Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Michelin pilot Sport a/s 4 VS CrossClimate+

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Hi,

I'm looking to get new tires this week and the shop with the best warranty has the Michelin pilot Sport A/S 4 in-stock, but the CrossClimate+ needs to be ordered.

The tire store salesman said that the CC+ is great for rain and snow, but for LA driving, the pilot Sport A/S 4 is perfect.

I'm looking for:
1) efficiency
2) safety (it does rain in LA)
3) tread life

I know the All A/S Sport 4 is a newer tire, but would love to hear the forum's thoughts. I looked at the Google doc of M3 tires and the A/S 4 isn't listed. The last model, 3+, is listed and fairly low on the recommend list.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thank you.
 
1 and 2 are somewhat opposing goals... generally tires with more traction available are safer (and stop shorter) but are also less efficient as a direct result of that.

Likewise long tread life tends to be in lower traction tires too.

In LA weather the best/safest tire you can get is probably the Pilot Sport 4s summer performance tire- but it's not going to be awesome at efficiency or tread life.

The cross climate is pointless if you're never going someplace it's below freezing/going to snow.

The PS-A/S4 (from initial reviews and Michelins own press) won't be quite as good as the PS 4s, but will be close (for an all-season) while offering a longer treadwear warranty- and won't leave you stuck parked if you ever want to drive the car someplace it actually gets below freezing.

They're (the PS A/S4) personally what I just bought (like 2 days ago) because it DOES occasionally get below freezing here and even snow once in a blue moon.... if I lived another 100 miles south I'd have just gotten the Pilot Sport 4s instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUengineer
1 and 2 are somewhat opposing goals... generally tires with more traction available are safer (and stop shorter) but are also less efficient as a direct result of that.

Likewise long tread life tends to be in lower traction tires too.

In LA weather the best/safest tire you can get is probably the Pilot Sport 4s summer performance tire- but it's not going to be awesome at efficiency or tread life.

The cross climate is pointless if you're never going someplace it's below freezing/going to snow.

The PS-A/S4 (from initial reviews and Michelins own press) won't be quite as good as the PS 4s, but will be close (for an all-season) while offering a longer treadwear warranty- and won't leave you stuck parked if you ever want to drive the car someplace it actually gets below freezing.

They're (the PS A/S4) personally what I just bought (like 2 days ago) because it DOES occasionally get below freezing here and even snow once in a blue moon.... if I lived another 100 miles south I'd have just gotten the Pilot Sport 4s instead.

I don't plan to be in much inclement weather other than the typical spring rain in LA.

However, it's my understanding that the pilot sport a/s 4 loses about 10% range. And the cross climate loses much less. Not sure why this is true since the CC+, I imagine, is stickier since it is getting snow traction.

Thoughts?
 
Also, I'm curious why the cc+ is more efficient when it's a tire with more traction?

More traction in snow != more traction in not-snow.

Braking in not-snow for example:


https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=231


Cross climate+ 50-0 stopping in dry 86.2 feet, in wet 117 feet.


https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=259

A/S 4- 81.5 feet dry, 105 feet in wet.
(shorter is, obviously, better and more traction)

Likewise average cornering on the A/S is .93g in dry, .76 in wet, the cross climates are .89 and .69

Same car (BMW F36 430i) used on both sets of tests.

And you see similar, inferior, traction results in the other tests done as well for the cross climate.



If slightly better mileage is worth taking an extra 11% distance to stop from 50 in the rain and an extra 5% in dry (and those only gets longer at higher speeds) plus inferior handling in general, then get the cross climates. If safety is more important get the Pilot Sport 4 AS.


If you never drive in snow though and only care about mileage I'm sure there's even MORE efficient tires than the cross-climates out there.
 
I'm having the Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4's delivered today. I will wait until October to have them mounted, but wanted to take advantage of the $80 rebate that ended yesterday.

I hope they last longer than the MXM4's!
 
More traction in snow != more traction in not-snow.

Braking in not-snow for example:


https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=231


Cross climate+ 50-0 stopping in dry 86.2 feet, in wet 117 feet.


https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=259

A/S 4- 81.5 feet dry, 105 feet in wet.
(shorter is, obviously, better and more traction)

Likewise average cornering on the A/S is .93g in dry, .76 in wet, the cross climates are .89 and .69

Same car (BMW F36 430i) used on both sets of tests.

And you see similar, inferior, traction results in the other tests done as well for the cross climate.



If slightly better mileage is worth taking an extra 11% distance to stop from 50 in the rain and an extra 5% in dry (and those only gets longer at higher speeds) plus inferior handling in general, then get the cross climates. If safety is more important get the Pilot Sport 4 AS.


If you never drive in snow though and only care about mileage I'm sure there's even MORE efficient tires than the cross-climates out there.

So even though the CC+ is rated for snow, the Pilot Sport A/S stops more quickly? I would think the snow-rated tire would have more traction and would thus be stickier less fuel efficient that the PS. Guess I'm confused.
 
So even though the CC+ is rated for snow, the Pilot Sport A/S stops more quickly? I would think the snow-rated tire would have more traction and would thus be stickier less fuel efficient that the PS. Guess I'm confused.


Because the type of traction needed in snow isn't the same as the type of traction needed in rain and isn't the same as the type of traction needed on dry warm roads.

It's why dedicated seasonal tires generally outperform, often by large margins, all-season tires.

The old joke is they call them all-seasons because they suck in all seasons compared to dedicated tires.


Winter tires generally are much better in snow than all seasons.

Summer tires generally are much better in all conditions above 35-40 degrees than all seasons.

All seasons are a compromise that aren't the best at anything.


Michelin (and a few others, but they're generally the best at it) have narrowed this gap significantly in some cases... for example while the PS 4s summer tire is still probably the best performing tire you can get in non-winter weather, the Pilot Sport A/S 4 appears to be surprisingly close while ALSO not being likely to get you killed if you try and drive it in 20 degree weather or even maybe a light bit of snow (while trying to drive the PS4s in those conditions will likely have you wreck the car).

In contrast, the MXM4s (OEM for the 18" Tesla Model 3 wheels) are more traditional all seasons that still kinda suck performance-wise and also aren't great in snow either... but they're high efficiency so they allow a better EPA mileage test for Tesla.


I got the A/S4s because it does for at least a couple months of the year sometimes get under freezing, and sometimes does so with moisture on the ground or falling.

If I lived 100 miles south (or in LA) I'd have gotten the PS4s and not taken long to think about doing it either.
 
Because the type of traction needed in snow isn't the same as the type of traction needed in rain and isn't the same as the type of traction needed on dry warm roads.

It's why dedicated seasonal tires generally outperform, often by large margins, all-season tires.

The old joke is they call them all-seasons because they suck in all seasons compared to dedicated tires.


Winter tires generally are much better in snow than all seasons.

Summer tires generally are much better in all conditions above 35-40 degrees than all seasons.

All seasons are a compromise that aren't the best at anything.


Michelin (and a few others, but they're generally the best at it) have narrowed this gap significantly in some cases... for example while the PS 4s summer tire is still probably the best performing tire you can get in non-winter weather, the Pilot Sport A/S 4 appears to be surprisingly close while ALSO not being likely to get you killed if you try and drive it in 20 degree weather or even maybe a light bit of snow (while trying to drive the PS4s in those conditions will likely have you wreck the car).

In contrast, the MXM4s (OEM for the 18" Tesla Model 3 wheels) are more traditional all seasons that still kinda suck performance-wise and also aren't great in snow either... but they're high efficiency so they allow a better EPA mileage test for Tesla.


I got the A/S4s because it does for at least a couple months of the year sometimes get under freezing, and sometimes does so with moisture on the ground or falling.

If I lived 100 miles south (or in LA) I'd have gotten the PS4s and not taken long to think about doing it either.

That's helpful. Why would you have gone with the PS4s in LA? My understanding is the summer tires have even worse efficiency than the all season ones.
 
That's helpful. Why would you have gone with the PS4s in LA? My understanding is the summer tires have even worse efficiency than the all season ones.


Because to me stopping shorter in an emergency and better road handling, especially in the rain, is a lot more important than getting 3-5% more range out of a charge, since outside of a couple of long trips a year I almost never use even half the range of my battery in a day anyway and then charge at home overnight.

It costs me about $2 in electricity to drive about 300 miles.

If better, safer, tires mean it now costs me $2.10 to do that, that's fine.
 
Because to me stopping shorter in an emergency and better road handling, especially in the rain, is a lot more important than getting 3-5% more range out of a charge, since outside of a couple of long trips a year I almost never use even half the range of my battery in a day anyway and then charge at home overnight.

It costs me about $2 in electricity to drive about 300 miles.

If better, safer, tires mean it now costs me $2.10 to do that, that's fine.

Yeah, that makes sense. Unfortunately, I charge at at a local lamp post. If I could easily charge overnight it'd be an easy decision. But losing 30 miles is challenging.
 
I'm not opposed to the CC+ at all, but it seems counterproductive to get snow-rated tires, just because they're more fuel efficient. I have snow-rated tires, like the CC+, the Vredestein Quatrac5, and they're even more fuel efficient than the CC+, but I'd still get the Pilots, in LA, unless I were regularly driving to Mammoth.

If you get the Pilots and are concerned with efficiency, then pump them up, and keep the aero covers on, and drive in chill mode.
 
Struggling between CC+ and Pilot a/s 4 here myself. I don’t have a clear picture. I have a simple question - Are the CCs LRR or at least better for range compared to a/s 4? The answers posted go all over the place with handling, safety and stopping, etc. so hard to get a simple answer.

Not to derail my own question with lots of posts not addressing the question but for disclosure: I care for comfort and range over a little better handling for your curiosity. Live in SoCal but want the option to go to mountains once or twice a year in light snow conditions. So the winter superiority of the CC is not an important factor but if it’s more efficient and comfortable despite a small hit in handling then I am good with that.
 
Last edited:
I have done a fair bit of reading about potential tires for the Model 3 and come to the conclusion that the tire makers have not yet really adjusted to the reality (I hope) of the coming electric vehicle onslaught. While all tires represent a trade-off, manufacturers aren't yet designing tires specifically for electric vehicles and better balancing the trade-offs directly with those vehicles in mind, including heavier vehicle weights, greater start-line torque, and higher efficiency needs. Maybe this will be coming.
 
Struggling between CC+ and Pilot a/s 4 here myself. I don’t have a clear picture. I have a simple question - Are the CCs LRR or at least better for range compared to a/s 4? The answers posted go all over the place with handling, safety and stopping, etc. so hard to get a simple answer.

Not to derail my own question with lots of posts not addressing the question but for disclosure: I care for comfort and range over a little better handling for your curiosity. Live in SoCal but want the option to go to mountains once or twice a year in light snow conditions. So the winter superiority of the CC is not an important factor but if it’s more efficient and comfortable despite a small hit in handling then I am good with that.
Since you're in a SR+, you will still have to carry chains and put them on, if it snows more than lightly, in the mountains, correct? If you were in a LR-AWD, with CC+, you could avoid the chains? If the first answer is yes, then why not get the better tire for most of your driving conditions, since you'd have to put on chains if it snowed heavily, either way. And in light snow, just take it easy for those once a year trips.