Across 109 reviews, the Michelin Energy Saver is praised for exceptional tread life, low rolling resistance/fuel economy, and generally low noise/comfort, making it a strong choice for calm, high-mileage driving. However, many users report weak wet/cold grip especially as the tire ages or nears 3mm tread, and frequent age-related cracking/hardening, with some noting soft/fragile sidewalls. Dry grip and predictability are typically adequate but not sporty. Overall sentiment is positive, with durability and efficiency as standout strengths and wet-weather/ageing performance the main drawbacks.
What owners mention most counted across 108 reviews
I have a merc c250 cgi (petrol) ..energy saver V runs absolutely perfect! Tires lasted for 6 years (2years in Uk, 4 years in super-hot Cyprus)..73.000km!!! Thanks Michelin! I am going to replace them with the same tires. Factory stopped producing them, but i did manage to find 4 brand new which are 13 months old..i dont think its a big problem. You only hear the turbo sound! Are noiseLess!
Check out how the BEST all seasons tires perform against premium summer and winter tires!
81%
Member
Honda
205/65 R15
17,398 miles
A Combination of Roads
Spirited
I have used Dunlop Bridgestone and bellagio. But after using Michelin energy saver .it changed my mind about tires.
Positive points:
Excellent grip on dry n wet
Less fuel consumption
Soundless
Progressiveness of tire is really good along with good handling
I have drove almost 28000 km. Still in excellent condition with good thread quality.
Will buy again if I get the chance.. . .....
Which tires do you drive?
Researching the Michelin Energy Saver? Rate the tires you actually drive - and help the next buyer choose.
Previously I had experience using Bridgestone, Dunlop , belligio. But I m using Michelin energy saver. Excellent tire with efficient dry n wet grip. Comfort level is excellent , there is no other sound except of engine noise. Wear is good. I have driven almost 28000km. Its threads r still good as well as grip. I will buy them again if I get the chance.
Secondly my question to tire review site, that y you people deleted my review, when in fact you reviewed it on your site for couple of days and then you deleted it. I could not find it on the site. Its unfair.
I had Continental Eco Contact 3 to compare with before and the Michelin have better grip and comfort. ABS doesn't kick in as often as before, I think this is a good indicator. The cons are that they are ageying badly, develop cracks at the side and lose griping properties allthough there is still lot of thread on them.
Member
Ford
175/65 R14 H
33,500 miles
Mostly Motorways
Easy Going
These tires were factory fitted to my 63 Fiesta from new. This is actually quite annoying because the "H" speed rating really limits the choice of replacement tire in this size ... more of that later. The fronts lasted 33,500 miles (with the near-side down to 2mm) and the rears still had 4 and 5mm remaining at the same point. I changed all four as I was moving to CrossClimates and didn't want to mix them. One of the rears had a repair so it wasn't as big a loss as perhaps it might seem. These tires never let me down so I can't be too critical but that said, I am not a hard driver. I think for general use they are absolutely fine but compared to previous tires, they would not be my favorite in terms of grip and handling. What I would say about them is that they are very hard wearing. I'm sure the rears would have made 60,000 (as the Energy tires did on a previous car). Would I buy again? Well I didn't but I wanted the properties of the CrossClimates rather than being against these. If you do lots of miles and pootle along these are good tires but if you are a bit more spirited, I'd go for something else. I have had Continentals before and these were a lot more grippy but lasted only half the miles. As for going forwards, 175/65 R14 H is not a commonly available tire (despite it being on a Fiesta) and I went for the CrossClimates because I drive in winter and (bizarrely) they were quite a bit cheaper than the new Energy Savers. Ford insisted that my car should not run on the much more common "T" speed rated tires in this size. Anyway, I wanted to try the CrossClimates, so this is a good excuse. Happy driving :)
The Michelin Energy Saver tires were factory fitted. Generally, they have performed well on dry and wet roads. However, they seem to be far too susceptible to tire damage on not too perfect roads, which is now the average british road.
These are the original tires on this car and have just done 20,000 miles. The fronts have a little over 4mm thread left and the rears have a little under 4mm left. I am not a hard driver but I always do the max speed limit allowed whether it be on the motorway or back roads. I'm very pleased with these tires and may buy the same again if they wear out before I'm finished with the car!
I bought michelin energy saver plus 175/65/14 82T and i am very pleased with them. I can't say anything about how much they will last because i own them 3 months and i have driven 3500 km with them but the are much much better than pirelli P3000(never buy them - buy something that worth less like fulda or barum and i think that it will be better than P3000). I will buy michelin energy saver again because they are great.
Original tires fitted to the car. Driven the remarkable 91000km (56000miles) with these tires, of which 20000km (12500miles)were in the Uk's hard tarmac. The rest have been covered in bumpy and slippery as hell Greece. Not the best to drive at the limit but for an average driver like me are a respectable choice. Replaced them this week; with Michelin Energy Saver of course.
