Best LRR tire for Diesel Chevy Cruze

[DieselCruze]

Hi folks, I made a post on this topic earlier this week and it never appeared, so I’m not sure if it was user error or if I missed a rule about new users. I thought I would try a different section since maybe I posted it in the wrong section. I have a 2018 diesel Chevy Cruze (manual gearbox) that I am getting ready to replace the tires on for the first time. I wouldn’t class myself as a hypermiler, but love my car’s economy and it’s important to me to keep it up … it’s more a personal challenge/pride thing than a money saving thing. So I’m overthinking my tire choice a bit. My issue is that all of the tire reviews for LRR tires basically don’t address any kind of economy rating or review for economy. It’s just vague corporate speak that I can’t weigh into any kind of comparison. Also a lot of them now say they are “EV rated,” and I’m not sure how that translates to what is optimal for my diesel. I’m leaning toward getting the same tire it came with, Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max, as I’ve had no complaints about them and love my fuel economy. However it’s been 5-6 years since those tires were made, and I have no idea if the product has changed for better or worse. I’m also open to trying a different tire if there is one that might do a bit better on mpg. The three I have narrowed it down to for my tire size of 205/55-16 are:

Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max
Michelin Energy Saver A/S
Bridgestone Ecopia EP422

Does anyone have any recent real-world input on the kind of fuel economy one can expect from any of these compared to the others, particularly on the highway? Has anyone had one and switched to another and seen an increase or gain in mpg? I realize this could vary based on tire size, but I’m hoping for some idea of if any one has a much better RRC than the others. So far I can only compare weight, tread width, and rotations per mile, and to be honest I don’t have the greatest understanding of how those translate to better economy. Cost-wise all three are at prices I am comfortable with. I don’t drive this particular car in snow/ice and can usually avoid driving in rain. When I do drive the car I am almost always on the highway or side roads (as opposed to stop/go). So the best fuel economy is really what’s driving my decision.

[Phase]

I had the energy savers stock with my Ioniq. They worked great. Eventually drove a lot of miles and wore out tread and needed to replace them. Switched to ecopias from Bridgestone. Don’t notice much of a diff in mpg between them. In the winter I use the super high rolling resistance Bridgestone blizzak snow tires. So the biggest jump is switching back and forth between ecopias and blizzaks. City driving is like a 6 mpg bump between those too. Handling and coasting is so much different. I’ve barely noticed a difference at highway speeds because aero drag kills mpg more than tires. I’d say it’s the same, but it’s hard to tell.

I’m actually changing my tires out in a week or two. Figured I’d be the first person on here ti actually do highway AB testing. Was going to do a high speed highway stretch mpg test with the winter tires. Go to Costco and switch tires out, then an hour later, go do the exact same stretch and record that mpg and see. City and country road driving is night and day between lrr tires and other tires. But I’m going to actually test steady state faster highway speeds because I want some solid numbers.

[Ecky]

Michelin is generally top of their class in most segments, including with rolling resistance - which is not to say there are no exceptions.

Check out some European "tyre" reviews, they often test rolling resistance as well, even on ultra high performance summer tires.

One example:




Don't take any single test as gospel though - these are measured results, and there will be some confounding environmental factors.

[Phase]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Michelin is generally top of their class in most segments, including with rolling resistance - which is not to say there are no exceptions.

Check out some European "tyre" reviews, they often test rolling resistance as well, even on ultra high performance summer tires.

One example:




Don't take any single test as gospel though - these are measured results, and there will be some confounding environmental factors.

The ecopias have even lower than the turanzas so that means ecopias are lower than energy savers. Bridgestone updates their ecopias to a gen 2 compound and improved treadlife and grip and better rolling resistance. Michelin has been riding the success of their first gen energy savers and haven’t really updated them. They are still really good. The difference between the two in the real world can be offset by hypermiling techniques. As for fast highway driving, I doubt the slight difference matters when aero becomes the biggest hit

[DieselCruze]

Thanks so much for the input, folks. Regarding the European ratings, something I wonder is, is a particular tire manufactured the same for Europe and the US? I know for a lot of products (car themselves) there are substantial differences between markets for different products, so I wonder how this applies to tires.

The point about highway speeds not being affected by LRR tires much is interesting too and makes me think maybe I don't need to stress quiet so much over this choice since the car is on the highway a lot. However, I do do a fair bit of side roads at 40-50 mph just to get to the highway, and I am thinking rolling resistance would come into play a lot there.

[Ecky]

It's possible the tires are manufactured differently, but often they seem to get different names as well. For instance, Pilot Sport vs Pilot Sport AS - the AS version uses a compound that better handles the wider temperature range of North America.

[JSH]

I've driven on the Ecopia in a 2nd gen Prius and 2016 Spark EV. Good fuel economy but poor traction particularly in the wet.

The Michelin Energy Savers were the stock tire on my 2017 Bolt. Again, good fuel economy but poor grip (but better than the Ecopia). They lasted 39,000 miles

(However, the better grip could have just been because Michelins (215/50R17) were several sizes larger and wider than the 185/65R15 Ecopias on the Prius)

[Phase]

Originally Posted by JSH

I've driven on the Ecopia in a 2nd gen Prius and 2016 Spark EV. Good fuel economy but poor traction particularly in the wet.

The Michelin Energy Savers were the stock tire on my 2017 Bolt. Again, good fuel economy but poor grip (but better than the Ecopia). They lasted 39,000 miles

(However, the better grip could have just been because Michelins (215/50R17) were several sizes larger and wider than the 185/65R15 Ecopias on the Prius)

was that the first gen ecopias or the gen 2 ecopias that came out around 2019 i believe?

bcause the ecopias i got last year completely blow the energy savers out of the water for wet grip. thats in portland rain and also florida thunderstorm flooding rain both. they even grip in the snow pretty well if its not a storm. did a few trips to timberline on mount hood with snowy roads and active snow early season and they wouldnt even drift on turns

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Phase

was that the first gen ecopias or the gen 2 ecopias that came out around 2019 i believe?

because the ecopias i got last year completely blow the energy savers out of the water for wet grip. thats in portland rain and also florida thunderstorm flooding rain both. they even grip in the snow pretty well if its not a storm. did a few trips to timberline on mount hood with snowy roads and active snow early season and they wouldnt even drift on turns

I bought the original Ecopia EP442 in 2012 for my Prius. The Ecopias on my 2016 Spark were a special tire just for the Spark with a compound that wore down to 4/32 tread depth in 6,000 miles. I replaced them with my favorite tire with a good blend of grip and fuel economy. BFGoodrich Advantage Sport A/S. Even going one size wider the miles / kWh only dropped 4% vs the Ecopia. Not great grip like the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 4 I have on the Bolt today but still good enough for most people.

I see the new Ecopia EP442 has a traction rating of A which is an improvement over the old version and the Michelin Energy Saver which are rated B. However, the 2 versions of Ecopia I've owned were so bad I have no incentive to spend $600 to test the new version.

Asphalt Rating
AA = 0.54 g or greater
A = 0.47 g
B = 0.38 g
C - less than 0.38 g

Concrete Rating
AA = 0.38 g or greater
A = 0.35 g
B = 0.26 g
C = less than 0.26 g

(G forces are measured locked at 40 mph on wet roads. it is an old and simple test that is basically only measuring the tire's compound)

[Phase]

Thank goodness my ecopias were only 350-400 bucks from Costco for a full set. Only bad reviews I’ve seen is the tread wears faster than Michelins