Reviews on Bridgestone's Ecopia tires

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just bought 4 EP422s for my Civic and bolted them on this morning. The car has always had an abundance of traction with its (relatively short-lived) OEM Turanzas. I'll be sure to test the Ecopias the first time it gets wet out ... looking like Monday or Tuesday.
 
I am particularly eager to hear from anyone who purchased Ecopias for a non-Hybrid vehicle and who compared fuel economy on the vehicle before and after they were installed. I'm interested to know if the various claims of 3%, 4%, 5% gas savings were realized. If they don't save gas, they're not worth buying IMHO.
 
I put them on my Sonata and have no noticeable increase in FE but for the price I got them for I really dont care becuase any tire would have cost about the same. They are nice tires in general and I havent had any issues so far with them.
 
I had 4 Bridgestone Ecopia 215/55-r17 93v installed on my Malibu today at Costco. They replaced the original Firestone fr710's which were also low rolling resistance tires. I don't expect a increase in fuel economy going from one LRR tire to another but I believe they do allow someone to maximize their fuel economy vs non LRR tires that's why many automakers put LRR tires on new vehicles from the factory.
 
A little late to the party, but we recently purchased a set of the 422s for our Mitsubishi Outlander. Before, I could only eek out 24.5MPG @70mph (on I-70 through missouri...relatively flat, some dips and hills). I now average 27-28MPG according to the readout.

I'm happy with the savings, however we came from the Alenza tires and performance is not as good. They feel a bit spongy, but we'll see. Could be that weird feeling of getting new tires.
 
I really want the EP422s for my skyactiv 3. Hopefully I can afford them by the time i need new tires.
 
What I have noticed in the LRR tires is their initial cost. They're often higher purchace price is offsetting the claimed MPG gains over the life of the tire compared to many non LRR tires including "THAT" Mfg's other tires. Therefore, no overall money savings!
 
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
What I have noticed in the LRR tires is their initial cost. They're often higher purchace price is offsetting the claimed MPG gains over the life of the tire compared to many non LRR tires including "THAT" Mfg's other tires. Therefore, no overall money savings!


Actually, the Ecopia EP422s are less expensive than most of its competitors. It has a 65k treadwear warranty and has the proper speed ratings for most late-model applications.

Just 2-3% of savings will more than pay for any price differences.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
What I have noticed in the LRR tires is their initial cost. They're often higher purchace price is offsetting the claimed MPG gains over the life of the tire compared to many non LRR tires including "THAT" Mfg's other tires. Therefore, no overall money savings!


Actually, the Ecopia EP422s are less expensive than most of its competitors. It has a 65k treadwear warranty and has the proper speed ratings for most late-model applications.

Just 2-3% of savings will more than pay for any price differences.


I realize that but, I wasn't actually speaking of it's direct competition(other mfg's LRR TIRES) but, the company's other non LRR tires that don't cost as much! Or just the lesser cost of non LRR Tires in general.

From my own research on LRR tire(when I'm in the market for tires), they don't seem to be worth the extra cost compared to other high rated tires. Or, the LRR tires cost more(for 4) than the fuel cost savings that the manufacture is boasting about.

But, that's just my research for myself in my tire sizes at the time I am ready to buy tires.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
What I have noticed in the LRR tires is their initial cost. They're often higher purchace price is offsetting the claimed MPG gains over the life of the tire compared to many non LRR tires including "THAT" Mfg's other tires. Therefore, no overall money savings!


Actually, the Ecopia EP422s are less expensive than most of its competitors. It has a 65k treadwear warranty and has the proper speed ratings for most late-model applications.

Just 2-3% of savings will more than pay for any price differences.


I realize that but, I wasn't actually speaking of it's direct competition(other mfg's LRR TIRES) but, the company's other non LRR tires that don't cost as much! Or just the lesser cost of non LRR Tires in general.

From my own research on LRR tire(when I'm in the market for tires), they don't seem to be worth the extra cost compared to other high rated tires. Or, the LRR tires cost more(for 4) than the fuel cost savings that the manufacture is boasting about.

But, that's just my research for myself in my tire sizes at the time I am ready to buy tires.
smile.gif




I should have mentioned, that the price cost over regular/non LRR tires could be the blame of the tire stores/dealers that I have searched/purchaced from.
 
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
What I have noticed in the LRR tires is their initial cost. They're often higher purchace price is offsetting the claimed MPG gains over the life of the tire compared to many non LRR tires including "THAT" Mfg's other tires. Therefore, no overall money savings!


Actually, the Ecopia EP422s are less expensive than most of its competitors. It has a 65k treadwear warranty and has the proper speed ratings for most late-model applications.

Just 2-3% of savings will more than pay for any price differences.


I realize that but, I wasn't actually speaking of it's direct competition(other mfg's LRR TIRES) but, the company's other non LRR tires that don't cost as much! Or just the lesser cost of non LRR Tires in general.

From my own research on LRR tire(when I'm in the market for tires), they don't seem to be worth the extra cost compared to other high rated tires. Or, the LRR tires cost more(for 4) than the fuel cost savings that the manufacture is boasting about.

But, that's just my research for myself in my tire sizes at the time I am ready to buy tires.
smile.gif




I should have mentioned, that the price cost over regular/non LRR tires could be the blame of the tire stores/dealers that I have searched/purchaced from.


This is quite possible.

Let's use your Altima as an example. AFAIK, it takes the P215/60-16 94T size.

Known LRR tires:

Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 - $106
Continental ProContact EcoPlus - $101

Knowing your buying habits, here are some other tires that you would otherwise be considering:

General Altimax HP - $88
Kumho Sense - $70
Kumho KH16 - $80

Assuming a 45,000 mile service life (average number, IMO) and a 3% savings in fuel with the LRR choices (again, conservative...likely to be higher), you would save 55.8 gallons of fuel. This translates to a $223 savings over the life of the tires. If you consider that the average LRR tire was $20 more, the fuel savings still far exceed any additional investment.
 
You make a valid point my friend! (I do enjoy our friendship) I don't want to debate the mfg's fuel savings "claims" on LRR tires as compared to non LRR tires. I've stated..."at the time "I am" in the market for tires, I don't find LRR tires to be of any overall cost savings!" This could be the tire store issue of charging more money at the time I am purchacing tires!!!

But too, I need to look at my particular sizes of tires for any of my vehicles. My Altima is...(205-65-16 & 225-55-17) overall and keep in mind that, I need proven foul weather traction as well as longivity. And these particular concerns with LRR tires still remain to be seen yet as they're LRR classification is still new.

LRR tires may come out of the box performing quite well(even in foul weather) but, I still want to see their proven track record over time with my particular concerns. I do believe that the tire mfg's are going to improve LRR tire still even more in the next generations to come. They do score high in testing now!

But, I want more reviews from those in climates like mine with LRR tires in regards to longevity & foul weather performance with lots of miles on'em!(like what I am used to)

Right now, all of my vehicles have good/new tires and will not be needing new tires for some time. But, when I am looking again, I will "strongly consider" LRR tires after(AGAIN) more research and cost figuring.

I currently have tires that show poor(high) rolling resistance compared to owning other tires that(on the same vehicle) showed lower rolling resistance. And I see no MPG differences between the two.

I also read Waaaaay toooooo many reviews from others(especially on Prius') that claim(no, I won't provide a link)...they see no fuel economy gains from LRR tires compared to they're previous non LRR tires. And I'm not speaking only of a comparison between G/Y Integrity's vs ECO tires. This could vary by brand!
____________________________________________________________________

This is just for comparison!:

I had Integrity's which,(are not claimed to be an LRR TIRE) BUT, do have low rolling resistance. And I replaced them with the higher rolling resistance G/Y ACTs(which many have claimed to get poorer MPG). I see no differenced in MPG between either tire on the same vehicle.

Way off topic!:

The Integrity's overall performance in any season(especially in the winter) was sooooo poor, that I couldn't wait to throw'em in the pond. Although, I have read reviews from other that loved them
frown.gif
kiddin' me?...Those folks live in more sunny climates than I do so, their claims are just! Those in climates similar to mine(all four seasons w/brutal winters) have similar reviews/feelings as I do about the Integ's.
 
Last edited:
A word of caution:

LRR is a relative term, not an absolute one. What it means is that compared to other tires with the same treadwear and traction, a LRR tire will have a lower rolling resistance.

So even though a tire is labeled as "LRR", it might actually have a higher RR than one not so labeled - and not because the non-labeled tire COULD have been so labeled.
 
Again, I want to reiterate that, too many folks ARE NOT noticing any fuel economy(MPG) benefit when changing to LRR tire and having spent more money doing so!
 
I wanted to add to the Ecopia thread.

I purchased a set of Ecopia Dueler 422's this February to replace the OEM Michelin Primacy MXV4's on my wife's 2012 Toyota Sienna. The Michelin's made it to just under 15,000 miles and were at 3/32. With some winter weather remaining in the northeast, I decided to purchase new tires.

We have about 15,000 miles on the Ecopia Dueler 422's now and they have done well. Good traction in rain and snow, and they have handled long summer highway trips well (8-10 hours of highway driving in 100 degree weather).

Tread depth is 8/32 all around and appears to be even. I have not noticed any significant change/difference in fuel economy over the former Michelin's, but minus the long highway trips for family vacations the Sienna is used for local commuting/kid hauler duties.

Unless there is a significant change in the marketplace, I will purchase these tires again.
 
Originally Posted By: eugenem
I wanted to add to the Ecopia thread.

I purchased a set of Ecopia Dueler 422's this February to replace the OEM Michelin Primacy MXV4's on my wife's 2012 Toyota Sienna. The Michelin's made it to just under 15,000 miles and were at 3/32. With some winter weather remaining in the northeast, I decided to purchase new tires.

We have about 15,000 miles on the Ecopia Dueler 422's now and they have done well. Good traction in rain and snow, and they have handled long summer highway trips well (8-10 hours of highway driving in 100 degree weather).

Tread depth is 8/32 all around and appears to be even. I have not noticed any significant change/difference in fuel economy over the former Michelin's, but minus the long highway trips for family vacations the Sienna is used for local commuting/kid hauler duties.

Unless there is a significant change in the marketplace, I will purchase these tires again.


That's not good news about Michelin(a tire, regardless that it came in your tire size, the Sienna is too heavy) and very good news about the Ecopia Dueler's(probably a better suited tire for the weight of a Sienna).

Yea, I'd deffinately choose a tire more suited for a 4000+ vehicle than a typical "H"-"V" speed rated(which was yours?) tire like the MXV4. You made a better choice with the Dueler
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
One of the problems with changing to LRR tires and expecting immediate mpg benefits is that worn tires are naturally less rolling resistant than new ones due to lack of tread depth. So it's quite possible to put on new LRR tires in place of worn standard tires, and see one's mpg get immediately worse. The real metric is going to be total average mpg over the life of the tire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Bridgestone Ecopia H/L 422 Plus versus Alenza AS Ultra
Replies
16
Views
7K
meep
D
Tire rotation for AWD?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Oro_O
wings&wheels
Bridgestone Alenza A/S Ultra Review
Replies
2
Views
3K
FordSVTGuy
R
New Tire Confusion
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Pew
J
Tire was plugged should l get it patched?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Torrid
Back
Top