# New LRR Tires - 2012 ECO MT



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

My only complaint about the OEM Goodyears Assurance Fuel Max tires is wet traction. Have you looked at the Continental TrueContact? They have very positive reviews, and they topped their TireRack test results in fuel economy by a significant margin. I've been leaning heavily towards them as replacements for my OEM Goodyears.

ContinentalÂ*TrueContact


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

BowtieGuy,

I just checked those tires. If they were V speed rated I'd add them to my list. I don't want to drop below the OEM speed rating for my car. Yes, I'll probably never push even the T (112 MPH) rating, but speed and load ratings also assume that you're running the tire at max sidewall PSI and both drop off as you lower the pressure.

I should have made that note in my opening post.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Mike, 

I don't know if the Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus meets your criteria. It's a notably heavier tire than the OEM goodyear tire by about 6 pounds, but does have 12/32" of tread that likely explains that the weight difference, since the OE tires have only 9/32". I haven't really researched whether or not they are a true LRR tire, and can't validly comment on the fuel economy since I ran a 235 width, but I figured I'd mention them to see if they would meet your requirements. V rated and a 51psi max pressure. 

BridgestoneÂ*Turanza Serenity Plus


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Thanks Andrei.

Bowtie Guy, wet traction isn't a big issue in Colorado and I did drive my ECO through some seriously hard rains with the OEM tires and didn't have an issue. I really did like those tires, but one tire dry rotted out on me.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Supposedly the PureContact is a LRR tire that comes in V-rating. Worth reading some reviews as to whether or not it is. I really like mine, and the mileage is pretty much exactly what I saw before. Great in snow, great in wet weather...but they ride stiffly. More stiffly than the Goodyears, I don't know...been a while since I drove an Eco.

The Turanzas are at the bottom of the list of popular tires for snow traction.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Oh, Michelins - I don't much care for the Energy Saver (not great traction even on dry roads - they squeal quite easily and fight for grip in corners), but the Premier is decent. As the tread wears down on the Premiers, they uncover new sipes in the tread so that they (supposedly) maintain good grip in snow and wet conditions even at 3/32" of tread.

My parents have a set on one car - my limited driving with it says they're a little bit noisier than the MXV4, but I think they do most other things better.


----------



## DECruzer (Jul 19, 2015)

This might be a dumb question and not sure if anyone actually knows with factual information, but how much does a LRR vs non really affect fuel mileage? So if you went with a non-LRR tire, would you notice a fuel mileage decrease?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

DECruzer said:


> This might be a dumb question and not sure if anyone actually knows with factual information, but how much does a LRR vs non really affect fuel mileage? So if you went with a non-LRR tire, would you notice a fuel mileage decrease?


Probably 1-1.5 MPG on an efficient car.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=171


*Tire Line**Test
MPG***Gallons/Year
@ 15,000 Miles**% vs. Most Efficient*Bridgestone Potenza RE97AS30.0500.0-2.33%Continental PureContact w/Eco Plus30.7488.6--Michelin Primacy MXV430.2496.7-1.66%Pirelli Cinturato P7 All-Season Plus30.6490.2-0.33%


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

DECruzer said:


> This might be a dumb question and not sure if anyone actually knows with factual information, but how much does a LRR vs non really affect fuel mileage? So if you went with a non-LRR tire, would you notice a fuel mileage decrease?


Excellent question. From my experience with my ECO MT I'd say there is a noticeable difference. The OEM tires made 50 MPG relatively easy for me. I can coax my current Perelli P7's to 50 MPG but I have to constantly think about my driving to do this. I've seen reviews of some other so called LRR tires that are only LRR when compared to other tires by the same manufacturer but not when compared to LRR tires from other manufacturers.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Supposedly the PureContact is a LRR tire that comes in V-rating. Worth reading some reviews as to whether or not it is. I really like mine, and the mileage is pretty much exactly what I saw before. Great in snow, great in wet weather...but they ride stiffly. More stiffly than the Goodyears, I don't know...been a while since I drove an Eco.
> 
> The Turanzas are at the bottom of the list of popular tires for snow traction.


Continental PureContact with EcoPlus added. Thanks.


----------



## DECruzer (Jul 19, 2015)

obermd said:


> Excellent question. From my experience with my ECO MT I'd say there is a noticeable difference. The OEM tires made 50 MPG relatively easy for me. I can coax my current Perelli P7's to 50 MPG but I have to constantly think about my driving to do this. I've seen reviews of some other so called LRR tires that are only LRR when compared to other tires by the same manufacturer but not when compared to LRR tires from other manufacturers.


Interesting. I recently replaced the 2nd set of tires on our Honda CR-V with a LRR from Continental (CrossContact LX20 w/Ecoplus). Fuel mileage went down. Previous tires were non-LRR from Michelin (Latitude Touring). Go figure!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

DECruzer said:


> Interesting. I recently replaced the 2nd set of tires on our Honda CR-V with a LRR from Continental (CrossContact LX20 w/Ecoplus). Fuel mileage went down. Previous tires were non-LRR from Michelin (Latitude Touring). Go figure!


Like I said, manufacturers are comparing their LRR tires to their own products. There is unfortunately no standard for cross manufacturer comparisons. The PureContact's that jblackburn mentioned are getting reports on DiscountTire.com as being up to 10% less efficient than the OEM Goodyear FuelMax tires that came on my ECO MT, but they're still considered fuel efficient by Continental.


----------



## zen_ (Mar 15, 2015)

The only tire CR rated excellent in rolling resistance in the V rated category was the P7, but the Fuel Max tires were not tested in the V rating, only the H, which was also excellent. Hard to know how accurate that is though when they don't publish the raw data, and it seemed be measured by a dyno rather than real world. Also, how rolling resistance is measured on a dyno is something I am curious about. 

Not sure if your interest in rolling resistance is more for the hypermiling challenge, or economic reasons, but I did just get rid of non-Fuel Max Assurance tires that had 20-30% tread left on them because I felt wet grip was unacceptable. If the Michelin Premier tires come anywhere close to their rated tread life, and the emerging grooves as they call them maintain good performance through the second half of the tread life, I would think that would be the best tire for the $ over the long haul. They cost a lot up front through, and some buyers have complained about a droning noise over certain road surfaces.

Also, the Nexen tires I just got were not stated anywhere to be LRR, but the same CR test rated them excellent (in H, not the V I bought)...so I think you're right that LRR is something manufactures use to compare their own products, or stick a woohoo greenwashing badge on the tire.


----------



## ssnscruzeeco2015 (Dec 29, 2014)

I recall an earlier discussion, where we determined that Goodyear had 3 products in the Fuelmax line and the OEM tire was 4 pounds lighter than the others, with just 2/32 less depth but an inch narrower tread width. I have 37000 Km on them now and will likely get the same ones when these wear out, because the fact they are lighter and capable of handling the car within my driving habits. I have always found that having superior tires only enables you to catch up to the guys on the highway with banana skins a little faster, then you become a proud follower with awesome tires that you wasted an extra 400+ dollars on, but I also live in a province where 90% of the highways are only 2 lanes.

Wet grip upon braking is my worry, and I am not sure how they are WRT their peers.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

obermd said:


> Excellent question. From my experience with my ECO MT I'd say there is a noticeable difference. The OEM tires made 50 MPG relatively easy for me. I can coax my current Perelli P7's to 50 MPG but I have to constantly think about my driving to do this. I've seen reviews of some other so called LRR tires that are only LRR when compared to other tires by the same manufacturer but not when compared to LRR tires from other manufacturers.


was speedo and odo accurate with the new tires vs OG tires?


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

https://www.nokiantires.com/summer-tires/nokian-entyre/#
https://www.nokiantires.com/all-season-tires/nokian-entyre-20/

have no experience with these models.

i have nokian studded LRR tires....i get the same mpg winter and summer...it SHOULD be less in winter, right? with winter fuel, winter temps, snow and slush roads...but my mpg is consistent year round, all the info is in my fuelly, avg speeds per tank, etc....are the tires making up for it???

would also guess they would be more expensive than other tires, something else to factor in.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

boraz said:


> was speedo and odo accurate with the new tires vs OG tires?


The P7's have the same outer diameter as the OEM Goodyears - making them read the same. TireRack comparison charts show revolutions per mile and I think it was less than 10 difference between the two.


----------



## weimerrj (Dec 4, 2011)

The OEMs are priced well, the car is designed for them, and you can get a $60 rebate until the end of the month - which pays for the installation cost if you buy from Tirerack and ship to your local tire place. Beats everyone else local near me by close to $100 all told, even with shipping.

I like the TrueContact and PureContact, but they're impossible to find locally (can't compare prices) and there is no rebate or discount on them right now. Perhaps I'll wait for a better offer at Tirerack.


----------



## weimerrj (Dec 4, 2011)

:Update: Found PureContact V-rated at Sears for $602 installed, which is ~$25 better than Tirerack/ship. GY Fuelmax was $717, about $200 more than Tirerack/ship ($516 now, $576 next month).


----------



## zen_ (Mar 15, 2015)

weimerrj said:


> :Update: Found PureContact V-rated at Sears for $602 installed, which is ~$25 better than Tirerack/ship.


I recently had a very good experience with TireBuyer.com. From what I understand, it's the retail side of a large tire distributor (American Tire Distributors) that many tire shops buy from anyway. Pretty good prices with free shipping to start with, plus there's usually coupons floating on the Internet for another 5-9% off. Downside is you're not going to get free rotations unless the installer includes that in their cut.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

From my limited research on what tires we will put on the car once the factory Fuel Max's are done, I was leaning towards the Michelin Energy Saver. 

An old test, but it appears to have the best fuel economy tested. Tire Test Results : When Round and Black Becomes Lean and Green

And based on TR's performance rating, it has similar/better dry/wet characteristics as the Fuel Max's. We have winter tires, so I don't care about garbage snow traction.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

MP81 said:


> From my limited research on what tires we will put on the car once the factory Fuel Max's are done, I was leaning towards the Michelin Energy Saver.
> 
> An old test, but it appears to have the best fuel economy tested. Tire Test Results : When Round and Black Becomes Lean and Green
> 
> And based on TR's performance rating, it has similar/better dry/wet characteristics as the Fuel Max's. We have winter tires, so I don't care about garbage snow traction.


Michelin all day!!! Only tire to buy for 3 seasons.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Dammit, now I'm not seeing those in a 215/55R17 anymore.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

You know - tire decisions were a lot easier before adding fuel efficiency requirements. Fuel efficiency and road "stickiness" tend to be opposing requirements.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Generally. My ZIIs knocked a few points off my Cobalt's fuel economy, at least on the highway. In the city, it's not much different from the lighter 15" steelie/195/60R15 all-season combo.


----------



## BradSt (May 2, 2013)

I went through the same thing, and decided on the NON OEM Fuel Max tires, last year. I've put about 15k miles on them, and I feel that the wet traction is better than the OEM version. I had the tire shop order both sets of Fuel Max tires in, so I could see them side by side. The OEM ones had harder tread in the center, than the other ones, and one less ply in the tread. It probably makes them roll even easier. I wanted to try something different, so went with the 4 pound heavier ones. Ride seems about the same, but it is hard to say, with how crappy the roads are around here. For the price I paid, it was tough to go with anything other than the Fuel Maxes.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

BradSt said:


> I went through the same thing, and decided on the NON OEM Fuel Max tires, last year. I've put about 15k miles on them, and I feel that the wet traction is better than the OEM version. I had the tire shop order both sets of Fuel Max tires in, so I could see them side by side. The OEM ones had harder tread in the center, than the other ones, and one less ply in the tread. It probably makes them roll even easier. I wanted to try something different, so went with the 4 pound heavier ones. Ride seems about the same, but it is hard to say, with how crappy the roads are around here. For the price I paid, it was tough to go with anything other than the Fuel Maxes.


How's the fuel economy on the non-OEM FuelMax?


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

i still got a couple years before i have to replace the stock tires, i'll figure out the price per mile on them then and compare to a set of used tires at a big discount (incl the 0-5mpg hit on them)...ive seen lotsa good deals on this size tire, i'll save that way


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

boraz said:


> i still got a couple years before i have to replace the stock tires, i'll figure out the price per mile on them then and compare to a set of used tires at a big discount (incl the 0-5mpg hit on them)...ive seen lotsa good deals on this size tire, i'll save that way


At least in the US, the OEM tires run at least $20 less each than the next decent LRR tire on the market.


----------



## spaycace (Feb 9, 2012)

obermd said:


> My Perelli P7s are running down to about 3.5-4/32" now so I'm starting the new tire search. At this point they're starting to get slightly squirrely on the highway and not giving me the consistent feel they had earlier.
> 
> I'm looking for a good LRR tire that truly is LRR. A lot of the so-called LRR tires, once you start reading the reviews, are only LRR in comparison to other tires from the same manufacturer and frankly, really aren't that efficient. Perelli is out of running because the Chinese government bought the company about a year and a half ago. OK - it was a Chinese company but they did it with about 80% financing from the Chinese government. I won't knowingly purchase anything from China because of their proven lack of quality control.
> 
> ...


It's odd that you've had bad luck with the Michelins ... as I purposely got rid of the OE goodyears on my Volt for Michelin Premier A/S tires, which are available in the V speed rating and it's what I'm currently running on my Volt. I haven't had any problems in snow at any time while driving, but when you get to ice ... pretty much only 2 tires worth having: Winter specific tires or those with studs.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spaycace said:


> It's odd that you've had bad luck with the Michelins ... as I purposely got rid of the OE goodyears on my Volt for Michelin Premier A/S tires, which are available in the V speed rating and it's what I'm currently running on my Volt. I haven't had any problems in snow at any time while driving, but when you get to ice ... pretty much only 2 tires worth having: Winter specific tires or those with studs.


I seem to be in a serious minority when it comes to Michelins, but given my past history with them they'll be a tough sell.


----------



## zen_ (Mar 15, 2015)

Michelins do come with a 30 day guarantee if you're not satisfied, although I'm not sure if replacement of "equal or lesser value" means you get a cheaper set of Michelins (which ones?). Continental offers a similar guarantee.


----------



## jmlo96 (May 2, 2015)

obermd said:


> I seem to be in a serious minority when it comes to Michelins, but given my past history with them they'll be a tough sell.


My family has had issues with Michelins as well, seemingly more than any other brand. My dad used to buy Michelins for our Town & Country and the Cherokee, and they would always break belts. When he bought his 14 Grand Cherokee, it had Michelin Latitudes. He said they were the worst tire he has ever had for the snow. If there was even a dusting of snow, his Jeep would be all over the place. We replaced them with Firestone Destination LE2s and have not had any more issues. The last set of Michelin's that were on the T&C, and they made it about 15 thousand miles (90k rated) before they were pretty well shot. I think the thing that really was bad about them was that after 2 years the tires were all starting to crack like they were dry-rotted.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

I might lean towards the Goodyear OEM tires. I have the Turanza Serenity Plus on my sons 05 Vibe and they work well for his car. I find it interesting that Original Speed rating of V for a Cruze of any sorts, that's a max speed rating of 149mph, I could see myself going 150 in a Corvette on a track somewhere, but I cant see myself going 150 Mph anywhere in a Cruze if it is even possible. I always try and put OEM specs on tires on car as well but 150 for a Cruze is bit much, just my thoughts.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

Oh my last set of Michelins were 90k mile tires on my sons Vibe, in 2.5 years and 43k miles they were nearly worn out and checked very badly, they did warranty the tires and we got back like $75 a tire, but I was very disappointed in them. They wore evenly, but got noisy and were down to 4/32 tread way to quickly.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

IndyDiesel said:


> I might lean towards the Goodyear OEM tires. I have the Turanza Serenity Plus on my sons 05 Vibe and they work well for his car. I find it interesting that Original Speed rating of V for a Cruze of any sorts, that's a max speed rating of 149mph, I could see myself going 150 in a Corvette on a track somewhere, but I cant see myself going 150 Mph anywhere in a Cruze if it is even possible. I always try and put OEM specs on tires on car as well but 150 for a Cruze is bit much, just my thoughts.


Not just about max speed rating.

A "V" rated tire has a stiffer sidewall than H, T, or S-rated tires, and typically handles better.

I went from a S-rated tire to a V on the Cruze and the handling difference chucking it into a corner is phenomenal.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Not just about max speed rating.
> 
> A "V" rated tire has a stiffer sidewall than H, T, or S-rated tires, and typically handles better.
> 
> I went from a S-rated tire to a V on the Cruze and the handling difference chucking it into a corner is phenomenal.


Very Good Point. S tires are for retirees tho....smiles


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

IndyDiesel said:


> Very Good Point. S tires are for retirees tho....smiles


And rental cars. Probably why they put em on the base model Cruzes


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

IndyDiesel said:


> I might lean towards the Goodyear OEM tires. I have the Turanza Serenity Plus on my sons 05 Vibe and they work well for his car. I find it interesting that Original Speed rating of V for a Cruze of any sorts, that's a max speed rating of 149mph, I could see myself going 150 in a Corvette on a track somewhere, but I cant see myself going 150 Mph anywhere in a Cruze if it is even possible. I always try and put OEM specs on tires on car as well but 150 for a Cruze is bit much, just my thoughts.


The next speed rating down is H (130 MPH) and that's what was on the 2011 ECO MT until Road and Track exceeded 130 MPH on their test track. I really don't think the engineers & marketing at Chevy realized just how fast a Cruze ECO MT could go or what sort of fuel economy it could get at two lane highway speeds. We've seen a few changes in the ECO line that indicate the car is more capable than originally thought.


----------



## carbon02 (Feb 25, 2011)

Wow- Road & Track actually had a Cruze up to 130 MPH? Most GM service manuals I have read mention speed limiters around 90 MPH. Even the Intrigue had Goodyear Eagle sport tires H or V rated, yet had a fuel shutoff at 95MPH if I recall. 

Those performance tires wore terribly. 
Is a higher speed rated tire typically softer rubber? I think that's how the "handling performance is obtained".

I haven't looked that closely, but I believe the 1LT is T rated. I'm watching this tread, as I'll need new tires next fall. We had a really nice winter this year. Otherwise the factory Firestones would have been thrown.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

carbon02 said:


> Wow- Road & Track actually had a Cruze up to 130 MPH? Most GM service manuals I have read mention speed limiters around 90 MPH. Even the Intrigue had Goodyear Eagle sport tires H or V rated, yet had a fuel shutoff at 95MPH if I recall.
> 
> Those performance tires wore terribly.
> Is a higher speed rated tire typically softer rubber? I think that's how the "handling performance is obtained".
> ...


Someone posted the raw run sheets from R&T, but it disappeared. I did see the sheet and should have downloaded it when I did. I have yet to drive a GM that couldn't hit triple digits but I understand the 2016 Volt is limited to 98 MPH. My Fiero GT had Goodyear Eagle GT V-rated tires - absolutely the worst tires for traction I've ever ridden, but the car was rock stable from about 105 to the red-line above 137 MPH (yep, I was young and stupid at one time as well)

Handling performance can be improved a variety of ways. V rated tires tend to have stiffer sidewalls giving the driver more consistent and predictable lateral handling. They also used to have softer rubber, but hard rubber can now be made sticky as well - witness the growing number of good performing tires with 70K mile and longer tread wear lifespans.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

obermd said:


> The next speed rating down is H (130 MPH) and that's what was on the 2011 ECO MT until Road and Track exceeded 130 MPH on their test track. I really don't think the engineers & marketing at Chevy realized just how fast a Cruze ECO MT could go or what sort of fuel economy it could get at two lane highway speeds. We've seen a few changes in the ECO line that indicate the car is more capable than originally thought.


I may have had my 14 Eco up to 95 a couple times, as I get a little older speed doesn't seem as fun as it did when I was younger. If I am going to go fast I prefer to have a car that was designed for higher speed.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> They also used to have softer rubber, but hard rubber can now be made sticky as well - witness the growing number of good performing tires with 70K mile and longer tread wear lifespans.


Michelin Pilot Super Sports are a great example here - they are one of the best performance tires out there, yet they don't wear away immediately either.

Unexpectedly, neither do my Direzza ZII, despite being even stickier than a PSS, and having a 200-treadwear rating. I'll be on my third year with them when I put them back on in the spring. I've heard the ZII Star Specs wear much faster, though.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Out of curiosity to the OP. why not swap to a lighter weight rim and make up the tire weight difference with rim.

i know the eco have the lightest rims of the line up but there has to be a rim manufacturer out there with a lighter rim that can help offset weight. im at 8k miles and am saving up for a set of O.z. superturismo lm. they are 22 lbs. or the ultra leggara at 19lbs each. ill take 3 lbs more for a better looking rim


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> Out of curiosity to the OP. why not swap to a lighter weight rim and make up the tire weight difference with rim.
> 
> i know the eco have the lightest rims of the line up but there has to be a rim manufacturer out there with a lighter rim that can help offset weight. im at 8k miles and am saving up for a set of O.z. superturismo lm. they are 22 lbs. or the ultra leggara at 19lbs each. ill take 3 lbs more for a better looking rim


One - I like the ECO Rims. Two, I'll have to purchase tires anyway before Lordstown. I don't like driving on tires with less than 4/32" even in the summer. Also, I'm not positive that overall weight of the tire/rim combination plays a big a role in my fuel economy as the rolling resistance does. I spend a lot of time on the freeway so I'm not having to deal with start/stop traffic where extra weight plays a bigger role in overall efficiency.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> I haven't looked that closely, but I believe the 1LT is T rated. I'm watching this tread, as I'll need new tires next fall. We had a really nice winter this year. Otherwise the factory Firestones would have been thrown.


Mine were S, but curiously, when I had to replace one, Firestone doesn't sell/stock anything lower than a T.

I also noticed that the non-OEM FR710 has a LOT deeper tread that wears more slowly than the other 3 tires on the car.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

obermd said:


> One - I like the ECO Rims. Two, I'll have to purchase tires anyway before Lordstown. I don't like driving on tires with less than 4/32" even in the summer. Also, I'm not positive that overall weight of the tire/rim combination plays a big a role in my fuel economy as the rolling resistance does. I spend a lot of time on the freeway so I'm not having to deal with start/stop traffic where extra weight plays a bigger role in overall efficiency.


I will admit i am very jealous of the ECO rims vs my ugly Diesel rims. yah i understand that it wont be a huge part of highway fuel efficiency but im sure it would help. plus isent the primary design of LRR is to reduce rotational mass?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> plus isent the primary design of LRR is to reduce rotational mass?


No. It's to reduce rolling resistance of the rubber on the road, making the engine have to work slightly less to maintain highway speeds. 

I think I can actually tell a difference between the P7's and the OEM Turanzas on this other car at speed. It's easier to speed in without realizing, and it coasts better when letting off the gas pedal (used to decel sharply).


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

ok but wouldn't reducing the weight of the wheel and tire help the motor waste less energy trying to spin the tire and keep it spinning just the same as the tire being able to reduce the rolling resistance from contact with pavement?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> ok but wouldn't reducing the weight of the wheel and tire help the motor waste less energy trying to spin the tire and keep it spinning just the same as the tire being able to reduce the rolling resistance from contact with pavement?


Sure, when accelerating.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> I will admit i am very jealous of the ECO rims vs my ugly Diesel rims.


I'm still not entirely sure why the stock diesel wheels weigh so much in comparison to the ECO wheels.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> ok but wouldn't reducing the weight of the wheel and tire help the motor waste less energy trying to spin the tire and keep it spinning just the same as the tire being able to reduce the rolling resistance from contact with pavement?


Rolling resistance is the larger factor on the highway.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> Rolling resistance is the larger factor on the highway.


Yes. Wheel weight is more of a factor when overcoming static friction to begin rolling. The kinematic (moving) coefficient of friction is much lower, so wheel weight plays less into effect there.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Another reason to go with V rated tires - given the same rubber tread compound, stiffer sidewalls have lower rolling resistance. A large part of the rolling resistance actually comes from sidewall flex.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

They're also more confident/stable to turn in a corner, especially at elevated speeds.

Win/Win.


----------



## BradSt (May 2, 2013)

obermd said:


> How's the fuel economy on the non-OEM FuelMax?


Forgot to include that...I honestly couldn't tell the difference. In warm weather (no A/C), I consistently average about 41mpg, every tank (about 40 when running A/C). My drive is pretty consistent every day. Mileage goes down to about 38-39, once cold weather hits. None of this changed with the different tires. It then goes down to about 37-38, when I mount up my XIce3 snows...just for reference.


----------



## BradSt (May 2, 2013)

MP81 said:


> I'm still not entirely sure why the stock diesel wheels weigh so much in comparison to the ECO wheels.


Diesel has a higher GVWR, so the wheels needed to be rated to carry more weight, also they are a casting, not a forging. The GVWR is also why the diesel has bigger hubs.


And in regards to an ECO top speed...the newer ones are limited to 135.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

some one needs to tell GM forging is stronger then casting, then again bean counters dictate to use cheaper casting


----------



## BradSt (May 2, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> some one needs to tell GM forging is stronger then casting, then again bean counters dictate to use cheaper casting


Yep...they didn't need the higher dollar forged Alcoas to meet their target fuel economy numbers.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

So I've made my decision - back to the OEM tires for me. There were a variety of factors in play here, but fuel economy, my driving style, and the actual amount of snow I have to deal with were all part of the decision. I probably would have stayed with the Perellis except the Chinese government now owns Perelli.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> I probably would have stayed with the Perellis except the Chinese government now owns Perelli.












So back with the Fuel-Maxes then?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Ordered them from Discount Tire yesterday for installation the morning of the 19th.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

The factory tread-depth ones?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

MP81 said:


> The factory tread-depth ones?


Yes.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Good to know. Unless I find something that is pretty much certain to be lighter and rated better on the fuel economy end, we'll probably get another set of these. They're far away from needing replacement, though. Winter tires help.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> Yes.


Any reason not to go with the 10/32" depth ones?

My only gripe with the OE tires really was the wet traction in heavy downpour.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Any reason not to go with the 10/32" depth ones?
> 
> My only gripe with the OE tires really was the wet traction in heavy downpour.


Weight and tire width. The OEM tires weigh less, but more importantly are narrower, which actually helps cut through the slush we get.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> Weight and tire width. The OEM tires weigh less, but more importantly are narrower, which actually helps cut through the slush we get.


The narrower part will help on fuel economy as well.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

The factory tires, for me, were complete crap ('11 ECO 6MT. Goodyears). The Michelin Premier A/S tires, literally, grip better in the rain than the stock ones ever did on dry pavement. Of course, even though they're a LRR tire, I'm down a mpg or two over the stock ones. Excellent trade-off for the extra maneuverability and shorter stopping distance, to me.

Mike


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

bartonmd said:


> The factory tires, for me, were complete crap ('11 ECO 6MT. Goodyears). The Michelin Premier A/S tires, literally, grip better in the rain than the stock ones ever did on dry pavement. Of course, even though they're a LRR tire, I'm down a mpg or two over the stock ones. Excellent trade-off for the extra maneuverability and shorter stopping distance, to me.
> 
> Mike


Did you ECO come with the H rated or V rated tires? The initial tire for the ECO was an H rated tire, which I would never put on this car. The 2012s and later come with V rated tires.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

obermd said:


> Did you ECO come with the H rated or V rated tires? The initial tire for the ECO was an H rated tire, which I would never put on this car. The 2012s and later come with V rated tires.


I believe they were H rated, because I remember thinking that the H rating was adequate for the 130mph top speed. Are these any different than other tires? I've had H rated and V rated tires, back to back, in the same make/model of tire, on the same car, and they weren't perceptibly different.

Mike


----------



## Sunline Fan (Jul 29, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> the handling difference chucking it into a corner is phenomenal.


You would know, -J...


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

bartonmd said:


> I believe they were H rated, because I remember thinking that the H rating was adequate for the 130mph top speed. Are these any different than other tires? I've had H rated and V rated tires, back to back, in the same make/model of tire, on the same car, and they weren't perceptibly different.
> 
> Mike


I've never driven the H rated Goodyear FuelMax Assurance, but the V rated tires in this model are reasonably good all around performers. They definitely have a stiff sidewall - I have to run my Perelli P7 at 50 PSI to get the same road feel as the OEM tires at 45 PSI.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Can't say I've had an issue with ours. A friend of mine had an Eco and used to AutoX on the FuelMax's, and was pleasantly surprised. I've always felt them to be pretty communicative (they _do_ protest the moment you enter a relatively quick turn, though, haha) of their level of grip.

Not to mention, the Cruze is my wife's car and it's really made for fuel economy - but it allows for enough fun driving to not be a bore either. If I want handling/grip, I have my Cobalt for that.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

MP81 said:


> Can't say I've had an issue with ours. A friend of mine had an Eco and used to AutoX on the FuelMax's, and was pleasantly surprised. I've always felt them to be pretty communicative (they _do_ protest the moment you enter a relatively quick turn, though, haha) of their level of grip.
> 
> Not to mention, the Cruze is my wife's car and it's really made for fuel economy - but it allows for enough fun driving to not be a bore either. If I want handling/grip, I have my Cobalt for that.


i agree. they scream with anything other than a easy turn but they do communicate " im gonna plow through the turn if you push me any harder!!". they are super consistent and predictable in wet but do have a under steer boost in wet. i did raise tire psi to 41 and i balded out the edge of the front tires with one auto x even though. maybe if i wear them all out evenly i can claim b2b lol


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Surprisingly (and coincidentally, on the way to look at our house we ended up purchasing) in a roundabout, I had it slide the back end out (controllable), rather than losing the front end. I had a blast - and scared the **** out of my wife. Bonus!


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

hmm interesting. at auto cross it actually feels like a really well planted ( NO SQUIRMING OR JUMPING OVER BUMPS) and just a hair of under steer. i can concur that on occasion the rear wants to step out but its just the right amount to help swing the rear to where you want it to. besides the really low ultimate edge grip the lil tires do all tasks very well. i am super disappointed that GM did not even give the car a little bit of camber adjustment. yes i know its for simplicity sake but im rally edging the side walls off


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I was pretty happy. 

Honestly, they feel better than the better all-seasons on my Cobalt - probably because it's a 215/55R17 vs a 195/60R15. Those pieces of **** threw me off a ditch the first day I had it out last April. Back end went out (due to my huge rear bar), and then the fronts lost grip as well. Pretty sure I put the ZIIs back on soon thereafter.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

LOL yah good reason to go to what works. next year i will be on oz rims for weight savings and go with high performance summer tires, im thinking continental extremecontact dw


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I only put them on the car basically for winter storage now - or when it's too cold for the Direzza ZIIs - but I generally don't drive the car much longer than that.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I have the good fortune of being in florida where you can run summers all year round just drive slower during rain season


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

That would be nice. The ZIIs do exceptional in rain, especially considering they're a 200-treadwear tire. 

They do not, however, do well in anything below about 45 degrees.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

My weekend schedule changed and I was able to get to Discount Tire today. Turns out my tire tread depth guage is mis-reading and where I thought I had 3/32 I actually have 5/32. The squirrely steering was related to a balance weight coming off the right front wheel in the last snow storm (I'm assuming it occurred then as I noticed the steering issue shortely after that storm.). Upshot is that Discount Tire rotated and balanced the tires and I saved nearly $700.

Based on my current tread wear rate I'll get close to 60,000 miles out of these tires before having to replace them.


----------

