New RS-As getting better MPG than old Hankooks

[stevejones]

Reference my old thread on new tires for my '08 G5.

I've had the RS-As fo a good month or so and my fuel economy has improved over 1 MPG with what appears to be a softer tire, judging by the treadwear rating. I've looked up the revs/mile on tirerack's website, and the difference is small (840 vs. 841).

Yeah, it's a little early to make a definitive judgement, but my overall range at fillups have gone from around 404 miles to 420+. Never saw 420 on the Hankooks. Not once that I can recall.

This, combined with pleasing performance & road manners, makes me happy with the choice.

 

[Rand]

report back in 15000 miles...

 

[A_A_G]

Awful tires, mine had 10,000 miles on them and they were scary to drive on anything other than dry pavement.

 

[Hokiefyd]

As I recall, there is sometimes a correlation between rolling resistance and tread life. Intuitively, one might think that a longer-wearing tire would also deliver less rolling resistance, but the inverse generally seems to be true. The Eagle RS-A is sometimes a good tire; it just depends on the particular size. This is one of those tires where most or all of the sizes are OEM contract sizes...meaning that two different sizes could behave very differently, depending on the specifications in that OEM contract. This tire is most certainly an example of, "you can't judge a book by its cover." Or maybe more appropriately, "you can't judge a tire by its name."

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: A_A_G
Awful tires, mine had 10,000 miles on them and they were scary to drive on anything other than dry pavement.


Absolutely agreed. I've had them new on 3 different cars and they truly stink! Sized in 3 different sizes, too.

 

[stephen9666]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: A_A_G
Awful tires, mine had 10,000 miles on them and they were scary to drive on anything other than dry pavement.


Absolutely agreed. I've had them new on 3 different cars and they truly stink! Sized in 3 different sizes, too.


I assume you're both talking about the RS-A? It isn't clear to me.

 

[kkreit01]

"X miles between fill-ups, or per tank" means nothing. Do you always drive until your tank is completely empty? Calculate your actual MPG, or reset your EVIC if applicable. The only thing I have founds RSAs good for - is treadwear. Mine aren't wearing fast enough. I have about 16k on my OE tires, and they still look new. They all have 9/32nds last time I checked. Other than that, they are horrible. Every time DTD has a $100+ rebate sale, I am very tempted. If I didn't have a separate set of winter wheels/tires, I would have replaced them by now.

I see there's now a new RS-A2. I wonder if they are doubley-bad? GY decided to upgrade them after 15+ years. They were OE on my '97 Talon also.

 

[stevejones]

Originally Posted By: stevejones
but my overall range at fillups have gone from around 404 miles to 420+.


Perhaps I was unclear. This car's message center reports an "estimated fuel range remaining" based on the current fuel economy and the amount of gas left in the tank. I've usually noted that number after I fill it up. That's what I'm referring to above. Today it hit 430 when I filled her up at Costco

!

Haters gonna hate....lol...

 

[kkreit01]

^ That still doesn't mean anything. That is calculated based on your current average MPG. Reset trip odometer/EVIC after every fill, and calculate MPG at every fill. Take an average after 3-5 tanks.

 

[stevejones]

Sorry, I've compared the message center readouts to the results using the tried & true method for calculating fuel economy. It's pretty darn close. I'm getting better fuel economy since the new tires.

 

[PandaBear]

Because you are trading traction for rolling resistance. RS-A is a relatively low traction, low rolling resistance tire and your Hankook is likely a high trendwear (UTQG) tire that sacrifice rolling resistance for durability.

There is a reason many OEM tires are at 140 UTQG and last only the first year. They try to give you good handling (so you'll buy the car) and good MPG rating (to keep the government happy).

 

[bourne]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Because you are trading traction for rolling resistance. RS-A is a relatively low traction, low rolling resistance tire .




LOL that is simply not true. RS-A has one of the softest compount that GY makes in their All-Season line up. They are geared more towards raw traction in dry with relatively decent wet weather performance. And yes , most of the OE RS-A that you will buy in the market are absolute [censored].

And I agree with Hookifyd on this, your experience with these tires will greatly depend on what size you purchase. I had a set of these that I purchase from a wal-mart somewhere in London,KY because I got caught in a real bad rainstorm with 1/32nds of tread on my front tires ( i was more ignorant back then ). Lasted me 45k miles , regular rotation every 10k miles and got me through every single snow/rainstorm midwest could throw at me. I do not know if the vehicle has anything to do with this, but it was a 1997 Maxima GLE and the tire size was 205-65-15. I regularly got 30~32 mpg on the hwy depending on ambient conditions/load with these tires.

 

[Rand]

the oe sizes are utter RUBBISH. that being said the aftermarket tire sizes are mediocre but better.