darksky

OK.. so it looks like Bearcat94, lusid, and darksom1 all have these 960AS tires. Have either of you guys -- or anyone else with this tire -- noticed a decrease in mileage after getting them installed? If not that, have you noticed that your car doesn't seem to coast the same distance when you take your foot off the gas after the new tires are installed? As I drive around now on the 960's, it feels as though I'm pulling some dead weight when I coast, and the car actually seems to feel it too because it seems to be downshifting more than I remember with the stock tires as I coast from say 45 MPH down to 25 MPH as I approach a red light. This all might just be in my head though.

..wonder if there is a table of tires and measured rolling resistance values, or some other measure of tire friction? Here is a tirerack article on rolling resistance for reference.

avs007

Wouldn't increased resistence be a good thing with regards to traction and such? As far as fuel economy goes... My wife said she hasn't noticed any difference on her TL since I installed the tires last summer. (She keeps track of her fuel economy at each fill-up). If anything it went down by 1 mpg or something like that, based on the times I've driven it and filled it up. I don't know about that feeling of pulling dead weight tho... I don't feel that way. But I don't really like the "Grade Logic" feature of the TL's tranny anyways. If I want to engine-brake, I'll use manual mode. It's better on the 3G than the 2G tho... On our 2G TL if I coasted to a stop, right at 15 mph or so, it would jerk into first gear.

What's wierd tho, is that on my G35, my fuel economy actually improved by about a mile per gallon since I installed the RE960AS, which replaced the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S I had on there before.

darksom1

I have F1s remember...sorry.

S PAW 1

[QUOTE=avs007]Wouldn't increased resistence be a good thing with regards to traction and such?

An interesting thought. A wider tire offers more resistance, and has LESS traction on snow and ice, but the wider tread pattern contributes to BETTER traction in the dry. It is not resistance that provides the traction, though, just a wider footprint.
And greater resistance definately contributes to less fuel mileage.

nfnsquared

No, haven't noticed a decrease in mileage or coasting. I love these tires! They're great on snow and wet roads!

There have been a few folks who posted at Tirerack.com saying they thought they saw a decrease in mileage.

LuvMyTSX

I noticed it on my TSX. It went down about 2 mpg.

Bearcat94

I cannot comment on the topic, but appreciate you asking. I do have BS 960 AS on our '02 TL-S, but had not previously and do not currently track mileage on that car.

Compared to the crappy Yoko's they replaced (ES somthing I think), which BTW were worn to the cords, these are a HUGE step up.

avs007

That's not exactly true. It's a combination... Resistence in this context is really just a sort of measurement of the frictional forces... If it was just the wider contact patch that provided better traction vs the actual frictional forces... Then you could argue that a bald 245 summer tire will yield better traction in the ice-cold rain, vs a relatively new 225 performance A/S rain tire.

Snow is a special exception, because the wider footprint spreads the weight across a greater region, which reduces the "concentration" of the forces exerted on the ground by the tire. (Sorry couldn't think of a better word, but think of how snow shoes prevent you from sinking in the snow) On bare/wet pavement this doesn't matter so much, but the coefficient of friction with snow is so poor it makes a difference.

lusid

Less MPG by around 1.0mpg.

No biggy imo

BukvaMan

maybe u should inflate them a little more 2-3 psi

S PAW 1

[QUOTE=avs007]That's not exactly true.

To compare tires of same compound, it would be true. If you take a "sticky" compound tire with a wear rating around 200, it will grip better than one of say, 400 rating. It will also wear out faster. Let's compare apples to apples.
We should probably get back on topic. We could ramble on this for hours

SILKO

Hey Guys

I was actually considering either getting the 960AS or the Turanza Serenity....do any of you have experience with both tires? Which would you guys prefer and why?

ndabunka

Serenity sounds like an old farts tire... or diaper. Not certain which.

S PAW 1

The Serenity is a "touring" tire, vs. a "performance" tire, like the 960A/S, which better fits the TL/TL-S.

darksky

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172039
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171904

mkarg

I have noticed a drop of about 2 mpg with these tires but they are definitely great tires.

darksky

@mkarg - glad to hear I'm not alone. They have saved my ass in the snow a good 1/2 dozen times - I love them except for the decrease in efficiency.

runninlow3

I also have Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Position's on my car...had them for almost a year now. I did notice a decrease by 1mpg.
Honestly, I think it is due to the weight of the tire compared to the stock Michelin.
The Bridgestone is 28lbs.
The Michelin is 25lbs.

The first thing I noticed when I had the tires installed was my TL didn't take off as quickly from a dead stop. Felt as if I had some additonal weight, but not significant.

I keep my tires inflated 36psi fr. and 34psi r.

Don't get me wrong, these tires are great and outperformed the Michelin's in every aspect, especially in the snow! I would get them again.

mkarg

In an earlier post I said that I had a 2 mpg drop in gas mileage with the RE960AS tires. It turns out that I was mistaken. There is a 20 mile stretch of highway that I can get 37 mpg if I drive at 60 mph. I was able to reproduce that mileage the other day.

Fulani has a TL

iTrader: (1)

I got the 960AS and there has not been a serious drop in mileage, I occurred a drop in mileage because of the 19's weight but its not significant. I can still hit 425 miles on a tank, so I am happy

billycuth

So the pole positions are recommended? I need tires, and that is precisely what I am looking at.

2004 WDP TL.

Fulani has a TL

iTrader: (1)

Theyre great summer tires, have a slight price tag on them, but they very nice tires

erick3

hm...i haven't noticed in particular...but now that you actually mention it...it doesn't seem to "coast" very far...

ricgrrarrow

the RE960s are junk imo

billycuth

does it snow in las vegas?

ricgrrarrow

it has snowed in the valley , nothing seriously crazy.

but the mount charlseton which is like a few miles from the infamous strip, it snows so bad you need chains

why doyou ask? haha

but either way, RE960s are junk, i'm an assistant manager for a major tire co. and i never recommend them to customers.

billycuth

what do you recommend?

darksky

No offense dude, but you provide no data to back up your claim that "RE960s are junk." Assistant manager or not. In fact, that kind of statement from a someone in the field of sales in general is unfortunately all to common and underscores why I never trust guys like you. Just yesterday, while shopping for mattresses, we had the pleasure of dealing with several mattress salesmen, both of whom were defecating out their respective mouths with blanket statements not supported by any tangible data. The guy at store X pissed all over the stock at store Y. When we got to store Y, the guy there pissed all over the stock from store X, etc.

When I actually called the manufacture, and read the pattern numbers to them (sort of like a VIN for a car), they totally convoluted the two mattresses, and it turns out that both guys were embellishing their respective products and spreading untruths and mis-information about the other's mattresses. I digress.

There are some facts [data] for folks to read at tirerack.com. If you spend a little time reading the tests therein, you'll find that contrary to ric's statement, the RE960s have been ranked very highly for this class of tire on TR.com. They are most certainly NOT junk.

The set I have on my TL have saved my ass.. er kept me on the road several times last winter. They provide great traction/grip in the the snow/wet.

Here are a few related threads to read if you want more discussion:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172039
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171904

vinnier6

iTrader: (1)

not to be disrepectful to you, but i am going to take a pass on your vast experience of tires....you have been driving a car for what 3 years....

ndabunka

Wasn't this thread originally targeted to understand why the 960's didn't due as well for fuel economy? Instead it has (like many other threads) turned into a pissing contest. Well, I don't really know nor do I really care who's weenie is bigger or better than the others. I know mine is "big enough" so rather than stoop to the level of the others, I figured I might just respond back to the original poster with the information he was seeking and hopefully the others will return back to the subject at hand... Rolling resistance...

First thing to know is that the tires with the least rolling resistance are also the tires that don't "stick" to the ground really well. This covers a number of tires and compounds and goes a long way to explaining why a tire with a 200 tread ware rating takes more energy (i.e. won't coast as well) than does more of a "touring" tire with a 500 tread wear rating. Additionally, tires that do well in the winter tend to have knobs, ridges in their tread pattern that provide better "grip" into the surface. Ideally, that surface is snow but in cases where there is no snow, the surface is asphalt and or concrete. This also contributes to higher rolling resistance tires. Therefore, the more snow-worthy and/or performance you go, you "typically" will have to trade off in less fuel economy. It's just a simply fact of physics and is no "real" mystery once you understand the basics.

Now, some mfg's have tried different techniques to provide some fairly decent tread wear with good snow use and still get "decent" (but not great) mileage out of them (i.e. semi-low rolling resistance). This is important to me because I have a Highlander Hybrid as well as my 3rd gen TL. The Hybrid came stock with one of the lower rolling resistance tires available, the Goodyear Integrity. Now, they did help to deliver "decent" fuel economy but they also wore out WELL before their time (20K for a 40K tire is BS). But, Goodyear DID provide me nearly a full credit for the FULL price of the original tires towards new tires. I well could have simply gotten new Integrity's for no additional cost but instead I decided to go for the new Goodyear triple tread with is actually snow certified/rated because we use the truck for snow skiing in the winter and these are rated at 50K miles with something like a 400 tread wear rating. The way the triple treads got snow rated is that they embed volcanic dust into the center rib of the tread. It does an AMAZING job and the fuel economy has only been reduced on that truck by about 4% so the trade off is worth it if they last anything NEAR their 50K rating.

But, back tot he subject. If you want TRUE low rolling resistance tires, you are probably going to have to give up the performance aspect of the tire and simply resign yourself to driving a set of (grandpa) touring tires. Here are a few links that show you rolling resistance ratings for such tires. Mind you that it seems that only the Hybrid guys have really put much thought into this so many of these tires are simply not made in sizes for the TL. One other thing to be aware of is that California is passing laws that will require tire mfg's to share rolling resistance information with the public (the tire mfg's have been fighting this tooth & nail)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-rol...sistance_tires
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09...n-for-the-peu/
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=111009
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread...111009&page=10


Hope this helps the OP. The squabblers on here can go "suck eggs"....LOL!

ndabunka

The Serenity gets better fuel economy whereas the 960A/S would perform better. The case of which "fits" the TL better is really up to the owner. If he wants better fuel economy then the Serenity may well be a BETTER tire (for him/her).