tyre ratings part 2

Hi,

The other week I asked about tyre rat>The D rating isn't used, so in practice, for fuel efficiency it tends to

be a choice of C or E. I assume any manufacturer whose product was >borderline would make the effort to get it into C rather than E but that >may mean that C is not much better than E. The economy is a lab test and >formula for rolling resistance so it probably isn't significant for stop >start urban driving. The difference between E and C might amount to 3-4% >fuel saving in favourable circumstances. > >Wet Grip, again D isn't used, Some are rated A in one sizes and B in >another. I haven't noticed anything less than C, but maybe because I >have ignored the cheaper brands. Difference between one grade and the >next may be about one car length in stopping distance in the wet. But >again, based on lab tests etc, so difficult to tell how much real >difference.

I was surprised I could not find any official (gov.uk) web sites about this.

I was interested that class D is not used. According to the blackcircles faq:

formatting link
D is being omitted to make a clearer distinction between good and bad tyres! This does mean the gap between Michelin C rated and Uniroyal E rated isn't as big as it would first seem. I can't work out the resistance/fuel rating. The same url says that G tyres will use 6L more over 600 miles.

A page at Kwikfit:

formatting link
says much the same thing: 0.5L per 60 miles. I'm sure this all adds up if you drive tens of thousands of miles, but even so, it doesn't seem like a very big difference and I wonder whether other aspects of driving would account for bigger differences in fuel consumption, i.e. could someone driving smoothly on G tyres use less fuel than someone stop/starting and accelerating and braking hard in the same car on A rated tyres?

Perhaps this rating is nothing to get worried about?

The wet rating sounds like it might be more useful as each letter adds a car length before the car stops and this could make the difference between hitting something and not. It would appear than neither class D nor G are used though.

Reply to
Fred
Loading thread data ...

How's this?

formatting link

Very easily... But the same person driving the same car in the same way should use less fuel on the low-band tyres than the high-band ones.

I'd be much more concerned about wear and grip, tbh. Wear rate's the really important thing that's missing from the label, especially since it's cost-per-mile that defines whether a tyre is expensive or inexpensive, not the purchase price or even the minor difference it might make to economy. One thing's for sure, though - the off-brand cheapie rubbish is still going to be incredibly bad value...

Reply to
Adrian

Try This one

formatting link

These figures seem to make an assumption about average MPG.

0.5l in 60 = 120 miles per lt which would be 5lt in 600 miles [My Citroën C2 averaged 10.2 miles per litre over the past year, I don't believe tyre would make such a huge difference]

I am sure they would. Smooth driving at moderate speed will mean the rolling resistance is the most significant factor. At higher speed air resistance may be more significant. In stop start driving, neither will matter much.

All other things being equal. The problem is that it is a lab test, so may not match the real world. And what if the one time you might benefit it is on a dry road, or an icy road, or a bend, or any number of other cases that the rating has ignored.

Like a lot of EC regulation I suspect this is a stitch up by various vested interests, ie a combination of ecobollox and making European manufacturers products appear better than cheap imports from the far east etc.

Reply to
DJC

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.