Bridgestone Alenza tires at 45K miles
11-11-11, 11:06 AM
#1
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Bridgestone Alenza tires at 45K miles
Put a tire depth gauge to my tires this afternoon. The Bridgestone Alenzas I have on there have 45K miles on them to date. Average of 6/32" on the gauge on the outer shoulders while 6.5/32" otherwise. The difference is mainly due to taking interstate exit ramps at higher than posted speeds.
Had the balance checked once since installed and they were still almost spot on. Have not felt the need to have them redone since. Still smooth on the highway.
Am quite happy with the tires to date. Others have posted about them being noisy, however, I have never felt that way. Perhaps I have the stereo turned up louder or my hearing has gone off over the years. I am sure there are other less noisy. Tires also tend to get louder after they have worn as much as these have. Do not remember the OEM Michelins being any more quiet.
Have a lifetime alignment agreement, so will have that done when I return from my trip to PA. Try to do that without fail due to the bad roads in the NE and the backroads I will be driving.
Would I have still bought them knowing what I do now? Yes.
Would I replace these with the same when the time comes? Perhaps. Depends on what is available at that time. These may not be available in the future. Not necessarily sold yet on the new Ecopia tires.
Had the balance checked once since installed and they were still almost spot on. Have not felt the need to have them redone since. Still smooth on the highway.
Am quite happy with the tires to date. Others have posted about them being noisy, however, I have never felt that way. Perhaps I have the stereo turned up louder or my hearing has gone off over the years. I am sure there are other less noisy. Tires also tend to get louder after they have worn as much as these have. Do not remember the OEM Michelins being any more quiet.
Have a lifetime alignment agreement, so will have that done when I return from my trip to PA. Try to do that without fail due to the bad roads in the NE and the backroads I will be driving.
Would I have still bought them knowing what I do now? Yes.
Would I replace these with the same when the time comes? Perhaps. Depends on what is available at that time. These may not be available in the future. Not necessarily sold yet on the new Ecopia tires.
11-12-11, 06:21 AM
#2
Put a tire depth gauge to my tires this afternoon. The Bridgestone Alenzas I have on there have 45K miles on them to date. Average of 6/32" on the gauge on the outer shoulders while 6.5/32" otherwise. The difference is mainly due to taking interstate exit ramps at higher than posted speeds.
Had the balance checked once since installed and they were still almost spot on. Have not felt the need to have them redone since. Still smooth on the highway.
Am quite happy with the tires to date. Others have posted about them being noisy, however, I have never felt that way. Perhaps I have the stereo turned up louder or my hearing has gone off over the years. I am sure there are other less noisy. Tires also tend to get louder after they have worn as much as these have. Do not remember the OEM Michelins being any more quiet.
Have a lifetime alignment agreement, so will have that done when I return from my trip to PA. Try to do that without fail due to the bad roads in the NE and the backroads I will be driving.
Would I have still bought them knowing what I do now? Yes.
Would I replace these with the same when the time comes? Perhaps. Depends on what is available at that time. These may not be available in the future. Not necessarily sold yet on the new Ecopia tires.
Had the balance checked once since installed and they were still almost spot on. Have not felt the need to have them redone since. Still smooth on the highway.
Am quite happy with the tires to date. Others have posted about them being noisy, however, I have never felt that way. Perhaps I have the stereo turned up louder or my hearing has gone off over the years. I am sure there are other less noisy. Tires also tend to get louder after they have worn as much as these have. Do not remember the OEM Michelins being any more quiet.
Have a lifetime alignment agreement, so will have that done when I return from my trip to PA. Try to do that without fail due to the bad roads in the NE and the backroads I will be driving.
Would I have still bought them knowing what I do now? Yes.
Would I replace these with the same when the time comes? Perhaps. Depends on what is available at that time. These may not be available in the future. Not necessarily sold yet on the new Ecopia tires.
FWIW, I drive mostly highway/freeway and keep my tires inflated to 32 psi.
11-12-11, 07:18 AM
#3
Lexus Test Driver
The only knock I have on those tires is they weigh 33 lbs (frick'en heavy) and gas mpg has gone down about 1.5 since replacing the oem mich.
I noticed the Encopia's only weigh 27 lbs. I'd be willing to bet that a 6 lb weight reduction at each wheel would improve mpg as well as performance.
I noticed the Encopia's only weigh 27 lbs. I'd be willing to bet that a 6 lb weight reduction at each wheel would improve mpg as well as performance.
11-12-11, 11:45 AM
#4
The only knock I have on those tires is they weigh 33 lbs (frick'en heavy) and gas mpg has gone down about 1.5 since replacing the oem mich.
I noticed the Encopia's only weigh 27 lbs. I'd be willing to bet that a 6 lb weight reduction at each wheel would improve mpg as well as performance.
I noticed the Encopia's only weigh 27 lbs. I'd be willing to bet that a 6 lb weight reduction at each wheel would improve mpg as well as performance.
Typically, whenever you replace tires, the deeper tread depth of the new tire will increase your rolling resistance. This would decrease your actual measured MPG.
Also contributing to a lower apparent MPG is the fact that a worn tire has a smaller circumference than when it was new. In other words a new tire will go farther per revolution than an old worn tire. This skews your fuel economy measurement making it look like you are dropping MPG.
The Alenza, has a tread depth of 12/32nds., Michelin MXV4 has 9/32nds. and the Goodyear RSA has 10/32nds.
The deeper the tread depth the more likely that there will be increased rolling resistance, but also the tire is likely to have a larger circumference meaning that the miles recorded are slightly under reported which will also contribute to the impression of lower MPG when it is not.
As your tires wear, rolling resistance decreases, increasing your mileage. At the same time, the tire circumference decreases which makes your odometer report you are covering more distance than when the tire was new. Both contribute to the false impression that new tires are yielding lower MPG.
Here are a couple articles on this:
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/docs-a...not-right-away
http://www.tirerack.com/landing/fuel...?affiliate=FH3
11-12-11, 12:50 PM
#5
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
The only knock I have on those tires is they weigh 33 lbs (frick'en heavy) and gas mpg has gone down about 1.5 since replacing the oem mich.
I noticed the Encopia's only weigh 27 lbs. I'd be willing to bet that a 6 lb weight reduction at each wheel would improve mpg as well as performance.
I noticed the Encopia's only weigh 27 lbs. I'd be willing to bet that a 6 lb weight reduction at each wheel would improve mpg as well as performance.
Also, have not found any real difference in my MPG from the original OEM Michelins vs. the Alenzas over time. I calculate each tank on the receipts as I go. One does not drive an SUV for its gas savings. On the highway I routinely get 26-28+ without fail in my FWD RX.
11-12-11, 01:34 PM
#6
Advanced
Put a tire depth gauge to my tires this afternoon. The Bridgestone Alenzas I have on there have 45K miles on them to date. Average of 6/32" on the gauge on the outer shoulders while 6.5/32" otherwise. The difference is mainly due to taking interstate exit ramps at higher than posted speeds.
I am now trying the Goodyear Comfortred Touring and will report back how they are wearing. So far, they are very quiet and the ride is exceptional. Haven't driven them in snow yet, but the Colorado winter is almost here, so I should know soon.
11-12-11, 03:20 PM
#7
Carrying an additional 24 pounds will not alter your MPG in any appreciable way.
Typically, whenever you replace tires, the deeper tread depth of the new tire will increase your rolling resistance. This would decrease your actual measured MPG.
Also contributing to a lower apparent MPG is the fact that a worn tire has a smaller circumference than when it was new. In other words a new tire will go farther per revolution than an old worn tire. This skews your fuel economy measurement making it look like you are dropping MPG.
The Alenza, has a tread depth of 12/32nds., Michelin MXV4 has 9/32nds. and the Goodyear RSA has 10/32nds.
The deeper the tread depth the more likely that there will be increased rolling resistance, but also the tire is likely to have a larger circumference meaning that the miles recorded are slightly under reported which will also contribute to the impression of lower MPG when it is not.
As your tires wear, rolling resistance decreases, increasing your mileage. At the same time, the tire circumference decreases which makes your odometer report you are covering more distance than when the tire was new. Both contribute to the false impression that new tires are yielding lower MPG.
Here are a couple articles on this:
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/docs-a...not-right-away
http://www.tirerack.com/landing/fuel...?affiliate=FH3
Typically, whenever you replace tires, the deeper tread depth of the new tire will increase your rolling resistance. This would decrease your actual measured MPG.
Also contributing to a lower apparent MPG is the fact that a worn tire has a smaller circumference than when it was new. In other words a new tire will go farther per revolution than an old worn tire. This skews your fuel economy measurement making it look like you are dropping MPG.
The Alenza, has a tread depth of 12/32nds., Michelin MXV4 has 9/32nds. and the Goodyear RSA has 10/32nds.
The deeper the tread depth the more likely that there will be increased rolling resistance, but also the tire is likely to have a larger circumference meaning that the miles recorded are slightly under reported which will also contribute to the impression of lower MPG when it is not.
As your tires wear, rolling resistance decreases, increasing your mileage. At the same time, the tire circumference decreases which makes your odometer report you are covering more distance than when the tire was new. Both contribute to the false impression that new tires are yielding lower MPG.
Here are a couple articles on this:
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/docs-a...not-right-away
http://www.tirerack.com/landing/fuel...?affiliate=FH3
Trending Topics
11-12-11, 09:56 PM
#8
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Carrying an additional 24 pounds will not alter your MPG in any appreciable way.
Typically, whenever you replace tires, the deeper tread depth of the new tire will increase your rolling resistance. This would decrease your actual measured MPG.
Also contributing to a lower apparent MPG is the fact that a worn tire has a smaller circumference than when it was new. In other words a new tire will go farther per revolution than an old worn tire. This skews your fuel economy measurement making it look like you are dropping MPG.
The Alenza, has a tread depth of 12/32nds., Michelin MXV4 has 9/32nds. and the Goodyear RSA has 10/32nds.
The deeper the tread depth the more likely that there will be increased rolling resistance, but also the tire is likely to have a larger circumference meaning that the miles recorded are slightly under reported which will also contribute to the impression of lower MPG when it is not.
As your tires wear, rolling resistance decreases, increasing your mileage. At the same time, the tire circumference decreases which makes your odometer report you are covering more distance than when the tire was new. Both contribute to the false impression that new tires are yielding lower MPG.
Here are a couple articles on this:
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/docs-a...not-right-away
http://www.tirerack.com/landing/fuel...?affiliate=FH3
Typically, whenever you replace tires, the deeper tread depth of the new tire will increase your rolling resistance. This would decrease your actual measured MPG.
Also contributing to a lower apparent MPG is the fact that a worn tire has a smaller circumference than when it was new. In other words a new tire will go farther per revolution than an old worn tire. This skews your fuel economy measurement making it look like you are dropping MPG.
The Alenza, has a tread depth of 12/32nds., Michelin MXV4 has 9/32nds. and the Goodyear RSA has 10/32nds.
The deeper the tread depth the more likely that there will be increased rolling resistance, but also the tire is likely to have a larger circumference meaning that the miles recorded are slightly under reported which will also contribute to the impression of lower MPG when it is not.
As your tires wear, rolling resistance decreases, increasing your mileage. At the same time, the tire circumference decreases which makes your odometer report you are covering more distance than when the tire was new. Both contribute to the false impression that new tires are yielding lower MPG.
Here are a couple articles on this:
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/docs-a...not-right-away
http://www.tirerack.com/landing/fuel...?affiliate=FH3
For argument sake... if a tire wears 8/32" in its lifetime that is a total of 16/32" or 1/2" total difference between the diameter of a new tire vs. a used tire. Now, with approx. 716 revolutions per mile for a new tire of this size if you lose about 1.6" (C = pi*D) per revolution less from new to old that would be some 1146" or 95.5' short of a mile which is nearly 32 yards. No small amount.
Now, your speedo is off, your MPG is off, etc when compared to the "actual" distance traveled. Your tires have to turn more revs (now 729) to make up the actual distance traveled. So, for every 55.3 or so miles you travel the odometer reads 56.3 miles on worn tires as the system does not care how many revs your tires are turning as it uses gearing in the transmission.
(I ran those numbers off the top of my head, so please excuse any accuracy issues as these numbers may be a bit off. Also, I am using pure math and not real-time values of revs/mile as shown by Tire Rack. For more info see: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete...jsp?techid=203 and http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/tirecalc.html)
Now, when you put on new tires you gain back that 1/2" in diameter and you lose that mile every 55 you were getting previously added -- about 6 miles in any particular tank of fuel. You might notice a 0.5 MPG difference over the life of a tire from new to old based purely on the tire's circumference calculation using the RX as a reference.
BTW, the stock tire for the RX was 225/65-17. It only turns 707 revs per mile because the tire diameter is larger. No other changes are made to your vehicle to compensate, again, as the speedo and odometer run off the transmission not the tires.
Also, the smaller the tire diameter the greater this effect is noticed as the tires wear. A quick look at the numbers for my Datsun tires indicate it would pick up an extra mile every 48.6 miles or so from new to used.
Rolling resistance will have a greater affect on MPG than any increase attributed to tire wear as the Tire Rack articles point out and as you can see by the math above. This is why it is so important to have your tires properly inflated -- to decrease rolling resistance.
Another interesting fact is that while the OEM Michelin MXV4 S8 has a tire tread depth of 9/32" compared to the Bridgestone Alenza's 12/32", the Michelin tire is actually fractionally larger in diameter than the Bridgestone (less than 0.1"). The OEM Goodyear RS-A is nearly 0.3" shorter in diameter when compared to the OEM Michelin. And, that is before any wear takes place.
Finally, if you make adjustments for Einstein's Theory of Relativity as your speed increases towards the speed of light and its relation to space-time, then this just gets really silly.
11-13-11, 07:47 AM
#9
When is a 235/55-18 tire a 235/55-18 tire? When it is new? When it is down to the wear bars? At 50%? And, are all 235/55-18 tires the same dimensions? The answers are not always what you expect.
For argument sake... if a tire wears 8/32" in its lifetime that is a total of 16/32" or 1/2" total difference between the diameter of a new tire vs. a used tire. Now, with approx. 716 revolutions per mile for a new tire of this size if you lose about 1.6" (C = pi*D) per revolution less from new to old that would be some 1146" or 95.5' short of a mile which is nearly 32 yards. No small amount.
Now, your speedo is off, your MPG is off, etc when compared to the "actual" distance traveled. Your tires have to turn more revs (now 729) to make up the actual distance traveled. So, for every 55.3 or so miles you travel the odometer reads 56.3 miles on worn tires as the system does not care how many revs your tires are turning as it uses gearing in the transmission.
(I ran those numbers off the top of my head, so please excuse any accuracy issues as these numbers may be a bit off. Also, I am using pure math and not real-time values of revs/mile as shown by Tire Rack. For more info see: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete...jsp?techid=203 and http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/tirecalc.html)
Now, when you put on new tires you gain back that 1/2" in diameter and you lose that mile every 55 you were getting previously added -- about 6 miles in any particular tank of fuel. You might notice a 0.5 MPG difference over the life of a tire from new to old based purely on the tire's circumference calculation using the RX as a reference.
BTW, the stock tire for the RX was 225/65-17. It only turns 707 revs per mile because the tire diameter is larger. No other changes are made to your vehicle to compensate, again, as the speedo and odometer run off the transmission not the tires.
Also, the smaller the tire diameter the greater this effect is noticed as the tires wear. A quick look at the numbers for my Datsun tires indicate it would pick up an extra mile every 48.6 miles or so from new to used.
Rolling resistance will have a greater affect on MPG than any increase attributed to tire wear as the Tire Rack articles point out and as you can see by the math above. This is why it is so important to have your tires properly inflated -- to decrease rolling resistance.
Another interesting fact is that while the OEM Michelin MXV4 S8 has a tire tread depth of 9/32" compared to the Bridgestone Alenza's 12/32", the Michelin tire is actually fractionally larger in diameter than the Bridgestone (less than 0.1"). The OEM Goodyear RS-A is nearly 0.3" shorter in diameter when compared to the OEM Michelin. And, that is before any wear takes place.
Finally, if you make adjustments for Einstein's Theory of Relativity as your speed increases towards the speed of light and its relation to space-time, then this just gets really silly.
For argument sake... if a tire wears 8/32" in its lifetime that is a total of 16/32" or 1/2" total difference between the diameter of a new tire vs. a used tire. Now, with approx. 716 revolutions per mile for a new tire of this size if you lose about 1.6" (C = pi*D) per revolution less from new to old that would be some 1146" or 95.5' short of a mile which is nearly 32 yards. No small amount.
Now, your speedo is off, your MPG is off, etc when compared to the "actual" distance traveled. Your tires have to turn more revs (now 729) to make up the actual distance traveled. So, for every 55.3 or so miles you travel the odometer reads 56.3 miles on worn tires as the system does not care how many revs your tires are turning as it uses gearing in the transmission.
(I ran those numbers off the top of my head, so please excuse any accuracy issues as these numbers may be a bit off. Also, I am using pure math and not real-time values of revs/mile as shown by Tire Rack. For more info see: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete...jsp?techid=203 and http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/tirecalc.html)
Now, when you put on new tires you gain back that 1/2" in diameter and you lose that mile every 55 you were getting previously added -- about 6 miles in any particular tank of fuel. You might notice a 0.5 MPG difference over the life of a tire from new to old based purely on the tire's circumference calculation using the RX as a reference.
BTW, the stock tire for the RX was 225/65-17. It only turns 707 revs per mile because the tire diameter is larger. No other changes are made to your vehicle to compensate, again, as the speedo and odometer run off the transmission not the tires.
Also, the smaller the tire diameter the greater this effect is noticed as the tires wear. A quick look at the numbers for my Datsun tires indicate it would pick up an extra mile every 48.6 miles or so from new to used.
Rolling resistance will have a greater affect on MPG than any increase attributed to tire wear as the Tire Rack articles point out and as you can see by the math above. This is why it is so important to have your tires properly inflated -- to decrease rolling resistance.
Another interesting fact is that while the OEM Michelin MXV4 S8 has a tire tread depth of 9/32" compared to the Bridgestone Alenza's 12/32", the Michelin tire is actually fractionally larger in diameter than the Bridgestone (less than 0.1"). The OEM Goodyear RS-A is nearly 0.3" shorter in diameter when compared to the OEM Michelin. And, that is before any wear takes place.
Finally, if you make adjustments for Einstein's Theory of Relativity as your speed increases towards the speed of light and its relation to space-time, then this just gets really silly.
11-13-11, 11:17 AM
#10
I also bought the Dueler Alenzas because I wanted longer life and I could see the end coming on the OEM Michelins as I go to around 40K. (No surprise as I could see the shallow tread even when they were new). I was used to Goodyear Eagle GA's on the Jeep GKC going up to maybe 75K.)
In the end I ran the Michelins to about 55K and as the wear bars weren't quite even yet I'm sure I could have gone to 60 or more. Excellent life on those tires, I'm told.
I do a very precise mileage check almost every fill up...topping it off into the filler neck and calculating the MPG. Alas, I didn't start saving the data until after the tire replacement so I can only give a general impression that MPG is down about what the other poster said....maybe 1.5.
IF the new tires actually go to 75K, that difference in MPG, at 3.45/gal will cost $996.
If the pricing on both brands is about the same (let's say about 800 installed) then 800 / 55000 = 0.014546. 800 / 75000 = 0.01067, a savings of 0.00388 a mile. x 75000 miles would be $291.
(Naturally any price difference would further impact this comparison.)
So I am spending $996 in gas in order to save $291 in longevity costs. As I had no issues with performance and it was all about longevity, this was probably not such a great idea.
Also, when I bought, earlier this year, the best price around was at the Firestone store. I took into account all the nickel and diming charges. Having previously purchased a few sets of tires at Sam's Club, with a simple bundled installation & road hazard charge, I really liked that better and it's too bad they don't offer the Bridgestones. Because even though my price comparison took into account the nickel and diming I'd get at Firestone, I still hated it and I think I'd want to avoid them and others who charge like that in the future.
I'm too lazy to actually do anything but next time Sam's has the Mich's on sale it would actually be about break even to replace the new tires and then whatever I would recoup by selling them as nearly new (maybe 10K right now) would put me ahead. Ah, the law of unintended conseqences.
In the end I ran the Michelins to about 55K and as the wear bars weren't quite even yet I'm sure I could have gone to 60 or more. Excellent life on those tires, I'm told.
I do a very precise mileage check almost every fill up...topping it off into the filler neck and calculating the MPG. Alas, I didn't start saving the data until after the tire replacement so I can only give a general impression that MPG is down about what the other poster said....maybe 1.5.
IF the new tires actually go to 75K, that difference in MPG, at 3.45/gal will cost $996.
If the pricing on both brands is about the same (let's say about 800 installed) then 800 / 55000 = 0.014546. 800 / 75000 = 0.01067, a savings of 0.00388 a mile. x 75000 miles would be $291.
(Naturally any price difference would further impact this comparison.)
So I am spending $996 in gas in order to save $291 in longevity costs. As I had no issues with performance and it was all about longevity, this was probably not such a great idea.
Also, when I bought, earlier this year, the best price around was at the Firestone store. I took into account all the nickel and diming charges. Having previously purchased a few sets of tires at Sam's Club, with a simple bundled installation & road hazard charge, I really liked that better and it's too bad they don't offer the Bridgestones. Because even though my price comparison took into account the nickel and diming I'd get at Firestone, I still hated it and I think I'd want to avoid them and others who charge like that in the future.
I'm too lazy to actually do anything but next time Sam's has the Mich's on sale it would actually be about break even to replace the new tires and then whatever I would recoup by selling them as nearly new (maybe 10K right now) would put me ahead. Ah, the law of unintended conseqences.
11-13-11, 11:53 AM
#11
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
11-13-11, 03:25 PM
#12
I've heard people say that and while I certainly am not dismissing it I do wonder about it. Is there a warning in the manual? While automatic nozzles do shut off pretty early (nearly 1.5 gal in my experience) it's hard to believe any maker would rely on this to prevent failure. Do those gravity tanks some farmers have have an auto stop like that that leaves so much empty? What about filling from jerry cans? No one would even call it topping off, just filling it. In my case even if I head straight home after filling I'll be creating about a quart of free space.
11-13-11, 03:30 PM
#13
I've heard people say that and while I certainly am not dismissing it I do wonder about it. Is there a warning in the manual? While automatic nozzles do shut off pretty early (nearly 1.5 gal in my experience) it's hard to believe any maker would rely on this to prevent failure. Do those gravity tanks some farmers have have an auto stop like that that leaves so much empty? What about filling from jerry cans? No one would even call it topping off, just filling it. In my case even if I head straight home after filling I'll be creating about a quart of free space.
Just one of many warnings.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
