I'm reviewing it base on it price and other interchangeable tires.
My tires were 145/80r12 to begin with, Yokohama Job, RY52 with 8000km. A decent truck eco tire.
Car is Subaru Sambar van, a rebadged Daihatsu Hijet cargo.
I'm reviewing with all traction control and stability control off.
Dry grip, is way better. With the RY52, rear slides when I wanted it to. With Energy saver4, it just won't slide even I give full gas out of a tight corner. This van doesn't have enough power to power slide Energy saver4 on high grip surface.
Wet grip, is also better but mostly in lateral grip. RY52 have very good vertical grip ( accelerate and decelerate ). I haven't try to slide it yet in wet surface.
Feed back, is surprisingly out of my expectation. Best tire pressure for RY52 is F/R: 45/45 psi. For Energy saver is F/R: 45/48 psi.
RY52 have a larger range of tire pressure that can be driven, Front pressure is good from 42-45. Rear is good from 40-50. With 50PSI in the rear, I do feel a bit on the edge in the wet.
Energy saver4 however, is very tricky to set tire pressure.
Front can not be lower than 45. There will be no feed back. Rear can not be higher than 48, it will produce lots of noise.
Rear is best setting at 45 (or lower) but with F/R both 45, the car wants to understeer. Therefore I've settled with F 45. R 48.
Another thing is RY52 have way better handling feed back mid corner. I feel every bit of the tire, with Energy saver4, I know the general direction but not which part of the tire is gripping exactly. I don't think Energy Saver4 is to blame here, since RY52 is super hard LT tire.
Handling, it's higher than the testing vehicle. I'm at jail speed with 53 horse power on all the route ( mountain and twisting ) with +30km/hr faster than RY52, still I'm only afraid of the van rolling over , and not even a squeak heard. I don't think this van needs better grip than Energy saver.
Comfort, is something that you instantly feel, I feel it, my wife feels it. It way quieter and softer than RY52. I would say this aspect is what most people feels.
Finally, fuel economy. The wheel + tire set up is 6kg heavier per corner (12 to 14, RY52 to Energy saver), which is 24kg heavier for four wheels.
It is a lot heavier. In the stop and go city, fuel economy drops 1-2%. On mountain road it's within margin of error ( Screen shows better). On 60-90km/hr highway, it is 3-5% better.
There is no other way around the weight. During stop and go, you need more energy. During climbing, you need more energy.
But the eco compound that Michelin uses does provide lower friction therefore the fuel economy haven't worsen.
My tires were 145/80r12 to begin with, Yokohama Job, RY52 with 8000km. A decent truck eco tire.
Car is Subaru Sambar van, a rebadged Daihatsu Hijet cargo.
I'm reviewing with all traction control and stability control off.
Dry grip, is way better. With the RY52, rear slides when I wanted it to. With Energy saver4, it just won't slide even I give full gas out of a tight corner. This van doesn't have enough power to power slide Energy saver4 on high grip surface.
Wet grip, is also better but mostly in lateral grip. RY52 have very good vertical grip ( accelerate and decelerate ). I haven't try to slide it yet in wet surface.
Feed back, is surprisingly out of my expectation. Best tire pressure for RY52 is F/R: 45/45 psi. For Energy saver is F/R: 45/48 psi.
RY52 have a larger range of tire pressure that can be driven, Front pressure is good from 42-45. Rear is good from 40-50. With 50PSI in the rear, I do feel a bit on the edge in the wet.
Energy saver4 however, is very tricky to set tire pressure.
Front can not be lower than 45. There will be no feed back. Rear can not be higher than 48, it will produce lots of noise.
Rear is best setting at 45 (or lower) but with F/R both 45, the car wants to understeer. Therefore I've settled with F 45. R 48.
Another thing is RY52 have way better handling feed back mid corner. I feel every bit of the tire, with Energy saver4, I know the general direction but not which part of the tire is gripping exactly. I don't think Energy Saver4 is to blame here, since RY52 is super hard LT tire.
Handling, it's higher than the testing vehicle. I'm at jail speed with 53 horse power on all the route ( mountain and twisting ) with +30km/hr faster than RY52, still I'm only afraid of the van rolling over , and not even a squeak heard. I don't think this van needs better grip than Energy saver.
Comfort, is something that you instantly feel, I feel it, my wife feels it. It way quieter and softer than RY52. I would say this aspect is what most people feels.
Finally, fuel economy. The wheel + tire set up is 6kg heavier per corner (12 to 14, RY52 to Energy saver), which is 24kg heavier for four wheels.
It is a lot heavier. In the stop and go city, fuel economy drops 1-2%. On mountain road it's within margin of error ( Screen shows better). On 60-90km/hr highway, it is 3-5% better.
There is no other way around the weight. During stop and go, you need more energy. During climbing, you need more energy.
But the eco compound that Michelin uses does provide lower friction therefore the fuel economy haven't worsen.