worn out Continental PureContact tire finaly a LRR tire.

when i switched from moderately worn out OEM ecopias to new purecontacts, i initially suffered 15% MPG loss. after the purecontacts broke in, the difference was closer to 10%. only now, when purecontacts are almost bold, i went back to the ecopia MPG, about 60 in my suburban/city commute.

but, it's not all bad news. the tires lasted for 70,000 miles, almost twice the ecopia, and that offsets the higher cost of fuel. also, toward the end, the tire wear is almost nothing. 10,000 miles ago, the tires were almost bold, and I ordered a new set online. they are not much worse now. the wear indicators are not quite showing up yet. i'll change it before the next rainy season.

 

no takers? no problem, i'll continue with my thoughts. since LRR testing is not standardized in the US, i wonder to what extend the LRR designation is a marketing slogan. i also wonder if the testing includes brand new or worn out tires. as I said, worn out purecontacts are LRR alright, and maybe that's what continental meant?
conversely, maybe the OEM LRR tires are constructed in a way that they mimic worn out tires, that would explain why they don't last as long, LOL.
but seriously, i understand that tires are compromises between traction, LRR, and longevity. you can have 2 of those, but not all 3 in the same tire. and then there is also a retail price limit we are willing to pay for those.

 

interesting. this is in a controlled city/suburban commute with pulse and glide regimen between red lights and turns optimized for MPG, but with no speed compromise. i'm sure the high speed hwy results would be completely different.

 

not sure either. initially i thought at hi speed hwy driving tire rolling resistance is lower % of all energy loss vs low speed city driving, but it's actually the other way around. i'm thinking more rolling resistance disturbed the highly tuned pulse and glide system i used.