Bridgestone Turanza T005 205/45/16 - 10% fuel efficiency gain

PaulHa

Member
I have been running these tyres for just over a year. I chose them because of their B rated rolling resistance. I have been surprised by the improvement in fuel efficiency over previous tyres:


TyresRolling resistance ratingMilesLitresMPGImprovement
Falken 205/40/17E 21,805 1,525 65.02
0.0%
Michelin Pilot Sport 3 215/45/16E 9,467 664 64.83
-0.3%
Bridgestone Turanza T005 205/45/16B 5,931 376 71.65
10.2%

The gain on similar driving has been over 10%, which was about double what I was expecting.

Overall I am pleased with them, noise levels appear less than the previous 2 tyre types, grip is generally about the same, although they feel a little softer, less sure footed than the Michelin's when pushed in the dry, and the back tyres seem to move a little more when switching directions on a roundabout in the wet. The Michelin's came second hand when I downsized from 17" alloys to 16" alloys. The MPG figures are as measured at the fuel pump, recorded on the spritmonitor.de app. This is for a 54reg 90 TDI. I optimise my driving for fuel economy.
 
I wonder what has the biggest effect, width or efficiency rating, as you also dropped from 215 to 205?
Would say most of it is the tyres and not the width, as the Falkens were also 205, and the same E rating as the Michelins and the fuel efficiency was about the same between them. Interestingly, my feeling, from looking at the on-board MPG display, is that the Michelins were more efficient at motorway speeds than the Falkens, but a lot less so in town, netting off at about the same overall average efficiency of 65mpg.
 
The MPG figures are as measured at the fuel pump, recorded on the spritmonitor.de app. This is for a 54reg 90 TDI. I optimise my driving for fuel economy.

You're not comparing like with like. Your mileage calculations assume that your tyres are the same circumference, but of course they aren't. 205/45 16 tyres are smaller than 215/45 16.

If fuel economy is the absolute priority, pump your tyres up further. Best of all, get 15" wheels and a set of 155/70 tyres. Then you'll see an improvement in your economy.

Tyres that offer improved economy do so at the expense of grip. Rather you than me.
 
You're not comparing like with like. Your mileage calculations assume that your tyres are the same circumference, but of course they aren't. 205/45 16 tyres are smaller than 215/45 16.

If fuel economy is the absolute priority, pump your tyres up further. Best of all, get 15" wheels and a set of 155/70 tyres. Then you'll see an improvement in your economy.

Tyres that offer improved economy do so at the expense of grip. Rather you than me.
You are right that they are different diameters, but adjusted for tyre wear, all are within 1%, so the ~10% mpg difference still a good estimate. If you believe the EU tyre rating, and given the evidence above, they seem to work ok for rolling resistance, both the Michelins and the Bridgestone have the same wet grip rating of 'A'. I think its probably a little simplistic given the complexities of tyre construction, materials, tread pattern to assume there is a strong positive correlation between rolling resistance and grip.
 
Am happy reading this correctly, you got under 10,000 miles from a set of Michelin Pilot Sport 3 215/45/16?
They were second hand with 4/5mm tread, came with second hand 16" alloys I purchased to replace the 17" which I felt were too low profile/crashy through potholes and bumpy roads, wanted something a little more compliant.
 
Back
Top