14" LRR tire size selection

[PaleMelanesian]

I can tell you that the Goodyear Fuelmax is worth something. Better mileage in the van than the original Symmetrys, themselves LRR tires. Easily 5% better on the highway. Given that they sell for a similar price, the choice is clear to me.

[2000mc]

Originally Posted by cbaber

I tend to stay away from the LRR tire hype. Is it really economical to spend extra money on a tire that adds 5% to your fuel economy? The additional cost that comes with most LRR tires, and the reduced performance and tread life all but doom these tires in my opinion.

Pick a tire that has a long lifespan, 60,000+ miles. Go to tirerack.com and read the reviews. Pick a tire that will do what you need it to do, in the conditions that you drive in.

I chose the Kumho Solus KR21's. Not only did I get them at a great price, they are rated at 80,000 miles. If you pick a set of LRR tires that last 40,000 miles you paid more than me, plus you will need to buy 2 sets in the same time I bought 1. There is no way the 5% fuel savings is going to make up for that price difference.

5% would make a difference

tire rack thinks you would have 185/65/14s, so im going with that.
in that size there are the bridgestone b381, goodyear fuelmax, and michelin defenders.
the b381s have no treadlife warranty and have poor ratings on tire rack, so its hard to make a case for them
the michelins are ranked #1 in the same category that the KR21 is ranked #8, and are rated for 90k mi, so a case could be made w/o even including the fact that they are LRR

so i think the best comparison would be between the goodyear fuelmax (rated 10 of 24 on tirerack) and the kumho kr21's(rated 8 of 22 on tirerack)

make a few assumptions and plug in the numbers....
assuming you get 5% better fuel economy with LRR tires (40 vs 42mpg)
assuming the tires last exactly as long as warrantied (65k fuelmax, 80k kr21)
assuming fuel is $3.50/gal
assuming $50 mount+balance
assuming todays price on tire rack
4 kr21's ($61 = 244)plus mount 294
4 fuelmax ($92 = 368)plus mount 418
fuel for 80k at 40mpg w/3.50/gal = 7000
fuel for 65k at 42mpg w/3.50/gal = 5417
294+7000=7294 /80 = $91.18 per 1k mi for tires and fuel for kr21
418+5417=5835 /65 = $89.77 per 1k mi for tires and fuel for fuelmax

[cbaber]

It is possible to actually save money over the life of the tire. With your math, at 65,000 miles when it is time to replace the Goodyear's, the person who bought the LRR tires would have spent $5835 vs the KR21's which cost $5927. That is a difference of $92.

But.... For that to work out you need to achieve the 5% mpg increase the entire lifetime of the tire. Assuming both drivers drive the average 14,000 miles per year, its going to take you 4 and a half years to reach that $92 savings. And, by choosing to pick a tire based on whether it was LRR, you limit your choices drastically. On TireRack for our example size 185/65/14, there are 4 choices for LRR tires. For non-LRR tires there are 10 choices that are cheaper than the cheapest LRR tire and many more choices after that. That brings me to my main point, which is that by putting the fuel economy blinders on you risk overlooking a tire that is actually better at being a tire. After all, safety comes before fuel economy. Every car and every driver are different which is why no one tire suits everyone. Instead of having the mindset that since we want optimal mpg and we can only purchase LRR tires, we should be looking for the tires (LRR or not) that best satisfy our cars and our driving conditions' needs.

Side note: When I went looking for tires I bought a different than stock size for my car because I have aftermarket wheels. That was a year ago and the prices and selection are different. Looking at the selection in the stock size I would have chosen the michelin LRR tires hands down due to high mileage warranty and high reviews.

[CapriRacer]

A word of caution:

LRR is a relative term, not an absolute term. What it means is 'compared to tires with similar treadwear and traction characteristics, the LRR tire will deliver better fuel economy.

The basic principle is that treadwear,, traction, and rolling resistance form a technology triangle. To get better values in one area, one (or both) of the other areas have to be sacrificed.

HOWEVER, some small changes can be made to this triangle by advances in rubber chemistry - which is what the "LRR" is trying to point out. But those changes are small compared to the changes available from the triangle.

So let's see how this work.

The Bridgestone B381 is reported to be have extremely low rolling resistance. It's UTQG rating is 260 A B. The reports are that it has traction AND wear issues - although Tire Rack's survey doesn't seem to support his.

The Goodyear ComforTred is rated 700 A B. Interestingly, the surveys don't say it is delivering much better wear. (7.5 vs 7.1) However, it is clear the traction is better - even though the UTQG traction ratings are the same!

The Michelin Defender is rated 820 A B. But since it is in a different category, you have to be careful about the survey ratings. However, the tire is rated very highly for both treadwear and traction (even though it also has the same traction rating as both the ComforTred and the B381.)

So be very careful trying to do this math. The true RR values are unknown - and LRR doesn't mean what is appears to mean.

[hawk2100n]

I got a set of Michelin Defenders for under 400 installed at Sam's Club with road hazard warranty and lifetime balanced. They are nice tires, quieter than my last set although my car is still rather loud inside however that's just the car. They had one of the highest ratings on tirerack and I haven't read anything negative about them. The other thing is that over 90k miles on one set you could easily wear out 2 sets of other tires saving hundreds.

[kaiba]

The defender are great. Smooth ride, quite tires and handle extremely well when pushing it to the limited.

[hat_man]

It looks like the Defenders are a good choice but the two folks on here that like them live in California and Florida. No snow there. Does anyone here have any idea how they handle in the snow? Just your average 3"-4" or so. Not much handles well in 6"+ lol. 90k miles tread life must be a rather hard compound.

[sully06]

I love em but no snow here in MS

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by cbaber

I tend to stay away from the LRR tire hype. Is it really economical to spend extra money on a tire that adds 5% to your fuel economy? The additional cost that comes with most LRR tires, and the reduced performance and tread life all but doom these tires in my opinion.

In a recent test of new European 195/65/15 tyres, the Michelin Energy Saver PLUS came out near the top as one of the most fuel efficient tyres AND the longest wearing tyre.

Kumho Solus KH17 came second in the wear category.
But performed worse in many other test categories ...

While you can get marginally better fuel consumption than with the Michelin, with Goodyear (Efficient Grip PERFORMANCE) or Dunlop tyres (BluResponse), you'll pay for it with a much reduced tyre life (2/3 of the Michelin).

Compared to the Michelin, the Kumho is worse in the FC department by as much as the Goodyear/Dunlop (non-identical) twins are better than the Michelin

But that's just in that one size ... and here, size DOES matter.
You can get the "same" tyre in a slightly different dimension, and it may perform a lot different !

I've picked oversized (+3.4%) , higher load rated (88 instead of 82) tyres because they have a lower RR than my up!'s normal tyre size.
They also have a faster speed rating (H instead of T), and handle better.

[PaleMelanesian]

For the record, Michelin internally rates the Defenders 8/10 for fuel economy. The old Destiny tires were rated 7/10.

This car was wearing Destiny's most of the miles charted here: