I have well over 1,000 miles on my Michelin Energy (AS) tires, 195 X 65 X 15 size. Purchased at Costco and inflated in all four tires to 44 PSI (Max sidewall pressure) with Nitrogen. Replaced these with factory equipped , Toyo AVID same size. The Toyo tires I also inflated to 44 psi Max sidewall pressure. I noticed at least 2-4 MPG increase across the board. These tires do roll easier. I just got back from a trip to Poulsbo Washington and got 57.49 MPG, first time ever that high. (Caculated by miles driven and gallons pumped). MPG guage read 61.5 MPG. Normally I would get 52-55 MPG's. All I can say is Michelin has it right on this one. Alfon
I can confirm this too. The Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires are it. I've gone 4 tanks and about 2400 miles on them. This tank I'm at 64 MPG. Thelast 3 tanks were 62 MPG. I've got about 60K on the Prius and the improvement in MPG is remarkable for a simple tire change. I travel 90%+ interstate for about 100/day r/t to work. I keep my speed at 60-65 MPH, and eploit the glide and warp-stealth capabilities on the downhills and always in rush hour . The results just keep getting better with these tires, and I'm not doing anything different. Gen II, 42/40 psi
Good deal, thanks! I do lots of HWY driving, so will most definitivelly consider the Mic En tires when replacing the current ones. Did you have them put in by Costco too? Do they charge a separate fee for that? Also, any idea how the Mic En tires compares with the Toyo AVID in the snow? Probable neither do good, but I do wonder...
I presently run MXV4 Energy 4's on my Volvo 960. I'll definitely go to the Michelin's when my S33's wear out on the Prius. The Michelin's may be pricey but they are well worth the extra money in the long run. I have tried many different brands Pirelli, Firestone, BF Goodrich, Goodyear's, and Bridgestones over the last 29 years and I can tell you, I always end up going back to the Michelins.
Yes I purchase at Costco back in Sept 2009, they had a sale with 70.00 off with a set of 4 Michelin tires. So I purchased 4 tires, Michelin Energy, had them installed and filled with Nitrogen, (No Charge). I believe total cost was 465.00 (no sales tax in Oregon). I tell you they are quiet, and a noticable improvement in MPG. In my opinion the most fuel efficient tire in the world. alfon
Nice - what kind of fuel economy were you getting on your previous tires (and what tires were they?).
My previous tires were the OEM GY Integrety. Got about 60K out of them. First 3/4 of their life I was getting 59-60 MPG, and the last 1/4 I held 58 MPG. With the EnergySaver A/S, it jumped to 62 MPG right away.
Well its been pretty dry since we got the tires. However, that will soon come to an end as the beginning of the "wet" will be here. alfon
Could you comment more on differences in the ride? I did not like the lack of road grip with the original Integrities. Are the Energy Savers any better?
I can not comment on the Integrities as the car came with Yoko Avid. I would say the Michelin's are quieter and the car handles as good if not better. This is actually my wifes car, I drive a 2003 Jetta TDI wagon 5-speed manual diesel (53 MPG) , and she really likes her Prius. Just a quick update; she used to obtain, on the MFD, 47-49 MPG on a regular basis driving back and forth to work, quick trips to town etc. Now, with the new Michelin Energy tires she is getting 53.5 MPG indicated on the MFD which would bring actually MPG to over 50. I have never seen or heard of any tires getting that much of a visible increase and I have been driving since 1966. alfon
Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into this tire when I replace my original Integrities. Isn't there a Yokohama tire that is supposed to save gas too?
The nitrogen does not interfere with the fuel efficiency. The only advantage of the nitrogen is that tires filled with them tend to hold pressure longer. That's it.
I bet they will not perform well in the snow... but I would like to know if it is any worse than the original Yoko tires.
I question the overall savings when you compare tread life. Looking at Tirerack, the Energy Savers have a price of $112 and wear rating of 490. The Michelin Hydroedge has a price of $99 and a wear rating of 800. Therefore the tires will costs $52 more on purchase and they will last 38% less than the Hydroedge (additional cost $170) for a total difference of $252. If you are saving even 10% in gas, over 12,000 miles and $3 gas, saves you $72 per year and would take about 3.5 years to break even (about the life of the tire). It looks like breakeven to me or worse if you save only 5% in gas.
I agree. My brother understand all about cars and when I told him about the Mich ES tires, the first thing he asked me to do was to check out the tread life. In his experience (he lives in Brazil), most, if not all, FE tires are not worth it because shorter tread life. It's just marketing. They cost more and they live less... I suppose they may be a good "insurance" for a spike in gas prices, which is unlikely in my opinion.
The 490 wear rating of the Energy Savers isn't bad. The added usefulness of the 800 wear rating may depend on how many miles one drives. Over time, tires deteriorate and may need to be replaced, even though they have adequate tread. While drving at 70 mph on an expressway in light rain a few years ago, I noticed that my Tach needle was jumping. In top gear the engine RPM briefly increased by over 1000 and then dropped down to normal and then increased again... The tires in the '88 Camery had a great wear rating and plenty of tread, but they got hard. Replacing the tires fixed the problem. According to Getting a grip on tire fundamentals "... rubber deteriorates with age. A tire that's been in service for five or six years should be replaced regardless of tread depth. Cut a year or two off that for vehicles that are not garaged during the day or are run in areas of high ground-level ozone."
