Michelin Pilot Sport 4S vs MXM4 efficiency

[pure9]

Hey! I’m looking to replace my OEM Primacy MXM4 tires (lasted ~30k miles) with the Michelin’s Pilot Sport 4S on my Model 3 LR (18” inch wheels+aero caps) and I’m mostly concerned about efficiency of these tires. Folks who have made the switch from OEM to these tires, would you mind sharing range loss/efficiency numbers? Anything else that you dislike about these tires?

Alternatives I’m considering:
1. Michelin CrossClimate+
2. Pirelli P Zero ELECT All Season
I live in California so snow is not an issue for me.

 

[derotam]

I have the CrossClimate2's. So much better than the MXM4's for wet/snow. Efficiency loss I think was around 5%.

 

[pure9]

I have the CrossClimate2's. So much better than the MXM4's for wet/snow. Efficiency loss I think was around 5%.

5% is not that bad, I think I can live with that. I’ve heard road noise is loud on the CC+‘s? Would like to hear from folks about the efficiency for PS4S’s since snow isn’t a concern for me.

 

[The Other Dan]

You didn't mention old vs new tire sizing. You keep the same size or go bigger? That will make a big difference.
For the record, I've been running 265/35/19 PS4S since I bought the car and I average about 315 wh/mi. I just threw on my winter tires, 245/40/19 blizzaks and even being cold all the time, my efficiency got slightly better.

 

[pure9]

You didn't mention old vs new tire sizing. You keep the same size or go bigger? That will make a big difference.
For the record, I've been running 265/35/19 PS4S since I bought the car and I average about 315 wh/mi. I just threw on my winter tires, 245/40/19 blizzaks and even being cold all the time, my efficiency got slightly better.

I’m running OEM 235/45/18” right now. Planning on running the same for PS4S too. I’m guessing that will result in the highest efficiency?

 

[derotam]

5% is not that bad, I think I can live with that. I’ve heard road noise is loud on the CC+‘s? Would like to hear from folks about the efficiency for PS4S’s since snow isn’t a concern for me.

You will get different answers for both the efficiency hit and road noise. Some people will say they see 10% reduced efficiency but in the end it all depends on the quality of the measurements to figure that out as there are lots of variables that have to be mitigated.

As far as road noise, that can be very person to person and again all depends on measuring technique. Personally I used my phone and a decibel app and did multiple short drives(same section of road) at multiple speeds, all within a short time period(30 minutes max), in the early morning with no other traffic. I also used 3 different measurement standards that weigh sounds differently. I put my phone in two different places in the car. In the end, I didn't go AH-HA it IS was louder...nope, the measurements all were pretty close.. I may have seen a 2-3dB push higher....and while 3dB is double, it is not very discernible to the human ear.

Under normal driving, I have the radio on, so any additional noise is drowned out by my music.

 

[pure9]

You will get different answers for both the efficiency hit and road noise. Some people will say they see 10% reduced efficiency but in the end it all depends on the quality of the measurements to figure that out as there are lots of variables that have to be mitigated.

As far as road noise, that can be very person to person and again all depends on measuring technique. Personally I used my phone and a decibel app and did multiple short drives(same section of road) at multiple speeds, all within a short time period(30 minutes max), in the early morning with no other traffic. I also used 3 different measurement standards that weigh sounds differently. I put my phone in two different places in the car. In the end, I didn't go AH-HA it IS was louder...nope, the measurements all were pretty close.. I may have seen a 2-3dB push higher....and while 3dB is double, it is not very discernible to the human ear.

Under normal driving, I have the radio on, so any additional noise is drowned out by my music.

Thanks for sharing these numbers and your input. I’m more concerned about efficiency than road noise. As long as a few folks can confirm that efficiency hit is less than 5-6% on the PS4S I’m fine with it.

 

[Mutant]

Hey! I’m looking to replace my OEM Primacy MXM4 tires (lasted ~30k miles) with the Michelin’s Pilot Sport 4S on my Model 3 LR (18” inch wheels+aero caps) and I’m mostly concerned about efficiency of these tires. Folks who have made the switch from OEM to these tires, would you mind sharing range loss/efficiency numbers? Anything else that you dislike about these tires?

Alternatives I’m considering:
1. Michelin CrossClimate+
2. Pirelli P Zero ELECT All Season
I live in California so snow is not an issue for me.

I suggest you look at the tire rack review that directly compares the MXM4 T1 (Tesla spec) vs Crossclimate 2. In this review they measured 27 Wh/mi increase in consumption using the Crossclimate 2 (11.4% increase in energy consumption).

In reality you should not think of energy consumption from tire rolling resistance in terms of % as it is mostly fixed nominal energy as it is determined by rolling resistance coefficient (mostly fixed other than driven surface) and weight of the vehicle (also fixed other than adding luggage/passengers). So when travelling at low speeds, rolling resistance will be a higher percentage of energy consumed vs high speeds where energy associated with rolling resistance is lower percentage (coefficient of drag dominates at highway speeds).

Based upon the increased energy recorded from tire rack test (27 Wh/mi) you can calculate the increase in rolling resistance coefficient (Crr) for the Crossclimate 2 if you know the weight of the vehicle. M3 LR has a curb weight of 4065 lbs and will assume an additional 200 lbs for driver + misc equipment (4265 lbs total).
(27 Wh/mi )/((4265 lbs)x(1.989 Wh/lbf mi)) = 0.0032 or sometimes represented as 3.2 kg/T

Now Tyre Review has a YouTube video that compares PS4S, PSAS4, CC2 and X-Ice Snow and lists the rolling resistance of all four tires at time mark 9:50.
The CC2 has a rolling resistance listed at 10.1 kg/T so we can assume MXM4 T1 rolling resistance is probably 6.9 kg/T. The PS4S is listed with a rolling resistance of 9 kg/T so you should expect approx increase of 17.8 Wh/mi when driven on similar surfaces used for tire rack test. One word of caution with these values for Crr is Tyre Reviews does not specify temperature or surface type that these rolling resistance values are determined for. I suspect it is at 20 deg C and concrete road surface considering the summer tire PS4S has virtually the same rolling resistance as all season tire PSAS4. I would expect the PS4S rolling resistance to be closer to the CC2 when driven in the summer (30 deg C) on asphalt covered roads as summer compounds increase grip substantially with heat.

I am currently looking at the Pirelli P Zero Plus Elect for replacing my MXM4 next summer as I am down to 4/32 thread depth after only 28k km during summer driven mileage. Most reviews indicate Pirelli has a slightly higher consumption over MXM4 but this is probably due to higher starting thread depth (10/32 vs Tesla spec MXM4 at 8/32). The Pirellis are also substantially cheaper than the Tesla spec MXM4 (25-35% cheaper).

 

[XPsionic]

I suggest you look at the tire rack review that directly compares the MXM4 T1 (Tesla spec) vs Crossclimate 2. In this review they measured 27 Wh/mi increase in consumption using the Crossclimate 2 (11.4% increase in energy consumption).

In reality you should not think of energy consumption from tire rolling resistance in terms of % as it is mostly fixed nominal energy as it is determined by rolling resistance coefficient (mostly fixed other than driven surface) and weight of the vehicle (also fixed other than adding luggage/passengers). So when travelling at low speeds, rolling resistance will be a higher percentage of energy consumed vs high speeds where energy associated with rolling resistance is lower percentage (coefficient of drag dominates at highway speeds).

Based upon the increased energy recorded from tire rack test (27 Wh/mi) you can calculate the increase in rolling resistance coefficient (Crr) for the Crossclimate 2 if you know the weight of the vehicle. M3 LR has a curb weight of 4065 lbs and will assume an additional 200 lbs for driver + misc equipment (4265 lbs total).
(27 Wh/mi )/((4265 lbs)x(1.989 Wh/lbf mi)) = 0.0032 or sometimes represented as 3.2 kg/T

Now Tyre Review has a YouTube video that compares PS4S, PSAS4, CC2 and X-Ice Snow and lists the rolling resistance of all four tires at time mark 9:50.
The CC2 has a rolling resistance listed at 10.1 kg/T so we can assume MXM4 T1 rolling resistance is probably 6.9 kg/T. The PS4S is listed with a rolling resistance of 9 kg/T so you should expect approx increase of 17.8 Wh/mi when driven on similar surfaces used for tire rack test. One word of caution with these values for Crr is Tyre Reviews does not specify temperature or surface type that these rolling resistance values are determined for. I suspect it is at 20 deg C and concrete road surface considering the summer tire PS4S has virtually the same rolling resistance as all season tire PSAS4. I would expect the PS4S rolling resistance to be closer to the CC2 when driven in the summer (30 deg C) on asphalt covered roads as summer compounds increase grip substantially with heat.

I am currently looking at the Pirelli P Zero Plus Elect for replacing my MXM4 next summer as I am down to 4/32 thread depth after only 28k km during summer driven mileage. Most reviews indicate Pirelli has a slightly higher consumption over MXM4 but this is probably due to higher starting thread depth (10/32 vs Tesla spec MXM4 at 8/32). The Pirellis are also substantially cheaper than the Tesla spec MXM4 (25-35% cheaper).

Great info, thanks. I'm also considering the Pirelli, hoping they'd have better grip than the mxm4 without adding much rolling resistance.

 

[derotam]

And what does all this mean? Your mileage may vary, haha. There are so many variables out there. Remember, adding grip is adding resistance. If you are "mostly concerned about efficiency" then why change out of the MXM4's? Your efficiency hit is probably going to be between 5 and 10%.

I would have kept with MXM4's on my car if it wasn't for the fact that they are pretty crappy in wet conditions. The efficiency hit for me doesn't bother me with my shorter commute times.

 

[3sr+buyer]

Hey! I’m looking to replace my OEM Primacy MXM4 tires (lasted ~30k miles) with the Michelin’s Pilot Sport 4S on my Model 3 LR (18” inch wheels+aero caps) and I’m mostly concerned about efficiency of these tires.

Alternatives I’m considering:
1. Michelin CrossClimate+

Tire Rack did exactly the comparison you need if you are considering the Michelin CrossClimate2 versus the Michelin Primacy MXM4 T1 for the Tesla Model 3.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=298

 

[Knightshade]

Tire Rack did exactly the comparison you need if you are considering the Michelin CrossClimate2 versus the Michelin Primacy MXM4 T1 for the Tesla Model 3.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=298

50-0mph braking distances were almost 23 feet shorter than the OE tire, which is over 1.5 car lengths

This is why people running bad OEM tires because they're slightly more efficient is baffling to me.

 

[brkaus]

Went to Pilot sport AS+. Very happy with the handling and wet weather over the stock tires. Too soon to make a call on the efficiency hit. Only on fir a few weeks.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I have a Performance Model 3 so I started with 20” 235/35/20 Pirelli PZ4 tires. I went down to 235/45/18 Michelin PS4S tires. That is not a true 1:1 tire comparison because the wheel sizes are so different. However, I did see exactly 10% better efficiency(247 Wh/mi vs. 223 Wh/mi) with the 18” wheels and PS4S tires.

That test was a 25 mile loop with an average GPS measured speed of 60 mph. It was during the summer and under nearly identical conditions for each loop.

The main point here is that good summer tires like the 18” PS4S tires don’t have to be that big of a penalty for efficiency. Sure the MXM4s have a lower rolling resistance but is it really that big a difference?

That is part of the reason I did my test with a 60 mph average. With lower speeds the tire rolling resistance is a bigger factor. Once you get up to higher speeds rolling resistance is irrelevant because wind resistance is all that really matters then.

I have done 150 Wh/mi for 12 miles in my Model 3 Performance with the 18” wheels and PS4S tires. That was averaging 55 mph though.

Honestly, rolling resistance really isn’t a significant factor in efficiency of these vehicles at normal highway speeds. Wind resistance is everything especially if you drive fast.

I would get the tire that fits your needs for performance and comfort and just simply slow down a little if you want the car to be more efficient.

Just look at my average Wh/mi for December. Remember this is the Model 3 Performance. That is pretty great efficiency for this car. Even my lifetime efficiency isn’t bad and that includes 50+ 1/4 mile passes this summer alone.

 

[Sorny]

The CC2 are awesome, but it's a legit 10-12% range hit. Words alone cannot describe how much better the traction is in the dry, wet, and cold over the MXM4 though. They're a slightly firmer ride, slightly more noise, an a lot more electrons used.
I think I'm going to try the DWS when I wear out the CC2s.

FWIW, I drive about 28-30k miles/year, so I got almost exactly 1 year on the MXM4 from the factory. I'm expecting to get 2 years on the CC2 given how Michelin rates them. Thus far, with almost 18k on the CC2, I'm not seeing any significant wear. But I'm noticing the range hit now that winter is here.

 

[Wnuk]

This is (almost) an entire year on the DWS tires. Efficiency is very good. I’m a plus 5 MPH under most driving conditions. The rears are ready to be replaced, fronts are still at a 5. I did not rotate them once, never enough time . I liked them in both snow and rain.

 

[XPsionic]

This is (almost) an entire year on the DWS tires. Efficiency is very good. I’m a plus 5 MPH under most driving conditions. The rears are ready to be replaced, fronts are still at a 5. I did not rotate them once, never enough time . I liked them in both snow and rain.View attachment 888430

Which model 3 is this from? 232 wh/mi is exactly what I average with MXM4 in my NCA SR+ and I hate them!

 

[mpgxsvcd]

This is (almost) an entire year on the DWS tires. Efficiency is very good. I’m a plus 5 MPH under most driving conditions. The rears are ready to be replaced, fronts are still at a 5. I did not rotate them once, never enough time . I liked them in both snow and rain.View attachment 888430

Which trim level is this? Is that a dual motor?

 

[Wnuk]

Yes, 2018 Dual Motor. Winters in PA get quite cold too.

 

[MikesSpaceShip]

Hey! I’m looking to replace my OEM Primacy MXM4 tires (lasted ~30k miles) with the Michelin’s Pilot Sport 4S on my Model 3 LR (18” inch wheels+aero caps) and I’m mostly concerned about efficiency of these tires. Folks who have made the switch from OEM to these tires, would you mind sharing range loss/efficiency numbers? Anything else that you dislike about these tires?

Alternatives I’m considering:
1. Michelin CrossClimate+
2. Pirelli P Zero ELECT All Season
I live in California so snow is not an issue for me.

I'm also currently about to replace my OEM Primacy MXM4 235/45 R18 98W XL (ExtraLoad) GreenX T1 tires. Bought a dealership car with approximately 4,500 miles on it. Currently, at 55,159 miles. Not much tread left. Lifetime stats show average 264 Wh/mi. Most mileage is highway by far. Many trips including through snow. Current pricing $300.99 per tire. See Pilot Sport 4S for $236.99 per tire. Cost difference appears to be for Primacy be quieter and meeting GreenX standard. Several comments about Pilot Sport 4S not getting lasting as long. Based upon my experience on existing tires, I'm going stay with them.