Michelin Energy Saver - Test Results

Test Statistics

8

Tests Completed

6^th

Average Position

2^nd

Best Result

13^th

Worst Result

Performance Analysis

Michelin Energy Saver shows a clear eco-touring profile: consistently excellent rolling resistance and strong wear/longevity, with competent dry control, but recurring wet grip limitations. It places mid-pack overall (avg 6.1 across 8 tests) with occasional podiums in smaller sizes, yet suffers in challenging or wet-weighted tests and when compared against broader premium fields. Pricing/value can be weak despite efficiency benefits.

Performance Strengths

Efficiency & Rolling Resistance Strong Details
• 2010 Auto Zeitung: Top marks in rolling resistance
• 2018 Auto Bild: 3rd/20 rolling resistance (+13.5% from best)
Wear/Longevity Strong Details
• 2018 Auto Bild: 2nd/20 wear (+4.7% from best, 47,580 km)
• Multiple eco-focused tests highlight durability orientation
Dry Handling/Control Moderate Details
• 2010 Auto Zeitung: "In the dry the Michelin is precise and easily controllable"
• 2018 Auto Bild: Dry handling 7/20 (+1.7% from best)
Overall Results in Smaller Sizes Moderate Details
• 2012 European 165/70 R14: 2/15 overall
• 2011 European 175/65 R14: 3/15 overall

Performance Weaknesses

Wet Grip & Wet Handling Strong Details
• 2018 Auto Bild: Wet braking 17/20 (+12.8% from best); wet handling 16/20 (+4.6%)
• 2010 Auto Bild Eco: Highest fuel savings but worst wet grip
• 2010 Auto Zeitung: Wet score 92/221; aquaplaning weakness; sacrifices wet performance
Value/Purchase Price Moderate Details
• 2018 Auto Bild: Price 20/20 (+50% from best), value 11/20 (+45% from best)
Inconsistency Across Sizes/Tests Moderate Details
• 2011 Finnish ECO Touring 205/55 R16: 13/15 overall
• 2011 European 195/65 R15: 8/14 overall vs. strong small-size podiums
Dry Braking Peak Performance Minor Details
• 2018 Auto Bild: Dry braking 11/20 (+8.7% from best)