# LRR tires???



## jellowsubmarine (Aug 24, 2011)

I have a set of super light weight Honda VX rims @ 9.5 lbs each, I plan on using 175x70x13 on my driver diesel pickup. I'm focused on boosting H.P. & top end for realistic frreeway driving, hopefully without giving up M.P.G.. My question is on Low Rolling Resistance tires. According to actual reviews, I haven't seen the manufacterers boasted M.P.G. claims realized. I do see that the braking is dramatically decreased.

Any LRR tire experiance? pros/cons?


----------



## tuneko (Sep 7, 2011)

Best LRR tires come from Michelin and Nokian. Depending your goals best LRR tires are Michelin XI2 or Nokian Hakkapeliitta R. Both of those can be used when temperatures are under +15 celsius. If you want to use best LRR summer tires the choices would be Michelin energy saver or Nokian Hakka Green.

Tires don`t boost any HP. What they can do is boost power to weight ratio. And do you want to lower your wreeway engine RPM`s or what you are saying? More power to top end revs?

LRR tires in the same size with all marks can have 5% difference on fuel consumtion between different makes and models. If you start to play also with width and height aspect ratio (diameters/taller gearings). Effect can be over 10% to fuel consumtion. Everything depends what is your current situation and what you want.


----------



## jellowsubmarine (Aug 24, 2011)

tuneko said:


> Best LRR tires come from Michelin and Nokian. Depending your goals
> Tires don`t boost any HP. What they can do is boost power to weight ratio. And do you want to lower your wreeway engine RPM`s or what you are saying? More power to top end revs?
> 
> LRR tires in the same size with all marks can have 5% difference on fuel consumtion between different makes and models. If you start to play also with width and height aspect ratio (diameters/taller gearings). Effect can be over 10% to fuel consumtion. Everything depends what is your current situation and what you want.


H.p. is being boosted thru a "giles" injecter pump. The goal is to bump H.P. and drivability to a newer vehicle standard hopefully with M.P.G. improvement. The "gas pedal governed" injecter pump will cure top end freeway concern. The taller 175x70x13 tires and a few mph on the same RPM's

The question is: Any experiance with LRR tires on M.P.G. improvements, traction, wear and ???

As is becoming evident with all thing "green" and from what I've seen, these are overhyped b.s.


----------



## tuneko (Sep 7, 2011)

I would say that they save the max 5% on fuel consumption, so best LRR tire is 5% better than the worst which is usually chinese cheap tire. Best overall tires that save fuel are the nokian Hakka greens. Energysavers arent so good on wet surfaces, but on normal driving I did not have any problems conserning traction. I had them at rear for 2 years. They last very long.

Again if you know how to take the most advantage of your tires effect can be greater.

However I got best fuel consumtion figures using 175/80R14 Toyo 350 tires on front to make 10% taller gearings on my Seat cordoba vario 1.9 tdi. Those arent really a LRR tire but if you put there 3.5 bars or 50 PSI they roll almost as good as best LRR tires with stock tire pressures. They are also cheaper to purhace. So if you want to get good traction and LRR I would suggest to get normal good tires with known manufacturer that are taller, and add tire pressures to make them roll better.

To be able to give better responses I would have to know what are your:
- engine rpm @ 62 MPH
- Is the engine petrol or diesel and HP figures it produces at stock and of course the size of it
- what kind of driving you normally drive, highway or city and what speeds
- weigth of your car
- stock tire size
- do you go to race tracks or drive your car like it is on race track on the road


----------



## teutoned (Jul 29, 2008)

anybody know where do find tire manufacturer's published coefficients of rolling resistance for their LRR tires? specifically, NOKIAN, MICHELIN, and BRIDGESTONE. i have a few retail customers that would like to see some numbers...


----------



## jellowsubmarine (Aug 24, 2011)

tuneko said:


> However I got best fuel consumtion figures using 175/80R14 Toyo 350 tires on front to make 10% taller gearings on my Seat cordoba vario 1.9 tdi. Those arent really a LRR tire but if you put there 3.5 bars or 50 PSI they roll almost as good as best LRR tires with stock tire pressures.
> 
> To be able to give better responses I would have to know what are your:
> - engine rpm @ 62 MPH
> ...


- 2550 [email protected]
- diesel N/A stock 55h.p., will have 25-30% h.p. increase w/ giles pump (confirmed by many as realistic figure)
- wife will be driving... she is a very conservative driver, mostly around town, some hyway. 
- 83 rabbit p/u around 2100 lbs 
- stock tires are 165x70x13, it has 175x70x13 (bigger but not 10%). I don't want to go too big until I feel out the power mod.'s. 
- no possible race tracks with this baby:screwy:

I've realized a big mileage differance by going max. air pressure on my 05' 3.0 DOHV taurus wagon. It see's up to 20% freeway fuel mileage improvement. This has been varified numerous x's thru the factory digital dash instument computor that caulculates fuel mpg average. The o.e. tires where Continental Conti's but these results are from the present Michelin's. I didn't have the Conti's on long and unfortunately I never closely watched the MPG before going to the Michelins. the Conti's were slippery feeling and I see they are rated LRR, which I knew nothing about at the time. The mpg dropped w/ the Michelins... especially with lower pressure. The ride quality stinks too.... but this is another car, soooo back the the experimental VW.


----------



## tuneko (Sep 7, 2011)

teutoned said:


> anybody know where do find tire manufacturer's published coefficients of rolling resistance for their LRR tires? specifically, NOKIAN, MICHELIN, and BRIDGESTONE. i have a few retail customers that would like to see some numbers...


There aren no new LRR figures on the internet. Oldest can be found at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-rolling_resistance_tires

Also good data is at:
http://www.barrystiretech.com/rrandfe.html

On new models there are only direct comparison on automotive magazines. So you can compare only the tires that are on the test. In europe the manufacturers has to tell their tires LRR figure with symbols within next few years by category a,b,c,d,e etc. At the moment no tire can manage to be in the best class.

Also tire diameter dos not effect to much to your car acceleration times. I did a quick 1/4 mile test with 155/65R14 and 175/80R14 (these had also 5 pounds heavier rims) and I could not tell any difference with my hand timing. Time with my LUpo 3L with 61 HP were 22s +- 0.5 seconds error margin. So no effect to acceration.

RPM should be in a diesel around 2000 rpm in that speed because there is the torgue maximum and you want to be close to that in your cruising speed for best FE. The more HP you make on the same engine will give better FE if you dont make the it smoke too much.

I would go to 175/70R14 which will fit without any srubbing if you havent lowered the car. You have also more options in that size. If you now have those lightweight 13" wheels. Wheel weights does not have huge effect on FE. Tire and its diameter is at least 6 times more important. So buy or borrow that kind of rims and tires from some friend and make a test... Or buy used 14" steelies from scrapyard and used tires that you can test. I believe you can find a set of used rims and tires under 50 dollars for quick test. When you have seen the effects you can start thinking of buying new rims and tires. Note that used tires roll much better than new ones.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

There is no real standard universally recognized for measuring rolling resistance for pneumatic tires.

Nonetheless, for 175/70r13... with tires that small, does LRR really matter? I haven't ran that size since my old 84 corolla. 155r13 with less contact patch might have less rolling resistance....


----------



## tuneko (Sep 7, 2011)

There are standards how the measurements should be done and what kind of machines, but there are differences between machines like there are with rolling dynos. Results 100% to the ones which are tested on the same machine. If you start to compare results to other machine there need to 100% sure data which would be correction factor between these two machines. The same problem is with every machine which measure engine power, aerodynamic resistance etc. 

Of course the LRR plays the same or even bigger role as in bigger and wider tires. Usually little bit wider tires have less LRR but they have so much worse aero that they give overall worse fuel consumtion.


----------



## jellowsubmarine (Aug 24, 2011)

BsickPassat said:


> There is no real standard universally recognized for measuring rolling resistance for pneumatic tires.
> 
> Nonetheless, for 175/70r13... with tires that small, does LRR really matter? I haven't ran that size since my old 84 corolla. 155r13 with less contact patch might have less rolling resistance....


Yes these are dinky, but match the stock height of the 155(x80)r13. All this info. has tilted me toward slightly taller tires, running max. pressure to achive my objectives. I think the balance of not dogging the driveability, traction, ride and M.P.G. can be best by using my 13x5 Honda VX rims @9lbs7oz. each with a decent set of high pressure 185x70x13 @ around 14lbs each. i shouldn't give up stop and go perkyness(?) with the reduced final drive gearing compensated by the lightened wheel/tire rotating mass(25 to 30 lbs unsprung weight). The truck is in getting the Giles pump right now. It'll be set at 0.97mm timing.

MAN I'm overthinking this. Thanks all for contributing to my anul tendancies


----------



## jellowsubmarine (Aug 24, 2011)

tuneko said:


> Of course the LRR plays the same or even bigger role as in bigger and wider tires. Usually little bit wider tires have less LRR but they have so much worse aero that they give overall worse fuel consumtion.


I've always figured fatter would give up mpg as they have added resistance/traction. It's a well established fact fat tire require more h.p. to turn relitive to skinnys. So your saying there is a balance of rolling resistance somewhere on the chart?


----------



## teutoned (Jul 29, 2008)

tuneko said:


> There are standards how the measurements should be done and what kind of machines, but there are differences between machines like there are with rolling dynos. Results 100% to the ones which are tested on the same machine. If you start to compare results to other machine there need to 100% sure data which would be correction factor between these two machines. The same problem is with every machine which measure engine power, aerodynamic resistance etc.


pretty much what i gathered from my research. even if the coefficients were published it wouldn't do a consumer any good. NOKIAN's #s wouldn't be comparible to BRIDGESTONE's. kinda like UTQG ratings that all the keyboard racers love...:facepalm:


----------



## delettrehg (Oct 1, 2011)

anybody know where do find tire manufacturer's published coefficients of rolling resistance for their LRR tires? specifically, NOKIAN, MICHELIN, and BRIDGESTONE. i have a few retail customers that would like to see some numbers...


----------



## tuneko (Sep 7, 2011)

Here are results of this 2011 years winter tire tests in various car magazines picked from the internet:

Lowest rolling resistance tires still are Nokian Hakkapeliitta R or Michelin XI2

Nastarenkaat=studded tires
kitkarenkaat=studdless tires

Talvirengastestit syksy 2011

Tekniikan Maailma (17/2011), Suomi

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Continental ContiIceContact
2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7
3. Bridgestone Noranza 2 Evo

Kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Michelin X-Ice X12
2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R
3. Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice+

Tuulilasi (12/13/2011), Suomi

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7
2. Bridgestone Noranza 2 Evo
3. Continental ContiIceContact

Kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R
2. Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice+
3. Michelin X-Ice

Vi Bilägare (13/14/2011), Ruotsi

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7
2. Bridgestone Noranza 2 EVO
3. Continental ContiIceContact

Kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R
2. Michelin X-Ice 2
3. Continental VIkingContact5

Teknikens Värld (20/2011), Ruotsi

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Continental ContiIceContact
2. Michelin X-Ice north
3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7

Kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Continental ContiVikingContact 5
2. Goodyear Ultragrip Ice+
3. Nokian Hakkapelitta R

Keskieurooppalaiset kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55/ R16

1. Continental ContiWinterContact TS830
2. Nokian WR D3
3. Goodyear Ultragrip 8

Aftonbladet BIL (8/2011), Ruotsi

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/55/ R16

1. Continental ContiIceContact
2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7
3. Pirelli Winter Carving Edge

Kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55/ R16

1. Michelin X-Ice X12
2. Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice+
3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R

Keskieurooppalaiset kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55/ R16

1. Nokian WR D3
2. Continental ContiWinterContact TS830
3. Michelin Alpin A4

Motor (5.10.2011), Norja

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Continental Conti Ice Contact
2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7
3. Bridgestone Noranza 2 Evo

Kitkarenkaat, koko 205/55 R16

1. Michelin X-Ice XI2
2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R
3. Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice+

Za Rulen (18/2011), Venäjä

Kitkarenkaat, koko 175/65 R14

1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R
2. Continental ContiVikingContact 5
3. Michelin X-Ice X12

AutoReview (18/2011), Venäjä

Nastarenkaat, koko 205/65 R16

1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7
2. Continental ContileContact 4x4
3. Gislaved Nord Frost 5

For mideuropean winter tire test winner and also in second place in some tests was
Nokian WR D3


----------

