Tyre Fuel Efficiency Ratings.

[bigoffy]

I have now owned the Piglet (04 VRS) for 2 years and 20,000 miles ish, when I first got it it wore the usual dogs dinner of tyres, a mix of half worn Continental and Bridgestone with a pair of newish budget specials on the standard VRS alloys.

By "enjoying" the torque :-) I very quickly wore out the budget rubber and replaced them with a pair of Kumho KH39s and have since run out of tread on the Cont/Bridge pair too. These have also been replaced by KH39s but at the same time I swapped the wheels too!

So Piglet now wears 4 16inch Octavia Spiders and 4 Kumhos. NICE.

Except that immediately I swapped everything over it seemed that my fuel consumption became worse. :-(

I have now put winter wheels and tyres on and there has been a very clear and measurable improvement in the cars appetite for diesel, in fact it is back where it was on the wheels/tyres that the car came with. In fact it's well over 10% better than it was on Kumhos/Spiders.

Before I put the "summer" wheels and tyres back on I probably should be changing the most worn pair of Kumhos and so I have a couple of questions.

Does anyone have any evidence that wheels make any difference to fuel consumption, particularly 16" Spiders versus standard VRS Alloys?

Second, I am very tempted by Michelins claim to fuel efficiency for their Pilot Sport 3 but according to the new ratings the PS3 are "F" while the KH39 are "C" rated!

Can I directly compare the two for fuel efficiency? Or is there more to it than meets the eye?

I'am quite happy to add cash to the purchase to get my diesel mileage back,..................... IF.......................it's possible, 10% fuel savings could easily pay back the greater cost of the Michelins, any other benefits would be a bonus!

Any solid guidance on this much appreciated.

Cheers, Goffy.

[Holmesie]

i cant see the actual wheels making a difference although tyre choice can make a huge difference! when i went on to my pirelli p zeros i noticed around a 15% drop in mpg ..... energy/ fuel saving tyres are made of a harder compound which results in less friction, grip, road noise etc which makes them more efficient ... tyres such as the p zeros are great and really stick to the road well but as they are made of a softer compound rubber friction , grip etc ... all increases which unfortunately effects fuel economy ... on our bora we have found the good year efficent grip to be a good compromise .... but if the car is used for general day to day use im sure any of the energy saving tyres will be more than suitable and most of the major manufacturers do a good energy saving tyre.

just to add if you definatley want rid of you 16" octy spiders and are selling at a reasonable price i am very interested

Edited 21 January, 2013 by Holmesie

[bigoffy]

Thanks for the input Holmesie,

I'm inclined to the idea that the wheels won't make much, if any difference too. But the Spiders do "look" less aero than the standard wheels. I do confess though, that I do very little motorway/dual carriageway cruising, mostly rural B roads and in/out of the great Metrolops (Exeter :-) )

I have found the Kumho 39s very good, loads of grip, specially in the wet and only about £75/corner fitted! my only complaint is the apparently higher fuel consumption.

The big problem with the fuel A rated tyres is that they don't come in our sporty size, in fact there are very few in Furby fitment that are better than E or F rated! Fair enough though, it is a Hot Hatch :-)

I suppose what I am asking really is, does anyone have experience of the Michelin Pilot Sport on their VRS? I am a closet Michelin fan really and need to know whether the PS3s give the sort of performance, economy and long life advantages that Michelin are famous for but in a "sporty" way :-)

I know that there are always compromises to be made, it's a bit like the world of cycling, there are three variables, light/fast v strong v cheap, you can, in reality only choose two of the three!

Anyone got any more input?

Cheers, Goffy.

[Holmesie]

ive only ridden pilot sports on motorcycles and they were super soft which was great for that application .... that put me off them for the car although they did have very good reviews.

ats euro master do:

Avon zv5 - which is c rated @ £104

pilot sport 3 - they say is an f LOL @ £131.99

hancook k110 - c @ £104

http://shop.atseuromaster.co.uk/eshop/en_GB/searchByTyreByUrl/section/205/aspectRatio/45/rimDiameter/16/xl/false/rf/false

but as you say there are alot which rate poorly fuel economy wise :(

[Mounty]

I swear by Avon ZZ3's.

Since last January I bought 4 new Avon's to go on the recently refurbished alloys.

I find they grip extremely well in the wet weather and on a normal dry day (8-10c) I'll get high 40's mpg on A roads say 30/40mph speed limits. On motorways I'm getting high 50's into early 60's, so I'm chuffed to bits!!

People will have different opinions about the Avon ZZ3's, but they work well for me. I even had then on my ST. Again, rated them, hence why I bought them for the Fabs.

Hope that helps :-)

[smudgejock]

Iv seen a 4/5 ish mpg drop since i put a pair of uniroyal rainsport 2`s on the front of mine,definately worse than the Falken 492`s i had on it before. They cant half hold on in the wet though,i havnt managed to get it to understeer yet !! My previous car was a saab 95 aero which had avon zv5`s all round and havnt got a bad word to say about them,an excellent tyre at reasonable price. Camskill is the cheapest place iv found for tyres,check their prices before you buy.

[Avalon]

You do 10,000 miles a year and are worried about fuel economy? Work out the cost per mile, you're likely quibbling over £12-13 per *thousand* miles if you see a 10% drop. Is that really worth getting excited about?

[bigoffy]

Am I worried about a 10% worsening or getting excited about the same as an improvement? Well actually, no, since you ask!

BUT I do think it worthwhile investigating the options in order to make an informed choice.

I think that we all know that the old saw about it being about smiles per mile not miles per gallon is, at £7 a gallon, rather outdated.

Many thanks to the guys who have been able to provide constructive info :-)

Any more out there?

[bigoffy]

For anyone that isn't sound asleep by now, 4 ish years later!  Here is an answer to my own question ;-)

 

I recently put the standard VRS alloys back on my Fabia VRS and sold the 16 inch Octavia Spiders, I had the very tyres I was using on the Spiders swapped onto the VRS wheels, so no other change.

 

There was an immediate, clear improvement in fuel consumption!!!!!!!!! Possibly as much as 10%!

 

So there it is, the Spiders have to be far less aerodynamic that the standard items. Shame the VRS wheels are quite plain looking.

 

Cheers, Goffy.

 

Edited 1 August, 2017 by bigoffy

[Ootohere]

Amazeballs.

Detail would be nice, so how many miles were you getting from a tank full before fitting these tyres @ the same pressure. 

& was it a 10% increase in miles you got?  Or possibly as much as 10%! ?

[KenONeill]

@bigoffy - I'm going to presume that we hold the tyres constant (because the difference in mass between brand 1 and brand 2 in a given size can be as much as 20%). What's the difference in mass between the Furbie and Octy 16x6.5 vRS fitments? It's not stated in my official Skoda wheel catalogue.

[bigoffy]

I suspected that the Spiders were responsible for a worsening of fuel consumption when I fitted them 4 years ago but there were too many variables to be sure!

 

I use winter wheels and tyres in the cold months and had gone from these, 185 55 15 on steel wheels with plastic trims, to the Spiders with Kumho KH31 205 45 16.  there was no hint of experimental "control". I had noticed a slight improvement in consumption when I fitted the winters but the consumption with the Spiders etc on was much higher than I remembered from the previous Autumn with the standard VRS wheels.

 

This time, going back to standard from Spiders the wheels were the only change, the tyres were literally the same ones, I had them swapped over onto the VRS wheels. Noticed that the average consumption was much better on the way back from the tyre fitters than on the way there. This was on narrow, winding country lanes, a longer drive on dual carriageways confirmed the improvement, easily 5 mpg better, perhaps more! I was very careful not to drive differently.

 

So, there it is, not scientific at all, more of a controlled observation. 

 

Food for thought though!

 

 

[KenONeill]

@bigoffy - That sort of confirms my suspicion that at least part of your issue is wheel and tyre installed mass.

[bigoffy]

Easily could be rotating mass, never bothered weighing either style of wheel.

 

It's very clear to me that the Spiders made the car much more thirsty, so much so that, had I known in advance, I wouldn't have bothered with getting them!

 

It's certainly something I will be keeping in mind if/when I contemplate any more wheel changes.

[Ootohere]

So what sort of miles might you have been getting if you used 10 gallons of fuel?