CMAX OEM tires are VERY efficient!

[ptjones]

The test I saw on Tire Rack for Prius showed our tire got the best MPG's of all LLR tires and at 50psi I can't complain with performance in all conditions. IMO :)

 

Paul

Edited July 15, 2014 by ptjones

[fbov]

The issue is comparisons are unclear when no tires or vehicles are common between tests, and Tire Rack doesn't make it easy to find. Clicking the tire links in a test should bring you to that tire, but not so... right to "tires by brand."

 

The Conti test is particularly useless as there are no other LRR tires; Potenza, Primacy and P7 are not expected to equal Energy Saver/AS or Ecopia tires. I also see minimal difference; 0.33% and 0.1 mpg to second place, and only 0.7 mpg best-to-worst, a 2.33% range. The Prius used in the LRR test had a 3.8mpg range, a 7.5% difference.

 

I have owned may Conti tires over the years, but I would not buy them for a LRR applicatoin based on any of the data I see at Tire Rack.

 

Frank

[F8L]

The issue is comparisons are unclear when no tires or vehicles are common between tests, and Tire Rack doesn't make it easy to find. Clicking the tire links in a test should bring you to that tire, but not so... right to "tires by brand."

 

The Conti test is particularly useless as there are no other LRR tires; Potenza, Primacy and P7 are not expected to equal Energy Saver/AS or Ecopia tires. I also see minimal difference; 0.33% and 0.1 mpg to second place, and only 0.7 mpg best-to-worst, a 2.33% range. The Prius used in the LRR test had a 3.8mpg range, a 7.5% difference.

 

I have owned may Conti tires over the years, but I would not buy them for a LRR applicatoin based on any of the data I see at Tire Rack.

 

Frank

The tests are actually fairly controlled in that the same cars are used in the single test and often across multiple tests. In this case it is usually a 3 series BMW. However, tire size differences can and will change some characteristics. For example, the Energy Saver A/S may be the most efficient tire in a 195/65/15 but it may not be the most efficient in a 225/55/17. Since we only have the TireRack data to go by it is difficult to make a truly informed decision. If we had EU LRR ratings standards to go by this would be a lot easier.

 

I disagree with your assessment of the Contis. They are actually quite a bit better in terms of LRR than a lot of other regular tires and they compete well against other LRR tires. I would suggest choosing a tire based on your typical needs and safety and use LRR performance as a tie breaker. I.e If the Bridgestone Serenity Plus and the Continental PureContact look very appealing to you then you can use the lower rolling resistance of the PureContact as a tie breaker. My point is, max fuel economy is a great goal to aim for but make sure you take your safety and driving patterns (fast, wet, snow, slow etc..) into consideration. 

[ptjones]

In the Tire Rack Prius test the Michelin's were the best MPG's and I just replaced my Michelin's at 65K  miles.  I'm fine with the overall performance so I stayed with the best MPG's. :)

 

Paul

[fbov]

...They are actually quite a bit better in terms of LRR than a lot of other regular tires and they compete well against other LRR tires. I

You missed my point. I said I would not buy them "based on any of the data I see at Tire Rack."

 

Your statement may well be true, but the available data included only 1 manufacturer's low CRR tire line, which is how you stack the deck. Had the test included Energy Saver/AS or Ecopia models, one could reach rational conclusions regarding relative CRR. It didn't, so no rational conclusion can be reached.

 

The real issue I have with your posts is a propensity for confusing opinion with fact. Repeat baseless opinion long enough and folks will start believing it. I live in a fact-based world whenever possible, and will identify baseless opinions as such whenever possible.

 

And I'll note that I have a long-standing bias against Michelin summer tires, and for all types of Conti's, but personal bias is just another baseless opinion!

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[F8L]

You missed my point. I said I would not buy them "based on any of the data I see at Tire Rack."

 

Your statement may well be true, but the available data included only 1 manufacturer's low CRR tire line, which is how you stack the deck. Had the test included Energy Saver/AS or Ecopia models, one could reach rational conclusions regarding relative CRR. It didn't, so no rational conclusion can be reached.

 

The real issue I have with your posts is a propensity for confusing opinion with fact. Repeat baseless opinion long enough and folks will start believing it. I live in a fact-based world whenever possible, and will identify baseless opinions as such whenever possible.

 

And I'll note that I have a long-standing bias against Michelin summer tires, and for all types of Conti's, but personal bias is just another baseless opinion!

 

HAve fun,

Frank

Well all I can say to your rebuttal is go buy the tires and test them yourself. I have and my experience with these tires closely resembles the information posted by TireRack during their testing. Furthermore, not every top shelf LRR comes in the same size as close rivals. This is especially true for low profile 17" tires which are usually in the Grand Touring or performance categories instead of passenger tire. E.g. the Prius comes equipped with 15" or 17" tires but the Energy Saver A/S is only available in a 15" size that is appropriate for this vehicle. So a customer searching for the most efficient 17" tire for the Prius is out of luck with regards to the Energy Saver A/S. In this instance does it matter that the ESAS is more efficient? Nope. 

 

http://priuschat.com/threads/bridgestone-ecopia-ep422-review-17-tire.118328/

 

http://priuschat.com/threads/michelin-primacy-mxm4-review.120027/

 

http://priuschat.com/threads/yokohama-avid-ascend-review.105546/

 

http://priuschat.com/threads/michelin-energy-saver-a-s-review.110038/

 

http://priuschat.com/threads/installed-lexus-ct200h-17-wheels-and-205-50-17-tires.115411/

[F8L]

Here is a new test from TireRack with a couple of the tires CMax owners would be interested in.

 

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=188&cid=

 

Summary:

June 6, 2014

Tires tested: Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus (Grand Touring All-Season, 215/60R16 95V)

• What We Liked: Reasonable road manners
• What We'd Improve: Wet weather performance
• Conclusion: A contender in the category that is beginning to feel a little outpaced by newer tires

Continental PureContact w/EcoPlus Technology (Grand Touring All-Season, 215/60R16 95V)

• What We Liked: Great wet and dry traction and responsive handling
• What We'd Improve: Soften the ride a little
• Conclusion: A very good option for drivers who want traction and confident handling

Michelin Premier A/S (Grand Touring All-Season, 215/60R16 95V)

• What We Liked: Excellent wet weather grip
• What We'd Improve: A small increase in ultimate dry traction
• Conclusion: A very good blend of comfort and traction

Pirelli Cinturato P7 All Season Plus (Grand Touring All-Season, 215/60R16 95V)

• What We Liked: A very smooth and quiet ride
• What We'd Improve: Moderate increase in wet traction
• Conclusion: One of the best-riding Grand Touring All-Season tires

[pbk]

I replaced the OEM's with something else and mpg dropped from 43.5 to 37.5.  

 

I hate the stock tires - the darn things slipped on the paint stripes on a dry road.  As a result, it was only moderately bad news when my son hit a curb (10 mph) and the darn thing blew out the sidewall.  (Again, I have no respect for that stock tire.)

 

My wife hates the idea of ever being stuck someplace, and bought a set of run-flats - the Bridgestone "Drive Guard".  The traction is good, but the car feels "draggy", and even with a fuel-efficient driving style I see the mileage at 37.  I'll keep looking for a solution, but right now it is not the OEM's and not this Bridgestone.  is there anything in the Kumho family?

[F8L]

I replaced the OEM's with something else and mpg dropped from 43.5 to 37.5.  

 

I hate the stock tires - the darn things slipped on the paint stripes on a dry road.  As a result, it was only moderately bad news when my son hit a curb (10 mph) and the darn thing blew out the sidewall.  (Again, I have no respect for that stock tire.)

 

My wife hates the idea of ever being stuck someplace, and bought a set of run-flats - the Bridgestone "Drive Guard".  The traction is good, but the car feels "draggy", and even with a fuel-efficient driving style I see the mileage at 37.  I'll keep looking for a solution, but right now it is not the OEM's and not this Bridgestone.  is there anything in the Kumho family?

No. Kumho doesn't make a good LRR tire IMO. Go have a look at the tires I recommended in the post above yours. For the best mix of safety (handling and stopping distance in wet and dry), longevity and fuel efficiency the Michelin Premier A/S and Continental PureContact are tough to beat right now. They are less efficient than the Energy Saver A/S but better in all other regards.

[drdiesel1]

Kumho has limited LLR tires, but I've never researched them for the C-Max. I used some on my Prius-C, but quickly

traded that car in on the 13 C-Max. I didn't notice a change form the stock tires at all.

 

Are you saying you don't like the Michelin's ?

[drdiesel1]

I replaced the OEM's with something else and mpg dropped from 43.5 to 37.5.  

 

I hate the stock tires - the darn things slipped on the paint stripes on a dry road.  As a result, it was only moderately bad news when my son hit a curb (10 mph) and the darn thing blew out the sidewall.  (Again, I have no respect for that stock tire.)

 

My wife hates the idea of ever being stuck someplace, and bought a set of run-flats - the Bridgestone "Drive Guard".  The traction is good, but the car feels "draggy", and even with a fuel-efficient driving style I see the mileage at 37.  I'll keep looking for a solution, but right now it is not the OEM's and not this Bridgestone.  is there anything in the Kumho family?

 

Yeah! Tires should never blow-out when your kid slams them into a curb.  I bet you had the standard door label air pressure too.

Sounds like the kid needs to learn how to drive because you'll never find a tire that's kid proof.

I'm sure it was 10 mph too :lol2:

Edited January 10, 2015 by drdiesel1

[SPL Tech]

My pleasure, Riddley.

 

Here is one way to try and calculate the cost per mile for a tire so that you can make a comparison. The only hitch is not knowing exactly how much more efficient one tire is than another. To help provide confidence in that number you can use TireRack's tests.

 

In this example we will use TireRack's test "When Round and Black Becomes Lean and Green".

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=121

 

We will compare the Michelin Energy Saver A/S and the Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max tires. In this test the Energy Saver A/S was approx. 4.26% more efficient. I'm going to use the Prius average numbers because I am confident in them. A CMAX owner can simply deduct 4.26% from their current average mpg to come up with the Fuel Max number. The math looks like this:

 

Tread wear warranty (miles) / mpg = # of gallons * $3.60 (ga of gas) = cost of fuel for the life of the tire + price of tires / tread wear warranty = total cost per mile to drive on that tire.

 

Example:

 

Energy Saver A/S

65,000 / 53.8mpg = 1,208ga * $3.60/ga = $4,349 + $626 (4 tires) = $4,975 / 65,000 = $.0765 cents per mile

 

Assurance Fuel Max

65,000 / 51.6mpg = 1,259ga * $3.60/ga = $4,538 + $496 (4 tires) = $5,030 / 65,000 = $.0773 cents per mile

 

So in this example, the Fuel Max tires were much cheaper to purchase but in the long run, the Energy Saver A/S was cheap to own. Now price is not and should never be your only consideration when buying a new tire. Safety should come first so you wouldn't want to sacrifice braking grip for mpg but you may decide you care more about fuel economy than handling. You may decide you need better wet weather grip or snow traction. Comfort may be your highest priority. That is where spider charts come in. These charts plot tire characteristics in such a way that you can choose the traits that interest you most and see how a tire you are considering stacks up in those traits. Unfortunately the cannot make a tire that does everything extremely well. I say choose a few traits to excel in and live with worse performance in the rest. :)

 

Example of a spider chart in a tire test. These tires are relevant to CMAX owners because these are quality tires that come in the 205/50/17 size. Hint, the Turanza Sernity Plus is a pretty nice tire but notice it sacrifices a big of fuel economy over the PureContact.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/spiderChart.jsp?ttid=166

So in your example the overall difference to own is $12 per tire between the two examples. So clearly the FuelMax would be the winner as the FuelMax is more than $12 per tire less than the Energy Savers. I would probably venture to say the Michalen Defenders are one of the least expensive to own. They are LRR tires but they have 80,000 - 90,000 mile treads.

 

As with most things in life, when you are getting to the top of the line you pay a ton of money for only a slight increase in performance. Top of the line is very rarely the most efficient to own.

Edited January 10, 2015 by SPL Tech

[F8L]

So in your example the overall difference to own is $12 per tire between the two examples. So clearly the FuelMax would be the winner as the FuelMax is more than $12 per tire less than the Energy Savers. I would probably venture to say the Michalen Defenders are one of the least expensive to own. They are LRR tires but they have 80,000 - 90,000 mile treads.

As with most things in life, when you are getting to the top of the line you pay a ton of money for only a slight increase in performance. Top of the line is very rarely the most efficient to own.

No, the Energy Saver A/S would be then in winner despite the higher initial price. Rebate specials also mess with the numbers because Goodyear didn't run rebates often whereas Michelin and Bridgestrone did. I see the $80 Goodyear rebate more often now. Still, the Energy Saver A/S is a better tire all around than the Fuel Max except regarding snow traction.

 

The Defender ranks up there but it is much less efficient than the Energy Saver A/S so the savings come from longevity instead of fuel economy. If you don't care about using less fossil fuel then they are a great choice. You will also have to factor in the cost of mounting, balancing and taxes. Those fees also favor a long lived tire.

[pixelwiz]

I just switched to Bridgestone DriveGuard tires after getting my first flat on a Sunday evening when every tire place is closed, to have some piece of mind in the future.  It hasn't been a week yet, but it seems the MPG dropped about 10%, I was averaging 43.7 (based on the computer, Fuelly.com says 2MPG less).  Now I'm getting about 39mpg.  And they did an alignment too, so it should have helped a little.  It'll take some time to get a more reliable new average, but it seems my piece of mind might cost me 10% more in gas, and my tires still had about 45% life left, so it was pretty sad to get rid of them.

Edited April 16, 2015 by pixelwiz

[ptjones]

With gas prices at $2.30/gal the Goodyears FuelMax are significantly cheaper to own now than Michelins EnergySavers, but I would still go with the Michelins. I like the Goodyears and had them on my Focus, they increased MPG's about 5mpg over Pirelli P6's :) 

 

Paul 

[checkerj]

Great thread. Here's what I did instead for my 2013 C-Max Energi w/ 117,000 miles (I drive a lot):

 

https://www.amazon.com/V-Netik-VK201-All-Season-Radial-Tire/dp/B01DP56VQS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475771351&sr=8-1&keywords=vk201

 

These are 205/55/17 tires, which are the same overall diameter as the OEM ones.  The only difference is they're not LRR and they're thinner (not by much, but enough to offset the MPG to be the same as the LRR 225/50/17 OEM tire).  I got them for about $70 each.  They exceed the load and speed rating (95W) of the OEM tire (93V), so there's no egregious safety concerns. In all honesty, they look like they're meant for the C-Max. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by checkerj

[ptjones]

Great thread. Here's what I did instead for my 2013 C-Max Energi w/ 117,000 miles (I drive a lot):

 

https://www.amazon.com/V-Netik-VK201-All-Season-Radial-Tire/dp/B01DP56VQS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475771351&sr=8-1&keywords=vk201

 

These are 205/55/17 tires, which are the same overall diameter as the OEM ones.  The only difference is they're not LRR and they're thinner (not by much, but enough to offset the MPG to be the same as the LRR 225/50/17 OEM tire).  I got them for about $70 each.  They exceed the load and speed rating (95W) of the OEM tire (93V), so there's no egregious safety concerns. In all honesty, they look like they're meant for the C-Max. 

It will be interesting to see your long term FE turns out to be. :)

 

Paul

[markd]

How much are they normally? Do they sell them at Costco, I ask because they alwsays have a seventy dollars off deal.

[scottwood2]

Great thread. Here's what I did instead for my 2013 C-Max Energi w/ 117,000 miles (I drive a lot):

 

https://www.amazon.com/V-Netik-VK201-All-Season-Radial-Tire/dp/B01DP56VQS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475771351&sr=8-1&keywords=vk201

 

These are 205/55/17 tires, which are the same overall diameter as the OEM ones.  The only difference is they're not LRR and they're thinner (not by much, but enough to offset the MPG to be the same as the LRR 225/50/17 OEM tire).  I got them for about $70 each.  They exceed the load and speed rating (95W) of the OEM tire (93V), so there's no egregious safety concerns. In all honesty, they look like they're meant for the C-Max. 

Tires on Amazon now.   I guess it was a matter of time.   Maybe I should have looked to see if they sell the C-Max there yet.  ;>)

 

Price does seem cheap.   Not sure if I would trust these with not having a spare.   I like Michelin tires a lot.  Had those on many cars over the years. 

[jkaminsky]

I just put on Continental Cross Contact LX Sport 235/55/17. The ride is much smoother and handling is night and day better. MPG seems to be the same.

[ptjones]

I just put on Continental Cross Contact LX Sport 235/55/17. The ride is much smoother and handling is night and day better. MPG seems to be the same.

I'm surprised that the tires don't rub.  Michelin 225-50/17 Dia. 25.9"/ Width 8.2", weight 22 lbs.   I looked at the Michelin 225-65/17, Dia. 27.3" and with the wheels turned it looked like it would rub on wheel wells and fender. :sad:

                                                     Contenntial  235-55/17 Dia. 27.2"/ Width 7.7", weight 24 lbs / ODO and speedometer could be off by 5%. Check with GPS to find out and keep us posted on how they workout. :)

 

Paul

[HotPotato]

I switched to Pirelli P7 AS tires, as the tire shop guy said he recommended them for all C-Max drivers.

 

The good: they are extremely quiet, they ride softer than the Michelins, they have a long treadwear rating, their steering precision isn't bad, and they were a little cheaper than the Michelins, especially after the rebate offer. 

 

The bad: they have pitiful dry traction (whee, you can do a burnout on launch! oops, also when cornering or trying to brake!), and one of the tires is sufficiently out of round to cause an annoying vibration at all highway speeds, but not ENOUGH out of round for Pirelli to agree to replace it under warranty. A failure of quality control and accountability would be expected if I'd ordered some Hangzhou Zhongce tires on Alibaba, but not on a set of Pirellis.

 

But the one bum donut aside, if you live somewhere there's actual weather, these could be a good choice. I was caught in an freak heavy rainstorm, and the tires were superglued to the highway at speeds that had my fellow Southern Californians slip-sliding away from their lanes. The huge grooves between the treads may not leave much rubber for dry grip, but they evacuate oceans of water and concentrate weight for wet grip. And there's lots of siping (tiny S curves cut into the treads), even on the edges of the sidewalls, so you could probably power through snow with these puppies too. They'd be a fine tire for the right climate. Just not the one where I live.

[jestevens]

I had the P7 tires, they weren't bad tires at all, nice in light snow and relatively quiet.  They seemed "stickier" than the OEMs and my MPG was stuck at 40MPG.  My only issue with those really was that I only got about 30,000mi out of them.  When I replaced, the dealer didn't have OEM tires so they put Goodyears on, they don't seem to be bad.  My MPGs have been stuck at 40 forever it seems but I enjoy the torque of the power split suspension a lot.

Edited October 25, 2016 by jestevens

[ptjones]

I had the P7 tires, they weren't bad tires at all, nice in light snow and relatively quiet.  They seemed "stickier" than the OEMs and my MPG was stuck at 40MPG.  My only issue with those really was that I only got about 30,000mi out of them.  When I replaced, the dealer didn't have OEM tires so they put Goodyears on, they don't seem to be bad.  My MPGs have been stuck at 40 forever it seems but I enjoy the torque of the power split suspension a lot.

What Goodyear's do you have, Fuel Max?  Just to say it again I got 64k mi. out of two sets of OE Michelin's which they went through bad snow and rain storms! :) All the tire tests say they are the best for FE.

 

Paul

[jkaminsky]

I'm surprised that the tires don't rub.  Michelin 225-50/17 Dia. 25.9"/ Width 8.2", weight 22 lbs.   I looked at the Michelin 225-65/17, Dia. 27.3" and with the wheels turned it looked like it would rub on wheel wells and fender. :sad:

                                                     Contenntial  235-55/17 Dia. 27.2"/ Width 7.7", weight 24 lbs / ODO and speedometer could be off by 5%. Check with GPS to find out and keep us posted on how they workout. :)

 

Paul

I'm wondering how the CMAX calculates mileage. I just recorded a record 106.3 mpg on the way home from work. Previous was 98.1mpg. I'll do the GPS test. Even at 5%, that recalculates my best mpg from 106.3 to 100.99. So still a record :-)

 

I definitely don't rub, not even with family in the car. In two weeks I'm taking a mini-vacation, we'll be loaded down. I can't envision any rubbing though. I was really tempted to buy 215/65/17 tires. The only real question is the distance between the tire and the front strut collars. Its pretty close now, and the 215/65 is another 12.8/16" taller. By my math the tire might touch. And even if it doesn't I'm not sure if I have to factor in any tire undulation. More to follow, so far these continentals are amazing in every way.