Why major tyre manufacturers would risk their reputations by producing tyres with abysmal wet performance is beyond me. I have used Yokohama all year tyres in the past and they were great. Terms like "Eco" and "Summer" should act as a red flag for wet performance even with recognised brands it seems ? 🤔
Wasted $800 on a set of e-Primacy for my daughters car. A bad decision due to a distinct lack of grip, especially wet braking and handling. Replaced 6 weeks later with Primacy 4 New Generation
Totally agree Stephen. Here in the europe Continental sell an eco tyre/tire called the EcoContact 6, my new car was delivered with them fitted and I swapped them for a set of BF Goodrich tyres/tires after just 1500 miles. The Continentals were horrible in the rain and aquaplaned really easily, the BFGs are a much better all round drive. I’m all for saving money on petrol/gas but not at the expense of safety.
@@RickyG84 I guy from work bought Poverty(Eco)Contact 6, even though the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 that I was looking for him where better and also 30$ a piece cheaper then Continental. He claims Continental has better wet braking, because EU label gave it A for that, while Hankook got B, even though in tests Contis had a significantly worse wet braking than Hankook.
@@DashCamSerbia Very true - Hankook seem to be making some excellent tyres - definitely more than a match for most these days. A friend of mine bought a Skoda recently it was running on Hankook’s he is very pleased with them. I agree too it’s odd how a tyre can get an A rating on the EU tyre label but perform worse in real world tests then tyres with a lower rating. I wonder if Mr Benson can shed any light on how this happens? Thank god we have TyreReviews and Mr B to show us how these tyres actually perform when we spend so much money on them 👍🏻👍🏻
@@RickyG84 I've heard some tyre makers make the first bit of tread out of a softer compound to get better ratings on tests, once this outside layer is worn off the tyres reduce in performance.
My favourite criteria are steering response, steering feedback, dry grip and driver confidence in the dry! I can't stand tyres with soft sidewalls, I'm a big fan of traditional stiff sidewalls like a Potenza S007A -- there are way too many Europeanised UHP tyres around with soft sidewalls these days (even the Potenza Sport has been given a softer more flexible construction than the S007A, sure it improves wet grip, but at the expense of being more vague in the dry than the old model... Is that worth it?). Most UHP summer tyres have acceptable wet grip (I live in Australia where it's 10 degrees C at the height of winter and we use summer tyres year round :) ), and that's not a massive concern IMO. Obviously priorities in places where it's excessively cold and damp, like say the UK, are quite different than southern Australia, California or other dry Mediterranean climates!
Thanks for the video. I bought Bridgestone t005 due to the low rolling resistance, AND having impressive wet braking performance. Your video's are my only guide for tyre's! Thanks a lot 🙂
this is a OE tyre for so many car companies from Ford to some JDM makes. is there a difference from the T005 and T005A though? @tyrereview; from where I reside, we definitely can't get the T005 ‘off-shelf’ as its, really, OE only. But we can get the T005A, i checked the thread they do look very slightly different!
@@gordonho5986 they’re different tyres. The T005 is the successor for the T001 Evo, while the T005A (a = asean) is the successor to the GR100. They’re both premium touring tyres, but the non-A is more well rounded while the A more comfort orientated.
I really enjoyed my set of t005's, particularly the wet weather performance and I've not had anything better for economy. However after 2 years they were all perished with dry rot, cracking and the centre of the tread bubbled out and punctured.
I always consider wet performance as the paramount factor in choosing the tire. What sense does it make to save yearly 200€ and wreck the car resulting in thousands of € in repair costs.
@@t-r-k7534 true, but it's very unlikely you'll die or kill someone because you selected tires for fuel economy over wet weather braking. You're better off buying new tires before they harden up or lose too much tread depth. A wet performance tire that's old and worn won't beat a newer mpg-focused tire. Life is full of situations where you only need one mistake to end it, best to be cautious but not overly cautious and fearful, as people are with tires.
I looked at ultra low rolling resistance summer tyres and eventually concluded that for most U.K. drivers who want one set of tyres for all year round, look no further than the excellent all-season Michelin CrossClimate 2: its pricey but it wears very slowly (and is designed to still grip well when worn); it’s has excellent rolling resistance for an all-season tyre and of course functions well in cold weather. The biggest thing you can do to save fuel is to read the road better as Jonathan says; also try a lower cruising speed: 65mph will save a noticeable amount of fuel compared to 75mph and you really won’t get there any later if you just leave a few minutes earlier!
60mph is even more optimal for cruising speeds. The reason HGVs are typically limited between 54-56mph instead of the actual legal limit of 60mph is because of the significant fuel savings for haulage companies.
@@paarker it doesn’t work out as much as that in practice I find - try using your car’s on board computer to measure the average speed over two entire journeys at 65 and then again at 75. I found that the average speed is only a few miles per hour higher - you can then make your own judgement as to what works for you.
I never buy tyres until I've looked through your back catalogue of videos. I'm about to buy Michelin Primacy 4 for my new car. Thanks for doing all your hard work for us, even if it looks like your having a lot of fun!
Sorry for the gap in content everyone, been super busy making content for winter so there's now at least 12 videos ready for the rest of the year! Get on board the lithium powered Oak and Iron tire inflator Kickstarter here! www.kickstarter.com/projects/oakiron/the-worlds-1-smart-tire-inflator-0 . The test article the data was taken from for the second half of the video can be found here: www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2022-ViBilagare-Eco-and-Regular-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm
@iNSTAGiB if you’re based on the European tyre market (includes UK), and if snow/ice are only occasional with the o eram weather being described as ‘mild’, I would recommend the Bridgestone WEATHER CONTROL A005 EVO. Why? Because in their bigger sizes and lower side profile, they behave very similar to a summer tyre, with a very good steering feel and excellent capabilities in shallow water down to very cold temperatures. They do the job under the odd snowy day but are far from the best competitors on it. Their main trade off is that they wear quicker than others. Of course than this is based on past year reviews and personal experience, but Jonathan will surely come up with amazing suggestions in his new videos 🙌
Don't know if it's too late to include, but since every tyre tread width differce a bit even if the section width on side of tyre is same. I know Pirellis are know for narrower tread width. Reflects on some of your reviews too. Michelin's bit wider. Would be interesting to know.
As always, an excellent review and point of view. I love this planet, it is the only one we have but, I can't sacrifice wet performance because I value my safety, my loved ones' safety, and those around me. You can't put a price (or cost) on that! By the way, have the alignment checked/adjusted at least once a year. The car uses less energy, and the tires last longer.
A few points I want to add : The starting thread depth of LRR tyres is lower than other tyres, that mean three things : 1- the difference in RR is actually lower when looking at the average during the entire tyre life, test the PRimacy 4+ and the e-Primacy RR at the wear limit and the difference will be much smaller. 2- same for the wet performance actually, compare the, Primacy 4+, the e-Primacy and the budget tyre when they are both at the wear limit, both Michelin will perform a lot better than the budget and the e-Primacy won't be that far behind the Primacy 4+. 3- if it's the environment you want to save, not a good solution as the shorter life will compensate for the gain in fuel. For me, standard Touring tyres are the best compromise and remember that the way you drive can make a huge difference in fuel consumption.
All good points. The counter argument is that the compound in the ULRR tyre will be tweaked to provide the same life as a normal tyre at a higher starting tread depth. I've not seen any data to back this up though.
@@tyrereviews Michelin Energy Saver A/S on our US spec Ford Focus Electric lasted for 70k Km. Combined with 49f/51r weight distribution on an fwd car it was the worst tire I have ever used. In the wet outright dangerous.
I always love your videos and your tests. I only average maybe 5000 miles per year. I've always heard for optimum performance and safety that it's recommended to replace tires after 5 years regardless of mileage or if there's tread left. One thing I'd be interested in would be comparing two identical tires, one set being new tires to maybe a 5+ year old set with still good tread life, in order to see how the performance of tires degrades with time.
Extreme temperatures and UV exposure have a dramatic effect on tyre performance. It is obvious. Why does that need measuring and what constitutes a relevant test?
@@idonotwantahandle2 it's obvious that not everyone lives somewhere that experiences extreme temperatures or high UV exposure. Thankfully I'm in Seattle that experiences neither extreme temps nor much UV exposure. I wasn't asking whether you thought this test was relevant. Al, why don't you keep your useless comments to yourself?!
@@grocerylist Because my comments are not useless or self centred. It is you who is only interested in factors which may affect you. That speaks volumes for you. There are other people who experience different conditions than what you do. They should be able to get good advice too.
Excellent, Thank you! I did find that switching to low rolling resistance tires did in fact save me a lot of money, and yes I also carefully put extre air pressure in my tires which my records who's also improves fuel economy. I have done that for over two years in all my cars and I use a tore tread depth gauge to check for overinflation and it has never happened, so what I have learned is that radial tires are not easy over inflated, that was actually very easy with the ancient bias belted and bias ply tires that we have not used on passenger vehicles for decades. I also spoke to a few of the vehicle manufacturers' engineers in person (I'm an engineer) and they verified that extra air is helpful and most people arr not sensitive enough to discern the difference in ride quality at all, they also told me that it helps normal drivers with emergency maneuvers but I have no way to test that scientifically.
Interesting information, thank you! That said, I would hope even the most average of driver could notice the slight change in comfort from extra air, but everything else should be fairly similar
@@tyrereviews I have actualy experenetd with tore pressure for years (I'm an engineer) and have run teh pressure all the way up to 44 PSI cold which is the limit for the tires I was using (I checked with eh manufacturers and it was safe for my use) and the passengers never noticed a difference, yet the fuel economy increased noticeably. I ran that experiment on two of my cars for 10 years and checked the tread wear weekly, they wore completely evenly across the tread, which is exactly what the tore manufacturers (Continental, Michelin and Goodyear) wold me would happen because radials do not bulge in the center of the tread like the old bias tires used to do very easily.
What a shocking result - more people need to see this video! I'm running Michelin Cross Climate 2 now on my A3 (a TR recommendation - thank you!). I'm sure it's not the best in every (or any?) category but they have plenty of wet and dry grip over a massive range of road conditions and temperatures. I'd hate to run a tyre that was hobbled in some regard, especially wet braking!
Great and informative video, it's really a shame we don't have many if any tests about this. I'd like to add that low rolling resistance tyres "might" make more sense for electric vehicles because for those cars rolling resistance makes up a bigger percentage of the energy losses so a 30% reduction won't apply to a 20% rolling resistance loss but to say 40%. This is also the reason things like aerodynamic wheel covers are a thing for electric cars but not so for ICE cars. Still, the reduction of wet performance and the reduction in thread depth, especially considering EVs are heavier and have more torque thus wearing tyres faster, are pretty big issues.
I totally agree with you but you don't necessarily need an ultra low rolling resistance tyre but one that performs well at rolling resistance on a standard group test like Goodyear for instance with the EfficientGrip performance and performance 2 having good rolling resistance in a number of reviews not only on tyrereviews. Something like the conti ecocontact 6 will only be slightly better but with much worse all round performance.
Much appreciated this video! I’m in the market for tires and thinking about low resistance tires. I’m not thinking about low resistance anymore. I’ll instead go with what is safest and works best in wet conditions. My safety is worth more than the gas savings of low resistance tires.
For bicycle tirres, there’s a surprising amount of nuance on this topic. Higher pressure is faster on perfect road but as the road gets rougher, lower pressure becomes more efficient as the tyre deforms more around the bumps. I’m curious to what extent these concepts also apply to automobile tires?
My new car came with the EcoContact 6 tyres mentioned in this video. It took me 1000 miles to conclude that I was better off throwing them away. I now have something that actually works in the wet.
Thanks, Jon, for another interesting and informative video. Achieving lower rolling resistance by using shorter tread depth seems like a bone-headed solution to me. I don't mind driving my tread height down through normal wear, as that contributes to less tread block squirm and better handling as the tires wear, but I don't like the idea of paying for a new tire that already effectively has the tread depth of a used tire. It's like paying more for performance tires with a softer rubber compound that will result in shorter tread life but not getting the performance benefit. As you well said, every tire is a compromise of competing performance characteristics and one has to accept that there is usually no free lunch when one selects a tire that excels in only one aspect of performance. I'm okay with the degradation of wet road handling on tires with short tread depth, whether through normal wear or by initial design. When the road is wet I just adjust my speed and driving style appropriately, so wet performance is not a high priority factor to me in a tire. To me, it's a bonus as long as other more important characteristics are there. In fact, I view the stellar wet road performance of my Michelin PS4S tires on my 370Z as a waste of money for my driving conditions and what I do need the tires to be able to do if I do encounter wet roads. That looks like a good gig Jon, being required to drive a Porsche Cayenne S by the company😉
I think the tread depth issue is because the EU label, and testers like myself, all test tyres at new tread depth, so if they want a better score in tests they have to start with less. It would be interesting to shave down tyres to the same tread dpeth then retest
Actually, those eco tyres seem ideal for you. The ecocontact 6, for example, will cover more distance than most other tyres that have a higher starting tread depth.
@iNSTAGiB in the video, he said the ExtremeContact DWS06 Plus is a great tire, and I completely agree. I use them on my car for daily driving, and very much can recommend them for spirited driving. They don't have the grip levels of, say, Pilot Sport 4 S, but for on-road driving, I've never encountered a situation where I felt more grip was needed.
Thanks for the excellent video. I really hate gimmick like low rolling resistance tires. They are garage in luxury box. Handling bad, not comfortable, expensive, no grip in wet and dry, low thread depth. We loose everything about a good tires is supposed to be. The net probably not more than 2% but i will not sacrifice safety, comfort, and fun just for 2% less fuel consumption. 6% gain in fuel minus price, low usable profile. We are willing to pay 10% more to have more comfortable rides.
@@tyrereviews well, the gallons are bigger there too :) So you have that going for you. That 40mpg (Imperial) might be around 32mpg for the US gallon as the Imperial gallon is about 20% larger than the US gallon. Having lived in both Europe and the US, I do appreciate the lower fuel prices we have here.
I honestly just bought a modern "total performance tire". The truecontact tour are "ECOplus+" branded, and they sacrifice mostly just dry grip to achieve great wet and snow perfomance. They do suck on ice tho. The great thing with these is the 600 threadwear rating with 80K mile "warranty" which in many cases would outlast a used car like this one. Sure in reality they are not very low rolling resistance, however from the knowledge ive adquired (shoutout ecomodder forums) I know how little effect rolling ressistance has on fuel economy, outside of hybrids and evs. This is because most engines simply dont get more efficient by lowering their load at low road speed unless the gearing is super favorable, or the engine is very undersized. On the other side, rolling resistance gets completely obscured by wind resistance at highway speeds, resulting in non observable results. In other words, they make no difference. On the other side, many have observed results from changing tire width, but often that is just because of the increased frontal area and rolling intertia. Definitely tho, the increased flatness of a small wheel with a meaty tire does also improve aero significantly over a large open wheel with a low profile tire.
it actually makes a big difference my 17 prius averages 55 mpg, with all season it gets 35 mpg, 12 civic avg 30 mpg, puts all season and it gets 23 mpg its a big difference.
@@ignasanchezl they are using Bridgestone transactions serenity + both same tires and checked with odo and fill up with gas so yes its accurate both cars are 140k miles to be exactly.
That is usually the way I shop for tyres, fine the tyre which is best at wet grip, then as high as it can be on economy and dB rating is kind of nice to have. AB or BB or AB is usually available for most sizes and at acceptable dB ~70. So wet grip always first, then economy and then "comfort" although there are more subtle differences, which is why tyre reviews are go to channel to find out.
I went with BMW starred Pirelli PZ4's on my '15 328i xDrive. Went to a larger tire overall, too. The factory model size is 225/45/18 and I went to 245/45/18 (speedo is now more accurate). Going off of tire loading from the factory rating, I'm running 27 psi in my front and 30 psi in the rear (factory size/pressure is 32/26). Have awesome grip, comfort and can still get around 40mpg/5.8L/100KM on Canadian roads (100km/hr). My father has a Model 3 with those Eco Continentals and they are PRONE to their sidewalls giving out on the slightest bump/pothole (his tire and my uncle who got a 3 around the same time, same tire issue). The tire has virtually zero grip, so I feel some of these current eco/low RR tires just give up too much.
@@tyrereviews thanks! I compared the different tire sizes BMW used for their factory wider and larger rim sizes and the math shows each options tire pressure is all based around a set front and rear load rating. Would be cool if you have a video going into under and oversized tires! (Narrow for winter and wide for summer etc). Again, great video 👍
I’ve had second thoughts overnight so when I rotate my tires this weekend, I’ll be upping my pressures to the door card levels of 32f/36r. This extra pressure actually falls into alignment of the higher pressure required for 160+mph speeds outlined in my manual 😁(stock pressure would be 38f/45r for the standard tire size).
Brilliant! You are preaching to the convertted with me - but people need to hear all this! Practically my Falkens which have poor rolling resistance were actually barely any different to the Dunlop SP Sport Blue response or the Continental PC5's that I had previously. How I drive, reading and planning and being aware of my gears and throttle - make much more duifference - so does correct tyre pressures!
At this time, perhaps a year or so later than this excellent video was posted, there are now a few low rolling resistance tires (LRR and not Ultra LRR) that have decent wet grip. Of course tires are always a compromise, but technology has advanced. With the new demand for EV specific tires, we should be seeing some interesting products.
I’ve booked myself in to replace the OE continental premium contact C that came on my MG4 with Bridgestone Turanza 6. The contact C are supposedly low rolling resistance and hard wearing but awful in the wet. And the MG4 being rear wheel drive, when at max regen and lifting the throttle, the tyres literally lose grip. Scary. The Turanza 6 are supposedly much better in the wet, nearly as good as the premium contact 7 but with a much lower rolling resistance and also about 15 % cheaper.
I believe in tires that have related with silica compound which most manufacturers are now racing to produce such high quality materials at the same time in accordance with eco-friendly environmental compliance.
Great video as always. And I just backed my first kickstarter, since I was looking for this and blow up my tires in front of my house. Hope to get it in September!
The Nokian Hakka Green 3's seem okay and give better performance in the wet if you are concerned about that it might be a good option. One thing people should take into account though is how often it is actually wet in the area they live and do most of their driving. I live here in Yorkshire, England in the UK and you would think that isn't it always raining here? Well that's what I thought as well until I checked the average rainfall per year and when I calculated the hours of rain per year in total and converted it to days it didn't see to be very high at all (it was less than a month) and certainly not high enough to justify going for tyres that are better in the wet than the dry, or even better for rolling restistance. In my city I think we only have about 15 inches of rainfall per year. Why do we always get that image of being a rainy country? My city is one of the windiest in the UK but at the moment we are very hot and dry. When I check the forecast for other parts of the country it seems to be only Wales and Scotland that are experiencing any rain. If you lived in Cherrapunji or Mawsynram in India, or any tropical region of the world then I would definitely have some wet tyres to hand for rainy season. But even there the rainy season doesn't last all year maybe five or six months of the year and the rest of the time it is mostly dry. For where I live I think a dry tyre or a tyre that gives better rolling resistance would be the better options right now over one that is better in the wet. On the odd times that you do have some rain you can always take more care driving. Out of the times when there is rain it is unlikely to be heavy and for the few times that it might be you can always drive slower and more carefully.
On my e-Golf, I swapped out the 16” wheels (Bridgestone Turanza T001 205 55 R16) for some 17” wheels with Michelin Pilot Sport 4 225 45 R17. There was an efficiency/range hit of ~15% from the stickier rubber. There is weight increase for both wheels and tyres but I think the rolling resistance is the main cause of the efficiency hit. Would be great to find the holy grail of a low rolling resistance tyre that can hold on in the wet.
@@tyrereviews Looking at your 2022 Tyre Reviews 17 Inch Summer Tyre Test, the rolling resistance of the Asymmetric 6 was 8.48 kg.t. This is pretty similar to the PS5 of 8.84 kg.t (I haven't been able to locate a value for the PS4 though). The T005 value of 7.01 kg.t is impressive but the wet grip won't there (though the 2022 ViBilagare Eco vs Normal Tyre Test placed it 3rd out of 9 compared with 5th of 9 in your test (not that the tests are for the same tyre size or class)). It would be really interesting to see a test done with an EV using different tyres that looked at the usual parameters plus energy consumption. Also a test with an EV using different wheel sizes (say 16, 17 & 18), different wheel weights and styles (aero etc) and tyre widths (say 205 vs 225) with the same model tyre would be awesome. I know the Model 3 has better range with smaller wheels.
Great info! Have read different articles hinting at much of what you said; but you lay it all out in a plain & understandable way. Side Note: On my Harley, tire pressure plays a BIG role in both handling and tread wear, so it's something I check every week, and possibly even more often when I'm on a road trip where daily temperatures and elevation can change quite often.
This is why I quite like my autistic traits. I had shortlisted my summer tyres to about 10 over a few days, now it's down to 8 and that'll save me a day or so lol. My search continues......many thanks.
Pressure management is however, the cheapest and best way to optimize for your needs. I pump for road trips, and drop for bad weather and max grip. On my motorcycle, I will pump both tires for longer highway sections, then drop 4-6PSI when I get to a twisty backroad section.
One of my car has the Primacy 4 and the other has Goodyear Efficientgrip performace 2. I love both tyres and goodyear now has very impressive even longer lifetime than michelin.
Well Rolling Resistance and Wet Breaking are always a target conflict. Rubber with low damping is good for rolling resistance but bad for wet grip and vice versa. You gain one and you have to give up another.
For some, the choice is easy... witzh my prefered dimension (17" forged wheels Audi A4 - Fuchs Felge) 225/50R17 I could choose between Pilot Sport or Primacy 4 / Eagle F1 Asy or Eff. Crip 2 / whatever. Now I've fitted the E.F1 one the front axle and the Primacy at the rear axle, that choice should maximize the benefits of the available tyres for a front driven car. Having a responsive car with high cornering speeds and great feedback, while benefiting a little from rolling resistance optimized rear tyres. And no - I do not have any doubts about the Primacys wet performance. Had the Primacy 3s and they awesomely performed in the wet with only 1.8mm tread depth - galaxies ahead of what the Hankook S1e2 did right now.
1) Get the tyre you like - have already tested- want , or just simply suit your driving style! 2) If you really want to save up some money, just drive your car less thats what i do! i use Bridgestone t005 they are amazing on dry and most important for me in wet conditions, its the 3ed time i put them to my car because they work for me fine.
From WC, my Honda CR-V manual says that I should put 29 lbs. of air in all four tires, I put in 35 lbs. of air and my tires last just as long if not longer than the recommended pressure and the fuel mileage is better! Yes the ride is a bit rougher, but worth it overall!
Well done. Only correction is the low tread depth for RR being air pumping. The reduced mass along with the bending (flattening) of the curved tread to the road as it bends to the central plain that is between the steel belts. The less distance between this plane between the belts and the road makes the tire roll easier (less RR).
Working as an Uber driver I use 5psi over the max pressure, I've run some sets that way with out issues. About only using the center of the tyre , some hard cornering were enough to deal with it . In some cases the outside worn faster
@@tyrereviews I'm not running that good of a tyre, it's like 51 when cold. I'm careful, I'm usually run in well paved road with out to much potholes, the only issue that happened to me were in a very shady set of Chinese tyres I had more punctures when driving in dirty roads, besides that witch I'm avoiding now, probably my break distance increased a bit but urban driving with costumers is like always heaving Ms Daisy on the back, so only soft breaking and acceleration in slow traffic, heaving some more breaking distance is not that bad
One more thing: fuel saving and cost saving is a change of lifestyle and attitude. Much more than change of style. It aint like taking a pill morning and evening to make it go away. Even more so: swapping to ULRR without changing driving style and even worse driving in a “spirited” way, could actually be more dangerous due to the less grip attributes of those tyres..
Didn’t know about the thread depth, was well aware of the compromise in grip (as you can’t have sticky for grip and less sticky for less rolling resistance). So not on my cars !
I did the math. 3% less fuel for me means about 3 liters of fuel / 1000 km. That's practically nothing. Compared to the safety of a premium tire, meaning the grip you get in wet and dry braking, there's no contest. There's no point in getting an ""eco'" tire. You save 3 liters of fuel and you increase the chance of getting in an accident in an emergency situation, that can cost you in repairs hundreds of euros, if not worse. Safety fist. Me personally I buy the best Continental has to offer at the time of purchase. Great video Johnathan :-) Can't wait for the winter test. I have to buy new tires in October and I want to see the results. My 2 influences for buying tires are this channel and ADAC.
Great video as always! What I don't understand is how can the Michelin e.Primacy's EU tyre label state A for wet braking and yet the tyre perform so poorly?
Coincidentaly I have currently two almost the same Passat Altracks in the driveway. My own on Primacy 4 and a company one with ContiEcoContact6, and let me say it straight, the company car is ruined by the eco tyres in comparison. I really don`t enjoy driving it, and to be clear the Primacy is not in any way a great tyre (the PS4 on M135i is the one). The Conties squeal a lot sooner, the ride is much harsher, somehow with the steering less direct, but as you mentioned, the biggest difference comes in the wet and they are much more sensitive to the type of pavement also, so they are much more unpredictable in the wet. Tyres are the only thing keeping me on the road, so I would happily trade a few liters per year, for much safer driving experience.
For a long time I used to wonder why the premium-brand economy-oriented tyres I had on my previous car never seemed particularly chunky compared to the tyres on most other people's cars - and now I understand. How extremely sneaky to put less tread depth on them in the first place! Economy AND durability have always been my twin goals. I know what to look for - the ratings for economy, wet grip and treadwear - but with my current car I'm just not fussing so outrageously and see what is available at a price point at around 2/3 of the premium-brand level. One thing I HAVE noticed with my current car is better roadholding which I attribute entirely to it having 195mm instead of 185mm wide rubber, irrespective of the cheapness of the rubber (it was wearing cheapo Chinese deathrings when I bought it).
When my Prius’ eco tires wore out, I went with normal tires hoping to get a smoother ride. I got a smoother ride, but my avg. MPG went from 45 mpg to 37 mpg. I was shocked. I had no idea how much fuel savings was due to just my tires
A different aspect on rolling resistance to consider is wheel diameter. Changing from 17inch to 15inch (@ the same overall diameter, so mounting a tyre with a higer sidewall) can make a petrol saving of about 5%.
Some yers ago I use Michelin Energy Saver, it was good tires in fuel economy. But time gone and tires come down. I by more cheeper tires Kormoran Speed, and how I be surprised, difference between tires cost is more much importent and profiteble that tires "economy")))))
of Note on the Michelins if you live where there is rough road surfaces the tread on these tires can come off. I have personally gone through 2 sets of Michelin Primacy tires and both did the same thing. You see that visually the tires look really chewed up and you can grab a corner of the tread block and the tread will just come off. When I went to the Tire Shop that happened to have a Regional Michelin Rep there I asked and shown that Rep what the tire was doing. His answer? "This is normal wear and tear for driving on rough road surfaces". I told him that is total BS, because my other car that was rolling a different brand but same category of tire was not doing this. He just ignored me and walked away. So yeah, Since then I refuse to buy Michelin Tires. I know they have some awesome summer tries, but their A/S Low Rolling Resistance Tires like the Primacy are garbage on rough roads.
well... I managed to melt a pair of EcoContact 6 in 1 and a half years. Literally 12k kms. Decent grip while new, horrible after some wear and they didn't last.
My Honda accord had roughly 2-3 mpg better fuel economy with the tires from the manufacture vs the replacement Michelin tires I bought. When you travel 20,000 a year, that adds up.
First basic obvious rules 1) take off that roof rack when not in use 2) have you checked that air filter is clean out or changed? 3) tire pressure 4) wash your car so that you can use recirculate air conditioning without the windowscreen misting up 5) empty your boot of unnecessary weight
I am safely driving Eco Contact now the 4th season and a total of aprox. 40.000km - across germany, slovenia, hungary, austria, all the way down to croatia. No problems whatsoever, even driving more speedy, but not racing. Altough still moving faster than 70% of traffic these days. People drive slow as f. these days to save fuel.
What a great assessment. I see Tesla has moved away from the ps4 to a lower rolling resistance tyre. The range has improved but now reviews are commenting that the model 3 is hardly sporty in the driving dynamics. I’ll stick with ps4 or ps5 until this is resolved.
It is great to see you finally debunk these marketing BS for energy saving with specific tyre. I cannot agree more with your opinions. The top priority for a tyre should always be gripping the road for safety, especially in wet conditions. PS: I respect your test effort and the result, but I still think the 9% energy saving claim in the EV tyre video was bit overstated, maybe some tolerance was there affecting the accuracy.
My tire pressure in my Elantra - they lowered my rear to 31 lbs .. I like to keep them at 34 maybe 31 for winter; but they said 34 frt 31 rear is correct. My factory tires - look great - but terrible in water and winter I felt .. I bet anything they are hard rubber design for good mileage.
paying much more for new Tires while you are paying a little less for fuel? The biggest Savings you receive when you lift your right shoe... I have tried a few years ago the Michelin Energy Saver. After that i start buying again normal Tires. With the Savers i can reduce Fuel costs around 2-3%, and i don't know how much of this was due my modified Style of driving.
I always buy the most expensive HP tires for my cars from 1 of 'the' three brands, always an A score for wet grip. Still I get the manufacturer's milage. Advantage is that you can take corners way faster in 2 gears higher without protesting tires.
@@tyrereviews yes, I read some studies suggesting EVs waste nearly 50% of energy to overcome rolling resistance in city driving. Thank you, I will look into primacy 4+ for next set.
You mention in the video tyres from 10 years ago, it would be interesting to see a comparison between modern touring tyres (like the efficient grip performance 2) and old sport tyres (like old Dunlop Sportmax)
I drive all seasons on different cars and vans. I noticed that all seasons needs to be at the max tire pressure stated on tire itself. It handles much better in cornering, better fuel economy, better tire wear. I really noticed that the tire walls and treads are more flexible compared to summer tires. Can this channel address this in a video, please?
I'm pretty sure the Beemer behind me today didn't have either of these tires. We both got lucky and didn't have a bad time in the rain at the side of the road, but it was too damn close.
This has been true since the introduction of low resistance tires. Car buyers can be so "pennywise" when it comes to tires & maintenance, yet proudly "dollar foolish" with the purchase of high hp/low efficiency vehicles.
Great videos. Just wanted to point out just about everything in life all products etc are all target compromises. Everything has a downside. Cameras and lenses are like this too. That concept applies to literally everything!
Years ago I when I was on a tight budget I tried to be clever and bought Michelin energy saver tires. They were so slippery in wet conditions that it felt like I was driving on ice. That car did not even had an ABS so even a slight braking did lock up the front wheels. Now in my current car I have Michelin Pilot Sport 5's. Night and day difference. I would never ever again buy a eco tires again.
In my opinion I think the main use of these tyres is to lower the fuel consumption, lower CO2 and get them through emission tests (NOX/particulate matter), it could be the difference between 99g of CO2 a km and 102 which would mean cheaper tax which is especially important for 'bluemotion' or 'greenline' etc. versions of cars But just because it makes financial sense for the manufactures to fit them to new vehicles doesn't mean it's the best choice when it comes to replacing them
I'm regularly getting MPG in the mid-high 40s (record 48.3 on a long run) with a 3.4L NA engine, while on P-Zeros (not entirely by choice). I feel like low rolling resistance tyres would be an incredibly effective way of making my car worse! Best way to save money on fuel is simple: drive more efficiently and less often. There's no point driving fast on boring roads like motorways, so by cruising at about 65 there I can not only balance the extra fuel I use on fun drives, I can also hear the stereo over my rather large tyres! Doing 65 instead of 75 means a 75 mile journey takes about 9 more mins (84 mins)...realistically that's an irrelevance since for any journey that long, I'd always leave more than that extra anyway.
That's impressive gas mileage. Just another point of view on the speed on highways: I drive around 5000 km per year on highways. My usual cruise is at 132 km/h (75 mph). If I drop it to 65 mph, I'll spend approximately 15 more days of my life driving boring highways and in my experience there is not as significant fuel savings, since you are driving out of the natural traffic flow. This requires more braking and acceleration to make overtakes that eats into the savings. I average around 7l/100km with my regular speed while dropping it to 65mph I get 6.7l, so around 5-6%. That's less of a difference than the time difference. obviously this is very car dependent and If everyone would adjust their speed lower, the traffic flow difference will disappear.
@@k0zzu21 My 65 cruise is a rough average based on following things to save fuel, so always with traffic flow. Also worth noting all my figures are UK. For me, the time saved is a bigger loss elsewhere since in my Cayman I can hear and enjoy music at 65 but the road noise at 75+ ruins that (or the volume ruins my hearing)! That means for me at 65 it's time well spent, whereas at 75 it's just travel time. As you say though, very car dependent. One thing I notice is that my car being small and aerodynamic with long gearing suffers less at high speed than most. My Dad's Audi A6 2.0 TDi (2012, C7) beats my porker by 10mpg at 65, but at 80mph the Porsche is a good 5mpg more efficient since the Audi is relatively very draggy. Always found it funny that the 981S can out-MPG a diesel Audi, but, to be fair, it can't carry a double mattress 😄
huh good to know i've got the Contental Eco contact 6's, for me the fuel seems to have gone from about 13.5KM/L to 14.5KM/L or as I experience it irl, gass light at 570 or gass light at 620+. there on a 7th gen celica, when I got it it had 17" rim's which looked amazing...and the tyres were 200 bucks a corner >.< so went looking bought 4 15" rims for 400 and spent another 400 on 4 tyre's (tyre size also went from 225 > 195 which may have also aided in fuel saving?) I mainly did it though cause the 17" rims looked really nice but as soon as the surface of the road isn't like glass the noise in the cabin was just silly, 15" rims made that much better...though it is now less sporty in feel :(
$33 dollars in an air compressor and an accurate guage saves me $10 a month easily. If the tires drop 3 psi or so then the efficiency drops considerably. Now the other problem is the detergent blending in gas in CA today. Worked my car to 37mpg, 31mpg rated, and then it dropped down to 28mpg 4 months ago. No changes and the car is healthy. The fuel just gets worse and worse.
I just can't stop getting annoys by people who drive all the way up to a red light. Just like you say just by reading the road you can use coasting to save gas and brakes. But I think that people just don't think that way, they are not aware nor even think about how they could drive better from that perpective. Tire pressure is a bit of a difficult one since it can change within hours depending on the weather.. But I check mine regularly (about 1-2 per month).
interesting tho, i went from Pirelli Cinturato P7 Blu to Michelin CC gen 1 on my seat leon ST 1.2 tsi, for similar commute, my mpg dropped by about 10-12%, i was quite surprised to see you mention real world saving is only going to translate to 6% even with 30% reduction in RR. hard to imagine the P7 was 30+% less RR than the CC gen 1.
Good and honest review and info. This is why I am subscribed! Keep up the good stuf. I have one related question: hoe much does the Profile width make on the fuel economy? My Honda CR-Z has two options 195 or ,205 in width
Are you planning any new all season tires reviews? there few new tires out there, for example debica navigator 3.. local review showed that it's better in snow than goodyear vector 3, and braking distances are similar.. but the price almost half of it.
Yes! I have one almost finished though I don't have the debica in it. As I'm sure you know debica is owned by goodyear, so if the tyre is better in the snow, I expect it will be worse in other areas
@@tyrereviews Nice you have new reviews, but shame you don't have navigator 3 in it ;) I heard that in UK, Dębica brand is quite popular. I was hoping for a review from you. Yes, I know it's the same company, that's the point. If it preform that well for half the price, there is no point in buying vectors 3. And to be honest i have those tires. But only did 1983km so far, and because it's a "new" car which required new tires immediately I don't have reference point. I wonder how they compare to others.