[ColinC]

Great thread, particularly the thoughts on running winters year-round which I had often wondered about but never thoroughly thought through like some of you have here. I will say that my OEM Kumho Crugens performed really well last winter...certainly better than others have shared about their Alenzas (setting the bar rather low I know). With only 8k on them I'll likely keep on through this season.

I will say that the overall "feel" of the ID4 in snow is by far the best of any vehicle I've driven (admittedly fewer than many since I tend to stick with vehicles 8-10 years before I switch). Greater weight? Center of gravity? Who knows, but I can only imagine what driving this with snows feels like.

And let's not forget something that doesn't get much attention until you need it--ground clearance. This was a main reason I opted for ID4 and how that wasn't a long decision-making process due to the near absence of EVs with decent ground clearance (at least at the time I was deciding 2-ish years ago). Hopefully this will improve. We need some EV versions of Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, Subie Outback/Forester, and the like. Granted the clearance will negatively impact efficiency, but that's a tradeoff someone like me will gladly take for the added "utility" of clearance, not only for the occasional snow-plowing, but navigating off-pavement back roads with deep ruts, jutting rocks, etc.

 

[VW TECHNICIAN]

Just wanted to mention that CrossClimate2 tires earn a better rolling resistance rating than the CrossClimate2 SUV tires listed in the original post. In 235/60R18 it’s an A rating vs a B rating in rolling resistance.

Still waiting for my 235/60R18 107H XL set.

This type of tires have different threads vs US market and different chemistry than one you can buy in US.

 

[Dougie01]

Great thread, particularly the thoughts on running winters year-round which I had often wondered about but never thoroughly thought through like some of you have here. I will say that my OEM Kumho Crugens performed really well last winter...certainly better than others have shared about their Alenzas (setting the bar rather low I know). With only 8k on them I'll likely keep on through this season.

My wife has been running her Blizzaks all year around and the wear rate is not too bad. I wonder if there is any data showing winter tires wearing out fast, to calibrate it against the wear rate of, say, the Alenzas.

For example, if you expect your tires to last 40,000 miles, then a tire that only lasts 20,000 is a disappointment. But if you expect them to last 20,000 miles, then it's not a disappointment. Maybe the good winter tires last 20,000 miles even if you use them all year around?

 

[SunWizard]

I wonder if there is any data showing winter tires wearing out fast, to calibrate it against the wear rate of, say, the Alenzas.

Don't compare to Alenzas since they are in a class of their own at being the worst tires I have ever had both from wear and traction. I think the comparison is running winters all year or swapping. Continental says " It reduces the service life by as much as 60 percent. " but that is only during the summer. https://www.continental-tires.com/products/b2c/tire-knowledge/winter-tires-in-summer/
So that closely matches my experience doing this, and my figures from my post #46 where you can see the rest of my calculations on this topic:

The tires last 30k instead of 40k due to added summer wear (based on my doing this on my Jeep GC with same weight as ID.4) So its kind of a wash money wise if your count your time $25/hour or if you have to pay to store the 2nd set. I choose swapping to have the best performance.

It probably depends a lot on which winter tires you are comparing since they already vary by huge amounts from 0 (blizzaks) to 40k (X-ice) to 60k (Pirelli weatherActive) on mileage warranty.

 

[Dougie01]

Yeah the storage space factor is becoming an issue in my garage, currently four sets of wheels and tires.

 

[SunWizard]

Here is a new test all done on the same track showing a big 11% difference in EV range depending on tires. This did not include any winter tires. The Hankook iON won:
Here are the results:

1. Hankook iON evo AS: 263 Wh/mile
2. Goodyear EcoReady: 269 Wh/mile
3. Continental ProContact RX (T1): 272 Wh/mile
4. Goodyear ElectricDrive 2: 274 Wh/mile
5. Yokohama ADVAN Sport EV A/S: 274 Wh/mile
6. Pirelli P Zero (PZ4): 274 Wh/mile
7. Bridgestone Turanza EV: 276 Wh/mile
8. Michelin Pilot Sports 4S: 290 Wh/mile
9. Michelin Pilot Sports All Season 4: 292 Wh/mile

Here's how big of a difference tires can make on Tesla Model 3

A fascinating new test highlights the impressive difference EV-specific tires can make on the efficiency of a Tesla Model 3...

electrek.co

 

[Enzeder]

Here is a new test all done on the same track showing a big 11% difference in EV range depending on tires. This did not include any winter tires. The Hankook iON won:
Here are the results:

1. Hankook iON evo AS: 263 Wh/mile
2. Goodyear EcoReady: 269 Wh/mile
3. Continental ProContact RX (T1): 272 Wh/mile
4. Goodyear ElectricDrive 2: 274 Wh/mile
5. Yokohama ADVAN Sport EV A/S: 274 Wh/mile
6. Pirelli P Zero (PZ4): 274 Wh/mile
7. Bridgestone Turanza EV: 276 Wh/mile
8. Michelin Pilot Sports 4S: 290 Wh/mile
9. Michelin Pilot Sports All Season 4: 292 Wh/mile

Here's how big of a difference tires can make on Tesla Model 3

A fascinating new test highlights the impressive difference EV-specific tires can make on the efficiency of a Tesla Model 3...

electrek.co

Small correction. Electrek said "They were all tested on the Model 3 with 18″ wheels except for the EcoReady, which was tested on 19″ and certainly negatively affected the results." The Tirerack video says the reverse - the default was 19", but for the EcoReady that ran on 18" wheels.

The combination of low rolling resistance and track performance (especially wet) would have me looking at the Pirellis, EcoReadys, or Continentals - roughly in that order.

 

[cbroncos]

Here is a new test all done on the same track showing a big 11% difference in EV range depending on tires. This did not include any winter tires. The Hankook iON won:
Here are the results:

1. Hankook iON evo AS: 263 Wh/mile
2. Goodyear EcoReady: 269 Wh/mile
3. Continental ProContact RX (T1): 272 Wh/mile
4. Goodyear ElectricDrive 2: 274 Wh/mile
5. Yokohama ADVAN Sport EV A/S: 274 Wh/mile
6. Pirelli P Zero (PZ4): 274 Wh/mile
7. Bridgestone Turanza EV: 276 Wh/mile
8. Michelin Pilot Sports 4S: 290 Wh/mile
9. Michelin Pilot Sports All Season 4: 292 Wh/mile

Here's how big of a difference tires can make on Tesla Model 3

A fascinating new test highlights the impressive difference EV-specific tires can make on the efficiency of a Tesla Model 3...

electrek.co

The Hankook tires are what came on my 2023 ID.4 from the dealer. However, they only lasted me about 20K miles. The Bridgestone Turanza were put on over 45,000 miles ago and they are still on the car.

 

[SunWizard]

I found this site that is an easier way to use the great EU tire info to look at rolling resistance, noise, wet grip, etc. on all tires sold in the EU that I used for the table in my OP:

Tyre 255 50 R19 | Discount price, free delivery - TyreLeader.ie

Tyres 255 50 R19 at discount prices on TyreLeader · Get free and fast delivery · Fitting services all over Ireland · Large selection of car tyres.

www.tyreleader.ie

Discussed in this thread starting at post#25, and I updated the table comparing many of them in my OP.

 

[Enzeder]

I found this site that is an easier way to use the great EU tire info to look at rolling resistance, noise, wet grip, etc. on all tires sold in the EU that I used for the table in my OP:

Tyre 255 50 R19 | Discount price, free delivery - TyreLeader.ie

Tyres 255 50 R19 at discount prices on TyreLeader · Get free and fast delivery · Fitting services all over Ireland · Large selection of car tyres.

www.tyreleader.ie

Discussed in this thread starting at post#25, and I updated the table comparing many of them in my OP.

For my own sanity, how reliable is the info? I ask because I've heard that tires developed for different markets can be different. Specifically, the Michelin CC2's have lower rolling resistance in the EU than in the US. Weirdly, the site (which I guess is an Irish version of TireRack?) list some tires twice - sort of - they are not exactly the same. The CC2's below have different load ratings for the same size tire, and also different fuel economy ratings.

 

[SunWizard]

The CC2's below have different load ratings for the same size tire, and also different fuel economy ratings.

I think its reliable since they sell them and have them in stock to look at the labels, for some popular models like the CC2 they make 3 different EU versions. They also make a CC2 OE for Volvo in some sizes that has better rolling resistance. Too bad that in the US we get lower RR versions since we don't have a labeling law so they don't care about RR as much. This is shown by many good tests in the US showing 34 miles less range (better info than the C versus A rating) with CC2 like these good ones:

https://www.vwidtalk.com/posts/183482/

Our testing show more than 13+% losses per charge.
One of Michelin winter tires preformed better than CrossClimate 2.
I would stay away from this tire on any EV

Consumer reports who does good tests for rolling resistance showed the CC2's near the worst among many they tested recently.

Low-Rolling-Resistance Tires Can Save You Money at the Pump - Consumer Reports

Low-rolling-resistance tires can improve fuel economy. Consumer Reports' tests show how tires can affect fuel economy, and we rank the latest performance all-season tires by rolling resistance.

www.consumerreports.org

This explains why some EU reviews of the CC2 show much better RR since they get 3 options like the Volvo OE ones. This was debated way back in this thread, and there are now more US tests linked above showing we get the worse RR ones in the US.

 

[Enzeder]

I think its reliable since they sell them and have them in stock to look at the labels, for some popular models like the CC2 they make 3 different EU versions. They also make a CC2 OE for Volvo in some sizes that has better rolling resistance. Too bad that in the US we get lower RR versions since we don't have a labeling law so they don't care about RR as much. This is shown by many good tests in the US showing 34 miles less range (better info than the C versus A rating) with CC2 like these good ones:

Apologies. I wasn't clear. Reliable was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to question the data itself, just the usefulness to purchasers in the US. EG: If we get a different CC2 than the Euro CC2, then we probably get different versions of other tires, and therefore the data may not be applicable to us. Even within Europe, the CC2 has efficiency ranging from B to D just on the few sizes I checked. Consumer Reports data is nice to have, but they only test select tires. I'd still love to see proper testing of the E_Range tires by Sailun (especially wet performance), but I haven't found any such test.

 

[SunWizard]

If we get a different CC2 than the Euro CC2, then we probably get different versions of other tires, and therefore the data may not be applicable to us.

Yes but the CC2 is the only one where it has been admitted they make them different for the US, as well as 3 different versions for the EU. It is the best data we have until someone in the US does better tests, or they bring back the fully developed and then cancelled US system to rate tires. That is one of the only benefits to EV labeled tires like the Hankook is that you know they are the low RR, and quieter versions confirmed by the few US tests we have.