Bad fuel economy: Pirelli P4 4 Seasons Plus

Yeah, the problem with manufacturer claims like "low rolling resistance" or "reduced rolling resistance" is that with current consumer law it seems that there's no obligation for them to quantify exactly what that means. Low compared to what? You see what I mean, it's pretty vague.

It's kind of like advertising something as "light weight" without ever needing to state the actual weight. If you think it's a selling point to state that, then why not? It has to be light weight compared to something right, and you haven't made any specific claim of the actual weight that anyone can hold you to. So yeah, if you think it will help you sell the product then why not make the claim.

Ultimately, for this reason, I think manufactures claims of low or lower rolling resistance are often a bit meaningless these days. I'm very dubious about it unless I've seen actual tests or positive fuel efficiency results from other users that I trust. Personally I think that if manufacturers claim LRR that they should also be obliged to state the actual CRR (coefficient of rolling resistance), but sadly none do so.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Pretty pathetic when a tire purporting to be LLR is so bad.

Hey, a good Boxing Day purchase: wheel chocks.

 

Yep I agree. But we've seen this type of thing reported so often that I'm certain this is not just a "one off" with this particular tire. Unfortunately you just can't trust vague product descriptions like "super heavy duty" or "ultra high capacity" to carry much meaning when those things are not quantified in any way (in the product claims).

I mean if I go out and buy some flashlight batteries that say "super heavy duty" on the package, there's no real guaranty that they will last any longer than some other brand's batteries that don't make that claim. Sure I might hope that they do, but I've lived long enough to know that without something quantifiable (like a mA-hr rating) that there is just no guaranty.

Unfortunately this seems to be the way the term LRR is going in manufacturer's tire descriptions these days. They know it is something people are looking for, so as long as that particular tire has a lower rolling resistance than some other tire in their range then they can say it's low (or lower) rolling resistance. I really think there should be some definitive CRR level that they have to meet to claim LRR, but at the moment I don't think that's the case. Lot's of people have reported this type of thing here before, where the manufacturer's blurb for some tire has mentioned LRR but they just haven't lived up to expectations.

 

I just decided to try the Pirelli P4 Plus, to replace a set of five-year old Michelins which were disintegrating fast (tons of side cracks and one blew up a couple of days ago).

So far, the ride on the Pirellis seems perhaps a bit softer and no noisier than with the Michelins, so I am happy.

I live on a hill, so I was getting about 37 mpg with the Michelins, will see how it goes with the Pirellis and will post here.

 

What specific Michelin? Maybe contact them about the blow up.

 

Yeah, while it sounds like somewhat deceptive advertising as it kinda is, there are a few other factors in play.

1. You purchased a tire with a better all season traction rating, so it is bound to have a meatier tread pattern in a addition to being heavier with more tread compound.

2. The other tires were well worn, which increase mpg as the tire gets lighter and smoother, you gain mileage while losing traction. The new tire would certainly improve in mileage over time as it sheds weight and resistance.

3. Driving with a lead foot drastically decreases mileage. Now that you have a tire that can do things the ecopia can't, you're bound to lose mileage in the spirit of utilizing your newfound traction.

I'd say pump them up to the max and drive easy. It can't be a 20% difference from the tire alone, assuming its the exact same size.