Alternatives to OEM tires

The problem with the CR claim of the tire paying for itself in energy savings vs a lower rated tire is, would you choose a lower rated tire? CR isn’t making that claim against the OEM Michelin. Is the Nexen as energy efficient as the Michelin?

We’ve had owners report 8-10% declines of EV range and MPG when switching to non-OEM tires. Maybe the Nexen tire is on par with the Michelin, which is $222 on Amazon. Maybe the Nexen will hold up for more than 37,000 miles. Both tires have a 55,000 mile warranty. FWIW: Our 2019 Touring has 35,000 miles on the OEM tires, which are showing no signs of unusual or premature wear. I expect them to last for at least 55,000 miles.

At $134/ea, you may come out ahead, even if the new tires are less energy efficient than the OEM tires. There’s also the possibility that they will last longer, but then again, they may not.

 

Without a standard, meaningful comparisons can be elusive. CR also limited their testing to “Performance” tires. Is there a standard for that?

Interestingly, they included the Michelin Cross Climate 2 in the test. This is a tire that some members of this forum are using. If I recall, it is one of the tires that has reportedly reduced efficiency compared to in the OEM tires. Looking at the chart from the CR testing procedure, we see the Nexus tire at 9.1 and the Michelin tire at 11.1. There is one tire that is a bit of an outlier which comes in at 12.8. The chart also shows the range of 9.1 to 12.8, corresponds to 29mpg and 28mpg respectively. This would put the Michelin tire very close to the middle, or 28.5mpg. That would make the Nexus 5000 approximately 2% more efficient than the Michelin CC2. The CC2, however, may be 8-10% less efficient than the Energy Saver A/S, which theoretically would make the Nexus tire 6-8% less efficient than the OEM tire.

A couple of things we don’t know are the weight of the test vehicle or the tire size used for the testing. Both factors could produce different results than if the test vehicle weighed 4000lbs and was equipped with 235/45-R18 tires. It’s a half baked report, which is why I put little value on the results.

 

Here’s the chart.

 

I lost about 4 miles EV range after switching to Mich Pilot all-season. It does provide way better traction than the OEM energy saver tires. So I guess tires preferences comes down to 'drive like a grandpa and get a few more miles and use energy saver tires' vs " drive like a teenager and get performance tires"

 

That’s right there in the 8-10% loss we frequently see reported here. Let’s face it, the Clarity is a car for grey haired codgers. It takes a confident person to be seen in one. Spirited driving and impressing others are not on the top 10 list.

Efficiency is one aspect of performance. A tire that is more energy efficient than another, would be a tire that offers improved performance in that area.

 

Typical of Consumer Reports.

 

Tire Rack does a lot of tire tests and usually reports mpg over their loop. Here is one:
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=133

Here is the main tire test page
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testSearch.jsp

Charged_Up we look forward to your report on how these tires compare to the OEMs.
I'm still on my originals at 75,000 miles I keep thinking I will have to replace them soon but they keep going still not to the wear bars.

 

Any recommendations for a summer tire with both high performance and low rolling resistance? Michelin Pilot Sport 5?

 

I just switch to Pilot Sport AS (all season) A lot better grip but you will lose a few miles on range.
You can't have both good performance and low rolling resistance.

 

I understand your point, but have to ask, what constitutes “good performance”?

Typically, “good” tends to fall in the middle, pretty close to “average”. It is neither exceptional/outstanding or terrible/poor. We’ve driven the Clarity on the OEM tires for nearly 4 years and 36,000 miles. It has seen dry, wet and snowy/slushy roads. On one occasion I was in the process of installing tire chains when the restriction was lifted. It has been driven on dirt/gravel roads, on freeways at 80mph and on curvy mountain roads in both wet and dry conditions. In my experience, the OEM tire has offered at least “good” overall performance. It has never displayed anything less than “good” performance under the previously mentioned conditions and it appears to offer better than “good” performance in the area of energy efficiency.

I’d say that a tire with “good performance” and “low rolling resistance” is readily available. Such a tire may not be appropriate if the goal is to zip through corners at a rapid pace or set the lap record in a Clarity at the local track, but at least we have options.

 

I don't think anyone of us are taking the Clarity to race tracks or drive it beyond 90MPH. For me "good performance' would be a tire that grips. From my past experiences, the OEM tires sometimes would lose traction and spin from stand still, especially on wet road or if the front wheels are pointed left or right like when you are at a stop sign.

 

What you’ve experienced could be explained, in part, by the torque of an electric drivetrain as compared to the torque of an ICE drivetrain. It would be interesting to see if a FWD gasser such as an Accord, Camry or similar, would spin its wheels in the same way as the Clarity if equipped with Michelin Energy Savers.

 

Charged_Up Do you have a feel yet for how the range and performance of the Nexen tires compares to the OEMs?









Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs

 

Well, I’m disgusted! I just went to America’s Tire for the third tire rotation of my 2020 Clarity with a little over 15,000 miles, and I was told that the fronts are in the “warning zone” and are too worn to rotate! How is it that you guys are getting 30,000, 40,000 and 50,000+ miles on your OEMs and I am only getting 15,000? And what does it mean that the tire has a 50,000 mile warranty? How do I cash in on that?

 

@Charged_Up looks like a pretty good find on these NEXEN tires. I've done a little research. Let us know how they work out. An interesting comment in that article you referenced is that rolling efficiency improves with age. So it is common that new tires dissapoint visa vis rolling efficiency when compared to the old tires that are comming off.

 

My first set of Michelin Energy Savers wore out in 20,000 miles. The second set of Michelin Energy Savers is going to last at least 30,000 miles. Not sure why the first set wore out so fast, but I saw what you are seeing with the tires that came on the car.

 

It’s a gift. At nearly 4 years and 36,000 miles the tires all have at least 6/32” of tread remaining.

Technically, tires in any condition can be rotated by simply moving them to a different position on the vehicle. Most likely, the shop was implementing a relatively new guideline of mounting the tires with the most tread on the rear axle rather than the front axle. Testing has demonstrated that a driver in a passenger vehicle is more likely to lose control during a rear tire failure than a front tire failure. Hence the change in protocol.

If your tire wear is even, that would suggest the premature wear is due primarily to aggressive driving habits. Fast starts and stops, cornering at speeds above posted recommendations, etc. Uneven wear would suggest alignment issues or improper inflation pressures.

Here’s a generic blurb on tire warranties. Since they are OEM, meaning you didn’t purchase the tires separately, a warranty claim may need to start at a Honda dealer, even though Michelin handles the claim.