heavy, and low-geared ‘06 V8 4Runner, because I already had one of two
desirable sizes. One might think the results would be relevant for most
light-truck platforms. The conditions and procedures were the same as those for
the different tread patterns.

I used Cooper’s S/T MAXX in 255/80R17, and 285/75R16, both 33” tall, but the
285s are substantially wider. The 255s are about 10” wide and the 285s about
11.5”; conventional wisdom says the 285s would consume about 1–2 mpg. Without
creating another table, the short story is that theses tests delivered ambiguous
results, there was very little difference. I was shocked! Followup runs might
indicate these results were a fluke, but there were no obviously problems or
procedure inconsistencies. The narrower 255s delivered 18.34 mpg, and the 285s
18.22 mpg.

I thought wider treads consumed more fuel, not so sure anymore. On the car or
dismounted, the 285s are much wider than 255s.

Ram Width Comparison

Two sets of tires and wheels for my ‘14 Ram partially met the width criteria,
meaning they were very similar height with the identical tread pattern, yet the
width difference was small. I had them, so test I did, using the same
parameters, during the same week, weather conditions, etc.

One set were the 295/70R18 S/T MAXX in table one. The other were 285/75R17 S/T
MAXX mounted on 2015 (WFV) forged aluminum Power Wagon wheels, which weigh 28.6
pounds each. These 285mm-wide Discoverers are also 34” tall, but just
fractionally shorter than the 295s. The mounted, measured tread width difference
between these two sets is only about 3/8”.

The seventeens were evaluated at the end of six consecutive days of testing, and
the weather started to change, with 22 mph winds near the end of this last trip.
This was noteworthy, but I’d argue that there was not enough wind during most
the run to impact the outcome. The data appear to support that opinion. For the
slight difference in width, the results appear appropriate. There simply was not
enough difference to influence economy, 20.18 vs. 20.22 mpg. I call that a draw.

295/70R18 vs. 285/75R17. Not a huge width difference but still easy to see.
Forged 17” Power Wagon wheel on the left, forged 18” Bighorn wheel the right.

Table Three, 285/75R17 Measurements

Cooper Discoverer 285/75R17 S/T MAXX Weight 64 Weight mounted lb. 93.4 Height
unmounted 33 11/16” Height mounted @60 34” Tread width 9 1/4” Tread depth
18.5/32”

Table Four, Ram Width Matters 285/75R17

Width Matters MPG S/T MAXX 285/75R17 Test GVW lb. 8,900 Tire PSI F/R 60/40 Date
9-30-16 Time 0759–1130 Temperatures F 55-59-69-71-73 Wind/Gusts
0/0-3/4-5/5-5/14-22/22 Odometer 27,780–28,000 Trip Odometer 219.0 Odo error % MM
& GPS 1.57/1.68 GPS miles 222.7 MPH indicated 64 MPH GPS 65.2–65.7 RPM Tach/Edge
Insight 1,700/1,690 Fuel gallons used 11.011 ECM indicated MPG 20.9 MPG
calculated 20.22

Good traction with a tolerable mpg penalty, I prefer a hybrid/commercial
traction tires like the Discoverer S/T MAXX.

The Ram results were not a big surprise. The lack of separation between the
4Runner’s width test mpg numbers, and to a lessor extent the Ram’s, have me
questioning how much tread width alone impacts fuel economy. Much taller tires,
with the corresponding overall gearing changes, combined with more aggressive
tread patterns may be the main story behind fuel economy losses when fitting
aftermarket rubber. Sometimes testing answers questions.

James Langan

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler/Turbo Diesel Register. All Rights Reserved.

 A version of this article was also published in the Turbo Diesel Register
magazine.

Source:

Cooper Tires: coopertire.com

 


Posted on February 8, 2017February 8, 2017


BIG TIRES, ODOMETER ERROR, AND MPG

Did the truck really travel 8,888 miles?

Recently a friend emailed this miles-per-gallon question:

I’m scratching my head here on fuel and mileage numbers. If I do the math for
gallons of fuel consumed (fuel filter life % gauge) and odo I get about 16 mpg.

But the Ram’s EVIC dash display says 11 MPG.

With 4.30:1 gears and 37-inch tires, I know ALL the numbers are inaccurate.

How do I figure this out?

My reply:

I’d be very surprised if you are able to routinely obtain 16 mpg with your
Ram/Four Wheel Camper setup, unless you are driving 55 mph. I never trust dash
displays. They are almost always overly optimistic, though in your case because
of the tall, 37-inch tires, it may actually be a little pessimistic.  My built,
2006 4Runner mpg display is slightly low most of the time because the car
travels further on taller tires than the ECM calculates.

The fuel filter life gauge is not a good source for mpg data, I think it’s
really only useful for when to change the fuel filters. I’ve done similar
calculations using the oil life percentage numbers (it probably uses the same
ECM algorithm) after doing oil changes. The numbers literally do not add-up to
the actual odometer distance traveled (neither indicated miles or the known and
measured inaccuracy). To state the obvious, the only way to get accurate fuel
economy readings is to have good numbers for the math; how many miles vs. how
many gallons at fill-up.

I don’t think your gearing change matters. Most late-model vehicles
calculate the speed from wheel sensors… as long as that’s the case on the new
Ram (easy to test) then it is only the tire diameter that matters. I’ve tested
many sets of 33, 34, and 35-inch tires on my 2014, but no 37s yet. My guess is
that your odometer is about 8-10% slow, compared to the actual miles you are
traveling.

My method of testing tire-induced odometer error is to compare actual miles
traveled to odometer readings. California doesn’t use highway mile-markers most
places anymore, but Nevada does. With two columns on paper, I reset my trip
odometer at a mile-marker, and then log the indicated and mile-marker distances.
Data gathered over more miles will be more helpful. For example, a 10-20 mile
test can be better than nothing, but the initial error percentage will drop if
you make a longer run, like 50-100 miles.

If you’re on a long trip you can use indicated GPS miles instead of
mile-markers. Recently I compared GPS to mile-marker data over a 70-mile route,
and was surprised that they were just slightly different.

Good luck.

Copyright James Langan/RoadTraveler. All Rights Reserved.



POSTS PAGINATION

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Next page
Search for: Search


CATEGORIES

 * 4WD & Recovery Gear
 * Diesel Pickups
 * Driving Technique and Skill
 * Energy Technology
 * Events, Shows, Gatherings
 * Featured Vehicles
 * How-To
 * Industry News and Commentary
 * Moto Travel
 * MPG/Fuel Economy
 * Overland
 * Product Reviews and Introductions
 * RV Stuff
 * Shop Stories
 * Still Plays With Trucks
 * Tech Topics
 * Tires and wheels
 * Tools
 * Travel
 * Trip Planning
 * Truck Camper
 * Uncategorized
 * Vehicle Maintenance




RECENT POSTS

 * Mickey Thompson Baja Boss X
 * Gaither Tool Wheel Dolly
 * Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T LT255/85R17
 * Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T LT295/70R18
 * NEXEN ATX All Terrain 10,000 Mile Review




RECENT COMMENTS

 * admin on Toyo M/T LT255/85R16E, Loaded, On-Highway
 * AJ on Favorite LT255/85R16 Part Two
 * admin on Favorite LT255/85R16 Part Two
 * AJ on Favorite LT255/85R16 Part Two
 * admin on Favorite LT255/85R16 Part Two




ARCHIVES

 * November 2024
 * July 2023
 * May 2023
 * April 2023
 * March 2023
 * June 2022
 * May 2022
 * January 2022
 * October 2021
 * September 2021
 * May 2021
 * April 2021
 * December 2020
 * November 2020
 * October 2020
 * September 2020
 * August 2020
 * July 2020
 * June 2020
 * May 2020
 * April 2020
 * March 2020
 * February 2020
 * January 2020
 * December 2019
 * November 2019
 * October 2019
 * September 2019
 * August 2019
 * July 2019
 * June 2019
 * May 2019
 * April 2019
 * March 2019
 * February 2019
 * January 2019
 * December 2018
 * November 2018
 * October 2018
 * August 2018
 * July 2018
 * June 2018
 * May 2018
 * April 2018
 * March 2018
 * February 2018
 * January 2018
 * October 2017
 * September 2017
 * August 2017
 * May 2017
 * April 2017
 * March 2017
 * February 2017
 * January 2017
 * December 2016
 * November 2016
 * October 2016
 * September 2016
 * August 2016
 * July 2016
 * April 2016
 * January 2016
 * September 2015
 * August 2015
 * October 2014
 * September 2014
 * February 2013
 * January 2013
 * December 2012
 * November 2012
 * October 2012
 * September 2012
 * August 2012
 * July 2012
 * June 2012
 * May 2012
 * April 2012
 * March 2012
 * February 2012
 * January 2012
 * December 2011
 * August 2011
 * July 2011




META

 * Log in
 * Entries feed
 * Comments feed
 * WordPress.org




Privacy Policy Proudly powered by WordPress