Jump to content


Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, my lurker friend!

Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, an unparalleled Subaru community full of the greatest Subaru gurus and modders on the planet! We offer technical information and discussion about all things Subaru, the best and most popular all wheel drive vehicles ever created.

We offer all this information for free to everyone, even lurkers like you! All we ask in return is that you sign up and give back some of what you get out - without our awesome registered users none of this would be possible! Plus, you get way more great stuff as a member! Lurk to lose, participate to WIN*!
  • Say hello and join the conversation
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Classifieds with all sorts of Subaru goodies
  • Photo hosting in our gallery
  • Meet other cool people with cool cars
Seriously, what are you waiting for? Make your life more fulfilling and join today! You and your Subaru won't regret it, we guarantee** it.

* The joy of participation and being generally awesome constitutes winning
** Not an actual guarantee, but seriously, you probably won't regret it!

Serving the Subaru Community since May 18th, 1998!

Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Replacement tires, rolling resistance, fuel economy question


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 suruba

suruba

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 December 2005 - 11:00 PM

I'm looking at replacing the infamous OEM "crapenzas" with a set from one of the options below and would like some input on whether or not anybody has experienced a reduction in their mpg using them.
Obviously I'm not making a decision solely on that factor, but I'm curious in case it comes to a tie in the end.
Here are the ones I'm considering for all-season on my 2002 OBW (225-60-16)

Yokohama AVID TRZ
BFGoodrich Traction T/A H
Kumho Touring A/S 795
Goodyear Assurance TripleTred
Falken Ziex ZE512

Thanks.

#2 Legacy777

Legacy777

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 12,568 posts
  • Houston, Tx

Posted 28 December 2005 - 11:15 PM

I don't really have much advice on the specific tires, but have you checked out tirerack or discount to read the reviews posted?

#3 indianaoutback

indianaoutback

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Cincinnati

Posted 29 December 2005 - 12:16 AM

I've got a '99 Outback and have run original Michelin XW4, two sets of
Pirelli Scorpions, BFG Traction T/A and currently have a new set of
Goodyear Triple Treads. So far, the Goodyear Triple Treads (never
thought I would say this about a Goodyear tire) are the best tires I've
ever run on this car (I drive about 25000/year).




I'm looking at replacing the infamous OEM "crapenzas" with a set from one of the options below and would like some input on whether or not anybody has experienced a reduction in their mpg using them.
Obviously I'm not making a decision solely on that factor, but I'm curious in case it comes to a tie in the end.
Here are the ones I'm considering for all-season on my 2002 OBW (225-60-16)

Yokohama AVID TRZ
BFGoodrich Traction T/A H
Kumho Touring A/S 795
Goodyear Assurance TripleTred
Falken Ziex ZE512

Thanks.



#4 suruba

suruba

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 December 2005 - 12:32 AM

I don't really have much advice on the specific tires, but have you checked out tirerack or discount to read the reviews posted?


Yes, I narrowed it down to these based on Tirerack reviews. Some people have mentioned a decrease in mpg with the TTs. I was wondering if it affected the others as well.

Thanks.

#5 JohnnyB

JohnnyB

    USMB Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Phila

Posted 29 December 2005 - 12:53 AM

I just put on the BFG's a few weeks ago, so far I like them. Only filled up once since, I'll try to report back. They seem to be a tad noisier than the Dunlop Sport A2's they replaced. The Dunlops had a few bad reviews at Tirerack, but they wore really well for me, almost 4 years, 33,000 miles and still had 4/32's left. Had to replace em all due to an unrepairable leak on one.

#6 Skorzen

Skorzen

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Phoenixville

Posted 29 December 2005 - 01:27 PM

I put the Falken Ziex 512s on my 97 OBS about 7K ago, and so far no complaints. The only issue is they may be a little loud, but I don't really have anything to compare them too on this car(need new tires when I got it). I thought I would mention that I was able to get sears to match the Discount tire price on these so I go them for about $50 each rather than the $70 sears was asking...

#7 zyewdall

zyewdall

    Subaru Master

  • Members
  • 2,132 posts
  • Ward, CO

Posted 29 December 2005 - 02:48 PM

I assume you've already read all the stuff on rolling resistance and looked up the number for the different tires on the web?

http://www.greenseal...gresistance.pdf

I haven't used any of the special low rolling resistance tires yet, so I can't offer any direct experience. I did switch out my low profile 14" tires on my rabbit to regular 13" ones which have the same outside diameter, which theoretically should improve rolling resistance. I also happened to have an extra set of almost new michelins for the subaru sitting around that I wanted to use, instead of buying new 14" tires.

#8 suruba

suruba

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 December 2005 - 04:58 PM

Thanks. I did see that document. Unfortunately, the local Discount Tire doesn't offer any of them.

http://www.greenseal...gresistance.pdf

#9 zyewdall

zyewdall

    Subaru Master

  • Members
  • 2,132 posts
  • Ward, CO

Posted 29 December 2005 - 05:21 PM

Thanks. I did see that document. Unfortunately, the local Discount Tire doesn't offer any of them.


That's probably because they are so expensive that their demographic clientel wouldn't ever buy them. The Michelin EnergyMXV4Plus ones that I looked at were something like $90 each at Costco for 14" tires. (yeah, I know that that paper gives prices that aren't that bad -- but the particular size they had were for some reason...)

I'm also not sure if they even make any of the low rolling resistance tires in the 13" size, but that shouldn't be an issue with your newer subaru.

#10 friendly_jacek

friendly_jacek

    Subaru Nut

  • Members
  • 644 posts
  • USA

Posted 02 January 2006 - 10:15 PM

I've got a '99 Outback and have run original Michelin XW4, two sets of
Pirelli Scorpions, BFG Traction T/A and currently have a new set of
Goodyear Triple Treads. So far, the Goodyear Triple Treads (never
thought I would say this about a Goodyear tire) are the best tires I've
ever run on this car (I drive about 25000/year).


I'm currently considering BFG traction T/A. What was wrong with them in your opinion? Also, what is so great about Triple Treads?
For the record, I currently have potenza RE 950. Nice and queit tires in dry and wet but extremally slipery in ice.

#11 indianaoutback

indianaoutback

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Cincinnati

Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:29 AM

Nothing wrong with the BFG's, but nothing great. The TT's seem to
handle better on dry and especially wet pavement (but they're still new,
so I can't give you a 'wear' opinion). The Scorpions did not like grooved
concrete pavement and the Mich. were just average in every category.
The only Bridgestones that will fit my stock wheel (that I considered) were
Turanzas, but I didn't try them.

Tire Rack is really a good place for any tire info........


I'm currently considering BFG traction T/A. What was wrong with them in your opinion? Also, what is so great about Triple Treads?
For the record, I currently have potenza RE 950. Nice and queit tires in dry and wet but extremally slipery in ice.



#12 friendly_jacek

friendly_jacek

    Subaru Nut

  • Members
  • 644 posts
  • USA

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:55 AM

Nothing wrong with the BFG's, but nothing great. The TT's seem to
handle better on dry and especially wet pavement (but they're still new,
so I can't give you a 'wear' opinion). The Scorpions did not like grooved
concrete pavement and the Mich. were just average in every category.
The only Bridgestones that will fit my stock wheel (that I considered) were
Turanzas, but I didn't try them.
Tire Rack is really a good place for any tire info........



Thanks!

I spent hours on tire rack reading review. The thing with TT is that either people love them or hate them. This is why I asked.

#13 JohnnyB

JohnnyB

    USMB Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Phila

Posted 03 January 2006 - 03:39 PM

It is really a nasty day here in Philly, windy and raining, but I must say the Traction T/A's really impressed me today. Highway driving in high wind gusts and wet roads, the car seemed to track better and feel more surefooted than with the Dunlops. As far as my MPG's, I don't keep a log, but usually try to save a few receipts and check my MPG's before tossing them. Last 2 fillups I got 21.06 and 21.30 MPG. I usually get around 22 in mixed driving, a little lower in the winter, so things appear to be normal.

#14 bjwirth

bjwirth

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 158 posts
  • Chicago

Posted 03 January 2006 - 04:37 PM

Obviously I'm not making a decision solely on that factor, but I'm curious in case it comes to a tie in the end.

I have no direct knowledge of rolling resistance with the tires youve chosen, but based on what I read on some of the hybrid discussions, some people claim they lost 5% in terms of fuel efficiency going from tires advertised as LRR vs conventional tires. As far as i know, none of your tires are advertised as LRR tires so I suspect the difference in rolling resistance among them is much smaller. so for a hybrid that gets 50 mpg, 5% is 2.5 mpg. if you take a subaru that gets half the mileage and maybe half the difference in resistance, you may be looking at 0.6 mpg difference among the tires, if even that much.

So if it REALLY comes down to a tie btween 2 or 3 tires- will a statistically insignificant difference in MPG really break the tie? But like I said, I don't have any direct knowledge about the LRR ratings on these tires. maybe the GY TT are gas hogs and suck 10% of fuel efficiency compared to the other tires on your list. if that's the case, if the TT were #1 on your list, that may be significant enough to drop them down to #2. But it's my suspicion, that there is no such published info, or any difference is mpg is difficult to quantify.

#15 friendly_jacek

friendly_jacek

    Subaru Nut

  • Members
  • 644 posts
  • USA

Posted 03 January 2006 - 06:03 PM

I have no direct knowledge of rolling resistance with the tires youve chosen, but based on what I read on some of the hybrid discussions, some people claim they lost 5% in terms of fuel efficiency going from tires advertised as LRR vs conventional tires. As far as i know, none of your tires are advertised as LRR tires so I suspect the difference in rolling resistance among them is much smaller. so for a hybrid that gets 50 mpg, 5% is 2.5 mpg. if you take a subaru that gets half the mileage and maybe half the difference in resistance, you may be looking at 0.6 mpg difference among the tires, if even that much.

So if it REALLY comes down to a tie btween 2 or 3 tires- will a statistically insignificant difference in MPG really break the tie? But like I said, I don't have any direct knowledge about the LRR ratings on these tires. maybe the GY TT are gas hogs and suck 10% of fuel efficiency compared to the other tires on your list. if that's the case, if the TT were #1 on your list, that may be significant enough to drop them down to #2. But it's my suspicion, that there is no such published info, or any difference is mpg is difficult to quantify.


To add to the discussion, several weeks ago I called BFG and was told that the traction T/A tire is LRR rated.
I guess I believe that for 2 reasons: the tread is silica based and it is OEM tire on one of the korean SUVs (forgot which). As you all know, OEM tires are usually LRR to help with CAFE and this is why most OEM tires suck.

#16 suruba

suruba

    New User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 01:16 AM

To add to the discussion, several weeks ago I called BFG and was told that the traction T/A tire is LRR rated.
I guess I believe that for 2 reasons: the tread is silica based and it is OEM tire on one of the korean SUVs (forgot which). As you all know, OEM tires are usually LRR to help with CAFE and this is why most OEM tires suck.


That makes sense. I've heard that too (not saying that's the case with the BFGs) but it comes down to efficiency vs. traction. The key is to find the tire with the best compromise. And since there isn't any standardized published info from the manufacturers, you gotta go on word of mouth. And that, my friends, is a whole separate can of worms :) Sometimes reading reviews online, you wonder if people are talking about the same product (i.e. "quiet tire", "too noisy", "great on snow", "no traction", etc). I guess it all depends on driving style, car model, tire size and too many other variables. As the say, your mileage may vary (yes, pun intended :)

Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users