• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

"Fuel efficient" tires?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
So after a blowout on the road today, I've came to the conclusion that my car needs new tires. Its a 95 Camry that I just use to cruise on the highway to work every day which is 100 miles round trip, so I'm doing a lot of driving.

Now Costco has cheap BF Goodrich tires for this car for 65 bucks each (plus fees). 65 sounds like fine price to me, I'm not looking for some performance tire here obviously.

My question is would a tire like the Michelin - HydroEdge for 100 bucks that claims to be sooo fuel efficient actually make a difference? Costco gives you 70 bucks off a set of 4 Michelin's so they would only be ~70 dollars more than the BF's.

If they really would net me decent fuel savings that 70 bucks could be easily worth it for what I assume is a better tire overall but who knows...
 
K

KIAman

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
3,342
23
81
Nope. Just get the best cost/tirewear for a normal commuter car.

The only way to get realworld efficiency out of a tire is if it weighed half of a normal tire.
 
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
I can't vouch one way or the other about the Michelins, as I have no direct experience with them. I can say, however, the following :

On my 2008 Focus, and on my gf's 2006 Kia Rio LX, the Hankook LRR (low rolling resistance) tires were installed, stock on my Focus, and probably stock on the Rio as well (she bought it at Carmax, so not totally sure if they were stock tires or not). The LRR type is supposed to reduce road friction to increase fuel economy. Unfortunately in the case of my Focus, the total lack of wet-weather traction (and iffy dry traction as well) was incredibly noticeable. It was literally scary as all hell driving in the rain, almost got into a couple of accidents because it would hydroplane like a mofo, and recovery was very difficult. Switched to some cheapish Falkens, and HOLY CRAP it's like a totally different car. Much better road manners and grip, and wet weather no longer made me cringe in abject fear. On my gf's Rio, we switched her to some cheapie chinese tires from discount tire, and even those at $35/tire for 14" were a WORLD of improvement.

If my layman's understanding is correct :

(1) - LRR tires achieve improved fuel efficiency by reducing friction with the road surface.

(2) - By reducing friction, it is the same thing as removing TRACTION with the road surface.

(3) - That reduced friction/traction causes there to be less grip, and perhaps a bit less tire/road noise as well.

Not a good tradeoff IMHO, as I haven't seen any notable fuel economy penalty by going from LRR tires to regular tires.

Caveat : haven't used those Michelins, so they might be fine.
 
I

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
well I called costco and the guy said my car requires "high performance tires". They used to say that with the old XC70 I had... nice car... thought it made sense.

If a Camry requires high performance I'd hate to think what a BMW requires. This is all a bunch of BS right? I have 90T's on there now he said he would have to put H's on there.
 
NutBucket

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Well, technically you want to use tires rated at least as high as OEM. In practice, the speed limit of a T is 118 and H is 130. Honestly, there's no reason you need H rated tires of your Camry. If they insist on H go somewhere else. In most cases the load rating (90) is more important. What is the OEM spec'd tire? (driver's door jamb).
 
PhoKingGuy

PhoKingGuy

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2007
4,685
0
76
Costco will only put on what they tell you for liability reasons, if their computer says you need H, thats all they will put on
 
K

KIAman

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
3,342
23
81
Insomniator said:
well I called costco and the guy said my car requires "high performance tires". They used to say that with the old XC70 I had... nice car... thought it made sense.

If a Camry requires high performance I'd hate to think what a BMW requires. This is all a bunch of BS right? I have 90T's on there now he said he would have to put H's on there.
Click to expand...

My E90 OEM is Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFT that cost $289per fronts and $353 per rear from Tirerack.

I plan to go non RFT once these tires wear out.
 
I

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
Couldn't find anything in the jam, didn't even say the tire pressure which is odd. 4k weight and 'passenger car' was all I found.
 
BassBomb

BassBomb

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2005
8,390
1
81
Arkaign said:
I can't vouch one way or the other about the Michelins, as I have no direct experience with them. I can say, however, the following :

On my 2008 Focus, and on my gf's 2006 Kia Rio LX, the Hankook LRR (low rolling resistance) tires were installed, stock on my Focus, and probably stock on the Rio as well (she bought it at Carmax, so not totally sure if they were stock tires or not). The LRR type is supposed to reduce road friction to increase fuel economy. Unfortunately in the case of my Focus, the total lack of wet-weather traction (and iffy dry traction as well) was incredibly noticeable. It was literally scary as all hell driving in the rain, almost got into a couple of accidents because it would hydroplane like a mofo, and recovery was very difficult. Switched to some cheapish Falkens, and HOLY CRAP it's like a totally different car. Much better road manners and grip, and wet weather no longer made me cringe in abject fear. On my gf's Rio, we switched her to some cheapie chinese tires from discount tire, and even those at $35/tire for 14" were a WORLD of improvement.

If my layman's understanding is correct :

(1) - LRR tires achieve improved fuel efficiency by reducing friction with the road surface.

(2) - By reducing friction, it is the same thing as removing TRACTION with the road surface.

(3) - That reduced friction/traction causes there to be less grip, and perhaps a bit less tire/road noise as well.

Not a good tradeoff IMHO, as I haven't seen any notable fuel economy penalty by going from LRR tires to regular tires.

Caveat : haven't used those Michelins, so they might be fine.
Click to expand...

Clearly the Koreans don't know anything about fuel economy.
 
NutBucket

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Insomniator said:
Couldn't find anything in the jam, didn't even say the tire pressure which is odd. 4k weight and 'passenger car' was all I found.
Click to expand...
You can also check tire rack.

For example, assuming you have a '95 Camry LE, they list both the T and H rated versions of the BF Goodrich Traction TA (good tire I might add). The H version is $9 more per tire (though it is closeout pricing). Is there any reason to get the H over the T, I would say no. Costco is just covering themselves on this one I guess.
 
I

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
I called the next closest Costco and got someone that new what he was talking about apparently.

Basically its 360 total/installed for a new set of Michelin X-Radial 90T's. He said i Just need to sign a form showing that I am aware that I am not getting the H's my car is rated for.

I've been getting quotes around 360 for tires I've never heard of (starfire) or that have gotten bad reviews online (sumitomo)... these Michilens sound like a good deal.
 
NutBucket

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Nice work. $360 sounds reasonable for some decent tires. Besides, who drives their Camry to 130, let alone 118mph?
 
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
BassBomb said:
Clearly the Koreans don't know anything about fuel economy.
Click to expand...

??

I didn't say anything pro or con about the Koreans. The Rio is a decent little car. Strangely enough, it gets identical fuel economy to my Focus in the real world use, even though it's using a 1.6L ~115hp motor instead of the 2.0 ~140hp in the Focus, both 5spd manual. The cars weigh the same.
 
J

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Arkaign said:
??

I didn't say anything pro or con about the Koreans. The Rio is a decent little car. Strangely enough, it gets identical fuel economy to my Focus in the real world use, even though it's using a 1.6L ~115hp motor instead of the 2.0 ~140hp in the Focus, both 5spd manual. The cars weigh the same.
Click to expand...

They're referring to stuff that happened in this thread among others.
 
SpatiallyAware

SpatiallyAware

Lifer
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
Arkaign said:
??

I didn't say anything pro or con about the Koreans. The Rio is a decent little car. Strangely enough, it gets identical fuel economy to my Focus in the real world use, even though it's using a 1.6L ~115hp motor instead of the 2.0 ~140hp in the Focus, both 5spd manual. The cars weigh the same.
Click to expand...

See my sig. People are poking at fleabag... I'm surprised he hasn't been in this thread yet
 
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Oh, well lulz then :) The reference flew right over my head and I went straight into 'whaaat?' mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom