My original equipment Dunlop SP2's lasted 50k on my 06 HCH II. I read the Consumer Reports high rating on the Michelin X especially for rolling resistance and purchased them from Costco. After about 6k miles i have had about a 10-15% reduction in mileage which is very dissapointing since these tires were so highly rated. I replaced the Nitrogen that Costco filled the tires with back to regular air and have gone from recommended tire pressure to about 40PSI with no improvement. I do find that the ride quality, handling and wet weather traction is somewhat better than the Dunlop's but not at the tradeoff in mileage. At this point i think CR is just blowing smoke or that real world results and their 'rolling resistance' testing is flawed.

 

I think CR's ratings for rolling resistance are too "coarse". They rate the Michelin X and Harmony both at the top rated "excellent". But from forums I've read you can expect a drop in mileage going from the car manufacturer's OEM tires to either of these. Typically the OEM's are chosen specifically to get the best mileage, to improve the mileage claims. They also tend to be mediocre (to horrible) in wet/snow traction.

The tires a typical hybrid owner is seeking are still leading edge, better than a typical aftermarket all season, which aims to provide decent traction and ride but sacrifice some RR.

I've had Harmony's before, before I was paying attention to RR. My son currently has some X Radials. I think they're similar: decent, but not great, RR, and good all season traction.

Objective, finely incremented and up-to-date ratings are hard to find.

 

If not impossible. CR doesn't carry or rate Nokian tires which include some of the best LRR tires available. I just replaced a set of Nokian WR tires (186/65HR15) after 47,800 miles on my 2004 Prius. They were great for traction in all weather conditions, good handling and beat the OE Goodyear Integrity tires in my use by about 4% in MPG (beat my Michelin MXV4+ tires in MPG as well). The only downside was that the aggressive tread caused some extra noise.

I just started with the Nokian WRg2 tires (My 4th set of tires - now at 147,500 miles: GY-44.5k, Michelin-55k, Nokian WR-47.8k) which should be better than the older WRs in handling and road noise (first impression - much quieter), be the same in MPG, and lose a little in snow traction (still great in all other conditions) due to the less aggressive tread design. They cost me $530 installed (prices continue to rise).

JeffD

 

Nokians seem to be under the radar for a lot of reviewers.

I've just swapped back to our OEM Bridgestone Insignia SE200_02, from the Nokian WRG2 we got late last fall. Our mileage improved with this swap back by about 0.5 liters/100 km.

But to be fair, the WRG2 are a lot more sure footed (a virtual necessity in snow, compared to our worn OEM's), the weather was warming, and gas stations might have been switching to summer formulations.

The Nokian H and V both are claimed to be Low Rolling Resistance on Nokian web site, but there doesn't seem to be anybody doing a third party detailed testing of this, or any other make/model.

 

Mendel,

You need to adjust for revolutions/mile (per km?) to compare two different tires. The WRg2s 185/65HR15 are rated at 851 revs/mile (529 revs/km) when new (11/32 inch of tread-times 2, 24.4 inch diameter). You also have to adjust for the change in circumference as the tread wears (% decrease in diameter = % increase in MPG).

see:
http://www.nokiantires.com/files/nok...Technicals.pdf
for data on other size WRg2 tires.

Your worn OEs have significantly increased revs/mile (as well as improved rolling resistance due to thinner tread) from when they were new so this is NOT FAIR (but FAIR is a four letter word).

JeffD

 

Both our Nokian WRG2 and OEM Bridgestone Insignia SE200_02 were 195/65R15. I agree though, the OEM is obviously a bit smaller diameter now, so will be changing the odometer's estimation of distance travelled, and better rolling resistance than when it was new and deeper tread.

I ran it through AutoCAD: created a 25" diameter circle (roughly our tire OD), then offset it inward by 4/32" (roughly what our tire's have worn by, going from stock 9/32" to 5/32"), and listed the two circumferences. That works out to 78.5398" new, and 77.7544" worn. With new being 100%, the worn is 99%. It might be exactly 99%, not sure.