Best wheels/tires for efficiency

[FredMullegun]

Hi all.

I have an F-150 and it has 285/70/17 that are close to 33" tall but they are E load rating and therefore heavy.

Many Lightnings have 275/60/20 and I was thinking of getting Ford 20" wheels but they are all heavy (around 38 pounds) compared to my 17" wheels (25 pounds). the tires will weigh less and I can get 116 load ratings but the overall combo weight will be around the same.


Is there any other alternative to get 33" tall tires in a lighter combo? Most aftermarket wheels have +12 or +20 offset which will poke out and presumably lower efficiency.

My guess is for efficiency the order goes
Tread (rolling resistance)
Poke
Weight

I'm sure some people here have investigated deeper than my search abilities for range purposes.

Sponsored

 

[TomB985]

Hi all.

I have an F-150 and it has 285/70/17 that are close to 33" tall but they are E load rating and therefore heavy.

Many Lightnings have 275/60/20 and I was thinking of getting Ford 20" wheels but they are all heavy (around 38 pounds) compared to my 17" wheels (25 pounds). the tires will weigh less and I can get 116 load ratings but the overall combo weight will be around the same.


Is there any other alternative to get 33" tall tires in a lighter combo? Most aftermarket wheels have +12 or +20 offset which will poke out and presumably lower efficiency.

My guess is for efficiency the order goes
Tread (rolling resistance)
Poke
Weight

I'm sure some people here have investigated deeper than my search abilities for range purposes.

I don’t have any good suggestions, but I have thoughts on what you’re looking for.

I think the factory 20” wheels are heavier than you think. Motor Trend weighed the factory wheel set at 79 lbs in a recent article. The factory tires are 34 lbs, which makes the wheel a portly 45 lbs.

I don’t see how weight affects efficiency, though. Inertia means more mass doesn’t take more energy to stay in motion if everything else is equal, and the energy used to spin them is a tiny fraction of what it takes to change the velocity of the remaining 6,500 lbs. Added rolling mass also means you have more energy to recover when slowing to a stop as long as you don’t exceed regen capacity and bleed energy into heat with the friction brakes.

I think wheel aerodynamics play a much bigger role than weight. EVs are some of the only vehicles sold with wheel covers, and I’ve read numerous tests over the years showing a 2-3% improvement in highway range with aero covers installed. The factory wheels are presumably designed for decent aero, but aftermarkets rarely are. I think you’d be less efficient going with a lighter aftermarket unless it had a decent aero profile.

ON edit: You may be talking about wheels and tires for a conventional F150. These principles would be the same, but you may have an attractive option with Lightning 20” takeoffs. I believe the 20” wheels are the most aerodynamic OEM option at the moment.

 

[chrisvitek1]

There is a balance in rotating mass when it comes to expending energy for accelerations and recovering energy while slowing down. 40% of breaking/accelerating force is consumed by rotating mass. 79 pounds is optimal. Else you risk efficiency loss.

 

[TomB985]

There is a balance in rotating mass when it comes to expending energy for accelerations and recovering energy while slowing down. 40% of breaking/accelerating force is consumed by rotating mass. 79 pounds is optimal. Else you risk efficiency loss.

There’s no way.

You’re saying a go-kart with Lightning wheels and tires would use 40% as much energy to accerate to speed?

 

[chrisvitek1]

No, I am saying that rotational energy is a big deal. And, that the regeneration hardware is tuned to the weight of the rotational mass. so is the acceleration.

 

[FredMullegun]

I saw the same motor trend article and I believe the Lightning wheels are heavier for the aero advantage of the extra metal. I have some F-150 takeoffs that are 38 pounds

I think aero matters for highway and weight matters for braking, acceleration and a bit for city driving. EVs are greatly efficient at city so I think that's why Ford made that compromise for better aero.

I noticed the stock lightning tires are only 34 pounds which is insane for a 275/60r20. Perhaps that is how they made up the difference with the heavier wheel.

 

[Dukhudo]

Depends on the wheel. Mine came with the Hankook Dynapro AT2 which weigh 41 lbs. The General Grabbers weigh 34 lbs.

And I don't know if it's the All-Terrain treads or the extra weight, but my efficiency isn't great compared to what I see others posting.

 

[cyberious]

This is my third EV, and while weight certainly is a factor, rolling resistance is a larger factor.

https://www.cartalk.com/tires/best-tires-for-your-ev
As an example, if you are looking for an AT tire, maybe a Toyo that is specific to EV as it will need to take the weight as well as the reduced rolling resistance.

https://www.toyotires.com/open-country-at3-ev

 

[XENOILPHOBE]

I am on the same quest, this is my 6th EV, I always go with the lightest fully forged wheel and lightest EV rated tires I can get. Right now I am leaning towards the Atomic Wheels (30 lbs) in 20 inch and Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3's (38 lbs) would prefer an ECO Focused tire, so still trying to find the right mix for my 2024 Platinum with these ridiculous 22 inch wheels. This truck is a street only vehicle and I have another off-road truck purpose built with 33" (Nittos), but that would kill the range on this already overweight truck.

The setup above would drop 20 lbs per corner, static 80 lbs total and rotational weight reduction of

Decrease of 1.1 lbs rotating weight = increase in 1 WHP

 

[FredMullegun]

That is the exact tire I went with. Those atomic wheels are interesting. Heavier than the S77/S81 wheels but half the price.

 

[XENOILPHOBE]

That is the exact tire I went with. Those atomic wheels are interesting. Heavier than the S77/S81 wheels but half the price.

The S77/S81's are only 17 inches, and cold rolled "forged". The Atomics are 20 inch (street config) mono block forged weigh 30 lbs, the Atomics in 17 inch config (off road) are 32 lbs with the added weight being the "fugazzi" bead lock look.

 

[FredMullegun]

The S77/S81's are only 17 inches, and cold rolled "forged". The Atomics are 20 inch (street config) mono block forged weigh 30 lbs, the Atomics in 17 inch config (off road) are 32 lbs with the added weight being the "fugazzi" bead lock look.

They make a 20" for the F-150 that has a +38mm offset so they won't stick out brodozer style. Most guys are buying the 20x7 for fronts on a drag pack setup but they also have 20x10.

I don't know the exact weight or manufacturing but I know the 20x7s are sub 30.

 

[XENOILPHOBE]

They make a 20" for the F-150 that has a +38mm offset so they won't stick out brodozer style. Most guys are buying the 20x7 for fronts on a drag pack setup but they also have 20x10.

I don't know the exact weight or manufacturing but I know the 20x7s are sub 30.

I am definitely not going for the Brodozer look, just want better efficiency, been slowing down from my usual highway speed ~80 MPH kills the range, I could get about 200 miles doing that in my old Model S, but the aero profile on this truck cuts it way down to ~140 miles @ 80.

 

[Firn]

I'm in the "weight isn't that important" camp.

Weight in the vehicle itself only increases rolling resistance, and slows acceleration. If rolling resistance was the same for different weights we would just expend more energy getting up to speed, and get more back slowing down.

The same applies to wheels and tires. It takes more energy to get it up to speed, but it doesn't take any more energy to keep it at that speed. When slowing we get the large majority of that energy back. Yes, a slight loss of energy (efficiency)due to the small inefficiency of accelerstion and regenerative braking, but it is fairly small.

The biggest effect of weight is acceleration, but that's mostly a gas car thing. With the huge torque of this truck the difference is negligible.

Rolling resistance will be the biggest issue below highway speed. Roughly speaking the harder the tread compound and the narrower the contact patch the better. A stiff sidewall will help as well.

At highway speeds aero will be the big killer. Proper wheel design is the best thing you can do. Look to Tesla and the latest Rivian offerings for good designs for aero. Roughly speaking a smooth and flat face is good although from what I have seen you do want some airflow through the wheel for the greatest benefit

 

[XENOILPHOBE]

Huge thread on the Rivian forums about this, seems weight does play a role

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...-wheels-and-33-tires-options-275-60r20.24561/



20" Inch Affordable high efficiency 20" wheels and 33" tires options (275/60R20)
June 6 2024 Update: There's now a 20" 275/60R20 OEM Tire: Goodyear Wrangler Territory AT
Likely to have same/similar MPK to the 21" OEM, also looks like Rivian will discontinue the 21" option:
Spotted in March 2023:
Rivian R1S Test Car seen with Goodyear Wrangler ATs

Update: A great article that discusses/highlights many tire options:

https://www.autoblog.com/article/best-truck-suv-tires/

5 tires compared: Five (5) 275/60R20 [33"] Tires Compared: Defender, Territory HT, Geolander CV4S, Grabber HTS60, and Nomad Grappler

Highlight: Four high efficiency 275/60R20 tires rise to the top getting ~2.5 MPK:
General Grabber HTS60, Pirelli AS+3, Goodyear Wrangler Territory HT, and Michelin Defender M/S2:

There's a lot of great info spread out across 5-10 threads here. This post is an effort to condense the info down into one location, links to contributing threads are below:

If you are looking for comparable info on 34” Diameter OEM tires, see this thread:
High efficiency 20" wheels and ~34" tires options (R20 - 285/60 - 275/65 - 285/65 - 295/65)

Below is a list of 275/60R20 Tires that can be grouped into the high efficiency (>2 MPK) and ultra hi-E (>2.3 MPK) clubs, organized by weight based on the correlation of low weight and high efficiency (I know, I know, rolling resistence-schmolling resistence...), also note there is a correlation to tread depth and weight:

The tires were also graded primarily based on weight/efficiency, A rating for tires with efficiency above 2.4 MPK. B rating for tires >2.3 MPK and less than 2.4. C rating for tires >2.2 MPK and less than 2.3. D rating for tires >2.1 MPK and less than 2.2. E and F ratings for the heavier tires 2.0 MPK and less...

Efficiency Grades (20")	MPK	Note
A	>2.4	This is equal to or better than the 21" OEM option
B	>2.3	Better than 20"/22" OEM options
C	>2.2	Better than or equal to 20" OEM and equal to 22" OEM option

The following equations describe the relationship between MPK (y, miles per kwh) and Tire Weight (x, pounds):
All Purpose Tire Efficiency = 3.35 MPK - (2.5% of Tire Weight) [Y=3.35-X/40]
Conserve Tire Efficiency = 3.7 MPK - (2.5% of Tire Weight) [Y=3.7-X/40]
Additional info related to MPK estimates:
Speed has a large impact on efficiency specially over 60 MPH, explained as follows:
2.6 MPK - [SPEED OVER 60]/20; [Y=2.6-(x-60)/20, where x is speed]
At 70 mph that's 2.1 MPK (2.6-0.5)
At 80 mph that's 1.6 MPK (2.6-1.0)

Temperature is another big factor for efficiency as the density of air changes significantly with different temps, a generalized equation describes the change as an increase of 0.1 MPK for every 7 degrees farenheit higher temp.

Elevation will impact efficiency as higher elevations have lower density air, so 2.0 MPK in Denver is equivalent to ~1.7 MPK at sea level.

Given all of these factors, someone in Denver on an 80F day driving 60 MPH in Conserve mode on 33" General Grabber HTS60s might be able to get 3.3 MPK whereas someone at sea level with a heavy AT tire (65#) driving in AP on a 40F day might only get 1.3 MPK. Not a big surprise that most peoples MPK fall somewhere in the middle near ~2.3 MPK due to all the different variables at play.

GRADE/ LOAD/PSI (max) [year released]	UTQG	Examples (275/60R20), Name, Load/Speed, Snow rating	Width / Depth (inches)	#s/ $s	Actuals from 15-minute Testing (60/65/70/75)	All Purpose (70 F @50 psi) mi/kwh (MPK)	Daily range in AP (80-20%)**	100% eRange
(A+) XL/51 [2015]	620 AB	($) Gen. Grabber HTS60 (116T) - Snow (M+S)	8.6 / 10/32	34/ $212	-/2.2/-/- (53 F, 48 psi 95% tread)	2.50	194 [344]	320-358
(A) SL/51 [2023]	800 AA	($) Pirelli AS+3 (115H) - Snow (M+S)	8.3 / 11/32	38/ $273	tbd	2.40	186 [330]	307-345
(A) XL/50 [2023]	680 AB	($) Goodyear Wrangler Territory HT (116T) - Snow (M+S)	8.2 / 11/32	39/ $245	tbd	2.38	184 [326]	304-342
(B+) SL/51 [2021]	580 AB	($) Goodyear Wrangler Territory AT (115S) - Snow (M+S)	9.0/ 12/32	40/ $239	tbd	2.35	"	"
(B+) XL/50 [2023]	820 BA	($$) Defender LTX M/S2 (116H) - Snow (M+S)	7.8 / 11/32	40/ $302	2.5/2.4/2.2/2.0 (Est.)	2.35	"	"
( B) XL/50 [2024]	660 AA	($) GEOLANDAR CV 4S (116H) SNOW (3PMSF)	8.1 / 13/32	41/ $280	2.48/2.35/2.1/1.9 (Adj. 65 F, 50 psi 95% tread)		180 [320]	298-336
(A)/51 [2024]	580 AB	($) OEM Goodyear Wrangler Territory AT (116H) - SNOW (3PMSF)	8.8/ 12/32	42/$236	tbd	2.30	178 [316]	294-333
(B) SL/44 [2021]	800 AB	($$) Bridgestone Alenza AS Ultra (115H)	8.5 / 10/32	42 / $290	tbd	2.30	"	"
(B) SL/44 [2015]	740 AA	($) Cooper Discoverer SRX (115H) SNOW	8.9 / 11.5	42/ $212	tbd	2.30	"	"
(B) SL/51 [2021]	720 AA	($) Nokian One HT (115H) - Snow (M+S)	unk / 12.5	42/ $243	tbd	2.30	"	"
(B) SL/51 [2018]	640 AA	($) Kumho Crugen HP71 (115H)	7.8 / 11/32	42/ $228	tbd	2.30	"	"
(B-) XL/50 [2022]	600 AB	($$) Toyo Open Country R/T Trail (117T) [275/55R20]	9.5 / 13.5/32	43/ $328	tbd	2.25	174 [309]	288-326
(B-) SL/44 [2022]	600 AB	($$) Toyo Open Country R/T Trail	9.0 / 13.5/32	43/ $345	tbd	2.25	"	"
(B-) XL/50 [2020]	600 AB	($) Maxxis Razr AT-811 (116S) SNOW (3PMSF)	? / 14/32	43.2/ $252	tbd	2.25	"	"
(C+) SL/51 [2022]	660 AB	($) Hankook Dynapro At2 Xtreme (115T)	8.8 / 12.5/32	44/ $258	tbd	2.25	"	"
(C+) SL/51 [2019]	720 AA	($) Conti. TerrainCntct H/T (115H)	8.9 / 12/32	44/ $259	tbd	2.25	"	"
(C) SL/51 [2016]	600 AB	($) Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015 (115H) SNOW	8.3 / 12/32	45/ $261	tbd	2.23	172 [306]	284-322
(C) XL/50 [2016]	500 AB	($$) Nitto Ridge Grappler (116T)	8.9 / 13.5/32	45/ $313	tbd	2.23	"	"
(C) XL/50 [2022]	none	($) Nitto Nomad Grappler (116H) SNOW (3PMSF)	9.1 / 13.2/32	45/ $250	tbd	2.23	"	"
(C) LT/80	none	($$) Nokian Outpost NAT SNOW (3PMSF)	? / 18/32	46/ $318	tbd	2.20	171 [303]	282-320
(C) SL/51 [2022]	680 AA	($) Kumho Road Vent. AT52 (115T) SNOW	9.1 / 13.5/32	46/ $234	tbd	2.20	"	"
(D) SL/50 [2022]	640 AB	($$$) OEM Pirelli AT+ (116H) [275/65R20] SNOW (3PMSF)	9.1 / 13/32	48/ $462	2.2/2.1/1.9/1.7 (55 F, 50 psi 80% tread)	2.15	167 [296]	275-314
(E) XL/50 [2018]	640 AB	($) Gen. Grabber A/TX (116T) SNOW (3PMSF)	9.6 / 14/32	50/ $271	tbd	2.10	163 [289]	269-307
(E) LT-D/65 [2022]	none	($$) Kumho Road Venture AT52 (119S)	8.8/ 16/32	52/ $350	tbd	2.05	160 [283]	263-300
(F) LT-E/80 [2023]	none	($$$) Mich. Defend. Platinum (126S) [275/65R20]	8.9 / 14/32	60/ $424	tbd	1.85	143 [254]	237-288
(F) LT-E/80 [2018]	none	($$) Gen. Grabber A/TX (126S) SNOW [275/65R20]	8.9 / 16/32	64/ $377	tbd	1.7	130 [232]	218-269
(F) LT-E/80 [2019]	none	($$$) Mickey Thompson Baja Boss (126) [275/65R20]	9.7 / 18.5/32	64/ $422	(1.7/1.6/1.5/1.3)^^ test at elevation, adjusted for sea level	1.7

* Add ~0.3 mi/kwh for Conserve mode; range will increase by ~30 miles or so...Assumes 65 mph, flat terrain, no wind, no cargo/passengers. But friends don't let friends use conserve mode...
**-Plus 30 minute supercharge (+60kwh)

20" OEM QM efficiency (EPA): 289 mi / 2.1 mi/kwh
21" OEM QM efficiency (EPA): 321 mi / 2.4 mi/kwh
22" OEM QM efficiency (EPA): 303 mi / 2.2 mi/kwh

My top four choices come mainly from wanting a wider tire, they are in order:

1) General Grabber HTS60 [320 m. Range; 620 AB] - Best efficiency/range and 116 (but only 10/32 tread - ~20k miles expected). Also a A/T tire in XL and D size (65 psi) available. Cost per mile of $0.05 for tires plus $0.15 for electricity. $200 per 1,000 miles operational cost. Wet stopping dist. - 140 feet; wet cornering 0.60 G-Force. (Photo source: @LL75; Rims (32#) - Atomic Wheels AW09 - Gloss Black 20x8.5" +48 offset - $2,580.00 [~$2k w/ discount])

2) Pirelli AS+3 [307 m. Range; 800 AA] - Excellent efficiency and UTQG, width and 115 not so great, only 11/32 tread, also only 20-25k miles expected. Cost per mile of $0.06 for tires plus $0.16 for electricity. $220 per 1,000 miles operational cost. Wet stopping dist. - 132 feet; wet cornering 0.62 G-Force. (Photo source: @JJE; Rims - OEM 20")

3) Continental TerrainContact H/T [288 m. Range; 720 AA], special note for #3, it's also a high performance tire, rating much higher on wet performance and stopping distance....potentially 30k miles. If you're in a rainy area this is prob. the best choice. Cost per mile of $0.04 for tires plus $0.17 for electricity. $210 per 1,000 miles operational cost. Wet stopping dist. - 109 feet; wet cornering 0.70 G-Force. (Photo source: @DoubleTake; Rims (33#) - EV Sportline Adventure Bronze - 20x8.5" +48 offset - $1,995.95)

4) Goodyear Wrangler Territory HT [304 m. Range; 680 AB], only around 25k miles tire life expectancy. Some light off roading is possible with this tire if you are careful. The only reason this tire is #4 is tire width (and no treadwear warranty), it's pretty narrow at 8.2". Cost per mile of $0.04 for tires plus $0.16 for electricity. $200 per 1,000 miles operational cost. Wet stopping dist. - n/a feet; wet cornering n/a G-Force. (Photo source: Goodyear.com)
View attachment 89493

Three options come with a 65-70k warranty. Goodyear Wrangler doesn't.

A new Yokohama tire option on the horizon that is 3PMSF, 116H, lightweight (41#), and UTQG=660AA:

Review: YOKOHAMA GEOLANDAR CV 4S | 275/60R20 - 116H - 660AA - 3PMSF

The Defender LTX M/S2 doesn't make the list since it's extremely narrow (<8"), it's also $100 more than the General Grabber HTS60. But it's a very highly rated tire so may be worth it for certain uses (snow/rain and light offroad).

The OEM 20" tire has an operational cost of almost $300 per 1,000 miles...

Discussions on 275/60 tire choices:
R1T 20" AT Replacement Tires?
My R1T's Most Miles Driven on 1 Tank of Battery = 366.5 miles
Time For Some New 20" Tires
20 Inch MICHELIN® X® LT A/S 2 (XL 275/60R20)
20" tire recommendations
Michelin Defender LTX Platinum
Weight rating RAM 2363 wheels?
What's the best wheel size for range and tire longevity?
Hello from Discount Tire!
20-inch [AW09] Forged Wheels by Atomic Wheels
20" Michelin Defender LTX Platinum Tires review -- For all of you thinking about a 20" tire! Your wait is over!

General disclaimer: Tire sizing and performance is convoluted and confusing, above info is simplified and generalized so the average person can see how range and efficiency change with different tire options. There are at least 5-10 other sizes that would likely work on the 20" OEM rims or an aftermarket option. This thread focuses only on size 275/60R20 so it's straightforward. If you are even remotely thinking of doing major offroading with your Rivian than most likely none of the above options will work for you. Ideally you'd have 2-3 sets of tires like a few folks here have, 1) Winter (if applicable), 2) Offroad (if applicable), and 3) Onroad set. For winter tires, best to be `34" diameter and not super wide. For offroad, best to be 34-35" and around 10" wide, best tire onroad is 33" and between 8-9 inches wide (lightweight ~35-45#s).
For any efficiency tests, it's important to note if Conserve is being used (best to test in AP). You might be tempted by someone reporting a 275/65R20 tire (60#) getting 2.2 MPK when reality is that AP MPK is going to be ~1.8...

END

View attachment 89490

Sponsored


Attachments

• 0 bytesViews: 0
• 0 bytesViews: 0

Last edited: Jun 27, 2024
Rivian Referral: KENNETH1957413
Reactions:ForestGreen, CrazyOne, Daspes and 39 others
[ATTACH=full]96539[/ATTACH]
Chewy734
First NameAshuJoinedNov 8, 2020Threads26Messages1,293Reaction score2,651LocationLos AngelesVehiclesBMW, Ford, RivianClubs
Feb 26, 2024

• #2

Bookmarked. Thanks for compiling!

R1S Adventure, Rivian Blue, Black Mountain: Ordered 12/3/2018, Delivered 3/19/2023
R2: Ordered 3/7/2024
Reactions:a76marine, R1Thor and ksurfier
[ATTACH=full]96540[/ATTACH]
DoubleTake
Banned
First NameAnthonyJoinedOct 8, 2023Threads12Messages239Reaction score314LocationNew YorkVehicles2022 Rivian R1TOccupationMilitary
Feb 26, 2024

• Banned
• #3

I just got a set of the terrain contact h/t. They get installed Thursday

22 R1T Launch Edition
Reactions:ksurfier
OP
[ATTACH=full]96541[/ATTACH]
ksurfier
First NameKenJoinedAug 23, 2022Threads33Messages884Reaction score803LocationCAVehiclesR1SQM, TeslaOccupationFake Science LeadClubs
Feb 26, 2024

• Thread starter
• #4

DoubleTake said:
I just got a set of the terrain contact h/t. They get installed Thursday

Look forward to seeing photos, efficiency, and overall opinion on them!

Rivian Referral: KENNETH1957413
Reactions:jambaman84
[ATTACH=full]96542[/ATTACH]
Mtbaddict
JoinedDec 15, 2022Threads10Messages77Reaction score82LocationCalifornia - Sacramento FoothillsVehicles2022 Rivian R1T, 2019 Audi Q7
Feb 26, 2024

• #5

Thanks. Where do the efficiency numbers come from?

Reactions:SeaGeo

Sponsored

[ATTACH=full]96543[/ATTACH]
SeaGeo
First NameBriceJoinedJan 12, 2021Threads48Messages5,512Reaction score9,972LocationSeattleVehiclesXc60 T8OccupationEngineer
Feb 27, 2024

• #6

like @Mtbaddict I'm curious how you're calculating the various efficiency and range numbers.

Excited for people getting their trucks!

R1T FG, BM. Underbody Shield, 20"s ATs
R1S GW, BM. Explore Trim, 21" A/S Estimated Delivery Window: H1 2023.
Reactions:s00n and Trandall
[ATTACH=full]96544[/ATTACH]
R1TAPRAK
First NameJayJoinedFeb 25, 2024Threads5Messages34Reaction score45LocationCaliforniaVehiclesR1T LELGRNOccupationHealthcare
Feb 27, 2024

• #7

ksurfier said:
There's a lot of great info spread out across 5-10 threads here. This post is an effort to condense the info down into one location, links to contributing threads are below:

Below is a list of 275/60R20 Tires that can be grouped into the high efficiency club, organized by weight based on the correlation of low weight and high efficiency (I know, I know, rolling resistence-schmolling resistence...), also note there is a correlation to tread depth and weight:

PSI (max)	UTQG	Examples (275/60R20)	Width / Depth (inches)	#s	All Purpose mi/kwh	eRange
51	620 AB	Gen. Grabber HTS60 (116T)	8.6 / 10/32	34	2.50	320-358
51	800 AA	Pirelli AS+3 (115H)	8.3 / 11/32	38	2.40	307-345
50	820 BA	Defender LTX M/S2 (116H)	7.8 / 11/32	40	2.35	301-339
51	640 AA	Kumho Crugen HP71 (115H)	7.8 / 11/32	42	2.30	294-333
51	720 AA	Conti. TerrainCntct H/T (115H)	8.9 / 12/32	44	2.25	288-326
51	680 AA	Kumho Road Vent. AT52 (115T) SNOW	9.1 / 13.5/32	46	2.20	282-320
50	640 AB	OEM Pirelli AT+ (116H) [275/65R20]	9.1 / 13/32	48	2.15	275-314
50	640 AB	Gen. Grabber A/TX (116T) SNOW	9.6 / 14/32	50	2.10	269-307

* Add ~0.3 mi/kwh for Conserve mode; range will increase by ~30 miles or so...Assumes 65 mph, flat terrain, no wind, no cargo/passengers.

20" OEM QM efficiency (EPA): 289 mi / 2.1 mi/kwh
21" OEM QM efficiency (EPA): 321 mi / 2.4 mi/kwh
22" OEM QM efficiency (EPA): 303 mi / 2.2 mi/kwh

My top choices come mainly from wanting a wider tire, they are in order:

1) General Grabber HTS60 [320 m. Range; 620 AB] - Best efficiency/range and 116 (but only 10/32 tread - ~20k miles expected). Also a A/T tire in XL and D size (65 psi) available. Cost per mile of $0.05 for tires plus $0.15 for electricity. $200 per 1,000 miles operational cost.

2) Pirelli AS+3 [307 m. Range; 800 AA] - Excellent efficiency and UTQG, width and 115 not so great, only 11/32 tread, also only 20-25k miles expected. Cost per mile of $0.06 for tires plus $0.16 for electricity. $220 per 1,000 miles operational cost.

3) Continental TerrainContact H/T [288 m. Range; 720 AA], special note for #3, it's also a high performance tire, rating much higher on wet performance and stopping distance....potentially 30k miles. If you're in a rainy area this is prob. the best choice. Cost per mile of $0.04 for tires plus $0.17 for electricity. $210 per 1,000 miles operational cost.

All 3 come with a 65-70k warranty.

The OEM 20" tire has an operational cost of almost $300 per 1,000 miles...

Discussions on 275/60 tire choices:
R1T 20" AT Replacement Tires?
My R1T's Most Miles Driven on 1 Tank of Battery = 366.5 miles
Time For Some New 20" Tires
20 Inch MICHELIN® X® LT A/S 2 (XL 275/60R20)
20" tire recommendations
Michelin Defender LTX Platinum
Weight rating RAM 2363 wheels?
What's the best wheel size for range and tire longevity?
Hello from Discount Tire!
20-inch [AW09] Forged Wheels by Atomic Wheels
20" Michelin Defender LTX Platinum Tires review -- For all of you thinking about a 20" tire! Your wait is over!