I have read through many old threads, and the consistant answer is that Micheline Defenders will likely increase my gas consumption. Our OEM Bridgestones are worn down to about 4/32's and they need to be replaced (our car has 195/65-15's). The defender's are currently on sale and I like the high mileage warranty. Has anyone actually used these tire for any length of time and seen a dramatic decrease in MPGs? We run a set of Firestone Winterforce for the winter and they do drop the mileage. I would imagine the Defenders would still be significantly better than my snows? Any advice appreciated.
I posted earlier in another thread that I purchased the Defenders over the Energy Savers simply because I wanted more miles out of the tire. I have lost three MPG over the Goodyear Fuelmax. I checked the 30 day satisfaction guarantee and it states that I would have to go back to the installing dealer to take advantage of this offer and get the E/S tires. If I was in Fla. where I bought the tires, I would make the change to get my mileage back. Looks like the trade off is miles or miles per gallon, pick your poison.
I have the Defenders. There was an initial MPG drop for almost two tanks of gas over the worn out Yokos. My Mpg is right back where it was before now @50+. My driving style has not changed, the car handles much better and I like them. The Energy Savers are reported to get 2-3 better MPG over the Yokos but less mileage guarantee, so it is a trade off.
Milkman 44, what was your MPG's before with OEM tires and after with the defenders. I am okay with a small hit for the improved ride and traction of the Defender. They can't be nearly as bad of a hit as my Winterforce tires are for the winter. Frodoz737, if I have the same results with you, I'd be happy. Although my OEM's are the Bridgestones, but I'd take improved ride and handling over 2-3 MPG of the A/S Energy Savers.
Two weeks ago, I contacted Michelin C/S to ask about the 30 day satisfaction guarantee. In an email, I asked if I could get my Defenders switched for the Energy Savers at a local dealer. I got a reply that looked like a copy and paste of the literature that I got with the tires regarding the guarantee. I purchased these tires while on vacation in Fl., 1100 miles from my home. Fast forward to today, I got a request to fill out a survey on their warranty. In the comment section, I outlined my dissatisfaction with the stipulation that only the installing dealer could make the exchange. Two hours later, I received a phone call from Michelin and the gentleman apologized for the false info and said that I can go to a local Michelin dealer, have them call Michelin and they will authorize my local dealer to make the switch. My mileage has improved after a few miles so I'm inclined to stay with the Defenders mainly because it is rated for more miles, but I was really impressed with their willingness to take care of unusual situations. I will stick with Michelin, just wanted to share the experience.
Thanks for the update. I had these ordered, but changed my mind because of too many inconsitent reports on the effects on MPG's. I am not sure what I am going to get now, I am looking at other options.
Unfortunately you are not going to have fantastic handling AND high mpg. Choose one trait and deal with a reduction in the other. IMO the Energy Saver A/S handles just fine with enough air pressure.
I more than understand that. Our car is a daily commuter and not driven hard at all. It's just that I am only willing to give up so much fuel economy for the other improvements. We bought this car primarly for the fuel economy, so I am not willing to have a 10% overall reduction, it's too much. To be honest, the stock Ecopia E20's were fine for most driving, they just didn't last very long, and had poor snow traction. The rain traction was fine when new, but over the last year has become poor. I still haven't ruled out the Defender's 100%, but I am just more hesitant to get them now. BTW, Energy Savers are NOT available in Canada right now.
I had the ECOPIAS also on my 2010 III. I got 56K miles before going to the DEFENDERS, the ENERGY SAVERS were not available at the time of my puchase. Just as F8L had stated in his posts, there will be a reduction of MPG with the DEFENDERS. I observed about 2 to 4 MPG lower than with the ECOPIAS. I have just about 10k miles on the DEFENDERS and is averaging about 50MPG. Even with similar driving style/habits, I still noticed lower MPG with the DEFENDERS. I'm looking forward to getting 90k+ miles on the DEFENDERS, maybe just wishful thinking.
Food for thought.... Over a 90,000 mi period, if Tire A gave you 50 mpg, you would use 1800 gallons of fuel. If Tire B gave you 48 mpg, you would use 1875 gallons of fuel. 75 gallons of fuel is about $300, at worst. If Tire A costs you $600 to go 90,000 miles, and Tire B costs you $600 to go 60,000 miles, then in the end - it's a wash. Just get the Defenders - it sounds like the right tire for you.
Thanks for all the advice guys. Although I was initially concerned with long lasting, which is what attacted me to the Defender, realistically, we are likely only going to keep this car until about 120K miles before we get a newer model. So, I really only need about 60K more driving, which will be devided almost in half by the winter tires. So, I think the cost benefit of the Defenders is out on that alone. Critic, you were the one in old posts that reported 10% loss with Primacy's which are rated better for fuel economy than the Defenders. Your old posts were part of my hesitations. Bottom line is I called Costco yesterday for prices, and they have a really good deal on the Ecopia EP422's. I have to go to Costco today and if they quoted me right, I will just buy them. They should last long enough for the time I plan to keep this car, and they should be pretty close to OEM MPG's and and better in most other areas. If the deal they quote was a mistake, then I am still not sure what I am going to get.