Low Rolling Resistance replacement tires: Current List

Bridgestone Ecopia 422s' on a '11 base model Honda Fit with a 5 speed auto . Got 40.695 m.p.g. with Sunoco 89 w/ E10 ( 372.2 mis. / 9.146 gals . ) . Display was 40.2 . The tank included 2 people for about 50% and included getting Honda mower of 93 lbs .. Average temp of 65 and winds of 20+ . About 30% city with interstate speed of 65 for an average . Many hills too . Tires are set at about 37. Refilled with Sunoco 93 w/E10 at 1 click of nozzle . 8 tanks have an average of 40.4 m.p.g.. at fuelly.com . Possibly on the way to another 40+ tank of gas . Changed oil to Pennzoil Platinum 0w-20 on 6/24 .

 

Heck I've had several tanks of more then 40 mpg on my 09 Corolla S with a +2 tire package running General Exclaim UHP 225/45R17 tires.

This was on a 70 mile leg a little while ago on my ScangaugeII which is accurate.


This was over a trip from Seattle to Portland with some city driving @ 41 mpg. The entire tank was over 40 mpg for the average too.

 

Nice , but could you FIT the Honda mower in it ?

 

Have 6 consecutive tanks of 41+ m.p.g. for the '08 base model Yaris sedan with the 4 speed auto . This car has the Continental Pro Contact with Eco Plus . Go here if interested , Red (Toyota Yaris) | Fuelly . Looks to be on its way to another . The tires are at about 36 and have 8/32s' all around . Don't seem to be lasting that well . Started at 11/32s' . Have been rotated and use the Blizzak WS 70s' in the winter . Bought the Eco Plus March 2011 . New tank pics .

 

In the August, 2012, issue of Consumer Reports there's a sidebar about debunking fuel myths. One of the items has to do with LRR tires. CR says that some tires tout low rolling resistance at the expense of handling, wet breaking, etc., even when properly inflated. That's something I think more than a few of us have noticed on occasion.

They suggest looking for tires that are safe and handle well, and using rolling resistance as a tie-breaker between them. Two tires that they suggest as having both good handling and LRR are Continental ProContact EcoPlus+ and the Michelin Energy Saver A/S.

I doubt that there will be much surprise.

 

I wonder how they would feel about the new Defender's?

 

Have to keep an eye on the C.R. and Tirerack for driving results . Interested to see how they compare to the Eco+ , 422s' and other F.E. tires .

 

The other 1/2 got to 41 . Eco is off , so likely to be closer to 42 .

 

'11 Honda Fit with 422s' . Did a fill yesterday of Sunoco 91 w/E10 . Here's the results . 41.049 m.p.g. .

 

Can do . Figured to be appropriate since it's for fuel saving tires . Where should I post updates ? That's if I continue .

 

I gained 1.8 MPG switching from the worn out factory Yokohama AVID to the Michelin Energy Saver A/S. They handle better, are quieter and do great in the rain. They also come with a 60k mile warranty.

If you are thinking of switching to the Michelin Energy Saver A/S, do it soon as I hear they have discontinued production of these in the size we need for the Prous.

 

I'm a newbie to serious tire comparison--the sort of guy who thought tires were tires. Then I figured when the gov't started its ratings for traction, heat and tread wear I should look at that, and the mfgs treadwear warranty.
Now I add low rolling resistance to the mix. So here are my questions:

1. I get the difference between dry traction and wet traction (and snow traction) and why the relationship between them might differ in different tires.

2. What else goes into "performance and handling" of tires--e.g., is straight ahead traction (important when you brake hard) different from traction as you are swerving and braking to avoid an oncoming car? Might a tire that is good at the first be poorer at the second, and vice versa?

3. Based on all the discussion of different tires, it seems like most folks think a gov't traction rating of A covers a fairly broad range of real world tractions. True?

4. Do ABS and Traction Control mean that the safety difference between tires is less? Or do good tires improve the performance of those significantly?

Thanks!

 

. Nice . The 422s' on the Fit are a little under 10/32s' ( possibly 9+3/4s' ) on the front and very near to the 1o/32s which they begin at . There's close to 3,200 miles on them . The Eco Plus on the '08 Yaris sedan are wearing much quicker . Less the 9/32s' for the fronts and at /or under 8/32s' on the rear . Don't recommend those since they start at 11/32s' . Bought the Pro Contact in March ( or was it early April ? ) of 2011 . Snow tires took their place in mid / late November of '11 and then back on it late March of this year if I remmber correctly . So , not that thrilled with the Eco + at $92 each .

 

Due to a technical issue we are not able to publish fuel consumption results for this test.

 

(We own 2 prius' - 2006 and a 2010) Just picked up a set of the Bridgestone Ecopia 422's at Costco for the 2010 Prius with 40k miles. $389 with tax and install etc so I can't really complain.

I really want to try to the Bridgestone Turanza Serenty Plus. - They are a Low Rolling Res. tire as well.
Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus

They are low rolling resistance - higher weight and speed rating which I like but with Costco's $100 off I jumped on the ecopia bandwagon.

If you don't have a costco membership or the sale isn't on - I'd definitely go the Turanza. Their treadwear rating is almost double what the ecopia ones are.

I put Michelin Hydroedge on the 2006 a number of years ago and they are still fantastic. Replaced the stock tires somewhere between 30-40k and these hydro still have a good amount of tread, terrific grip and already have about 45k miles on them. Well worth it.