Welcome to CamaroZ28.Com, the ultimate Source for Camaro enthusiasts! Here you can join over 90,000 Camaro enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to Camaros and more. You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view discussions
To gain full access to our forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from over 5 million posts.
"Low rolling resistance tires"? Something new? What are the pros and cons?
The Cobalt XFE as well as a couple other GM cars receiving tweaks for 2009 now have "low rolling resistance tires"... what exactly does this mean?
There must be a down side to them otherwise everybody would be using them.
I'm guessing maybe they're designed to be inflated to a higher PSI or at least have a stiffer tread and sidewall so maybe they have a rougher ride? Or is it something else? Worse traction? Worse tread life? The tread life reduction thing would make them pretty pointless since you'd save more on gas but pay more for tires. And if they cost any more than regular tires that would suck too.
Anyone know anything about them?
This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on CamaroZ28.com!
Whenever I think of low rolling resistance I just think of skinnier tires, maybe tires have made enough progress that you can get skinnier tires but similar traction, especially on lower performance cars.
Red 94 Z28 A4 Flowmaster Catback, !Cat, Jeg's Cutout,CRT Aluminum Elbow, Airfoil, TBB, NGK TR55 plugs, aluminum driveshaft, built 4L60E
Black 99 Sierra Z71 V8 A4
Purple Pearl Metallic 94 V6 Camaro A4 RIP-March 1st 2006 http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/805164
My question is, how much benefit do the low-resistance tires give in fuel economy? Is this something that the average consumer will know about when buying replacement tires at a local store? And like you said, Threxx, what about price? Cheaper? More expensive?
__________________ 1996 Camaro Z28 M6 - sold 2005 Audi Allroad 2.7T with 350 lbs-ft TQ 2001 Audi A6 4.2
Think about this... "less resistance".
Kinda like "less friction", huh?
As in "more sliding", "less heat", "less sticky"... basically all the things you want your tire to provide - especially for performance.
Harder compaounds, blow them up to 44psi or more, and roll-on.
Nothing new about them. Hell, the EV1 had tires designed for reduced rolling resistance. Everything is a compromise. You want superb grip and speed capability, you get more rolling resistance and much lower tread life.
Most cars geared toward fuel efficiency have tires with structures and compounds that lean toward efficiency over performance.
__________________ Joe '96 Camaro B4C M6, White, 108k (no police use ever!), K&N FIPK, TB Bypass, Flowmaster, CAGS Elim., ZR1 SS wheels '05 Colorado ECSB ZZ1 2WD M5, 60k
I was just having a discussion about this on some Liberty forums. The Goodyear STs (the standard non-optional liberty tires) are low rolling resistance tires. After installing some new all season tires several months ago (after the old ones were virtually bald in only 25k miles) our fuel economy dropped about 5-6% and stayed that way (we check fuel mileage *every* fill up). The ST's we kept @ 35psi, the new ones we keep at 40psi. I wonder if we would have done even better had the STs been kept @ 40psi.
'11 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 5.7 4x4
'06 Jeep Liberty Sport 3.7L 4x4
"stiffer tread and sidewall so
maybe they have a rougher ride?
Or is it something else?
Worse tread life"
tires on much celebrated Prius.
Those were just my guesses at what compromises could be... sounds like based on this thread the only real issue is reduced traction. Tread life may actually be better it sounds like. Sounds like for an economy focused car they're a very good choice.
Originally Posted by Todd80Z28
Michelin pitched the MXV4 tires as "low rolling resistance," although I'm not certain they meet the strict definition. They're a 15 year old tire tech that was OEM on lots of Hondas, though.
I never was impressed with the MXV4/+ tires OEM on Hondas... especially for what they cost to replace with the same tires. Fairly noisy and rough, OK tread life, very expensive.
How low in "low rolling resistance" is the question, I know in the 90's and even today Michelin has been working on low rolling resistance tires, all the Green-X stuff had lower rolling resistance compared to other designs.
I think at some point rolling resistance is supposed to be added to the UTQG ratings in the future.
2009 GT500 2.9 Whipple 3.25 pulley, ARH 1-7/8 Long Tubes, ARH 3" OR X-Pipe, Dynomax 3" Catback w/ Race Bullets, FRPP 65mm T-Body, 123mm JLT Big Air