7.4% range loss after Michelin CrossClimate2 tires

[apacheguy]

I have 7000 miles on Michelin CrossClimate2 tires and have experienced a 7.4% range loss compared to OEM tires. This is with 18” Aero wheels. I’m at 260 Wh/mi since the swap.

I thought CrossClimate2 are supposed to be high efficiency grand touring tires? I definitely wasn’t expecting to see such a large range hit.

 

[3sr+buyer]

Low-Rolling-Resistance Tires Can Save You Money at the Pump shows the CrossClimate2 as one of the higher rolling resistance tires in its market class. (The CrossClimate2 seems to do worse than the previous CrossClimate+ did in the same chart from a few years ago.)

Note that while the difference between best and worst may only be about 3.5% for a car that gets 28-29mpg, it can be a much larger percentage of the much smaller energy consumption of an electric vehicle that gets 130mpge or so.

 

[Motion122]

That is very interesting. Going from MPS4S to Conti Extreme Contact netted zero range difference for me. MPS4S is supposed to be stickier of the two.

 

[KenC]

I have 7000 miles on Michelin CrossClimate2 tires and have experienced a 7.4% range loss compared to OEM tires. This is with 18” Aero wheels. I’m at 260 Wh/mi since the swap.

I thought CrossClimate2 are supposed to be high efficiency grand touring tires? I definitely wasn’t expecting to see such a large range hit.

The CC2 is a 3PMSF tire, and is winter tire approved. That's not exactly a recipe for "high efficiency". I just put on Vredestein Quatrac Pros and they too are 3PMSF tires. I've had them for about a week and I can tell they're going to be 5 to 10% worse than OEM on efficiency, but far better on sound, ride, and presumably much better in snow.

Interestingly, my previous set, the Vredestein Quatrac 5 was easily as efficient as the OEM tires, and about the same on noise and ride, but better in snow.

 

[Perscitus]

Next time try a set of Vredestein Hypertracs (or leave the QuatracPros for lite Winter duty and get the Hypertracs for Spring/Summer/Fall duty) for OE-like efficiency (too bad Apollo and many others do not publish standardized rolling resistance specs fot US-only tire models).... or better yet wait a bit longer for the Vredestein EV tires which will come in most OE 3/Y/S/X sizes.

 

[apacheguy]

Thanks everyone.

I definitely researched it a bit before purchasing the tires and it was not easy to see side by side efficiency comparisons for the tires I was looking at. The CR reference is helpful but clearly it does not list all tires (nor does it compare the OEM MXM4s). However, I do wish I had come across that article when I was shopping.

There really should be a better site for comparing tire efficiencies. TireRack just doesn’t cut it.

 

[smatthew]

I have 7000 miles on Michelin CrossClimate2 tires and have experienced a 7.4% range loss compared to OEM tires. This is with 18” Aero wheels. I’m at 260 Wh/mi since the swap.

I thought CrossClimate2 are supposed to be high efficiency grand touring tires? I definitely wasn’t expecting to see such a large range hit.

Something else is wrong. I have Michelin CrossClimate2 tires and my 65mph consumption as measured by ABRP is 267Wh/mi, but I also have a roof rack and fishing kayak holders on the roof rack.
edit: Nevermind - I'm on a LR RWD, and I assume you have dual motors.

 

[dansev]

I labored over my first all-season tire replacement for a couple of weeks. I ended up just getting the OEM MXM4 from Costco. I have winter tires so snow performance wasn’t a factor. And I didn’t want any range loss. Every other tire seem to have some kind of compromise that was unacceptable. I know these OEM tires are not popular, and get some scathing reviews online. But I find them to be smooth and relatively quiet, and have no regrets about buying them.

 

[BigNick]

It would be nice if there were a numerical UTQG rating for rolling resistance, similar to the Treadwear rating.

Lower numbers indicate less efficiency while higher numbers indicate more efficiency. For example a standard tire would have an RR rating of 100, a performance or Winter tire might be a bit lower at 93, 7% less efficient. An efficiency-focused tire could have a RR of 112, which would indicate 12% more efficient than the "reference" tire's RR of 100.

There would have to be an established standard temperature and inflation pressure for testing. Whether that should be one standard for all tires, or based on the tire's expected use (for example, winter vs. performance tires) could be a point of contention.

 

[apacheguy]

Something else is wrong. I have Michelin CrossClimate2 tires and my 65mph consumption as measured by ABRP is 267Wh/mi, but I also have a roof rack and fishing kayak holders on the roof rack.
edit: Nevermind - I'm on a LR RWD, and I assume you have dual motors.

Nope, same as you I have a 2018 LR RWD. No roof rack or kayak holders on mine. I was previously at 242 Wh/mi for 35000 miles on the OEM tires.

 

[Perscitus]

242 vs 267 at 65mph is one thing, but how about lifetime or mean/mode for recent 30+ mile trips, same weather, same driving style and conditions, ideally same route/s?

And was that 242 prior to or also under 2022.20.7? If your tire swap coincided with your car picking up any of the recent 2022.20.x builds, that alone could be the main reason you are seeing 267 now.
Its sadly apples to oranges with the changes to range estimation, consumption calc logic.

Then again CCs/CC+s/CC2s are not so good for EVs, better suited for ICE vehicles and a rather specific environment. They were all the rage in 2015 when the first gen CC was introduced outside the Americas, almost exclusively so, then the CC+ showed up sometime in 2017 (it was actually manufactured and destined for North America first, then spread across the globe) and finally CC2s arrived in 2020, once again back to EU first with a more global reach over last few years.

 

[apacheguy]

And was that 242 prior to or also under 2022.20.7? If your tire swap coincided with your car picking up any of the recent 2022.20.x builds, that alone could be the main reason you are seeing 267 now.
Its sadly apples to oranges with the changes to range estimation, consumption calc logic.

Sorry, you lost me here. Are you saying that the recent 2022 build decreased efficiency? How’s that possible and why would Tesla do that? It’s in their best interest to make their vehicles as efficient as possible.

 

[Perscitus]

It didn't decrease efficiency, but significantly changed what is factored into range estimation and instantaneous energy usage guesstimates.

See here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552048586728390656

Unrelated, but perhaps even more interestingly:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZJomb0XkAAib95?format=jpg&name=large

 

[Sorny]

Only lost 7%? You're doing better than me.

I'm seeing similar summer consumption to what the OEM MXM4s gave in the winter. Wh/Mile with the CC2 is in the 285-300 range on my '21 LR AWD+.

 

[fiehlsport]

I thought CrossClimate2 are supposed to be high efficiency grand touring tires?

Not even close. They've grown popular within the EV circles but there is nothing EV-specific or efficiency driven about these tires at all. I try to dissuade EV owners from these unless they are a perfect use-case for them in their climate/driving habits.

 

[RazzleDazzle]

Not even close. They've grown popular within the EV circles but there is nothing EV-specific or efficiency driven about these tires at all. I try to dissuade EV owners from these unless they are a perfect use-case for them in their climate/driving habits.

What do you push them toward as an alternative? I need to replace the tires on my LR RWD and need a good all weather tire for Colorado driving, and don't want a dedicated set of winter tires.

 

[fiehlsport]

What do you push them toward as an alternative? I need to replace the tires on my LR RWD and need a good all weather tire for Colorado driving, and don't want a dedicated set of winter tires.

In your case, I probably would recommend the CC2 for that region and the desire to not have snows. As long as you understand the tradeoffs. It is great for what it does, but when people buy them thinking it's efficient as an EV-tire, and they won't need winter tires, expectations aren't usually met.

 

[Knightshade]

"efficent as an EV tire" usually means much inferior stopping distance (as well as much inferior other performance characteristics)

Not a trade I'm a fan of, as a few % less range for stopping 20-30% shorter seems a better trade to me, but YMMV.

 

[fiehlsport]

Definitely. My wife's Ioniq has Michelin Energy Savers and while it gets incredible range on these tires, wet performance sucks, and it screeches the tires when taking normal turns in the city. Panic stops probably aren't great, either.

The factory Tesla tires aren't nearly this bad though. Even my Model 3 on the Primacy MXM4s would handle and stop great - it wasn't an extreme eco tire that gave up all of its handling dynamics in the interest of efficiency.

 

[3sr+buyer]

"efficent as an EV tire" usually means much inferior stopping distance (as well as much inferior other performance characteristics)

Not a trade I'm a fan of, as a few % less range for stopping 20-30% shorter seems a better trade to me, but YMMV.

However, the lack of comparative testing means that you may not know what the comparison is.

• 1% worse range for 10% better stopping distances? Probably many people will take that.
• 10% worse range for 1% better stopping distances? Probably fewer takers.

But without comparative testing, you may not know what the actual numbers above are.