LRR tires recommendations for my 2017 Elantra SE?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
631
Location
New Jersey
Hi,

Even though I have just 8,00 miles on my 2017 Hyundai Elantra SE Value Edition, I would REALLY love to dump these OEM Kumho Solus TA13 tires. What are the top tier grand touring LRR (low rolling resistance tire) that would be a huge improvement in ride quality and comfort?

Thanks!
 
Look at:
Continental PureContact
MIchelin Premier A/S
maybe the Michelin CrossClimate+ for all-4-season performance
Pireli Cinturato P7 A/S Plus
 
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction
 
Originally Posted By: knerml
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction


Tell that to Nokian and Michelin. Try figured out how to make a LRR tire with good ride, handling & foul weather traction. Also, they make LRR winter tires.
 
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
Originally Posted By: knerml
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction


Tell that to Nokian and Michelin. Try figured out how to make a LRR tire with good ride, handling & foul weather traction. Also, they make LRR winter tires.


I lost 5%+ with michelin premiers vs the oem yokohama g91f tires.

Also LRR is relative to other similar tires.

So a LRR michelin xice xi3 might be LRR compared to a blizzak ws80 but have a higher rolling resistance compared to a Touring tire that isnt even LRR
 
Almost anything
smile.gif


If you aren't going to use a separate set of winter tires and can only use one set of tires year-round, you may want to consider something like the Vredestein Quatrac 5

If you can spring for the separate winter tires, you can use summer tires for the rest of the year. Summer tires will usually give you less rollnig resistance than all-seasons, and they will also be quieter, too, alog with better handling in dry and wet.
 
The current champion of LRR is the Michelin Energy Saver A/S, which also happen to be rated "A" on traction. (Bridgestone Ecopia is probably pretty close to the Michelins BTW.) Thank Michelin patents for low hysteresis tread compounds.
Ford found that out and puts Michelins Energy Saver A/S on both the MPG-sensitive C-Max Hybrid and their range sensitive all-electric Ford Focus BEV.
GM also found that out and uses them on their range-sensitive Chevy Bolt and the Volt too.
TireRack.com found that out when they tested the Michelin Energy Saver A/S against several top competitors, and it was best for LRR.
https://tyres.cardekho.com/news/low-roll...-with-michelin/

I've used them a lot in the past couple of years and have found them to be fine. Not a thorough test, I'll leave that to tirerack.com & real tests, but I haven't noticed any dry or wet grip problems.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
The current champion of LRR is the Michelin Energy Saver A/S, which also happen to be rated "A" on traction.


I agree it is a great tire but doesnt come close the the traction of the michelin premier.

That whole A traction is on a sliding trailer test rig as well.

not fully relevant to a car.
 
Originally Posted By: knerml
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction


You nailed it. The Goodyears on my 14 RAM were specified for LRR in some ridiculous idea to save a 1/2 gallon or less MPG. They were noisy, rode poorly, and my wife complained about wet traction even when they were brand new.

Switched them out early, they were quickly sold to another truck owner and we are pleased with our new Michelins...
 
Originally Posted By: flinter
Hi,

Even though I have just 8,00 miles on my 2017 Hyundai Elantra SE Value Edition, I would REALLY love to dump these OEM Kumho Solus TA13 tires. What are the top tier grand touring LRR (low rolling resistance tire) that would be a huge improvement in ride quality and comfort?

Thanks!


First, I don't think you're going to experience a *huge* improvement in ride quality by changing tires within the same grouping. More likely a small improvement.

But you're also going to experience a loss in fuel economy. Here's why:

Unlike what others have said, in tread rubber compounds, the tradeoffs are rolling resistance vs treadwear vs traction (especially wet traction). That means that if you want a tire with good fuel economy, one or both of the other properties has to be sacrificed.

Notice that ride and handling are NOT on that list. That's because the things that control ride harshness and good handling feel are different - specifically sidewall stiffness - and while it might make sense that a stiffer tire generates better fuel economy, the properties of the tread compound overwhelm that and, in fact, the inflation pressure has more effect (albeit also relatively small compared to tread compound.)

Second, the term *LRR* is a bit of a misnomer. It means better rolling resistance compare to tires of equal treadwear and traction. In some respects that contradicts what I wrote in the first paragraph, but that 3 way relationship is still true within a family of tread compounds - AND, more importantly, the differences in RR of grippy or long wearing tread compounds is much, much larger than the changes that can be made difference between tread compounds.

So, a tire labeled *LRR* may actually be worse for RR than one not so labeled.

- AND - the tires with the best RR are those supplied to the OEM. That's because the OEM has to report fuel economy of their vehicle so they specify low values of RR for the tires they buy - AND - that is not what the tire manufacturers see as important in the tires they sell in the open market, so they don't offer tires with truly low RR - expect for those OE tires they make.

So a word of caution: As a general rule, the tires that come on a car from the vehicle assembly plant are going to have better RR (and therefore better fuel economy) than you'll be able to obtain on the open tire market.

If ride quality is the important thing, then I suggest going up in tire size (and by that I mean larger load carrying capacity), then use less inflation pressure. There are 3 problems here:

1) Many tire shops will not sell anything other than the tire size listed on the vehicle tire placard.

2) There is only so much room under the fenders, so you can't go up in size very much without experiencing rubbing - and that's why tire shops don't like to use a different size.

3) The wheels may not be wide enough to accommodate a larger tire.
 
Last edited:
CapriRacer,

Thanks, but isnt the OEM tires on my 2017, the Kumho Solus TA31, considering mediocre at best?? They appear towards the bottom of Tire Rack's rating in the Grand Touring category. I am looking at the Pirelli Cinturato P7 Plus. This tire appears to be superior in almost very category to my OEM Kumho tires. My second choice is the General Altimax RT43.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: knerml
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction


You nailed it.
The Goodyears on my 14 RAM were specified for LRR in some ridiculous idea to save a 1/2 gallon or less MPG. They were noisy, rode poorly, and my wife complained about wet traction even when they were brand new. Switched them out early, they were quickly sold to another truck owner and we are pleased with our new Michelins...


Wrong. I'm not seeing any difference in ride, handling, traction, braking, etc. from my own experience. Even better proof is the https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=121 test results which show the Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires to be as good or often better in several traction categories compared to 2 non-LRR tires and 1 other LRR tire. This is in addition to the "A" traction rating it gets.

Unless someone can prove to me that low-hysteresis must mean low-friction too, then I'll go with the real-world test results and my own experience, not what somebody says their "wife complained about...". Not convincing evidence. Not even close.
 
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
Originally Posted By: knerml
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction


Tell that to Nokian and Michelin. Try figured out how to make a LRR tire with good ride, handling & foul weather traction. Also, they make LRR winter tires.


I lost 5%+ with michelin premiers vs the oem yokohama g91f tires.

Also LRR is relative to other similar tires.

So a LRR michelin xice xi3 might be LRR compared to a blizzak ws80 but have a higher rolling resistance compared to a Touring tire that isnt even LRR

Aftermarket LRR tires don't have to meet OEM LRR standards/validation. Michelin does supply Premier and Primacy tires to the OEMs, but those tires have to meet OEM criteria, hence why they'll have the DT or OEM(BMW star/RSC, Mercedes MO/MOE, GM TPC) marking on them. The same applies to most of the tire makers - the aftermarket will get their latest and greatest but they'll supply the OEMs with older tires that meet OEM requirements. Bridgestone as well as Dunlop and Toyo somehow get away with selling the Japanese OEMs old but proven tires - the Potenza RE92 and Turanza ER33/EL400 are still being used by Toyota to this day. The Detroit three are now loyal to Hankook and Kumho, but they still install Goodyear Eagle RS-A/LS and Wrangler SR-As.

The closest you'll get to an OEM LRR tire would be a Bridgestone Ecopia, Goodyear Assurance FuelMax, Michelin Energy Saver AS or a Hankook Optimo H727 - but you will have a big tradeoff in wet or snow traction and handling with those tires. Although the Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 doesn't do that bad in the snow, it's heavily siped and it's an H-rated tire.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what happened, but I thought the industry was going to be require to list rolling resistance in the spec. That would be a huge amount of info, along with traction, wear, and temp. The problem is even with the current ratings, they are generally adding to the confusion as the what you want from a tire, because it usually isn't even close. I have seen tires with a 480 tread wear rating last 3 times longer as one rated at 700. So it's all a gamble, like buying new shoes online.
 
Originally Posted By: Traction
I don't know what happened, but I thought the industry was going to be require to list rolling resistance in the spec. That would be a huge amount of info, along with traction, wear, and temp. The problem is even with the current ratings, they are generally adding to the confusion as the what you want from a tire, because it usually isn't even close. I have seen tires with a 480 tread wear rating last 3 times longer as one rated at 700. So it's all a gamble, like buying new shoes online.


Europe does this, with their EU tire label. Letters A-G for fuel economy, A-G for wet traction, and noise level. A means best fuel economy/rain traction, G is worst.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: knerml
Keep in mind that low rolling resistance tires typically compromise:
- Ride
- Handling
- Traction, especially snow and wet traction


You nailed it.
The Goodyears on my 14 RAM were specified for LRR in some ridiculous idea to save a 1/2 gallon or less MPG. They were noisy, rode poorly, and my wife complained about wet traction even when they were brand new. Switched them out early, they were quickly sold to another truck owner and we are pleased with our new Michelins...


Wrong. I'm not seeing any difference in ride, handling, traction, braking, etc. from my own experience. Even better proof is the https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=121 test results which show the Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires to be as good or often better in several traction categories compared to 2 non-LRR tires and 1 other LRR tire. This is in addition to the "A" traction rating it gets.

Unless someone can prove to me that low-hysteresis must mean low-friction too, then I'll go with the real-world test results and my own experience, not what somebody says their "wife complained about...". Not convincing evidence. Not even close.


DOUBLE WRONG! hahaha. How can you imagine that your anecdotal evidence is somehow different? Plus you don't even have the same tire spec that we do. Irrelevant? Did you even read what our resident tire expert said? Note that my wife is a therapist and drives a ton of miles, quite good at feeling things out on her truck. Plus I agree wholeheartedly that Michelin Defender LTX offer unbeatable wet traction for trucks. And that's all we own except for one car these days!

Hint: his name is Capriracer!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top