Tire Rack tests new eco-friendly tires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
Tire Rack tested the latest in eco-friendly tires, including the Continental ProContact EcoPlus, the Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max, the Kumho eco Solus HM KR22, and the Michelin HydroEdge Green X.

By a slim margin, the Goodyear was the most fuel efficient, but because of other deficits, finished 3rd overall in the test. The new Continental was judged the quietest and most comfortable, and finished 2nd overall. The Michelin impressed with its track performance, and finished 1st in the test. The Kumho appeared rather disappointing, especially on wet pavement.

The full test:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=133
 
Nice test, but results seem a bit poor. Your average savings @15k a year would be roughly $21, but that is minimal as other conditions can offset that $21(average about 8 gallons). Wind etc.

Now what I do like is the pricing isn't more or less than the normal tires in that price bracket for 225/50 or 225/55R17's. Less harm using more eco-friendly materials is always a plus.
 
Last edited:
I just don't think they will last as long as they say.

From someone who already has the KR22, they are wearing fast @12k...and look like they might go 50k at most...
 
I've been wondering how these lower-rolling-resistance tires would perform. They seem okay in dry, but all have poor wet traction. The wet traction of the Kumho is terrible. That tire has more than a 30% longer wet-braking distance than the best all-seasons. 0.61g is serious-off-road tire territory!

I'm surprised it has a 'Traction A' rating. I'd have thought a tire that bad would be in the B category. It shows that you can't assume a 'Traction A' tire will have decent grip. I think it's still safe to assume that a 'Traction B' tire will always have terrible wet traction.
 
Originally Posted By: David S.
Thanks for sharing the information, honestly. I was seriously considering the KR22 tires before seeing this but now I'm not.



No problem...though I forgot to add it's not mine, just the work car (driven by others-pretty well, I have to say)

The part that surprises me is that this car sees mostly freeway-usually a good thing for a tire wear wise...
 
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Looks like the Hydroedges that I selected for my mom's car was a good choice.

I still have over 50% left after 50k+.

But traction is awful in dry conditions. The only good attributes left are good steering response and OK steering feel.
 
too bad not too many actually tests Nokian tires. They have been doing low rolling resistance tires a lot longer and have managed to completely elimate High Aromatic Oils from their tires.

Their new eNTYRE is new to the US market

entyre.JPG
 
I wish Nokian had a better dealer network in the United States. They appear to have some pretty nice tires, but their availability leaves something to be desired.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Looks like the Hydroedges that I selected for my mom's car was a good choice.

I still have over 50% left after 50k+.

But traction is awful in dry conditions. The only good attributes left are good steering response and OK steering feel.


Awful dry traction? How so? On the Saturn? Sure you're not overcoming it's capabilities?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Looks like the Hydroedges that I selected for my mom's car was a good choice.

I still have over 50% left after 50k+.

But traction is awful in dry conditions. The only good attributes left are good steering response and OK steering feel.


Awful dry traction? How so? On the Saturn? Sure you're not overcoming it's capabilities?

The tires slip/skid when I come to a harder stop. They slide a bit when I corner at 15 mph around a corner.
 
I find that hard to believe - WOW. That really is a traction-focused tire, right? We dont have any issues like that with our non-ABS 97 plymouth breeze. ABS? No?
 
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
I just don't think they will last as long as they say.

From someone who already has the KR22, they are wearing fast @12k...and look like they might go 50k at most...


I've seen similar posts about the KR-22 and KR-21 (which is what I have) and it makes me wonder what's different between my situation and those experiencing premature wear. My experiences with Kumho tires have been good (even with a now discontinued model, the 795 A/S), all resulting in the tires lasting their rated mileage. It makes me wonder if the people not getting the rated mileage fron these tires have alignment problems with their vehicles. Why would I get the rated mileage from these tires, but others don't? Doesn't really make sense unless there's a vehicle problem causing the excessive wear.
 
+1. In my cars which are kept aligned, I have no issue getting rated mileage, or sometimes I trade tires in early due to UV.

When Ive had suspension issues in the past, it was a different story...
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I find that hard to believe - WOW. That really is a traction-focused tire, right? We dont have any issues like that with our non-ABS 97 plymouth breeze. ABS? No?


I can confirm what The Critic feel is indeed some minor amount of tire skid when braking. His brake is GOOD, very good initial bite. I'd say the traction of his tire (Michelin Hydroedge) is about on par with the OEM low traction energy efficient tire rather than a high performance street tire.
 
I hate tires with poor traction.

I sacrifice MPG for not crashing into something. I'll make it up with proper alignment/psi and driving a tad less aggressively.

New tires I buy now always have 'AA' traction rating and 'A' for temp. This eliminates many brands/types.....

Imperfect roads, variable weather, and horrible drivers force me to stay far away from green eco MPG tires along with discounted generic cheap tires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top