Continental ProContact EcoPlus

[rationull]

We got new tires for my wife's Mazda3 today after some minor alignment problems and lack of rotation led the OEM set to an early demise. I feel like a little bit of an idiot, but I think everything worked out OK. Here's the story:

I had done some research and one of the tires I had looked at as a frontrunner were the Continental ContiProContact H rated grand touring all season tires. When I talked to the guy at the shop about ordering them I referred to them as "Continental ProContacts", oblivious to the fact that both ContiProContact and ProContact are actual and distinct models!

When we got home from picking the car up, I noticed the "EcoPlus" branding on the tire, looked it up online, and discovered what happened. So, instead of the semi performance oriented all season tires I thought I was getting her, I got her low rolling resistance, fuel economy tires. This isn't really a problem though. She drives the car fairly spiritedly but it's not a sports car and I'm sure these tires will handle just fine. To boot, if they do help fuel economy they'll probably push her over 30 mpg on the normal commute (further closing the gap between her 2.3 liter Mazda and my 1.8 liter Honda) and they have an 80k mile treadwear warranty. Also, the tires are QUIET (of course they're new and the tires they replaced were always pretty bad in that respect).

I haven't seen much about these tires online though, so this will be kind of an experiment. Anyone have any thoughts on them?

 

[CharlieJ]

What size tires did you get for the Mazda3?

Is this the tire you bought?

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?...Plus+Technology

 

[The Critic]

Those tires do not meet the correct speed rating requirement for the Mazda 3.

Unfortunately, it sounds from the description that these tires are heavily optimized for fuel economy, not traction. There may be tires such as the Michelin Primacy MXV4 that will still be fairly fuel efficient and long lasting, but will not be such a large compromise in the area of handling.

In the name of safety I would return the tires (if possible) and obtain a proper set. Now, if you were going to adjust the rear camber anyway to near 0, then I guess this is all a moot point.

 

[rationull]

Yeah those are the tires, in 205-55R16.

Correct, they're T rated rather than H rated. I'm not convinced this is a safety problem. Something like the Primacy MXV4 is probably better but I've known people with other eco tires (like the Michelin Energy) who pound on their car and noticed no handling degradation from their OEM tires (that was on a VW).

 

[oggb]

If you look at the tire specs on the TireRack page, the 205-55R16 T-rated EcoPlus has a UTQG of 600 A/B, whereas the same size H-rated non-EcoPlus has a UTQG of either 400 AA/A or 500 AA/A depending on the load rating you get.

Both tires are listed as having low rolling resistance. Neither is at all a high-performance tire. Unless you autocross or something like that you'll probably never knew the difference.

Just take 'em out and drive them. I was convinced I would HATEHATEHATE my Conti ExtremeContact DWS tires after switching from dedicated "Ultra High Performance" summer tires - I barely notice a difference 90% of the time. Heck, my DWS are also listed as low rolling resistance but I've only had them start to break traction when I'm seriously pushing it around a turn.

Also, I think it's something to do with the compound, but these tires seriously rock in wet conditions (I.E. wet traction, not hydroplaning resistance). If yours use somewhat the same compound I'd bet they're great in the wet, too.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: JRed

Just take 'em out and drive them. I was convinced I would HATEHATEHATE my Conti ExtremeContact DWS tires after switching from dedicated "Ultra High Performance" summer tires - I barely notice a difference 90% of the time.

I kind of felt the same switching from UHP summer tires (Dunlop SP Maxx) to UHP all-seasons (Bridgestone RE960). The only time when I notice a bit of a difference is dry cornering - they don't grip as well.

 

[The Critic]

Any update on the tires?

I am considering a set for the Prius but am a bit concerned about some complaints regarding straightline stability on the highway. Also, have you noticed any improvement in fuel economy?

 

[sciphi]

If they're a modern LRR tire, they should be fair to middling in everything. The Goodyear LRR tires on the Cruze don't do anything exceptionally. They are okay tires for commuting, and that's fine with me.

 

[Bror Jace]

I'm about to pull the trigger on 4 of these to replace my somewhat short lived Bridgestone Turanza's on my '06 Civic. I got about 32,000 miles out of those ... think that should have been 40,000 or more.

I really want the low rolling resistance and long life promised by these tires. I assume grip will be satisfactory ... after all, it's just my Civic. I'm not putting these on my S2000.

 

[Hokiefyd]

These Continentals just won a Tire Rack comparison test, against the Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 (finished 3rd), Yokohama Avid TRZ (finished 2nd), and Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (finished 4th).

The Bridgestone and Goodyear both suffered poor wet traction. The Continental out-performed the Avid TRZ on most things, but curiously, tied with the Avid TRZ for worse fuel mileage of the group.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=155

 

[odie]

Have these on the '08 Yaris sedan . Better ride , less noise , and improved handling in wet weather . Gas mileage remains the same .

 

[mechtech2]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
These Continentals just won a Tire Rack comparison test, against the Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 (finished 3rd), Yokohama Avid TRZ (finished 2nd), and Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (finished 4th).

The Bridgestone and Goodyear both suffered poor wet traction. The Continental out-performed the Avid TRZ on most things, but curiously, tied with the Avid TRZ for worse fuel mileage of the group.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=155


My gas mileage went UP with my new TRZs. And this is with them at full diameter, not a false odometer reading when worn.
They certainly are not to be feared concerning gas mileage.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Any update on the tires?


Sure. I can't provide a huge amount of detail b/c they're on my wife's car, and I don't drive it much. In particular I can't speak to fuel economy improvements (because I can't get her to measure it consistently) but last I heard it was doing about the same as the OEM ones (29-30 mpg on her commute).

They've been on the car for almost 25k miles at this point and they are wearing well (rotated at ~5000 miles) and ride and handle well.

Neither of us have any complaints about them. If I had to do it again, I'd probably try something different (probably the ContiProContacts I originally intended to get) but that's not due to anything wrong with these, I just like a little variety.

My gut feel is that the General Altimax set I had on my Civic were "better" from a performance standpoint but I don't think the difference is that big, and I'm probably biased to those tires because I drove on them for a lot of miles.

 

[rationull]

Mike, just realized you asked about traction and straight line stability specifically, too. Traction is just fine. They'll break loose if you hit sand with enough gusto on an onramp or something like anything else in this price range. I haven't heard any complaints about them in the rain either, but we don't get much bad weather around here

Absolutely no complaints in straight line stability -- the car they're on tracks just fine.