The cost of buying a commercial tire is relatively cheap compared to buying a single-use tire, but the amount of fuel and the length of time it lasts are still much higher.
And as more people buy cars, they are expected to pay a lot more for a commercial product.
The University of Michigan’s Cost of Living Index has been measuring commercial tires since 1999, and the latest study published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine is the first to quantify what the average cost of a commercial truck tire was for different types of vehicles.
The study calculated a vehicle’s total cost of ownership and found that it costs $4,976 for a truck with a single use tire, $6,937 for a second use tire and $11,200 for a third use tire.
The cost for the four-wheel drive vehicle with a commercial wheel is about $9,000.
It also found that a commercial vehicle could have a total fuel consumption of more than 12,000 kilometers (6,000 miles) per year, and that its average daily fuel consumption was 2,933 liters.
It estimated that each commercial vehicle would cost the average US household about $7,500 in fuel annually.
The average cost for a single tire was about $3,700 and the cost for two-wheel and three-wheel tires was about half that.
“The price of a vehicle that has an on-board tire, like a truck, is relatively affordable compared to the cost of purchasing a single, single-used tire,” said Christopher Smith, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland and co-author of the study.
“It’s a bit of a mystery to me why that’s the case, but it’s certainly not the case for a tire rotary.”
The study found that the average tire cost of commercial trucks was $3.4 million and that the cost per mile for commercial trucks increased with mileage.
A four-wheeled truck with four wheels on average costs $8,000 to $9.5 million per year to maintain and operate, according to the study, while a four-axle commercial truck has a cost of about $4.4 billion to maintain.
The researchers found that trucks that have four wheels had a higher average fuel consumption and the average number of miles driven per year and the lowest cost of fuel.
The four-Axle commercial vehicle, which can be found in the US on most commercial highways, had the highest average fuel cost per year at $3 per mile, while the two-Axles cost was about the same.
The higher cost of the two wheels and higher number of tires could be attributed to the fact that a truck that has four wheels has a longer travel range and has fewer miles to travel than one with four tires.
“Our study indicates that the most economical, cheapest way to use a truck is to have a dual-axles design, with a wheel on the front and two wheels on the rear,” Smith said.
“With a four wheel, it’s an all-wheel-drive design, but you only have to have two wheels to have the maximum efficiency, so you’re not getting as much mileage.”
The researchers also found a higher cost per kilometer of the average commercial vehicle than the average American family car.
Smith said that the results of the new study show that a dual axle design is not only cost effective, but that it is actually better than the conventional two-axled design.
The authors also found two-wheeling a cheaper way to drive than four- wheeling.
Smith and his colleagues also found the cost difference for a four axle vehicle to be a factor that could be considered a drawback.
“In general, it may be easier to drive four- wheels, but when you’re on the road with a four, you need to have four brakes and a lot of tires to be safe,” Smith explained.
“A four-speed gearbox might have been better for some people, but I don’t think it’s a major drawback.”
The cost to maintain a commercial-size commercial truck was $7.4 per mile.
The most expensive commercial truck in the study was the Toyota Tacoma with a fuel consumption for the entire vehicle of 5,631.2 liters per day.
“This study has shown that a four wheels-only design is more economical than a dual wheels-and-a-half design, which is much more expensive,” Smith told Al Jazeera.
“And the cost is still relatively low.”