Initial review: Cooper CS5 Ultra Touring

[Dumc87]

Put about 500 miles on the tires so far, and I really like them (very quiet so far!) except for one odd thing: I lost 2mpg.

To make the situation even more strange, is that these were put on my Toyota Matrix that were toting 225/45/17 tires on 17" aftermarket wheels, that I swapped out for 16" Corolla S wheels, wrapping them in the Cooper CS5's in a 205/55/16 size; the OEM size.

I went from averaging 31mpg (mixed driving) to a recent 29mpg.

Has anyone else experienced a significan MPG loss by going to a smaller sized tire? I feel like something is amiss here, but the car is running great overall.

 

[Rolla07]

How worn were your old tires? The more tread the less efficient in theory. Also, your tires arent even broken in yet. My guess is they will go up to 30 and then 31 soon. Are you running same PSI as previously?

What were your previous tires? Compare LRR to non LRR. Low rolling resistance.

I put some Cooper Rs-3a's on last summer and have been very satisfied so far.

 

[PolarisX]

I learned recently there is no certification for a LRR.

My Yokohama Ascends are a LRR tire and people report no MPG increase or even loses. Not a personal concern of mine however.

 

[Rand]

Cooper cs5 ultra are bias'ed more for performance and traction.

They are not LRR tires.. and cooper tires in general arent LRR when compared with other similar tires.

Originally Posted By: PolarisX
I learned recently there is no certification for a LRR.

My Yokohama Ascends are a LRR tire and people report no MPG increase or even loses. Not a personal concern of mine however.


That is because most oem tires are hugely bias'ed for mpg even if not reported as LRR.

LRR is generally used against other similar tires in the same category.

Therefore if you found a UHP type LRR tire it could still be relatively high rolling resistance but better than others in category.

UHP=ultra high performance.

I put michelin defenders on which were LRR and lost 5% mpg.

I also used michelin premiers which have GREAT traction and LRR but lost 1.5mpg over the stock yokohama g91f which had garbage traction and wondered all over the road on a windy day.

So basically my point is while my Michelin premiers are called LRR.. and might be the actual rolling resistance is only low compared to some tires.. it might not actually be "low"

Not sure how to say that better to make sense.

 

[Rand]

.Dupe post.

 

[spk2000]

Tire Weight of new tire is heavier taking more power to turn those heavy buggers

 

[earlyre]

Don't forget the most simple explanation...

A smaller diameter wheel, will have a shorter distance around it's circumference, and therefore more revolutions per any given distance than a larger diameter wheel..


In the sizes mentioned, the 16" tires circumference is .29" smaller than the 17", leading to an additional 3.07 revs per mile.

The smaller wheel/ tire should weigh less in theory, but not necessarily in practice.

 

[Dumc87]

I figured even with a break-in period, my MPG's would be similar, then improving. I was hoping to get about 32mpg going to a smaller wheel/tire combo.

Perhaps the OEM Corolla wheels are that much more heavy than the aftermarket wheels I had on there before, but it wasn't a noticeable difference in weight.

The previous tires were Vogue, I believe their Signature series? They had a gold V on one side, but no white walls. Very good tires, especially considering the $200+ in rebates I got when I purchased them 3 years ago.

I actually upped the PSI to 35, 3 PSI more than the standard 32, just to see if I could net any gain.

I guess I've no choice but to watch to see if the MPG's increase as does the wear.

 

[Dumc87]

Originally Posted By: earlyre
Don't forget the most simple explanation...

A smaller diameter wheel, will have a shorter distance around it's circumference, and therefore more revolutions per any given distance than a larger diameter wheel..


In the sizes mentioned, the 16" tires circumference is .29" smaller than the 17", leading to an additional 3.07 revs per mile.

The smaller wheel/ tire should weigh less in theory, but not necessarily in practice.


I can see where you're going, but when I put taller tires on my Jeep, my MPG's went down LOL but I also know that's where re-gearing comes into play. If I changed my 3.73 gears to 4.11 gearing, I'd probably get back closer to the MPG's I saw before, except perhaps on the highway.

 

[ammolab]

Remember your odometer counts a "mile" as so many wheel revolutions... The jeep with a larger diameter tire should show less MPG because now your miles are LONGER than before, as the larger tire rotates farther with each revolution so each mile on the odometer is now actually 1.18 true miles.....and if your speedometer was accurate?....it now reads slow!

Does not explain why the OP got less MPG.

 

[dan_erickson]

Another one for weight of the wheel tire combo. My aftermarket 20" wheels with 245/35/20 tires weight a ton less then my stock 18" wheels with 235/45/18 tires. In my situation it is mostly the wheel that makes the difference because my aftermarket wheels are rotary forged and only weigh 23 lbs a piece.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Dumc87
Originally Posted By: earlyre
Don't forget the most simple explanation...

A smaller diameter wheel, will have a shorter distance around it's circumference, and therefore more revolutions per any given distance than a larger diameter wheel..


In the sizes mentioned, the 16" tires circumference is .29" smaller than the 17", leading to an additional 3.07 revs per mile.

The smaller wheel/ tire should weigh less in theory, but not necessarily in practice.


I can see where you're going, but when I put taller tires on my Jeep, my MPG's went down LOL but I also know that's where re-gearing comes into play. If I changed my 3.73 gears to 4.11 gearing, I'd probably get back closer to the MPG's I saw before, except perhaps on the highway.


I really need to regear mine to get mileage and power back. Right now it gets better mileage in D rather than OD. Just drops it right out of the power band in OD

 

[barkingspider]

Dumc, why the move from 17" to 16"? I have stock 17" on my vibe w 50 series tires. I wonder if going to 16" wheels and a fatter side wall tire would make the ride nicer

 

[Dumc87]

Originally Posted By: dan_erickson
Another one for weight of the wheel tire combo. My aftermarket 20" wheels with 245/35/20 tires weight a ton less then my stock 18" wheels with 235/45/18 tires. In my situation it is mostly the wheel that makes the difference because my aftermarket wheels are rotary forged and only weigh 23 lbs a piece.


Sure doesn't seem like THAT much of a difference in weight.

Originally Posted By: barkingspider
Dumc, why the move from 17" to 16"? I have stock 17" on my vibe w 50 series tires. I wonder if going to 16" wheels and a fatter side wall tire would make the ride nicer


The 17" wheels had too many spokes for my liking

So I went with the 5 spoke Corolla S wheels. The ride with the Cooper 205/55/16 is very nice! Smooth and quiet.

--

One of my coworkers said he is getting about 2 mpg less in his 2016 Honda Civic, so now I'm curious if the fuel around town is just [censored]? He hasn't done anything significant, other than an oil change recently; Castrol Edge 0w20.

 

[spk2000]

It's not just the total weight but more about the rotational weight. Newer tread has more weight on outer edge tread area of tire. This additional weight now must be turned by the motor reducing fuel economy over worn out tires that have much less tread weight. If there is more weight at the center near hub it has less of an effect.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

The size difference between 205/55-16 and 225/45-17 is negligible. Only about a tenth of an inch difference in diameter, only 3 more revs per mile, not even half a percent difference.

Tire calculator

And of course, like others have said, new tires get lower mpg than worn tires. And there are also differences between different tires. There are tires more designed with efficiency in mind, but the CS5 doesn't seem to be one of them.