decisions on new tires

What tire pressure are you using?

 

i would get the energy savers. quiet, smooth and sweet mpg's. worth getting less longevity in my opinion. who wants 80,000 miles of misery?

 

Bridgestone Ecopia EP20 are one OEM tire Toyota's been using on the 2010's. I believe they only come in 195/64R15. We put a set on an '06 Civic Hybrid recently. I found the feel good, they are LRR, and not too pricey. Likely too late, but anyway.

Also, we had Nokian WRG2's on that vehicle, on separate steel rims. They're good for snow, virtually a necessity once the the OEM all-seasons (Bridgestone Insignia EP200_02, identical tread pattern as EP20) were about half-way worn. The only thing with the Nokians: they may claim to be LRR, but in our experience they imposed about 15% mileage penalty, comparing to the OEM or EP20.

 

I'm disappointed to hear about the Nokian enTyre being noisy. In my ongoing search for less road noise I'd hoped that might be a candidate (along with the LRR benefits). The search goes on.

- D

 

Careful, you can't directly compare MPGs between two different tire sizes without correcting for the difference in revolutions/mile. My detailed records on Nokian WRg2 tires say that they are LRR and actually get better MPGs (by more than 2% - see the attached spreadsheet for details) than the OE tires (GY Integrity in my case).

JeffD

 

my daughters nokians were a nightmare. but i have never seen anyone else here with a complaint.

 

Which ones did you end up going with? Harmony or energy saver? I might be needing some new tires soon.

Thanks

 

I replaced the OEM Yokohamas with Michelin Harmonys about 3,000 miles ago. I have noticed no decease in MPG. The Harmonys are much better in every aspect: ride, handling, traction, etc., and they will last a long, long time. I have had a lot of cars with Michelin tires and other brands. Some of the Michelin's best and often unappreciated attributes are that they hold their balance, structural integrity and wear evenly, unlike other cheaper brands which get flat spots, worn edges, slipped belts, etc. and have to be replaced prematurely. When selecting tires, MPG is much less important than traction, comfort and longevity. You can lose all and more than the initial and MPG cost savings you might get with a LRR tire by having to replace them more often than a higher quality, longer life tire, such as the Harmony.

As always, others will disagree, however LRR tires overemphasize small laboratory calculated MPG savings as green marketing gimmickry, but have a higher overall cost due to more frequent LRR replacements when all tire-related costs (purchase, mounting, balance, alignment, MPG) are considered over the life of a car. LRR=PWPF.

 

All the tires I'm comparing are the same size, ie: same outside diameter. To be fair, our previous Honda Civic Hybrid seemed very sensitive to rolling resistance.

The impression I got with the Nokian WRG2 was that their mileage penalty was least on the highway, and most in stop-and-go. In other words, they were more reluctant to get rolling, but not so bad once underway.

 

I've only got 8k miles on my Prius so it will be a while before tires are needed. If gas is $6 a gallon in a few years, the eco tires may make sense. Right now a set of Falkens is about $120 less a set than the Conti eco's. Not sure how long it would take to recoup the extra cost. Of course, how long they hold their tread would also need to be factored. In my case, like Den49, I'd be more concerned with ride,traction and noise than saving money on brand,type or cost than mpg.

 

i think LRR tires make up a chunk of thier cost with gas savings. My stock tires have half tread left at 34,000 miles, so i will get another year out of them. I should have 55,000 on them next year when i need inspections again. I don't want to loose mpg, and i have no problem with getting over 50k out of my tires.

 

Have you calculated the potential total cost difference between the Harmony and the Ecopia Ep100? The Ecopia is $32 cheaper per tire not accounting for the periodic $70 rebate that can be applied to Bridgestone and Michelin. The Ecopia should have a 3-4mpg edge on the Harmony but should wear out sooner. It would be a fun exercise.

 

I just performed a quick calculation and the EP100 at $73 each and the Harmony at $106 each, the Ep100 came out ahead by $62 assuming the ep100 gets 3mpg more over 80,000 miles but having to replace the ep100 twice. This accounted for a $60 mount and balance and using the $70 rebate.

 

also add the over 100 gallons of gas saved and not burned

 

Agreed but let's stay honest and deduct a bit for tire manufacturing.

The Harmony's have an extraordinary longevity. Do this same exercise for a tire with a rating of 400-480 vs. the Ecopia and the savings really add up. I realize those ratings don't really mean much but it all we have to go off of besides tire life warranties.

 

We used Michelin Harmony twice on a '91 Accord. The first set was down to the wear bars within 60,000 kilometers, precisely half the treadware warranty. Our second set we got halfprice, because of this. This car passed from our hands before that second set got much wear. At least the warrantied mileage is good.