TDIClub Forums

TDIClub Forums (
-   TDI Fuel Economy (
-   -   Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best? (

Michigan05TDi June 28th, 2005 18:04

Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
I am pondering a tire purchase and wanted to know which tire had the lowest rolling resistance. I know Bridgestone makes a "SPECIAL" tire for the Honda Insight which is worth 2 MPG or more over other tires. But as I search for data on this subject it almost doesn't exist. Even e-mails to Michelin came up short. I noticed a comment made by Ernie Rogers in a earlier post touching on this subject and stating he was looking at High Mileage Tires surmising that this equals lower rolling resistance...I don't draw the same parallel though it does have some validity. The only article I found that answers my questions with great limitations was put out by Green Seals Report.. . You guys have any input. I personally am looking at the Michelin HydroEdge with a 90,000 mile warranty though I have no idea if it rolls nice or not?

GotDiesel? June 28th, 2005 18:36

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
The OEM tires--Michelin Energy, Conti Contact & Goodyear Eagle LS were all chosen for low rollng resistance.

I don't know if there's much more info out there than what you've already found...

You would think that high mileage tires with their harder compounds would also be low-rolling resistance tires but anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.

You might check to see what Honda is using on their Accord Hybrid. I don't know what size they run, but perhaps that tire is available in a size that will work for you.

Keep in mind that all tires are a compromise of various different performance characterstics. The ultimate low rolling resistance tire would probably ride and handle like something off the Flintstonemobile.

ruking June 28th, 2005 18:57

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
Yes GotDiesel is right on. If you do a search you will get an interesting poll as to how long the tires last, mileage etc etc.You will probably also cross reference tire pressure and its relative importance. I still have the GY LS-H's with 56k and it looks good to go to 100-130k. Fuel mileage is a range from 44-62 mpg.


TP's are 38-36 fronts and 36-34 rears. (app 85% of the 44 max sidewall PSI. PSI past 38 is a bit too harsh for my SOTP experiences. This TDI is run on reputedly some of the roughest roads in the USA.

Final disposition:

@ 112,300 miles, I pulled down the oem GY LS-H. Tread remaining was between 2-3/ 32nds (actually 2.75/32nds or average wear of 15,490 miles per 1/32nd of tread. New tires are Toyo TPT (by now an older generation tire) it is on track for 15/16k miles per 1/32nd and gets the range of mpg in my signature.

PDJetta June 29th, 2005 05:11

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
Someone here estimated a 1 - 2 MPG mileage advantage of the Michelin Energy tire over the standard tire. I did a quick calculation based on the price, tread life, and fuel savings (1.5 MPG I picked) as compared with a Michelin Hydroedge and the Hydroedge came out cheaper over the life of the tire. The tread life of the Hydroedge is about 35% greater than the Energy tire.


ruking June 29th, 2005 09:42

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
I would not doubt that at all. From a cost standpoint, it is truly all over the map. I think the best guide is to estimate and document what ones' results projected and actual would be. Of course one would select according to the plethora of factors one favors.

For example, not many folks (if the polls are any indication) would tend to get 130k from the oem tires, let alone GY LS- H's. So of course that would tend to make the cost per mile driven much different. Even for the same tire that say would tend to get 40k from GY LS-H's.

So in your case, for me it would be an absolute no brainer to get the M Hydroedge with a 90k warranty vs a M oem that has NO warranty and has been shown to get between 35-45k miles to a max of 95k. To boot it costs more than the Hydroedge.

SUNRG June 29th, 2005 09:51

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
what about these tires? the Falken treadwear rating is better than the three OEM options (the OEM Michelin Energy's on our 04 Jetta Wagon are about shot at 40k). but how are the Falken's for rolling resistance / fuel economy? they're light too at ~18 lbs - which can't hurt economy. <ul type="square">FALKEN Ziex ZE-512
All-season performance. H-speed rated. Rated #1 by a leading consumer magazine.

195/65R-15 91H B
Reading the Tire Size

$44.00 ea. [<font color="red">+ FREE shipping from = a measly $176 for 4 tires</font>]

Treadwear: 420
Traction: A
Temperature: A
Speed Rating: HR

Meets or exceeds original equipment speed rating.[/list]

mrGutWrench June 29th, 2005 10:19

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?

(snip) (the OEM Michelin Energy's on our 04 Jetta Wagon are about shot at 40k) (snip)

__. It's amazing to me how we all get different results from different vehicles. I've just replaced my stock Michelins at 88K miles -- and I *could* have squeezed a few more miles out of them if I'd been prepared to take a chance.

__. Re the Falkens - I had a set on an RX-7 GLS-SE in the late '80's (replacing Pirelli's) and I loved them. I sold the car before I wore them out but they seemed to do most everything well.

ruking June 29th, 2005 10:52

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
Yesterday I was quoted 420 for 5ea BFG Traction T/A-H from my local discount tire vendor (195-65-15's)or 84 ea installed. So indeed Falkens @ 44 per= 220 plus 60 for installtion 56 installed, is 280/420 is 33% cheaper?

Alster June 29th, 2005 16:16

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
I have a 2003 Jetta Wagon GL 5-speed with 61,000 plus miles.
I replaced my original Continentals 195-15-65 with Falken ZX 512 195x15x65 at 43,000 miles.

The Falken tires are great and cost $55.00 shipped I believe from Discount Tire. After 17,000 miles I have plenty of tread left at least I should get 60,000-70,000 miles out of them.

I have all 4 inflated to Max sidewall indicated pressure of 51 PSI. They roll as good as the Continental's and are much quieter and corner much better. My overall mileage is 55.5 MPG. My last fill up was 57.9 MPG.

You should be as impressed with this tire as I am and your MPG will probably improve. Also with 51 PSI the wear is minimal and are wearing on all 4 evenly.


Alster June 29th, 2005 16:30

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
WOW; just noticed $44.00 / tire thats cheaper than I paid last year and they pay for shipping. That is a deal!!!!


dsclark June 29th, 2005 18:24

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
I replaced my mich oem tires with GY triple treads and didn't see any drop in mpg.

Clarky456 June 29th, 2005 18:34

No falkens!
I have used falkens for auto-x for a few years now, these are far from low rolling resistance! I currently run the ziex512s and lost a bit of efficiency, but the tires do fairly well in the road holding department. Sidewalls are extremely flexible and the build material is very soft leading to a much greater wear than advertised. Not sure how they got a 420 rating, my bridgestone potenzas lasted 4 years, there have been on for nearly a year and are almost shot! Invest wisely. Joe

Chris Bell June 29th, 2005 19:03

No falkens!
What size were your Ziex 512s? The /55 and lower profile have a dramatically faster wear rate than /60 and higher. UTOG treadwear rating is lower, too. 512s in a 205/50-15 lasted 15,000 miles for me.

ruking June 29th, 2005 21:24

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?

I replaced my mich oem tires with GY triple treads and didn't see any drop in mpg.

Small change, GY Triple Treads are advertised at TireRack in 195-65-15, "H" rated.

tadc June 29th, 2005 21:36

Re: Low Rolling Resistance Tires...Which is Best?
I changed from Stock Contis to Michelin Energy and noticed a 2-4 MPG drop. Disappointing.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 20:58.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017

Page generated in 0.07639 seconds with 8 queries
[Output: 20.58 Kb. compressed to 19.80 Kb. by saving 0.78 Kb. (3.78%)]