Need tire suggestions for fuel economy

[ALS]

I have a Volvo 960 (3520 lb Cd .36) that is my dedicated highway car. It is used mainly for trips to visit family in Fl. I don't need a tire that is going to be a determent to my fuel mileage.
I'm looking for fuel efficient tire for the car. The came with two different tires on it, Sumitomo's and Bridgestone Potenza's.
They are OK but I know there has to be a better option for getting a little better gas mileage. Normally I would just put a set of Michelin MXV4 Energy's on the car like my daily driver a 2.3 liter 740 wagon.
Spending $135 per tire is a little high for a car that is a highway only / Garage queen that sees less than 6K miles per year. BTW Volvo recommends 36 psi all around in the 960 and I fill them to 38-39 psi.
I have never been so confused on which tire would be best on this car. I get a good suggestion and then find out other car owners that put that tire on their car saw a 1 to 2 mpg loss in fuel mileage. What tires have you guys found that give you the best gas mileage. I'm looking at spending no more than $100 per tire for this car. I have come to find real world use gives the best recommendation over magazine and
internet articles.
Thanks Al

 

[JHZR2]

What size tires are on it?

Check what tires are used on the toyota prius, civic hybrid, etc.

IIRC, the corolla has used goodyear infinity for years... likely for the hard compound for eeking out a bit more mileage, not for the infiite part of it.

As a rule of thumb, the larger the treadwear number, the harder the compound, and thus the less the rolling resistance.

Id try to find a tire that has a good solid midsection on it.. makes for quieter rolling and supposedly less resistance.

Im not sure if you want to look for a blockier tread or a sipier tread... sipes theoretically keep the tread cooler and thus harder, but I suppose they also make the tread 'give', which is a waste of energy.

Start with goodyear infinity, and go from there... consider going one size narrower, and then change aspect ratio to keep diameter roughly the same... this will reduce rolling resistance, and at the same time, with the pressures youre running at, wont really change loar dating from OE spec... just dont overload the car!

I guessed a 96 960 sedan with 205/55/16 tires, at tire racks calculator.

For $78 each, the yokohama avid TRZ looks like it may be half decent.

The turanza LS-T is rated higher, but are also $100 each (though you can get a $100 gift card rebate for a limited time).

Id avoid BFG taction t/a, as Ive read multiple accounts of decreased fuel economy.

Michelin hydroedge tires are really good, as are the goodyear comfortread assurance and tripletread versions... they are all up in price though... At the same time, the difference between a good tire and a cheap one is only $20-25 each... maybe its better to just go for the good ones? The michelin hydroedge will have a treadwear of 740 or so, so itll be relatively hard. My mother has had great results with the michelin hydroedge in p195/70r-14 on her plymouth breeze... fuel economy has been strong since putting them on!

good luck!

JMH

 

[Gurkha]

I too would vote for Avid TRZ,even on bad potholed roads here,they hold up pretty well and return good fuel economy as well.

 

[outrun]

Fuel Economy?

What size? Does your car have optional narrower sized for the rim? Look into it, some vehicles can have three tire sized for the same wheel!

215/60/16, 235/55/16, 245/50/16 ... possible 225/60/16 also capable on mine!

Narrower can yield better fuel economy(FE)...just make sure the load range is correct to what you carry.

ANYWAY ... based on corporate literature I have been brainwashed by these tire lines are supposed to be low resistance yeilding better FE.

A)Goodyear (GY) Regatta 2 (GY retailers, Tire Rack), Goodyear Viva Touring (WalMart) , Goodyear Weatherhandler LS (Sears Tire Group)

Eagle GA

B)Michelin Weatherwise (MN) (Sears Tire Group) , Michelin MX4 (Michelin Retailers, Tire Rack, etc)

C) Bridgestone (**) Weatherforce, Weatherforce+

The examples in "A" are clones to a degree of one another. CapriRacer may have inside info on the technicals if he chooses to disclose.

The MN examples in B are very similar too made on the same Canadian and Italian production centers.

Downsides these examples are S,T rated, some ** Weatherforce+ are H rated. I would suspect the H rated would sap fuel economy however.

 

[Smoky14]

The new MXV4 series is hard to beat, it's round, black, and holds air. That's more than I can say about a lot of tyres

 

[CapriRacer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:
.....As a rule of thumb, the larger the treadwear number, the harder the compound, and thus the less the rolling resistance.

---

Sorry, but that's not right!. As a general rule, high treadwear means high rolling reistance. The basic trade off is between tread wear, rolling resistance, and traction. So if something is good for RR it generally sacrifices either treadwear or traction to get it. For example, OE tires are designed with RR in mind and the common complaint about OE tires is treadwear and traction.

quote:

---

......consider going one size narrower, and then change aspect ratio to keep diameter roughly the same...

---

This is a good suggestion if you can do this. You have to check the rim width as this is probably the limiting factor.

Also, tire weight more or less correlates with RR. The heavier the tire, the more fuel it consumes. That's why many folks change tires and report worse fuel economy. The new tire has more weight (the tread hasn't worn off yet).

Tread design is almost immaterial when it comes to RR. The stiffness of the steel belts overwhelms any change in tread pattern such as sipes, grooves, etc. What really affects RR is the amount of tread rubber (weight) and the internal friction of the tread compound. Silica (a version of sand) is a common ingredient that improves RR as it is smoother and therefore generates less friction as the tread compound deflects in the footprint. However, silica replaces some of the carbon black, and carbon black is good for tread wear.

 

[rpn453]

The only thing I'd do differently if I were choosing a tire with fuel economy as the priority is that I'd go with the narrowest tire, of the same or slightly larger diameter as the specified tires, that is approved for use with my wheel width.

My personal criteria for brand, treadwear, traction, speed rating, construction, and tread design would not change.

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sxg6:
i think you two are saying the same things.. JHZ is saying the higher the utqg treadwear #, the harder the compound, and the lower the rolling resistance.. and CapriRacer is saying tires with high treadwear, (which generally have low utqg treadwear #'s) will have higher rolling resistance..

regardless... JHZ is right on this one.

---

I think Capriracer is saying that tread mass has a relatively large effect on fuel economy, and that tires with greater tread life generally have more tread mass. Here's a discussion on the effects of tread mass:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000393

 

[jmacmaster]

Its my belief that as a rule of thumb, the more aggressive the tread, the lower the mpg. This especially holds true between classes of tires, with mpg decreasing as you go from a summer tire to an all-season, to an all-terrain, to a mud-terrain. So if mpg is your main criteria, get a summer tire that does not have an aggressive tread.

I personally would sacrifice a bit of mpg for high traction ratings on all or most surfaces, especially on wet and dry pavement, so if I were in your shoes I'd be looking for all-season tires that get good reviews for traction.

As pointed out above, since you don't drive the car much you won't save much $ per year by keying in on a high mpg tire.

I've read numerous times that tires degrade over time and that after 5 or 6 years they begin to become unsafe, especially the sidewalls. CapriRacer -- what's your opinion on this? If that's the case, cost, especially as cost relates to the mileage warranty, may be a factor for you. Why buy an expensive tire that's good for 60,000 or more miles when you drive about 6,000 miles a year and the tire may no longer be safe in 5 years after only 30,000 miles of use? Might as well get a cheaper tire rated for 30-40,000 miles.

 

[ALS]

It has 6.5 inch rims and came with 205/55/16's.
As said before I could go to a 195's but the difference in fuel mileage would be minimal.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapriRacer:
Sorry, but that's not right!. As a general rule, high treadwear means high rolling reistance. The basic trade off is between tread wear, rolling resistance, and traction. So if something is good for RR it generally sacrifices either treadwear or traction to get it. For example, OE tires are designed with RR in mind and the common complaint about OE tires is treadwear and traction.

---

Sorry to hijack this thread, but are you implying that a tire that has a high treadwear number, say, 740... its going to have LOW rolling resistance???

Last I checked, high treadwear (long lasting) tires had hard compounds... and last I checked, low rolling resistance tires had hard compounds...

Not saying youre wrong... Im saying that I dont understand... You wouldnt want a soft compound for long tread life, and you wouldnt want a soft compound for lowered rolling resistance, it seems to me... low RR and long life seem to go hand in hand to me.

Thanks,

JMH

 

[sxg6]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapriRacer:

Originally posted by JHZR2:
[qb].....As a rule of thumb, the larger the treadwear number, the harder the compound, and thus the less the rolling resistance.

---

"Sorry, but that's not right!. As a general rule, high treadwear means high rolling reistance. The basic trade off is between tread wear, rolling resistance, and traction. So if something is good for RR it generally sacrifices either treadwear or traction to get it. For example, OE tires are designed with RR in mind and the common complaint about OE tires is treadwear and traction."

i think you two are saying the same things.. JHZ is saying the higher the utqg treadwear #, the harder the compound, and the lower the rolling resistance.. and CapriRacer is saying tires with high treadwear, (which generally have low utqg treadwear #'s) will have higher rolling resistance..

regardless... JHZ is right on this one.

 

[wantin150]

I am still confused about the whole question. Do some math. If you only drive the car 6000 miles a year, is the reduction in mpg by 1 or 2 even significant? Not really. If your car gets 300 miles off a tank of gas, and your tank is, say 15 gallons, then you are getting 20 mpg. 6000 miles / 300 miles per tank is 20 tanks of gas in the course of a year. If you loose 2 mpg, you will be getting 18 mpg or 270 miles per tank. 270 miles per tank x 20 tanks of gas is 5400 miles. This results in a loss of 600 miles. This is really only around 2 additional tanks or about $90 a year (15 gal @ $3/gal x 2). Granted this is just a hypothetical case and your mileage may vary greatly but you don't seem to be driving enough for the loss to matter too much. Sorry, just my opinion.

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ALS:
It has 6.5 inch rims and came with 205/55/16's.
As said before I could go to a 195's but the difference in fuel mileage would be minimal.

---

I didn't see that (must have been another thread), but it sounds like I'd stick with the 205/55's then! AFAIK, there's no such thing as a 195/60R16 anyway, and even 195/65R16's are very, very rare.

 

[JHZR2]

I agree in this regard, if the mileage is too low, thereis not pointin paying for the premium, unless there is some value added that is more important (higher quality tire, better traction/temp rating, etc.). I dont even live in a sunbelt or hot area, but still have seen oxidation and sidewall breakdown (evidenced by small cracks in the sidewall, especially around lettering), at 5-6 years, regardless of how much tread is still there.

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

Thanks!!!!!

 

[sxg6]

very good info. thank you

 

[CapriRacer]

I was a bit cavalier in my wording and it created some confusion that I am now going to clarify:

Tires with high treadwear ratings (low treadwear rates) generally have high rolling resistance (low fuel economy).

It has been mentioned that tires with aggressive tread designs have lower mpg values - and that is mostly the result of the mass of the tread (greater tread depth) and the rubber compound used, and not because the tread pattern is aggressive.

I would disagree that summer tires give better fuel economy compared to all season tires. Summer tires generally have higher grip compounds and wider tread widths, both of which are the wrong way for RR. Summer tires also tend to be higher speed rated, which adds to the total mass of the tire.

So all season tires generally have the best RR values, and OE tires are generally better than purely replacement. If someone is looking for a low RR tire (good MPG), if the tire is currently sourced on a vehicle, that is generally an indication that the RR value will be low. This also generally means the wet traction and the treadwear is compromised.

Please note that treadwear warranties are generally like insurance policies and not like a guarantee. Most treadwear occurs in the cornering mode and straight ahead driving hardly causes any wear, so treadwear is highly dependent the ratio of these 2 driving modes. (Needless to say, the more "spirited" the driving, the more rapid the tread wears.) It's basically impossible to predict how many miles an individual is going to get out of a set of tires, so tread wear warranties not a good way of comparing tires.

UTQG ratings, on the other hand, have at least some basis of comparison, although these ratings also have some degree of vagarity.


Hard compound / soft compound?

Doesn't really matter as the flexibility of rubber (even hard rubber) is soooo much different than the flexibility of the steel belt. So what matters is the internal friction of the tread compound.


5 or 6 years aging?

It's well known that rubber doesn't last forever. My experience says that it is highly dependent on ambient temperature. The question becomes how to express this in a meaningful way.

Some have chosen to look at it as a lower limit sort of thing (the 5 or 6 year recommendations) and others have taken the upper limit approach (the 10 year recommendations). Neither of these is incorrect, it's just a difference in perspective.

Oh, and it's not the sidewall that's the problem - it's the belt and the result is belt detachments, commonly referred to as tread separations. However, the sidewall is where the aging cracks will be most readily visible. But even tires with few sidewall cracks may have belt aging situations that would be of concern - hence the announcements.

Hope this helps.

 

[m2200b]

Most of the savings potential for such low annual mileage would be to run those tires as close to 2-32 as you are willing since any tire produces its best MPG at the end of its life and your old tire will out MPG any you are choosing from running at full tread over the same miles.

2nd for your use is highway speed w/o regard to tire type. Lower save more.

Using old tires longer and lower highway speed has more than 5% saving potential each at no cost.

 

[LarryL]

I went from MXV4's to Avid TRZ's on a 96 850 wagon that my wife drives 350+ miles a week to work and back. I like the new tires just fine and they have an 80k tread life warranty. The size is 205 55 16's, I got them at discount tire about 6 months ago. The Michelin's wore out too quickly and I don't think they are a better tire, especially when you consider how much more you pay for them. And I had a $50 discount coupon, too.