Fuel savers: Goodyear or Continental?

[HawkeyeScott]

Getting ready to put new tires on the wife's 2007 Pacifica (235/65/17). She's a very conservative driver and never has to deal with much more than rain.

I'm looking at the fuel savers. I can get the Goodyears for $126 apiece, or I can get Continental version for $121. The Continentals have a slightly better treadwear rating (600 vs. 580).

The Goodyears have been around for awhile now but it looks like the Continental EcoPlus line just came out this spring. I've had Goodyears before and found them to be decent. Never owned Continental before. So in general, would you suggest getting the Goodyears or the Continentals? (Other options with similar prices are the Bridgetsone Dueler and a Yokohama YK520 and AS530.)

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks a lot.

 

[FowVay]

I'd personally choose the Goodyear product. I'm not impressed with Continental tires in the least. I do like a couple of their General brand products but Continental has proven to be a disappointment to me.

 

[Turk]

Goodyear if it was one or the other.

I get 45 MPG at 65-70 MPH on my BF Goodrich Touring T/A's......

 

[SaturnIonVue]

Figures like 600 vs. 580 are meaningless when comparing between different brands of tires, so I wouldn't base a decision on that factor alone. Supposedly, you should only use those figures when comparing tires made by the same brand. Tire Rack has great discussions on all aspects of tire buying on there site.

I think I'd go with the Goodyear tires.

 

[odie]

how about the COOPER G.F.E.s' (Greater Fuel Effeciency) ? We would but not in our size

.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
Figures like 600 vs. 580 are meaningless when comparing between different brands of tires, so I wouldn't base a decision on that factor alone. Supposedly, you should only use those figures when comparing tires made by the same brand.


"Supposedly"? I've heard for a long time that you can't compare UTQG ratings across brands, but that's exactly what the system is designed to do, and I've never seen data to the contrary. "U" means uniform, as in consistent. It's not always dead-accurate, but I've also never seen any data that demonstrates that there's a consistent difference from one manufacturer to another.

In fact, I typically get 100x the UTQG treadwear rating, in thousands of miles. That is, if a tire is rated 600, I would expect SOMEWHERE around 60,000 miles out of that set of tires. That both of the tires in question is rated with 20 points of each other in treadwear tells me that, in my experience, either should last between 58-60k miles, as a general rule.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
"Supposedly"? I've heard for a long time that you can't compare UTQG ratings across brands, but that's exactly what the system is designed to do, and I've never seen data to the contrary. "U" means uniform, as in consistent. It's not always dead-accurate, but I've also never seen any data that demonstrates that there's a consistent difference from one manufacturer to another......


First, while the original intent was to have a rating - as in the end result of a test - the law only required the tire manufacturers to not OVERSTATE.

Second, there is a standardized test - and it is the same for everyone, and the base tire - the one with a rating of 100 - no longer exists, so they use another base tire with a slightly higher rating. EVERYTHING is supposed to be based off of this tire. Where the problem comes in is:

The test requires 2 identical vehicles with the tires rotated back and forth between the vehicles to eliminate vehicle effects. But the base tire only fits on certain vehicles, and the tire being tested might only come in sizes incompatible with those vehicles. To allow for this, it is permissible to link a series of tests together to get the rating (remembering that the only rule is that it can not be over-stated.) - so it is common for the test to be conducted against a known tire of the same brand. I'm going to bet that is where the myth comes from.

But the test is highly variable and repeated tests can get different results. So if you link selected tests together, you can get quite different results. The marketing folks know this and take advantage of this. So they can understate a lower cost tire, while at the same time carefully link certain tests to get the desired result for their ultra-preminum tire.

So the UTQG treadwear rating can and should be compared between brands, a little caution should be applied to not read too much into the differences.

In the case presented, the difference between 580 and 600 is a single step (the increments are 20!), so that isn't enough to say there is a real difference in the tires.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Thanks Capri for clarifying this!

 

[PandaBear]

Goodyear what? Integrity? Triple Trend? Comfort Trend? Eagle GT? Eagle F1?

If you are just looking for a fuel saver tire from Goodyear, then I assume you talk about Integrity and IMO it isn't a bad tire comparing to other fuel economy tire. I personally had a Continental OEM tire before on my dad's Taurus and the Integrity I had on another car was miles better.

 

[javacontour]

What is the break-even point for the fuel saver tires? How much fuel is typically saved with a set of these tires? Not the upto values, but the typical values.

(Don't you just love commercials that say lose 30 pounds in 30 days... and in small type, it says at the bottom of the screen "results not typical.")

If the fuel saver tires cost more vs a set of regular tires with a similar lifespan, where is the break even point for such tires?

 

[Hokiefyd]

@PandaBear, they're probably talking about the Goodyear Assurance FuelMax.

@javacountour, check out the report on fuel saving tires at Tire Rack. An easy way to get there is by looking at the Goodyear Assurance FuelMax and clicking on the tab for tire tests. I think it's the only test in there on that tire. You can (in my experience anyway) use the UTQG to approximate relative life spans between the 6 or 7 tires tested, and also use the fuel saved compared to their baseline tire (the Goodyear Assurance ComforTred) to run a calculation on which tire provides you the best value. I actually did a spreadsheet with those tires in there shortly after that test came out. Given the expected cost of each, the life of each, and the fuel savings of each, I think the Michelin HydroEdge had the lowest cost/mile. The dedicated fuel savers (like the Michelin Energy Saver, the Goodyear Assurance FuelMax, etc) defintely used less fuel, but that cost was offset by the more frequent tire purchases (due to shorter tire life).

If you (or anyone) PMs me, I can email them that spreadsheet I made.

 

[javacontour]

My ample gut is wanting to tell me you can't save enough to justify the costs of the fuel saver tires.

Comparing the Goodyear Triple Treads to the Goodyear Fuel Max, the Muel Max tires in a comparison of Price/UTQG mileage are about 1.7% more expensive per mile driven in tire costs.

So given one is looking at saving 0-4% give or take in fuel, and let's pick 2% for a middle value. That means over about 50K miles, I'll use 2% less fuel.

If I'm now averaging 30MPG in the Vibe right now, that's 1667 gallons without the fuel saving tires. If my fuel economy increases to 30.6, then I use 1634 gallons of fuel, saving 33 gallons, or about $82.

That's probably the value of the additional 20K miles I'd get with the non fuel saver tires.

So I think it's a wash, probably a loss when you consider not only the additional costs of the fuel saver tires, but the additional costs to have the replacement tires mounted sooner, etc.

So they are probably a money losing proposition.

Best case, they are a break even. But I doubt it.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I'll tell you exactly the costs. Assume fuel cost is $2.79/gal and your Vibe gets 30 MPG on the Integrity (I don't know what you have, this is just a rough estimate). My spreadsheet also calculates cost/mile over a period of 80,000 miles, which is my tread life estimate based on the highest UTQG tire in that Tire Rack test (the Michelin HydroEdge). And tire prices in the P195/65R15 size were valid about 6 or so months ago, whenever I made the spread. They'll be different today, but they should still be similar relative to one another.

The costs/mile, in order, are:

Bridgestone Ecopia EP100 (9.74 cents/mile)
Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (9.75 c/m)
Michelin HydroEdge Green X (9.85 c/m)
Michelin Energy Saver A/S (9.89 c/m)
Goodyear Integrity (9.92 c/m)
Yokohama dB Super E-Spec (9.98 c/m)
Goodyear Assurance ComforTred (10.03 c/m)

The Bridgestone tire has half the UTQG of the HydroEdge (400 vs. 800), but the tire cost itself was lower ($81 ea vs. $99 ea). In addition, the fuel savings over those 80,000 miles was on the order of $350 (Bridgestone vs. HydroEdge). I'd estimate that you'd have to buy TWO sets of the Bridgestones compared with ONE set of the HydroEdge, but the Bridgestone would still be a cheaper tire to own, because of the fuel savings (and because it's a cheaper tire to buy).

If you increase your baseline MPG to 35, the Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max is now the cheapest tire to own, followed by the Bridgestone, then followed by the HydroEdge.

Note: obviously, this doesn't account for the extra energy and materials required to PRODUCE that second set of Bridgestone tires that would be required compared with the single set of HydroEdge tires. This was strictly a cost/mile figure to see if a consumer would get his money back on the purchase of one of the high mileage tires. And depending on a number of factors, it's actually pretty close (and in some cases, you are a little money ahead with a fuel economy tire).

 

[javacontour]

One has to figure in the $15-$20/tire in mounting, balancing, disposal, etc.

If you have to get a second set to travel the same distance, you've just added another $60-80 to the costs of the fuel saving tires.

I think that's where it blows up. It's pretty close to the same cost until you add the costs of installing the 2nd set of tires.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
One has to figure in the $15-$20/tire in mounting, balancing, disposal, etc.

If you have to get a second set to travel the same distance, you've just added another $60-80 to the costs of the fuel saving tires.

I think that's where it blows up. It's pretty close to the same cost until you add the costs of installing the 2nd set of tires.


+1

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
One has to figure in the $15-$20/tire in mounting, balancing, disposal, etc.

If you have to get a second set to travel the same distance, you've just added another $60-80 to the costs of the fuel saving tires.

I think that's where it blows up. It's pretty close to the same cost until you add the costs of installing the 2nd set of tires.


Not really; that's a fixed cost. You could simply add $15-20 to the cost of each of the tires to account for that.

In fact, if I do so, the relative rank of cost/mile doesn't change. The cost/mile is incrementally more expensive, but it doesn't change the relative payback; the Bridgestone Ecopia is still the cheapest tire to own.

 

[PandaBear]

IMO I'd just buy the cheapest tire available and call it a day. Fuel economy can be accommodated with air pressure, and tire life can be traded off with lower speed rating. When you factor everything in, a set of S or T rated tire that's cheap enough and walmart mounting and balancing ($7.5-10 ea)would be the cheapest per mile. Factor in the possibility of road hazard (nail in sidewall, etc), it tips the scale toward cheaper tires even further.

Unless you are not only considering cost per mile, but traction, ideology (against oil companies, etc), or other warm fuzzy feeling like most of us are. If strictly on a cost basis, we would all be driving Ford Escort or Chevy Cavalier, but in reality most of us aren't.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
IMO I'd just buy the cheapest tire available and call it a day. Fuel economy can be accommodated with air pressure, and tire life can be traded off with lower speed rating. When you factor everything in, a set of S or T rated tire that's cheap enough and walmart mounting and balancing ($7.5-10 ea)would be the cheapest per mile. Factor in the possibility of road hazard (nail in sidewall, etc), it tips the scale toward cheaper tires even further.

Unless you are not only considering cost per mile, but traction, ideology (against oil companies, etc), or other warm fuzzy feeling like most of us are. If strictly on a cost basis, we would all be driving Ford Escort or Chevy Cavalier, but in reality most of us aren't.



Interesting enough, i was thinking the same thing....


I just can't see a few saver tire being worth it in all types of driving...

 

[sciphi]

If I can find a set of fuel-saving tires that cost less and offer the treadlife of my current tires (Pirelli P4, which is awesome in all weather for an all-season), I'd get them.