1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

How to find fuel efficient LRR (low rolling resistance) tires

Discussion in 'Gen 2 Prius Fuel Economy' started by theorist, Jun 29, 2006.

  1. theorist

    theorist Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    365
    11
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 29 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]278598[/snapback]</div>


    I believe many of us are concerned about the rolling resistance of replacement tires and their effect on fuel consumption and emissions. While data on rolling resistance of different tires is very hard to come by, I've found some limited sources of data to complement the user reviews here at PriusChat.

    The best single source I've found is a 2003 Green Seal report: http://www.greenseal.org/resources/reports...gresistance.pdf

    Consumer Reports rated rolling resistance in their separate tests of standard all-season passenger tires (Nov 2005), high-performance all-season tires (Nov 2003), and touring-performance all-season tires (Nov 2002).

    Very few manufacturers release any data or even claims. Continental claims that the ContiProContact successor to their LRR CH95 tire is even more rolling resistant. Michelin only refers to their Energy tires such as the MXV4, but Consumer Reports rates most Michelins' rolling resistance well. http://www.michelin.com/corporate/front/te...XE_RECH&lang=EN

    Weight often correlates with rolling resistance. You can find the weight of nearly any tire at tirerack.com.

    TireRack.com's survey doesn't address rolling resistance but their open ended user reviews often do. If you're want an idea of the rolling resistance of a particular tire, look for keywords like (fuel, economy, efficiency, mpg, lrr, rolling, resistance, mileage, gas, gallon) in the user reviews for your candidate tires. You can also find a tire review from a Prius driver and then search for all reviews of tires used on Priuses (or Insights, TDIs, Echos, Civics, Corollas) if you want to see what fuel efficiency oriented drivers thought of their tires.

    Vehicle manufacturers are often criticized by some for giving too much weight to rolling resistance to boost EPA ratings. If you want a relatively low rolling resistance you're often safer with a tire that is OEM on many new cars, especially new cars trying to attract buyers with high EPA MPG numbers.

    If I had considered these clues earlier, I wouldn't have bought the BF Goodrich Traction T/A (H) tires for our Elantra last year. The test results and survey data was accurate -- the traction is fabulous in nearly all conditions and the handling and treadwear are very good. I was surprised to lose 5-10% in fuel efficiency from the Michelin MXV4 Plus tires. In hindsight, if I'd been more careful I should have expected this. The Traction T/A weighs more than nearly all tires and much more than the Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus. The Traction TA is not OEM on any car that I know of, while the Energy MXV4 Plus is a common OEM tire. TireRack user reviews often complain of increased fuel consumption with the Traction TA and often brag about reduced fuel consumption with the MXV4.

    For the Prius, I hoped for low rolling resistance of the ContiProContact based on OEM usage including on VW TDIs, Continental's claim that it was more fuel efficient than their Green Seal recommended EcoPlus CH95 (http://www.contionline.com/generato.../conti_pro_contact/printable_datasheet_en.pdf), a remarkably low mass in the size I chose, and a maximum inflation pressure of 51 psi. I confirmed low rolling resistance of these tires more with a coast down test. I put the car in neutral at 40 mph and let it roll for a fixed 1.5 mile stretch of road and measured the speed at the end. Measured MPG also confirms lower rolling resistance than the Dunlops I was using.

    Our task of considering rolling resistance (and effects on fuel consumption and emissions) will be easier when the California Energy Commission publishes it's own measurements of rolling resistance of over a hundred different tires in 2007 or 2008. http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/ti...ency/index.html

    I'm really hoping that our DOT will wake up and require rolling resistance to be in the UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade) that's on every tire, together with tread wear, wet braking, and heat resistance which are currently graded.

    I hope readers find these sources useful. I look forward to hearing about other sources of data on rolling resistance.

    <span style="color:#FF0000">Update:

    I just found a fabulous report from the National Academies' Transportation Research board. This is by far the most comprehensive and trusted research report on fuel efficient tires and rolling resistance that I've found to date. This is a 110 page report from the National Academies. Don't worry. It has a has an executive summary, a detailed table of contents, and you can search to find what interests you.

    Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy: Informing Consumers, Improving Performance -- website

    Report - pdf

    Raw data on recent tires - pdf
     
  2. grasshopper

    grasshopper Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    425
    2
    0
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach SC
    Thanks theorist. I want to drive that VW! :D :D :D
     
  3. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Rolling resistance will inherently be tied to the surface upon which it is tested. An asphalt country road will be different than a concrete highway or a drag strip. Tread designs, rubber compounds, inflation pressures, weight distribution, and driving styles will all play a part in how much rolling restance a tire will achieve and the environment, even whether or not it is winter or summer will also have a lot to do with it.

    Remember, less resistance basically equates to less traction in most standard tires on most standard cars.

    Our state recently attempted to ban the sale of tires that did not meet or exceed the rolling restance ratings of the stock OEM tires.

    As much as i want to save fuel, the amount of actual savings was finally proven to be less than one tenth of one percent, and it was successfully argued that simplky promoting a program where drivers would keep their tires at the manufacturer recommended pressures would result in a greater overall savings.

    I think this is a very dangerous path to go down. not in terms of value or in terms of providing information, but in uninformed politicians looking to gain votes by making false promises. The single greatest thing that anyone can do to improve fuel economy is to improve their driving habits and drive less. Tires are way down the list well after air filters, synthetic oils, spark plugs and wires, and simply building more efficient vehicles.

    i understand you are probably far more educated than i in these matters but what maine tried to do was basically outlaw almost every aftermarket tire manufacturer from doing business in the state, except of course for state or municipal owned vehicles. In my state we have many hunters, fishermen, and often have lots of snow in the winter and plenty of mud in the spring... Thos pickup trucks with big tires would all be gone, and so would my camaro which has 28 x 12 1/2 x 15 inch rear tires which help raise the fuel economy of the vehicle over the stock 26 inch diameter tires...
     
  4. theorist

    theorist Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    365
    11
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jun 29 2006, 03:40 PM) [snapback]278733[/snapback]</div>
    Savings from regulation or from using LRR tires? Every report I've read estimates a potential 3 to 5% fuel savings between tires. If you have a source that differs drastically, I'd like to see it.

    I completely share your disgust with this misguided regulation. I'm upset that California has apparently already created a large database on rolling resistance of existing tires, but instead of sharing this information with the public so that consumers can make informed decisions to conserve fuel, they are keeping it private and instead using it to build a case for regulating consumer choice of replacement tires as you describe!

    The fact that states are considering telling consumers that only state and municipal can use tires that consume as much as 10 gallons of gas a year more than the OEM tires, but the consumers are free to choose a large, heavy vehicle that consumes hundreds of gallons more than more efficient, affordable alternatives is ludicrous. Imagine that the EPA refused to share with consumers it's MPG estimates for cars (or trucks, no wait, no need to imagine there.) Imagine that the EPA instead used these secret estimates to simply tell consumers which cars they could and could not buy. As inane as this would be, it would make more sense than what's proposed with tires. I suppose vehicle manufacturers have more effective lobbies than tire manufacturers. On top of that most of us Americans don't fully appreciate the the safety importance of tire traction or the fact that heavier vehicles protect their occupants at the expense of greater injuries to occupants in other vehicles.

    I believe that consumers should make more their own better informed choices. If our US government want's to reduce fuel consumption, we should do what every other industrialized country does -- tax it more. Of course we'll need to vote Halliburton and Exxon out of office before this happens.
     
  5. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I will try to hunt down the source of the info. It may be partially biased as are many of these so called scientific surveys as many are privately funded. I believe the info was published by SEMA.
     
  6. DocVijay

    DocVijay Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    1,455
    2
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    As someon else said, just keep in mind that most LRR tires are made that way throught he use of a harder rubber compound, and usually means less overall traction. The tire industry has yet to design a tire with excellent grip and low rolling resistance.

    It's the same with those get 4 tires for $99 specials you see, or those tires that will last for 75,000 miles. THose things are rock hard so they don't wear down, but the loss in traction can be lethal.

    Just use caution, as the 3-5% mileage gain won't mean a damn thing when that tire gives you a longer stopping distance.

    Don't ever sacrifice economy for safety.
     
  7. theorist

    theorist Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    365
    11
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Jun 29 2006, 06:00 PM) [snapback]278815[/snapback]</div>
    While I don't want to debate the definition of excellent grip, I would like to point out that the Sumitomo HTR 200 is the Tire Rack's best surveyed high performance summer tire. It's also low rolling resistance, according to Green Seal. I've heard rumors that Yokohama's ultra high performance ES100 is also low rolling resistance. I believe Michelin's MXV4 and Continental's CH95 and ContiProContact touring tires provide respectable though not excellent levels of grip. These are OEM on Audis, BMWs, VW GTIs, and the like. I believe the Potenza RE92 is OEM in the Subaru WRX and Lexus IS350.

    There certainly tradeoffs in tire design. We could as easily say than there isn't a tire with excellent grip and long treadwear, a smooth ride, good all season traction, or low noise. For me the challenge is that out of all of these criteria, data on rolling resistance is the hardest to find.
     
  8. Tideland Prius

    Tideland Prius Moderator of the North
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    44,837
    16,073
    41
    Location:
    Canada
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I will back the Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus. They came stock on our 02 Camry XLE and we replaced them with identical ones when the time came. They're comfortable, quiet and relatively grippy for an AS tyre. I'm looking forward to trying the ComforTred when my Integritys wear out.
     
  9. tomdeimos

    tomdeimos New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    995
    2
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    Clearly this thread alone is proof enough we need legislation to force people to buy greener tires.

    Why is everyone upset about this? We had to have legislation for seat belts, air bags, etc alll for the same reason. Nobody would buy them, and seems here most of the people here are looking for anything but greener tires for their Prius.

    And I'm sure the goal is not to ban tires but to force manufacturers to spend the extra few pennies it costs to make tires all more efficient.

    I expect all non-energy star appliances will be banned soon too. Just like the old 6 gallon flush toilets were.
     
  10. theorist

    theorist Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    365
    11
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jun 29 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]278898[/snapback]</div>
    I've got to get out of Lexington. :rolleyes:

    As it is, if a set of tires lasts 50,000 miles, one gets 30 mpg while the other gets 32mpg, the more fuel efficient tires save over 100 gallons of gas. If gas costs $3/gallon (with prices rising as fast as the rate of return), it's economical to spend $75 more _per_ tire for the more fuel efficient tires. If we change the situation to 52mpg vs 50mpg, it's nearly a 40mpg difference, economical at a $30 price premium per tire.

    I probably place far too much faith in the rationality of my fellow man. Still, if we're going to force people, why not institute a one family - one vehicle law and ration gasoline with each person being limited to 10 gallons a week? :p
     
  11. tomdeimos

    tomdeimos New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    995
    2
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(theorist @ Jun 29 2006, 11:18 PM) [snapback]278936[/snapback]</div>
    We already did have rationing for gasoline. Have you forgotton? Under Nixon.
    We will again some day soon.

    As to your prices if the greener tires cost so much more I really don't think they'd use them on oem tires.
    The reason some cost a lot now is because hardly anyone buys them and everything costs more in low volume.

    As for the one family one vehicle law, you have it backwards. We should have laws encouraging families to own more vehicles. Things like insuring the drivers, not the vehicles. Sales tax changes. Etc so people can own more vehicles without extra cash flow expenses after purchase. We'd be a lot better off and use less gasoline if every SUV owner could have a small commuting car too. The way it is most people can afford one or two cars and they have to pick the biggest one they sometimes need.
     
  12. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jun 29 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]278898[/snapback]</div>
    I'm about to fall off my chair...

    Are you serious? More legislation?

    So the fact that my 28 x 12 1/2 x 15 Et Streets provide better fuel economy than my 26 x 8 x 16 OEM tires should be against the law? Mt ET Streets are the softest compound available, massively large, and stick to the point where I can pull the front end off the ground. I can't drive them in the rain, and they are so sticky that I can pick rocks off the pavement with them when they are extremely hot. However despite the fact they will wear out in less than 5000 miles I can get at least 2 miles per gallon better mileage with them and you think these tires should be made illegal?

    How about the guy who wants to get out of his driveway in winter to go to work? How about the fellow who wants to go camping in the spring with his family? How about the guy that simply wants to corner a little better than he could when the car was completely stock?

    You want to outlaw tires that provide better grip on the road? Shorter stopping distances? Better cornering? Better snow and mud traction?

    You will save more fuel, more lives, and lower the number of insurance claims if you developed a mandatory drivers education and testing process, that is paid by licensed drivers, every four to six years.

    Tire company improve their tires by developing them for different purposes. The industry is continually evolving. A tire is actually a suspension component of the vehicle that can change many things about the drivability of the car/truck.

    The number of people actually installing less efficient tires that are unaware of what they are doing can be overcome simply through education, at far less cost to taxpayers than legislation.

    This is just my opinion and no flames are intended.
     
  13. gschoen

    gschoen Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    343
    3
    0
    Location:
    Chicago/Wrigleyville
    Vehicle:
    2014 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Sell more vehicles to reduce gas consumption? That's interesting logic.

    Of course, with more vehicles we need more places to put them. In big cities, we have building whose sole purpose is to hold these cars.

    My partner and I share a car. If we had another one, it's safe to say we'd drive more because of greater convenience, that is, I could use more since I wouldn't have to work around his schedule. If more people owned cars, why ride the train or take your bike? As it is, many people in big cities don't own cars at all. I could get along without one, with a loss of convenience.
     
  14. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    In regards to air bags..... It took me six months to obtain an exemption from air bags. I have a six point welded bar in my car and 5-point harnesses, which are far safer than the "mandatory" air bags. I was able to eliminate 80 pounds of weight by removing the airbags, plus when I go to the track I no longer need to be concerned about the airbag going off.

    I had to obtain a special letter of approval as airbag legislation did not allow for me to use any "standard forms". i was told "no" for months. Legislation is not always a good thing.
     
  15. tomdeimos

    tomdeimos New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    995
    2
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    Absolutely we need lots of more legislation. We better just agree to disagree on this. I don't think market forces are taking us in any of the directions we need to go in as a society. People will eventually realize this.

    But as to the other pioints. I think you are very mistaken regarding green tires. Both my summer and my wnter Michelin tires are great, among the best I ever used on any car ever, and match or exceed the mpg of the oem tires on the Prius. There are both bad ones and good ones I am sure. But in all price ranges they can make them better but there is clearly no incentive right now to bother.

    The point is they can make good greener tires if there they have to do it. Without some prodding they can't be expected to bother.
    And if you just consider your personal costs lots of things aren't worth doing but have to be done because society needs it done.

    Personnally I'd rather have green tires and seat belts outlawed. Skp the recycling I have to do with trash. etc. Lots of things we are forced to do aren't worthwhile for me personally.

    But if we can do anything that saves 5% on our natitons fuel use it seems worthwile for everyone together right now.
     
  16. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jun 30 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]279218[/snapback]</div>
    But it isn't 5%.... It is somewhere around 1/10 of 1% and far greater savings could be realized if people simply kept their tires at the proper inflation level...
     
  17. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    If you want to reduce fuel consumption by 5% across the board, put together legislation that offers a tax incentive for anybody with a conventional (non-hybrid) car to install a high performance (low restriction), air filter, and a low restriction exhaust (keep the emission controls), and you will achieve a 5% or higher across the board reduction in fuel use across then entire fleet of existing cars and light trucks. The actual saving would probably be closer to 10% if you figure the average V8 or V6 gas guzzler gets 25mpg and will achieve a 2-3 mpg increase in economy. Plus more efficiently burned fuel will have fewer harmful emissions.
     
  18. tomdeimos

    tomdeimos New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    995
    2
    0
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jun 30 2006, 02:57 PM) [snapback]279245[/snapback]</div>
    Maybe you are right. But the post at the top here mentions 5 to 10% difference in tires. I've also seen lots of posts at priuschat about some of the non-LRR tires and seems to me some claim their tires work like the oem ones, and others say they lose about 2 mpg. And we do have lots of rolling resistance in tires that could be improved on if anyone worked on it. Till tire companies have to do something they can just say they can't just like GM can't make high mpg cars so we can't raise the mpg standards.
     
  19. tnthub

    tnthub Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    519
    8
    0
    Location:
    Brunswick, Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jul 1 2006, 01:16 AM) [snapback]279548[/snapback]</div>
    With todays tire technology reduced rolling resistance also equates to less traction which means longer braking distances and less corner capacity. On a car sucj as the Prius, which in stock form corners as poorly as a 1990 Lincoln with 70 series radials, in my opinion (as a professional driver), it would be creating a deathtrap for the average consumer.
     
  20. DocVijay

    DocVijay Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    1,455
    2
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Also, in going from a relatively low rolling resistance tire to a much higher resistance tire (and wider and heavier too) I went from 52 mpg to 51.3 mpg. That is a 1.35% drop.