Go Back   Club Lexus Forums > Lexus Model Forums > RX Models > RX - Second Generation
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Bridgestone Alenza tires at 45K miles

Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-11-11, 11:06 AM   #1
RX330inFL
Lexus Champion
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 4,000
Default 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.
This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Club Lexus!
RX330inFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 06:21 AM   #2
jfelbab
Moderator
Trader Score: (0)
 
jfelbab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,951
facebook.com/jfelbab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RX330inFL View Post
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.
I'm can echo your wear experience here with my Alenzas. I'm at 40k now and measure 7.5 - 8/32nds. With this kind of wear, I expect to to see 70-80,000 miles before I'm down to 4/32nds. and its time to replace them. My Alenzas have also remained in balance. I'd likely buy this tire again but like you, I'll look at what is available at the time.

FWIW, I drive mostly highway/freeway and keep my tires inflated to 32 psi.
__________________
Jim

The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Peter Drucker
jfelbab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 07:18 AM   #3
rheiy
Lexus Test Driver
Trader Score: (0)
 
rheiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 1,105
Default

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.
rheiy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 11:45 AM   #4
jfelbab
Moderator
Trader Score: (0)
 
jfelbab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,951
facebook.com/jfelbab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rheiy View Post
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.
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
__________________
Jim

The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Peter Drucker
jfelbab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 12:50 PM   #5
RX330inFL
Lexus Champion
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 4,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rheiy View Post
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.
These are not race cars nor sports cars. I wanted the stiffer sidewall of the Alenza for the bad roads and to sharpen up the handling. Was not concerned about the weight. Not taking this thing to the track and not street racing.

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.
RX330inFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 01:34 PM   #6
cdnewton
Pole Position
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RX330inFL View Post
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 was able to get ~30-32K on the OEM Michelin's (two sets) and ~43K on the Bridgestone Alenzas (two sets).

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.
__________________
-
2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee V6 AWD Limited, 30K
2004 Lexus RX330 AWD, 190K
1977 MG-B, 40K
cdnewton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 03:20 PM   #7
Adamjeeps
Lead Lap
Trader Score: (0)
 
Adamjeeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfelbab View Post
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
Thank you for explaining this - I try and tell people this all the time when they get new tires and complain about the mileage drop.
__________________
2007 RX 350 - Traded in for 2012 SRX
Adamjeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-11, 09:56 PM   #8
RX330inFL
Lexus Champion
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 4,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfelbab View Post
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
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.
RX330inFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-11, 07:47 AM   #9
pauljcl
Pole Position
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RX330inFL View Post
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.
Of course, the effective diameter of the wheel is reduced because of sidewall deflection from the weight of the vehicle. IMO, this accounts for a lot more (and is additive to) the treadwear.
pauljcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-11, 11:17 AM   #10
filmteknik
Rookie
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 92
Default

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.
filmteknik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-11, 11:53 AM   #11
RX330inFL
Lexus Champion
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 4,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmteknik View Post
I do a very precise mileage check almost every fill up...topping it off into the filler neck and calculating the MPG.
Careful filling your tank in that manner. You run the risk of ruining your evaporator canister.
RX330inFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-11, 03:25 PM   #12
filmteknik
Rookie
Trader Score: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 92
Default

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.
filmteknik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-11, 03:30 PM   #13
jfelbab
Moderator
Trader Score: (0)
 
jfelbab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,951
facebook.com/jfelbab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmteknik View Post
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.
http://www.epa.gov/donttopoff/
Just one of many warnings.
__________________
Jim

The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Peter Drucker
jfelbab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-11, 03:30 PM
 
 
 
 
Reply

Tags
2256517, 2355518, 350, alenza, alenzas, bridgestone, eagle, firestone, index, issue, lexus, ls, road, rx, test, tire, weight

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RX 330 Help Road Noise boatable RX - Second Generation 26 06-30-13 03:25 PM
Looking for more tire feedback steveq81 RX - Second Generation 27 08-06-12 03:57 AM
Noisy Bridgestone Dueler Alenza doverrx330 RX - Second Generation 7 10-15-10 03:33 AM
Bridgestone Alenza or Yokohama S Drive Tires? ERC66 Hybrid Technology 4 02-25-10 04:42 PM
How good are Yokohama YK520s shoccwave RX - Second Generation 9 02-25-08 10:14 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Join ClubLexus
Advertising


Copyright © 2000-2008 Internet Brands, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | JOBS


Get all contact info