Greetings All. The OEM Dunlop SP31 A/S 175/65-15 are abismal on snow & ice here in the Midwest. Have 27k miles w much tread left. Tire Rack ranks these 24(poor) out of 26 in customer surveys which is consistent w my winter experience here. There are many good suggestions on T/Rs web site for Passenger A/S and Grand Touring A/S to fix the traction issues but no chart info on which tires have the best low rolling resistance and thus fueleconomy. I have read the earlier posts here on recommended tires but see no info on MPG and winter performance. Has anyone found A/S tires that perform better in winter but still do as well or better than OEM for MPG ?

 

I saw a jump in my MPGs when I put Yokohama AVID ENVigors and they handled Syracuse's lake effect snow. Not too shabby for the price, too.

 

I had Avid tires on my integra. they did pretty well for all seasons but wore a bit more quickly than some other tires I've owned.

OP, it sounds like you are asking for the world here as winter traction and fuel economy have a tendency to be more polar opposite than have similarities. In short All Seasons are adequate at everything and good at nothing. Winter tires have an aggressive tread for traction and high MPG tires do not because an aggressive tread can kill economy. Realistically, your expected performance increase on fuel economy over the stocks shouldn't be more than about 1mpg-2mpg and you are likely to spend a decent quantity more to find a tire that does such, yet still not increase any over the stock tire in winter performance.

Your best bet is likely to get a great economy/summer oriented tire for the summer, and a good snow tire for the winter and swap them out. (I have a set of integra rims for winter with snows). This will give you the necessary traction in the winter without causing you to worry about safety. The economical tires in the summer should help make up the difference in cost over time, especially if you have a separate set of winter wheels and can deal with the TPMS light on.

~SB

 

specboy speaks solid New England Truth. The OEM's are on the car for their low rolling resistance. That's the criteria you want to check. Also weight and tread width. Problem is, as the OP has discovered, finding the data. I'm thinking going to the mfr web site, but that isn't very helpful either.

renman Diligent searching is the answer. I'm sure reps will come your way when you turn up the answers, many are curious for sure.

 

I upgraded to the Bridgestone Potenza G019 Grid at the 30,000 mile mark. I'm about to hit the 60,000 mile mark and they still have a lot of life on them. They're way better that the EL470.

 

Consumer Reports rates a wide range of tires in terms of rolling resistance, traction in snow, noise, etc. I purchased Sumitomo HTR A/S PO1s because they were rated ‘excellent’ in the noise category, and my sense after driving on them for 1k is that the CR ratings were accurate in terms of what they measured (although they didn’t measure handling, and that has suffered a bit with these tires). Don’t use this as your sole source of information, but it is worth a look, and only costs $6 for a month’s online subscription.

 

2 sets of wheels is the way to go with snow and ice. I wouldn't disagree with Ontario having the same law as in Quebec where winter tires would be needed by law during the winter months.

But yes, winter tires don't give you the same fuel economy since they are designed to provide more grip and aggressively grab the little bits of road it can get under snow and ice. But while they arn't very economical it's that trait that keeps you safe in the winter. specboy has realistically the best solution there.

 

From internet LRR tires (low rolling resistance tires)

Measuring rolling resistance in tires
Rolling resistance can be expressed with the rolling resistance coefficient (RRC), which is the value of the rolling resistance force divided by the wheel load. A lower coefficient means the tires will use less energy to travel a certain distance. The coefficient is mostly considered as independent of speed, but for precise calculations it is tabled at several speeds or an additional speed-dependent part is used. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has developed test practices to measure the RRC of tires. These tests (SAE J1269 and SAE J2452) are usually performed on new tires.
When measured by using these standard test practices, most new passenger tires have reported RRCs ranging from 0.007 to 0.014.[4] In the case of bicycle tires, values of 0.0025 to 0.005 are achieved. [5] These coefficients are measured on rollers, with power meters on road surfaces, or with coast-down tests. In the latter two cases, the effect of air resistance must be subtracted or the tests performed at very low speeds. In 2009 The CEC used a rating called Rolling Resistance Force RRF. RRF and RRC, rolling resistance coefficient are very similar. Difference is taking the RRF and dividing it by the load(weight) to get RRC. So a Michelin Harmony tire rated at 9.45 RRF at 1000 pounds load would be .0095 RRC.[6][7]

In Canada, Transport Canada tests will be conducted on a number of different tires mounted on 15 and 16-inch rims – the most common tire sizes in Canada – to determine how rolling resistance is influenced by vehicle size, tire width and profile. Results will be used to inform Canadians about the types of low rolling resistance tires available in Canada, and whether they can help reduce fuel consumption and pollutants from passenger vehicles. [8]
[edit] Standard equipment

Most hybrid vehicles are equipped with low-rolling resistance tires.[citation needed]
Auto manufacturers in the United States typically equip new vehicles with tires that have lower rolling resistance than their average after-market replacements, in order to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.[9]
These include Conti Contact, Michelin Energy, and Goodyear Eagle LS tires.
[edit] Available tires

Some tires available in 2003 ranked by coefficient from lowest (least wasteful), according to the United States National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board Special Report 286[4] and the March 2003 Green Seal report on the topic[10].

• 0.00615 Bridgestone B381 P185/70R14
• 0.00650 Michelin SYMMETRY P225/60R16
• 0.00683 Michelin TIGER PAW AWP P225/60R16
• 0.00700 Bridgestone DUELER H/T 113S P265/70R17
• 0.00709 BFGoodrich RUGGED TRAIL T/A P285/70R17
• 0.00754 Michelin LTX A/S P255/65R17
• 0.00758 Goodyear INTEGRITY (OE) P225/60R16
• 0.00760 Bridgestone INSIGNIA SE 200 89S P195/65R15
• 0.00767 BFGoodrich RUGGED TRAIL T/A P245/65R17
• 0.00780 Continental Ameri-G4S WS P235/75R15
• 0.00795 Michelin TPAW TOURING TR/SR P215/70R16
• 0.00810 Bridgestone DUELER H/T 104S P235/70R16
• 0.00813 Goodyear Invicta GL 235/75R15
• 0.00825 Continental ContiTouring Contact CH95 P205/55R16
• 0.00829 Michelin CROSS TERRAIN SUV P255/75R17
• 0.00833 Michelin PILOT PRIMACY 275/50R19
• 0.00850 Michelin ENERGY LX4 P225/60R16
• 0.00854 Michelin PILOT LTX P265/70R17
• 0.00855 Michelin ENERGY MXV4 PLUS 235/65R17

Here is a list of Consumer Report's tires that achieved their best rolling resistance rating. The tires at the top of the list are rated higher overall.

• Highly rated:
  • All Season
  • Michelin X Radial
  • Michelin Agility Touring
  • Michelin Harmony
  • Toyo 800 Ultra
  • Sumitomo HTR T4
• Middle rank
  • Performance All Season
  • Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus
  • Continental ContiPremierContact H
• Least benefit
  • All Season Ultra High Performance
  • General Exclaim UHP
  • Continental ContiExtremeContact

Below are the light duty tires (as reported by Consumer reports) achieving their best rolling resistance rating. Again, higher overall rated tires are closer to the top of the list.

• All-season
• Bridgestone Dueler H/T D684
• Michelin Cross Terrain
• Continental ContiTrac SUV
• BFGoodrich Radial Long Trail T/A

Followed by:

• All-terrain
• Continental ContiTrac TR

New models by 2009:

• Michelin Energy Saver
• Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max

You can also use the UTOG rating; the higher the wear rating the better for mpg because the tread is harder. Choose a narrower tire of the same diameter, especially if the tire is lighter.

 

Thank you all (as of 1 Feb '11 6pm: AndrewLOL, specboy, Krimson Cardnal, JDMxGE8, Eugene.Atget, TacCom, mahout) for taking the time to reply to my inquiry and sharing your experience. The tech info from ‘mahout’ went well above and beyond my expectations but was very welcomed as I am also tech and data oriented. If ‘mahout’ was from SC I would be suspicious he works for Michelin in Spartenburg.

Originally, I was going to get separate snow tires mounted on their own steel wheels w TPS included. That is until I got the quotes back for nearly $730 from TR. Local retailers were $250 higher. That kind of money will buy a lot of gas. I figure ~ 8575 miles worth at $3.15 gal and 37 mpg, 231 gals.

Those numbers drove me back to researching A/S tires w compromises in several performance categories, but yet still be better than the OEM tires for A/S use. The only missing data was the RRC as it relates to getting good mpg. That’s when I decided to ask for outside experiences…. yours, to help get a handle on real data. I agree using snow tires would rule out being practical w mpg and surely they would have better winter performance. But storing them is a hassle in a townhouse, even w the hand powered hoist I installed in the garage attic (been there done that w big roadster snow tires). I plan to take all your info and analyze w T/R’s surveys to try and find an A/S solution. Thanks again to you all.

 

Ren,

Which fit do you have? (sport, sport Navi?) the reason I ask is because my snows (everything) cost me less than $400 but I had to do just a little legwork. I found 4 Integra alloy rims on Craigslist for which my cost was $50. Sears had the General Altimax Arctic for about $77 each (mounted/balanced). After everything; Tires, Tax, Gas to get the wheels (about 200 miles round trip), food (hey, a guy's gotta eat), I came out under $400. I have the fit sport and the only thing I have to deal with is a constantly on TPMS light. it is simply an annoyance and I didn't want to spend the $$ on the TPMS Sensors. (you only need them if you have the sport Navi or a 2011 fit because of the VSA)

I'm running about 3 or 4mpg less with my snows on but still, that puts me around 34 or 35mpg. some of that is also due to colder temps and idling to warm the car.

You don' have to spend $700 to get the safety of Snow tires and you can leave your regular rims for the summer time and get full benefit of more economical tires.

~SB

 

specboy,

Have 2009 basic FiT for 60+yrs wife as daily driver. The xtra $1600 for Sport not worth it for her type use as commuter. Put that money into dealer door opener w fob, aftermkt floor mats & cargo clips & nets + Honda body side strips + Honda door sill protectors + Xpel clear door sill & rocker panel protection + Honda parts thru web for 4 cabin filters 6 oil filters w crush washers 2 eng filters + several gals Amsoil full synthetic + still have cash left over.

Tire costs quoted = covers $25 set + 4 new steel wheels $160 + 185/70R 14 Conti Extreme Winter Contact $256 + 4 TPS $144 + ship $96 + tax $48 = $730

We're having ice storm + wind here and pwr keeps dropping out. Signing off for tonight. Later

 

Am I the only one who has never owned a pair of snow tires? I've been driving for 30 years and all I have ever used were decent M/S tires and can honestly say I have never gotten stuck. I know this wasn't the OP's concern or question but I believe all of the above comes down to driving habits and technique.

 

If you have a sears near you, the Tires I have (General Altimax Arctic) are running $68 but they'll tag you for shipping to the store (about $30 If I remember correctly) or you can go to the store and they'll tack on an additional $7/tire with no shipping so it is the same either way. That's around $300 for the tires and if you can find some wheels locally, for even $200 (on Craigslist) you'll be in the same price range I was in ($400-$500). If you go with 14" wheels, it gets cheaper and you have a better choice for tires (175 width which is better for snow). also, there are WAY more 14" wheels available on Craigslist with the 4x100 bolt pattern.

I drove for 15 years on all seasons and only had one weather related issue (crowned road, unplowed recent snow, on a curve to the left, road was sloped to the right... not at chance). even now, I run the all seasons the 1st season and then switch to snows. With 15 years of driving on A/S wheels, I never realized how much snows improve upon the way the car handles. I could get away with all seasons but opt not to after the 1st year, primarily because of the extra grip "you just have" with snows. When thinking back on the 1st winter in the FIT, (last year) it was fine but even with more snow on the ground this year (a lot more here), the car feels more confident and capable.

Plus... I'll get 5-6 years out of the OEM Wheels instead of just 3 because of the fact I have dedicated snows. I'll get 4-6 seasons out of the snows in the time that most others will replace their tires twice (about 90K miles), I'll have replaced mine... Twice and in turn have provided a safer ride for me, the wife, & Little one.

oh.. and snows on the fit... FUN in the winter.

~SB

 

I'd also say anywhere in Canada needs to have winter tires for those fridged months. The car just feels so much more confidant and willing to listen to your commands under more extreme circumstances. While I don't have extencive experiance driving both, it doesn't take long to feel the control winter tires give. But it's not just snow and ice performance too, it's just cold. All seasons still stiffen up a lot because of the fridged temperatures and don't warm up enough to loosen the rubber for grip. Winters are meant to hold thier grip better in colder air temps.

And it seems we got a giant dumping of snow headed our way, so my Fit with it's X-ices will get a good test run under the conditions it needs to know how to face XD

But yes spec, having that extra grip with the winters does allow you to have so much more fun

 

Thanks specboy and TacCom for the follow-up ideas. I will need to look into those snow tire possibilities. My experience has been the same as yours on the cars equiped with snow tires where I have been the primarily driver. Since the car is mostly driven by my wife and not set up for much fun by me, the supreme directive for wife and daughter is to get maximum mpg at lowest cost to me and still be safe.

 

I can respect that you wish to try to save money since you won't be driving but you also have to keep in mind that braking and steering performance is correlated to how much grip you have. Weither you're trying to have fun or trying to brake or steer in an emergency, it comes down to how much those tires will stick to the road.

So I guess the question you need to ask is "how safe do they need to be." Because if safety is at the top of the list then don't even think about using all seasons if you're going to see below freezing temperatures and snow/ice. And from a cost standpoint the initial investment is higher but overall you change tires less since you're wearing down 2 sets of tires at a time. The cost balances out (except for the rims). It's really only MPG that takes the hit. Personally I know I'm not driving a tank or those old steel-body cars, so a direct hit from a larger vehicle could be rather serious. I'd rather give myself every chance to avoid that by making sure I'm equiped for the situation. The extra fun factor is just a nice side effect :P

 

Just took a look at my economy last year (OEM Tires) and this year (Altimax Arctic Snows).

Keep in mind my Overall MPG is 37.77 for the life of the vehicle (21K miles.)
Also, My snows are slightly larger than my stock wheels (they show 1.6mph high and when calculating MPG, the result ends up being about .6mpg - .7mpg less than what I'm actually getting.

Last year, My stats were:
1/9 - 292 miles - 7.97 Gallsons - 36.62mpg
1/17 - 306 Miles - 8.48 Gallons - 36.10mpg
1/31 - 216 miles - 6.27 Gallons - 34.43mpg
This year,
1/9 - 339 miles - 9.68 Gallons - 35.02mpg
1/16 - 187 miles - 5.97 Gallons - 31.32mpg
1/31 - 343 miles - 10.23 Gallons - 33.54mpg

The difference is about 3mpg just between the numbers but add in the .6mpg due to the fact my snow tires currently are a larger than OEM, that puts the difference about 2mpg less.

The 2mpg drop means currently, (at 15K miles/yr) I pay about $20-$27 more per year in gas [remember, the tires are only on for 3-4months] than if I just went with a tire which had the same economy as the stock tires. (For me, right around 38mpg) In turn, I have tires that are MUCH better in the snow than the ultra low rolling resistance tires. I think that is a fair trade-off for safety over economy.

Show you wife/daughter the stats above and ask them if the $20/year in gas is worth the cost. Better yet, buy the snow tires, give them each $10 a year that they are on the car and tell them "HERE, we're even!"

My wife & son are the reason she drives the ridgeline most of the time... Safety

~SB

 

Mahout does not nor has worked for Michelin but does have nearly 50 years experience with his and customers using all kinds of snow tires in western NC where mountain roads in winter are treacherous. And more often than not Michelins were the tire of choice though there were others on occasion.TireRacks performance ratings are very good and I can attest to their validity.
PS if TR's prices are high alweays check Discounttiredirect.com for less costly purchases because their shipping is free.
good luck.
PS we are currently testing a set of very lightweight wheels with the best rated BS's on a hybrid to see just how much those increase mpg over the stock 185/70x14 Michelins on stock wheels. So far it looks like about 1.5 mpg improvement but we've still got a month to go.

 

Thanks 'specboy' and 'mahout' for the follow-up data. I'm am going to the Fed's sites Mahout referenced to get better educated about mpg & RRCs, and get quotes from some web sites you all mentioned.

Another part of the decision dilemma around Indy and winter is it's very inconsistent snow / ice year to year. We can not count on winter being anything significant in anyway to have a clear decision to get extra tires or spend the money. It's just this season 2010/2011 has been one of the worst since 1984/5 for both snow and ice. And so I have cause to look into better traction options. We are very flat territory in central IN, not the terrain of Vermont or mts of west NC. I may never need the snow tires again for the next 10-20 yrs. Hence, my original question about better A/S hi mpg shoes.

Also, Mahout pls elaborate about the 'PS experiment' w light tires as I am curious(nosey) about those/your activities and 50 yrs experience...not questioning integrity just sharing our auto histories. I'm originally from Detroit burbs and grew up as a 'boomer' w mechanic / engineering family history.

 

We are testing 3 sets of tires on 2 'identical' Honda Civic hybrids.
185/70x14 michelin X on stock hybrid wheels
175/70x14 Michelin X on Insight gen 1 light (10,8 lb) wheels
!75/70x14 Sumotomo on 9.3 lb Kosei wheels.
This combination is the lightest wheel/tire combination we could find, 24.7 lb compared to typical 31 to 33 lb for stock wheel/tires on a Fit.
We're using Civic hybrids because they have instant mpg readouts as well as overall sionce last zeroed fill-up. Getting hooked on those readouts are as distracting as texting. But very useful. Besides there's a ton of aftermarket stufdf for Civics and that is a big plus. (but Fits straining to get 40 mpg, as did mine, are a cannonshot away from 40 plus mpg in town or interstate for Civic hybrids. Shortly we'll have lap time comparison from VIR., Fit vs Civic hybrid)
We've only got about 1000 miles on te combinations and the Kosei combo is showing about 1.3 mpg better than the stock 185.70's and so far undetermined difference for the Insight gen 1 wheel/tires.
We haven't done all out accelerastion tests where the lightweights should show much improved acceleration but just driving our normal 'errands' the lightweights seem to be noticeably faster. The lightweight tire/wheel should have marked improvement because the reduced resistance to changes in rotation speed. We thought about using the dyno but soon realized that power at given rpm is done at a constant rpm on each step so reduced wheel tire weights should have no effect measuring power. We are considering loading the power to some point, possibly max torque rpm, and seeing how long it takes to accelerate to the next 500 to 1000rpm step. So far our bench racers are divided on its value and just how to do it. I'm on the side that favors measuring time to accelewrate 500 rpm over starting point where starting point is 3000 rpm.
To date we can only recommend the Insight gen 1 wheels to autocrossers as they are relatively cheap. Someone said there;'s a salvage yard in ohio that has an inventory. Course that means you have 14" tires to match.
The Kosei's are damned expensive and weird with 2 air fill valves per wheel. Owner said Tirerack said they were to improve nitrogen filling time. what ? Regardless, the Fit S spec racers need to hop on those 15 inchers.
As for personal history I owned two auto shops in spare time as an engineer in several auto part suppliers and tire departments and raced in NASCAR, IMSA, and SCCA on weekends 'off'.. Now I'm retired and get only spare time efforts from the shop I sold, as they should. Permently afflected with "wonder if ..' it seems, always 'testing' something. And my engineering degrees get little reference here from the experienced bench racers. Though I have good trophy wall some of these guys are really good.
cheers.