Like I linked in my last post I think the Goodyear Assurance FuelMax would be appopros in the application. Assurance tires are very good in all conditions. (at least mine are)
Tires for 2006 Prius
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Like I linked in my last post I think the Goodyear Assurance FuelMax would be appopros in the application. Assurance tires are very good in all conditions. (at least mine are)
The Assurance is very different than the FuelMax. As CapriRacer discussed, there's a "technology triangle" when it comes to tires. Rolling resistance, traction and treadlife-- you can only have two out of the 3. The FuelMax must give up something...
Like I linked in my last post I think the Goodyear Assurance FuelMax would be appopros in the application. Assurance tires are very good in all conditions. (at least mine are)
The Assurance is very different than the FuelMax. As CapriRacer discussed, there's a "technology triangle" when it comes to tires. Rolling resistance, traction and treadlife-- you can only have two out of the 3. The FuelMax must give up something...
Here's a test of 7 modern tires on a 2nd generation Prius:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=121
The Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (that is the correct full name of the tire) doesn't give up much. Compared to the Integrity, which is the OE tire, it returned 0.37% better economy. Its wet braking was 17.5% better, while its dry braking feel behind by 2.5% (again, compared to the Integrity). Its wet g-force was 8.7% better than the Integrity, but dry g-force fell back by 3.6%.
Given expected tread life, and slightly better fuel economy, the cost/mile of the Fuel Max compared to the Integrity is similar, but still better. Given the large improvement in wet traction, and only very small differences in dry traction (possibly within sampling error), I'd say the choice there is probably a no-brainer.
The Goodyear Assurance ComforTred tire was also included, but it didn't fare so well. It lost some fuel economy compared with the Integrity. It did fairly good in wet braking, but finished last in dry braking. Both wet and dry cornering were middling relative to the rest.
Consumer Reports will be releasing their all season tire testing data soon, and that group of tires includes the Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (in an H-rated size). So there will be a wider selection set against which we can compare its performance.
(Until then, these so called "green" tires don't look so bad.)
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=121
The Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (that is the correct full name of the tire) doesn't give up much. Compared to the Integrity, which is the OE tire, it returned 0.37% better economy. Its wet braking was 17.5% better, while its dry braking feel behind by 2.5% (again, compared to the Integrity). Its wet g-force was 8.7% better than the Integrity, but dry g-force fell back by 3.6%.
Given expected tread life, and slightly better fuel economy, the cost/mile of the Fuel Max compared to the Integrity is similar, but still better. Given the large improvement in wet traction, and only very small differences in dry traction (possibly within sampling error), I'd say the choice there is probably a no-brainer.
The Goodyear Assurance ComforTred tire was also included, but it didn't fare so well. It lost some fuel economy compared with the Integrity. It did fairly good in wet braking, but finished last in dry braking. Both wet and dry cornering were middling relative to the rest.
Consumer Reports will be releasing their all season tire testing data soon, and that group of tires includes the Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max (in an H-rated size). So there will be a wider selection set against which we can compare its performance.
(Until then, these so called "green" tires don't look so bad.)
Originally Posted By: The Critic
The Assurance is very different than the FuelMax. As CapriRacer discussed, there's a "technology triangle" when it comes to tires. Rolling resistance, traction and treadlife-- you can only have two out of the 3. The FuelMax must give up something...
Well, I respectfully submit a fourth point to the triangle: cost. On cheaper tires, the compromises generally become larger. It tends to be that the more you pay for a tire, the smaller the compromises are, and the more well-rounded, so to speak, the tire is (for all season tires).
The Assurance is very different than the FuelMax. As CapriRacer discussed, there's a "technology triangle" when it comes to tires. Rolling resistance, traction and treadlife-- you can only have two out of the 3. The FuelMax must give up something...
Well, I respectfully submit a fourth point to the triangle: cost. On cheaper tires, the compromises generally become larger. It tends to be that the more you pay for a tire, the smaller the compromises are, and the more well-rounded, so to speak, the tire is (for all season tires).
Wow, this has turned into a great thread! Actually test data, and people who have actually carefully considered this issue!
I noted a comment in the TireRack test that interested me the most - that when the Goodyear Integrity broke loose, the driver had to work a long time to recover traction. I feel that this is the most important, often overlooked information in wet tire testing: The poorer tires break loose and seemingly offer nearly ZERO traction for long periods of time. Yes, you WILL be in the ditch or in the other cars trunk before you get rehooked up to the pavement.
My examples include:
Kelly Charger HR's , installed on a Taurus MT5. These would break loose on interstate upgrades in 5th gear in cruise control mode when driving in the rain. This car had the same power as 3 squirrels in top gear, If you braked or turned at these speeds then instant breakaway occurred. You would never be able to manuever in a wet interstate mixup/pileup with these tires and I wonder how such a poor tire is actually legal for sale. My often "autocross driving" family all noted their hideous wet characteristics and were replaced with Goodyear Reggata's after only a year of use, this totally transformed the car
Example 2: A Zephyr Wagon, 4cyl, 4 speed (ok don't be angry if you were one of the many Corvettes and Mustangs that finished behind it in autocrosses)
This car wound up with Regatta's on one end and H rated Firestones on the other. With the Firestones on the front it would understeer (in the rain) so bad that you would be shocked, it would not even oversteer when you punched it. Braking and turning was impossible, unless you used the emergency brake!! I reversed the tires (Goodyear Front, Firestone Rear) and headed for the Rockwell International parking lot in a rain storm. Wow, one whip of the wheel, the rear broke loose and went around so many times I thought I should pour coffee and turn to another radio station to wait for it to be over!!!
Anyway, great find on the TireRack test, and I find their customer surveys to be remarkable accurate. I suspect that most of those who fill out the surveys are astute drivers and they attempt objective - rather than subjective - testing of their tires. That is, of course why I provided the objective data above, something more than "these tires sucked".
No, I have never had an accident in the rain, I look well ahead, do not tail gate and anticipate a lot - especially when towing - but part of being a good driver is not purchasing dangerous tires to start with. And, posting warnings to others that may be interested!!!
I noted a comment in the TireRack test that interested me the most - that when the Goodyear Integrity broke loose, the driver had to work a long time to recover traction. I feel that this is the most important, often overlooked information in wet tire testing: The poorer tires break loose and seemingly offer nearly ZERO traction for long periods of time. Yes, you WILL be in the ditch or in the other cars trunk before you get rehooked up to the pavement.
My examples include:
Kelly Charger HR's , installed on a Taurus MT5. These would break loose on interstate upgrades in 5th gear in cruise control mode when driving in the rain. This car had the same power as 3 squirrels in top gear, If you braked or turned at these speeds then instant breakaway occurred. You would never be able to manuever in a wet interstate mixup/pileup with these tires and I wonder how such a poor tire is actually legal for sale. My often "autocross driving" family all noted their hideous wet characteristics and were replaced with Goodyear Reggata's after only a year of use, this totally transformed the car
Example 2: A Zephyr Wagon, 4cyl, 4 speed (ok don't be angry if you were one of the many Corvettes and Mustangs that finished behind it in autocrosses)
This car wound up with Regatta's on one end and H rated Firestones on the other. With the Firestones on the front it would understeer (in the rain) so bad that you would be shocked, it would not even oversteer when you punched it. Braking and turning was impossible, unless you used the emergency brake!! I reversed the tires (Goodyear Front, Firestone Rear) and headed for the Rockwell International parking lot in a rain storm. Wow, one whip of the wheel, the rear broke loose and went around so many times I thought I should pour coffee and turn to another radio station to wait for it to be over!!!
Anyway, great find on the TireRack test, and I find their customer surveys to be remarkable accurate. I suspect that most of those who fill out the surveys are astute drivers and they attempt objective - rather than subjective - testing of their tires. That is, of course why I provided the objective data above, something more than "these tires sucked".
No, I have never had an accident in the rain, I look well ahead, do not tail gate and anticipate a lot - especially when towing - but part of being a good driver is not purchasing dangerous tires to start with. And, posting warnings to others that may be interested!!!
I think the TRZ has relatively low rolling resistance.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I think the TRZ has relatively low rolling resistance.
Given my own experience with it, I concur. In 2005, Consumer Reports rated it "Very Good" for rolling resistance, which is of course a relative rating. Only two tires in the 2005 data test scored "Excellent" (which were the Michelin X Radial and Michelin Harmony).
CR is poised to post brand new data on passenger all season tires in less than a week, and the Avid TRZ will again be in the field tested, as will the Michelin HydroEdge, though I don't know if it's the Green X version or not. We'll see how they all shake out here very soon.
I think the TRZ has relatively low rolling resistance.
Given my own experience with it, I concur. In 2005, Consumer Reports rated it "Very Good" for rolling resistance, which is of course a relative rating. Only two tires in the 2005 data test scored "Excellent" (which were the Michelin X Radial and Michelin Harmony).
CR is poised to post brand new data on passenger all season tires in less than a week, and the Avid TRZ will again be in the field tested, as will the Michelin HydroEdge, though I don't know if it's the Green X version or not. We'll see how they all shake out here very soon.
- Status
