I feel obligated to point this out:
There is a technological triangle for tread rubber compounds involving rolling resistance, tread wear, and traction - especially wet traction. In order to get better properties in one area, one or both of the others have to be sacrificed. OEM's do that because publishing a fuel economy number is important to them, but tire wear isn't. The traction part seems to bump up against a minimum value.
It seems that the there is a different test surface for tire traction in Japan- and it is different than what is common in North America. Many cars from Japan have traction levels that just don't work in the US.
Also "LRR" is a relative term. It means "Better rolling resistance compared to other tires with similar treadwear and traction levels". That means that an LRR tire might not have low RR values - just lower than its competition.
There is a technological triangle for tread rubber compounds involving rolling resistance, tread wear, and traction - especially wet traction. In order to get better properties in one area, one or both of the others have to be sacrificed. OEM's do that because publishing a fuel economy number is important to them, but tire wear isn't. The traction part seems to bump up against a minimum value.
It seems that the there is a different test surface for tire traction in Japan- and it is different than what is common in North America. Many cars from Japan have traction levels that just don't work in the US.
Also "LRR" is a relative term. It means "Better rolling resistance compared to other tires with similar treadwear and traction levels". That means that an LRR tire might not have low RR values - just lower than its competition.
