what are your thoughts on this type of tire and has anyone found their claims to be true. ready to purchase tires for a 2013 equinox
fuel efficient tires
- Thread starter Fitter30
- Start date
- Status
We owned a Nissan Leaf with LRR tires . Replaced with the same .
I think LRR tires is generally a nebulous term because there isn't a standard for that designation. But, there's definitely a difference between a Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 vs a pedestrian grand touring tire that that says LRR but isn't specifically designed with that emphasis.
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
In Europe tyres are classified for rolling resistance in grades A to G (D is missed out for some reason).
As far as I can make out the coefficient of rolling resistance is expressed as kg force to rotate a tyre loaded to 1 tonne.
You can see a tyre in band G has double the rolling resistance of one in band A. The hard bit is translating that into MPG savings because rolling resistance has a big impact at low speeds but not so much at high speed where aero drag dominates.
One guideline is that there is typically 7.5% difference in MPG between band A and band G.
Class Car tyre running friction
(CR) in kg/t
- A - less than 6,5
- B - 6,6 - 7,7
- C - 7,8 - 9,0
- D - -
- E - 9,1 - 10,5
- F - 10,6 - 12,0
- G - More than 12,1
As far as I can make out the coefficient of rolling resistance is expressed as kg force to rotate a tyre loaded to 1 tonne.
You can see a tyre in band G has double the rolling resistance of one in band A. The hard bit is translating that into MPG savings because rolling resistance has a big impact at low speeds but not so much at high speed where aero drag dominates.
One guideline is that there is typically 7.5% difference in MPG between band A and band G.
Class Car tyre running friction
(CR) in kg/t
- A - less than 6,5
- B - 6,6 - 7,7
- C - 7,8 - 9,0
- D - -
- E - 9,1 - 10,5
- F - 10,6 - 12,0
- G - More than 12,1
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
Yep. That's the rub in finding something that has decent braking, handling and rain capabilities but also is in the "eco" camp of tires that actually make a difference in fuel economy. I mentioned the Bridgestones because those tires are one of the few that actually seem to separate themselves from the others in terms of LRR and MPG and I'm not necessarily recommending them.
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
Yep. That's the rub in finding something that has decent braking, handling and rain capabilities but also is in the "eco" camp of tires that actually make a difference in fuel economy. I mentioned the Bridgestones because those tires are one of the few that actually seem to separate themselves from the others in terms of LRR and MPG and I'm not necessarily recommending them.
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
I think LRR tires is generally a nebulous term because there isn't a standard for that designation. But, there's definitely a difference between a Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 vs a pedestrian grand touring tire that that says LRR but isn't specifically designed with that emphasis.
Bridgestone Ecopia is what came on the Nissan Leaf we had . Can not remember the number . We put the same thing back on it .
I think LRR tires is generally a nebulous term because there isn't a standard for that designation. But, there's definitely a difference between a Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 vs a pedestrian grand touring tire that that says LRR but isn't specifically designed with that emphasis.
Bridgestone Ecopia is what came on the Nissan Leaf we had . Can not remember the number . We put the same thing back on it .
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
Agreed! Safety is king. Fuel efficiency takes a backseat when it comes to tires. You want to stick to the road as best as possible, not skim over.
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
Agreed! Safety is king. Fuel efficiency takes a backseat when it comes to tires. You want to stick to the road as best as possible, not skim over.
There is a technological triangle involving treadwear, traction, and rolling resistance. Any improvement in one area comes by sacrificing one or both of the others. So an improvement in fuel economy comes with less traction and/or treadwear. That's why tires that come OE on new cars have such a bad reputation. The car makers want fuel economy and since they don't provide a wear warranty, that gets sacrificed.
- EXCEPT -
From time to time, rubber chemists will make a breakthrough and change the triangle a little - and the operative word here is *LITTLE*. And that's where *LRR* comes into play.
LRR tires are better for rolling resistance than comparable tires - meaning the same treadwear and traction levels. They do NOT necessarily have low levels of rolling resistance. They have lower levels of rolling resistance compared to tires with similar wear and traction characteristics.
If you want low levels of RR and are willing to put up with potentially poor traction and/or treadwear, get an OE tire. Tire Rack frequent identifies those if you look by vehicle. ( And just a word of warning: If your vehicle is more than 3 years old, those tires are not likely to be found. The tire manufacturers know those wear and traction levels aren't what consumers want so they will change the OE tire to a more wear resistant/higher traction spec as soon as they can.)
- EXCEPT -
From time to time, rubber chemists will make a breakthrough and change the triangle a little - and the operative word here is *LITTLE*. And that's where *LRR* comes into play.
LRR tires are better for rolling resistance than comparable tires - meaning the same treadwear and traction levels. They do NOT necessarily have low levels of rolling resistance. They have lower levels of rolling resistance compared to tires with similar wear and traction characteristics.
If you want low levels of RR and are willing to put up with potentially poor traction and/or treadwear, get an OE tire. Tire Rack frequent identifies those if you look by vehicle. ( And just a word of warning: If your vehicle is more than 3 years old, those tires are not likely to be found. The tire manufacturers know those wear and traction levels aren't what consumers want so they will change the OE tire to a more wear resistant/higher traction spec as soon as they can.)
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
So, why do you have a Nokian enTYRE tire? It is low rolling resistance, so you've been fortunate that you have not skidded into another object .
My next tire will be LRR + UTQG Traction rating of AA.
All that fuel savings can be instantly wiped out when the car skids into another object. I'd rather go with a high rated tire.
So, why do you have a Nokian enTYRE tire? It is low rolling resistance, so you've been fortunate that you have not skidded into another object .
My next tire will be LRR + UTQG Traction rating of AA.
Our only experiences with LRR tires here was on our 2014 RAM. It came with Goodyear Wranglers on it.
Wasn't 30 days old when my Wife complained of terrible wet traction after a drive home in heavy rain.
Put new LTX on and never looked back. Took a small mileage hit but the tires ride better, stick better, probably last longer...
Wasn't 30 days old when my Wife complained of terrible wet traction after a drive home in heavy rain.
Put new LTX on and never looked back. Took a small mileage hit but the tires ride better, stick better, probably last longer...
My understanding is LRR tires are made of harder rubber . Which probably accounts for poor traction on wet surfaces .
It does not rain that much where we live .
It does not rain that much where we live .
We run Continental Control Contact Touring A/S on the volvo in 3+ seasons, only swapping to dedicated studded winter tires when it snows.
These continental touring tires claim to have an "eco" tech of some sort, lower rolling resistance, but still have a pretty deep tread with lots of siping and channels. I consider these tires too "hard" for use on snow/ice, but they are functional in those conditions in a pinch. On dry and wet roads they have good traction for everyday driving, no complaints.
Wife usually averages about 21.5MPG in town on the "eco touring" tires. That drops to ~16.5MPG on the snow tires. On the snow tires the rolling resistance is ever present. Let off the gas and the thing is slowing down as if something is dragging all the time. Rolling resistance can definitely vary a lot between tire types.
These continental touring tires claim to have an "eco" tech of some sort, lower rolling resistance, but still have a pretty deep tread with lots of siping and channels. I consider these tires too "hard" for use on snow/ice, but they are functional in those conditions in a pinch. On dry and wet roads they have good traction for everyday driving, no complaints.
Wife usually averages about 21.5MPG in town on the "eco touring" tires. That drops to ~16.5MPG on the snow tires. On the snow tires the rolling resistance is ever present. Let off the gas and the thing is slowing down as if something is dragging all the time. Rolling resistance can definitely vary a lot between tire types.
Grip and rolling resistance are not necessarily related. My winter Nokian R2 are rated "Ultra Low Rolling Resistance", and are one of the best winter tires for grip you can get anywhere. I get better FE with my winter tires on than I do with my A/S3+ I use in the summer. Both sets are run at the same pressure.
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
My understanding is LRR tires are made of harder rubber . Which probably accounts for poor traction on wet surfaces . ......
Ah ...... Mmmmm ...... Not exactly.
:: Being very careful with the wording::
Tires with very low rolling resistance have soft tread compounds and the compound has very little internal resistance to movement. The technical term is hysteresis. The compound is both quick wearing and low grip.
However, the term *LRR* means tires that have lower rolling resistance compared to tires with similar wear and traction characteristics - and those tires can be all over the ballpark - but usually long wearing / moderate grip. But be careful, some OE tires are labeled *LRR* and they might not be good at either wear or traction.
My understanding is LRR tires are made of harder rubber . Which probably accounts for poor traction on wet surfaces . ......
Ah ...... Mmmmm ...... Not exactly.
:: Being very careful with the wording::
Tires with very low rolling resistance have soft tread compounds and the compound has very little internal resistance to movement. The technical term is hysteresis. The compound is both quick wearing and low grip.
However, the term *LRR* means tires that have lower rolling resistance compared to tires with similar wear and traction characteristics - and those tires can be all over the ballpark - but usually long wearing / moderate grip. But be careful, some OE tires are labeled *LRR* and they might not be good at either wear or traction.
Last edited:
Nokian claims the Entyre 2.0 is a low rolling resistant tire, and most of the sizes in that line are extra load construction. Do you suppose that the stiffer sidewall from the XL construction aid in obtaining an LRR tire, because less sidewall flex = less resistance while rolling?
They have tremendous grip, but do ride firm. I am getting the same mpg's as OEM tires which had very poor grip.
They have tremendous grip, but do ride firm. I am getting the same mpg's as OEM tires which had very poor grip.
Originally Posted By: Voleak
Nokian claims the Entyre 2.0 is a low rolling resistant tire, and most of the sizes in that line are extra load construction. Do you suppose that the stiffer sidewall from the XL construction aid in obtaining an LRR tire, because less sidewall flex = less resistance while rolling? .....
No, most of the tire stiffness comes from inflation pressure, not the tire itself.
And even then, it's the tread compound that is the bulk of whether a tire has low RR or not.
Originally Posted By: Voleak
....... They have tremendous grip, but do ride firm. I am getting the same mpg's as OEM tires which had very poor grip.
That's probably because of your Japanese car. The Japanese do traction testing in Japan and their test surfaces don't correlate to what we have in the US.
Nokian claims the Entyre 2.0 is a low rolling resistant tire, and most of the sizes in that line are extra load construction. Do you suppose that the stiffer sidewall from the XL construction aid in obtaining an LRR tire, because less sidewall flex = less resistance while rolling? .....
No, most of the tire stiffness comes from inflation pressure, not the tire itself.
And even then, it's the tread compound that is the bulk of whether a tire has low RR or not.
Originally Posted By: Voleak
....... They have tremendous grip, but do ride firm. I am getting the same mpg's as OEM tires which had very poor grip.
That's probably because of your Japanese car. The Japanese do traction testing in Japan and their test surfaces don't correlate to what we have in the US.
I was considering the EnTyre 2.0 as the replacements I'll be needing soon, but I'm seeing consumer rags and testing are indicating that this tire typically underperforms it's wear rating by a significant degree. Undoubtedly, the LRR emphasis and compound associated with that tire. I've never had an XL tire that didn't ride stiffly so any claims of comfort associated with the "silent sidewall" are probably more related to the tire design and not the actual experience on the road if they're 50 series or less.
The Silent Sidewall feature is supposed to reduce wind noise as the tires cut through the wind. The comfort part of the Silent Sidewall is providing a more comfortable cabin due to less tire noise, not a softer ride.
Yes, the Entyre 2.0 rides stiffer than an average touring tire, but the steering response, minimal sidewall roll in sporty driving, emergency maneuvers and cornering, and durability are a fair trade=off for me.
I think the excellent dry road grip compound causes the Entyre 2.0 to under-perform its tread wear rating. However, Nokian provides a good warranty for the Entyre 2.0. If the tire wears out in less than 40,000 miles, Nokian picks up the tab for a new set. So, lets say I only get 39,900 miles and they are at the wear bars, and I had them rotated and documented at a authorized retailer (Discount Tire in my case), I get a new set for nothing. And hopefully I will get 30-40,000 miles on the replacement set. If it takes two sets to get close to the 80,000 miles, I am A-Okay with that.
https://dc602r66yb2n9.cloudfront.net/pub...al_warranty.pdf
Yes, the Entyre 2.0 rides stiffer than an average touring tire, but the steering response, minimal sidewall roll in sporty driving, emergency maneuvers and cornering, and durability are a fair trade=off for me.
I think the excellent dry road grip compound causes the Entyre 2.0 to under-perform its tread wear rating. However, Nokian provides a good warranty for the Entyre 2.0. If the tire wears out in less than 40,000 miles, Nokian picks up the tab for a new set. So, lets say I only get 39,900 miles and they are at the wear bars, and I had them rotated and documented at a authorized retailer (Discount Tire in my case), I get a new set for nothing. And hopefully I will get 30-40,000 miles on the replacement set. If it takes two sets to get close to the 80,000 miles, I am A-Okay with that.
https://dc602r66yb2n9.cloudfront.net/pub...al_warranty.pdf
- Status
