Archives




View Full Version : The spin on tires and fuel economy


atlaw4u
05-03-2008, 09:50 AM
Unwittingly choosing the wrong tires can hurt gas mileage. Unfortunately, no rating standard exists. (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garage3-2008may03,0,5514097.story)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/traffic.jpgKen Bensinger - The LA Times - May 3, 2008

William Lowry recently spent $500 to replace the tires on his Toyota Camry hybrid. The salesman said the Goodyear Regatta 2 tires were just as good as the Bridgestone Turanzas that came with the car. But it didn't take long for Lowry to notice that his fuel economy had fallen by five miles a gallon.

"I would have paid more for tires that get better mileage. Instead, I spent extra money for the privilege of spending more money on gas," said Lowry, a UCLA professor, who asked the tire dealer about fuel efficiency and was told all tires were the same.

In fact, when it comes to fuel consumption, not all tires are created equal. According to experts, efficiency can vary by as much as half from tire to tire, and can reduce fuel economy by 10% or more.

Yet consumers are in the dark about tire efficiency. With no standardized rating available, consumers often unwittingly choose tires that hurt fuel economy. Others who upgrade to oversize rims and low-profile tires -- which are known to increase fuel consumption -- may not realize what a price they're paying.

Both California and the federal government have passed laws to label tires by fuel efficiency, but little progress has been made in implementing them. And even as the $34-billion tire industry spends huge sums trying to improve the efficiency of its products, tire makers oppose setting minimum standards that could save billions of gallons of gas.

Adding to the confusion are automakers, which in the face of the tough new fuel economy mandates of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015 are pushing tire makers to produce more efficient tires yet at the same time are enlarging the size of wheels and tires on their vehicles for reasons of style.

"It's very confusing," said Susan Brown, senior policy advisor at the California Energy Commission, which is slowly implementing a 2003 law that would require tire efficiency labeling and establish an average efficiency standard for aftermarket tires. "With gas the price it is now, you'd think consumers would love to get more-efficient tires."

As tires roll, their shape constantly changes, and energy that could be used to power the car is lost as heat. Factors such as tread pattern, composition, weight, width and height contribute to that energy loss, known as rolling resistance. All told, about 20% of fuel is used to overcome rolling resistance, according to Dean Weeks, technical marketing manager at Michelin, which has marketed low-rolling-resistance tires for 15 years.

Tire efficiency took a leap forward with the advent of radial tires, and since then the use of new compounds and tread patterns has helped even more...http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garage3-2008may03,0,5514097.story

Arctic Fox
05-05-2008, 10:01 PM
Does anyone know how much impact there would be from having 16" tires over 15"? (Specifically in the 2009 Corolla, if that helps. The S model has larger tires.) It's supposed to somewhat hurt FE, correct? This isn't mentioned in Toyota's specs that I can see. And how about alloy vs. steel?

Elixer
05-06-2008, 12:22 AM
Does anyone know how much impact there would be from having 16" tires over 15"? (Specifically in the 2009 Corolla, if that helps. The S model has larger tires.) It's supposed to somewhat hurt FE, correct? This isn't mentioned in Toyota's specs that I can see. And how about alloy vs. steel?

It's actually quite likely they have the same "size" tires. What's different is the size of the rim. On the 16" rim they use a smaller width tire so the outside diameter is the same as for the 15" rim with the tire. The rolling resistance of the tires in this case will play the biggest role for FE. In general tires with a smaller width have slightly better FE, IIRC.

Aluminum alloy should be a bit lighter than steel, so it will reduce the weight of the car, and reduce the rotational momentum required to bring the car's wheels up to speed. So the alloy wheels should give slightly better FE. In most cases though this difference is about like adding or removing 25 to 50 lbs. from the car - unnoticeable except in very very precise FE calculations.

The real value to look at is the rolling resistance of the tire. Tires should be rated for rolling resistance, and the lower the better. This value will have a much more significant impact on FE compared to these other things.

PaleMelanesian
05-06-2008, 09:06 AM
Just give us some standard labeling and let the customers decide. I don't support any kind of minimum RRC standard. That's a dead duck out of the gate. ;) The manufacturers will make sure of that. Just let us make informed decisions and we'll vote with our wallets. Tires are already rated for traction, temperature, tread wear and loading. Why not RRC?

Arctic Fox
05-06-2008, 03:45 PM
It's actually quite likely they have the same "size" tires. What's different is the size of the rim. On the 16" rim they use a smaller width tire so the outside diameter is the same as for the 15" rim with the tire. The rolling resistance of the tires in this case will play the biggest role for FE. In general tires with a smaller width have slightly better FE, IIRC.

Aluminum alloy should be a bit lighter than steel, so it will reduce the weight of the car, and reduce the rotational momentum required to bring the car's wheels up to speed. So the alloy wheels should give slightly better FE. In most cases though this difference is about like adding or removing 25 to 50 lbs. from the car - unnoticeable except in very very precise FE calculations.

The real value to look at is the rolling resistance of the tire. Tires should be rated for rolling resistance, and the lower the better. This value will have a much more significant impact on FE compared to these other things.

I see, thanks. :)

Shrek
05-07-2008, 02:01 AM
What a surprise! What a downturn...

I changed to summer tires, and my rolling performance seems to be poorer!
From ContiContact 2 studless lammel to dunlop 'sport 200E'.

Those dunlop's are even extra worn on the edges from my 'pre 51-psi years' and have a more rounded cross-section than stock.

Improbcat
05-07-2008, 08:55 AM
If there isn't any standard or labeling, how are people finding the LRR tires that are suggested as one of the ways to up FE?

PaleMelanesian
05-07-2008, 09:10 AM
There are a couple studies from a few years ago. If the tires listed are still available, they're good choices. Look in our Files section.

Also, whatever is OEM on hybrid cars - those tend to be the best available.

-mr. bill
05-07-2008, 09:28 AM
In the end I found I had only one choice. Without labeling, everything else is a gamble.

Honda standard OE tires are generally LRR. So too Toyota. Some other manufacturers as well.

So I replaced my tires with another set of standard OE tires. If you go to TireRack they actually have a "View Original Equipment Tires" button to make this easy. But I bought my replacements slightly used from another Honda owner, and dumped the savings into lighter wheels.

Other than that, due diligence can get you a SWAG. Consumer Reports has some recent tests, but even with the same tire manufacturer and the same tire model, the RR from one size to another can be dramatically different, so it's still a SWAG. And once the data ages a bit, the SWAG factor gets bigger.

Trying to find LRR data for winter tires? Good luck.

-mr. bill

Improbcat
05-07-2008, 09:51 AM
huh. Now I'm wondering how much the Yokohamas on my xB are hurting my FE. They've got tons of tread and a new set of OEM tires would go for over $300 so I won't be swapping them out soon. But it is definitely something to think about come next tire change.

Sadly the Goodyear Infinity Tires the Prius uses aren't sold in the right size for the xB.



Copyright 2006 Clean MPG, LLC. All Rights Reserved.