khomo to michlin energy saver swap

[moonmonkey]

i have over 6000 miles since the swap from a set of very bald kohmos (tire cords showing on two of them) so extremly worn out. i expected a drop in mileage from all i read about installing a brand new set of tires. didnt happen! from the first tank till present absolutely no drop. i think they might be helping just a little. i inflated both kohmos and michilens to 50 psi. after a few tens of thousands of miles the proof will be in the fuel logs i guess.

[2000mc]

Do you know what model kumho's were on it before?
I always like hearing tire feedback from those of you running higher mpgs where tire differences should show up more readily

[Baltothewolf]

Well, when I went from my 185/65R14 to 165/65R14 I went up 8mpg on the low side, and 15 on the high side. Tires make a huge, huge difference in mileage. Weight and RR I think play the biggest role, more so then actual tire size.

Edit: An example today, round trip going to work, on a good day when I hit all green lights I used get 51mpg max. Today, I got 54.7 and I wasn't even trying, hit most red lights and stopped to get something to eat.

[oldtamiyaphile]

I haven't used them recently, but at one point I had three cars on Kumho's (all dealer fitted) and they were all rubbish and frankly downright dangerous in the wet.

Not surprised that new Michellins beat/match them out of the box.

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by Baltothewolf

Well, when I went from my 185/65R14 to 165/65R14 I went up 8mpg on the low side, and 15 on the high side. Tires make a huge, huge difference in mileage. Weight and RR I think play the biggest role, more so then actual tire size.

Edit: An example today, round trip going to work, on a good day when I hit all green lights I used get 51mpg max. Today, I got 54.7 and I wasn't even trying, hit most red lights and stopped to get something to eat.

Are you correcting for the size difference? 10.8% reduction in actual miles driven.

[moonmonkey]

sorry 2000 , i dont remember the model of the kumhos, they were on the car from the dealership, they were ok tires as far as traction and wear , i got over 50 k out of them. but i love these energy saver a/s so far, ill post about them after a few more tens of thousands. of miles.

[moonmonkey]

ok i now have 30000 miles on the michilen energy saver a/s tires. i have seen a slight uptick in mpg's. But not the 3 or 4 mpg the tire articles say. i figure i am getting between one and two more mpg. But the tires are great! quiet,comfortable, and they still look new! no real noticable tread wear. after 30k miles, i will buy a new set of them if the car lasts that long.

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by Baltothewolf

Well, when I went from my 185/65R14 to 165/65R14 .......

Is this on your Mustang? If so, this could be dangerous. Overloaded tires have been known to fail. Watch them very closely. It takes only a couple hundred miles between the first signs of a tread separation to a catastrophic failure.

First signs = bulges or a vibration.

Catastrophic failure = the tread and top belt come off, damaging the fender area, sometimes losing inflation, and the vehicle could go out of control! People have been killed when a tire fails like this.

[user removed]

Those tires would be on the 1st gen Insight. OE Re92s in 165x65x14 on the Insight bumped the mpg by 7, almost exactly the opposite of what I experienced on my 1st gen VX when I replaced the original tires.

regards
mech

[cowmeat]

My old Insight Turtle (Dr. Horrible in its new life under my son's ownership) has Michelin Energy Savers on it, and my new Insight Ron Burgundy has OEM Potenza RE92s, and I honestly don't see a difference in mpg, feel, etc . . . . . and since my son and I keep swapping places in the top ten Hybrid slots, I don't think the tires do as much as some people claim, unless maybe they're swapping some off-size for OEM.