Michelin Energy Tires / update

[kgall]

Why would nitrogen make a difference?
If it does, should I use it in all my cars?

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by kgall

Why would nitrogen make a difference?
If it does, should I use it in all my cars?

No, it is not needed. It is supposed to reduce/eliminate moisture.

[Ibikeowa]

Originally Posted by alfon

All I can say is Michelin has it right on this one.

Alfon

Could you comment more on differences in the ride? I did not like the lack of road grip with the original Integrities. Are the Energy Savers any better?

[alfon]

Originally Posted by Ibikeowa

Could you comment more on differences in the ride? I did not like the lack of road grip with the original Integrities. Are the Energy Savers any better?

I can not comment on the Integrities as the car came with Yoko Avid. I would say the Michelin's are quieter and the car handles as good if not better.

This is actually my wifes car, I drive a 2003 Jetta TDI wagon 5-speed manual diesel (53 MPG) , and she really likes her Prius.

Just a quick update; she used to obtain, on the MFD, 47-49 MPG on a regular basis driving back and forth to work, quick trips to town etc.

Now, with the new Michelin Energy tires she is getting 53.5 MPG indicated on the MFD which would bring actually MPG to over 50.

I have never seen or heard of any tires getting that much of a visible increase and I have been driving since 1966.

alfon

[uclabruins]

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into this tire when I replace my original Integrities. Isn't there a Yokohama tire that is supposed to save gas too?

[Indyking]

Originally Posted by Econ

The nitogen is a factor too. Happy day are ahead.

The nitrogen does not interfere with the fuel efficiency. The only advantage of the nitrogen is that tires filled with them tend to hold pressure longer. That's it.

[Indyking]

Originally Posted by pbjdba

Nice. Any experience with these tires in weather?

I bet they will not perform well in the snow... but I would like to know if it is any worse than the original Yoko tires.

[psu77]

I question the overall savings when you compare tread life. Looking at Tirerack, the Energy Savers have a price of $112 and wear rating of 490. The Michelin Hydroedge has a price of $99 and a wear rating of 800.

Therefore the tires will costs $52 more on purchase and they will last 38% less than the Hydroedge (additional cost $170) for a total difference of $252. If you are saving even 10% in gas, over 12,000 miles and $3 gas, saves you $72 per year and would take about 3.5 years to break even (about the life of the tire). It looks like breakeven to me or worse if you save only 5% in gas.

[Indyking]

Originally Posted by psu77

I question the overall savings when you compare tread life. Looking at Tirerack, the Energy Savers have a price of $112 and wear rating of 490. The Michelin Hydroedge has a price of $99 and a wear rating of 800.

Therefore the tires will costs $52 more on purchase and they will last 38% less than the Hydroedge (additional cost $170) for a total difference of $252. If you are saving even 10% in gas, over 12,000 miles and $3 gas, saves you $72 per year and would take about 3.5 years to break even (about the life of the tire). It looks like breakeven to me or worse if you save only 5% in gas.

I agree. My brother understand all about cars and when I told him about the Mich ES tires, the first thing he asked me to do was to check out the tread life. In his experience (he lives in Brazil), most, if not all, FE tires are not worth it because shorter tread life. It's just marketing. They cost more and they live less... I suppose they may be a good "insurance" for a spike in gas prices, which is unlikely in my opinion.

[mmurphy]

Originally Posted by psu77

I question the overall savings when you compare tread life. Looking at Tirerack, the Energy Savers have a price of $112 and wear rating of 490. The Michelin Hydroedge has a price of $99 and a wear rating of 800.

Therefore the tires will costs $52 more on purchase and they will last 38% less than the Hydroedge (additional cost $170) for a total difference of $252. If you are saving even 10% in gas, over 12,000 miles and $3 gas, saves you $72 per year and would take about 3.5 years to break even (about the life of the tire). It looks like breakeven to me or worse if you save only 5% in gas.

The 490 wear rating of the Energy Savers isn't bad. The added usefulness of the 800 wear rating may depend on how many miles one drives. Over time, tires deteriorate and may need to be replaced, even though they have adequate tread.

While drving at 70 mph on an expressway in light rain a few years ago, I noticed that my Tach needle was jumping. In top gear the engine RPM briefly increased by over 1000 and then dropped down to normal and then increased again... The tires in the '88 Camery had a great wear rating and plenty of tread, but they got hard. Replacing the tires fixed the problem.

According to Getting a grip on tire fundamentals

"... rubber deteriorates with age. A tire that's been in service for five or six years should be replaced regardless of tread depth. Cut a year or two off that for vehicles that are not garaged during the day or are run in areas of high ground-level ozone."