Justifying Enasaves...

[7milesout]

Guys,

Below is just some rough math. By my calculations, *if* Enasaves are 5.0+ mpg BETTER than Quatracs, then the $'s justify Enasaves.

Here's the assumptions:

• Tire Life: Assuming 45,000 miles on each set of 4 tires (Enasaves and Quatracs).
• Cost: Enasaves installed + taxes & fees (my area) = $773.04
• Cost: Quatracs installed + taxes & fees (my area) = $400.21
• Fuel Cost: $3 per gallon. More some places, maybe less others.

Based on all that,

The tire costs of the Enasaves plus the fuel costs for 45k miles @ $3 per gallon @ 45 mpg = $3,773.

The tire costs of the Quatracs plus the fuel costs for 45k miles @ $3 per gallon @ 40 mpg = $3,775.

The point is, I find it hard to believe that the Enasaves are 5 mpg better (average across the whole life) than the Quatracs. I would have to think the difference would be more like 2 mpg better for the Enasaves, and therefore they would NOT be worth the premium.

AM I WRONG ABOUT THE 5 MPG DIFFERENCE? Could the Enasaves be that much better?

[inuvik]

Guys,

Below is just some rough math. By my calculations, *if* Enasaves are 5.0+ mpg BETTER than Quatracs, then the $'s justify Enasaves.

Here's the assumptions:

• Tire Life: Assuming 45,000 miles on each set of 4 tires (Enasaves and Quatracs).
• Cost: Enasaves installed + taxes & fees (my area) = $773.04
• Cost: Quatracs installed + taxes & fees (my area) = $400.21
• Fuel Cost: $3 per gallon. More some places, maybe less others.

Based on all that,

The tire costs of the Enasaves plus the fuel costs for 45k miles @ $3 per gallon @ 45 mpg = $3,773.

The tire costs of the Quatracs plus the fuel costs for 45k miles @ $3 per gallon @ 40 mpg = $3,775.

The point is, I find it hard to believe that the Enasaves are 5 mpg better (average across the whole life) than the Quatracs. I would have to think the difference would be more like 2 mpg better for the Enasaves, and therefore they would NOT be worth the premium.

AM I WRONG ABOUT THE 5 MPG DIFFERENCE? Could the Enasaves be that much better?

Considering that you save a whole $2.00 by using the Enasaves using your math i wouldn't consider ever using them even if they did save you a whole heap more than $2.00. I had a total of 6 flats before dumping the Enasaves for Federals and they were absolutely terrifying in the rain. Since switching to the Federals I've never had a flat since and my experience is I lost about 2 mpg's with the Federals.

[7milesout]

The point is not $2. That's just a break even point. $2 is the same as $0 (break even) in this scenario.

The point is that the Enasaves would have to be 5.0+ mpg better than the Quatracs. Which I think there is no way.

I guess the real subject of the thread should have been ... there is NO WAY to justify Enasaves.

I totally believe you about the problems with the Enasaves. I'm guessing with my warmer climate and probably higher average speeds then some, that unless the Enasaves have been improved, I'm probably going to have a problem with them before 45,000 miles.

[inuvik]

The point is not $2. That's just a break even point. $2 is the same as $0 (break even) in this scenario.

The point is that the Enasaves would have to be 5.0+ mpg better than the Quatracs. Which I think there is no way.

I guess the real subject of the thread should have been ... there is NO WAY to justify Enasaves.

I totally believe you about the problems with the Enasaves. I'm guessing with my warmer climate and probably higher average speeds then some, that unless the Enasaves have been improved, I'm probably going to have a problem with them before 45,000 miles.

Most owners won't get nearly 45k out of a set of Enasaves. Mine were absolute toast @40k miles.

[Dirk Diggler]

The point is not $2. That's just a break even point. $2 is the same as $0 (break even) in this scenario.

The point is that the Enasaves would have to be 5.0+ mpg better than the Quatracs. Which I think there is no way.

I guess the real subject of the thread should have been ... there is NO WAY to justify Enasaves.

I totally believe you about the problems with the Enasaves. I'm guessing with my warmer climate and probably higher average speeds then some, that unless the Enasaves have been improved, I'm probably going to have a problem with them before 45,000 miles.

Save yourself some real money and go to Discount Tire and get some cheap 175 65 r14 Barum Brillantis2 tires for $40 a tire. I couldn't be happier with these off brand Czech tires. They're tough, have a deep tread, and 175s fit the wheel well better IMO. No tire rub and they're grippy as hell. My mpg did drop a bit. Driving like a crazy Atlantan I'm avg about 38mpg. I got them on the G4 too.

[davidricardo86]

I'm doing Grubhub pretty hardcore (7 days a week 5-7 hr days 90 miles per day avg). My brakes and tires are wearing out fast.

I picked up these Enasaves for $200 complete. Hopefully they don't give me any trouble.

I've read some negative experiences from some members.

[Cobrajet]

Enasaves aren't bad tires, per se. They are just a 'one-trick pony'. Mpg is all they do well. Ride quality, wet traction, tread wear, sidewall strength, cost...it all sucks.

If you can get a different tire that does everything else better for much less money then the mpg advantage becomes moot, as was explained. It isn't a bad idea to eschew the Dunlops even though you will be reminded you don't have them on every time you look at your mpg in the Multi-Information Display.

I will only buy them used.

[Space Wolf]

In my experience you won't see 5mpg difference. In the autumn of 2019 I had to exchange my stock tires. Can't remember what that were, but it were LRR's. Economy is important for me, but I'm also to lazy to change tires twice a year, so it had to be all-seasons. Further Germany had mandated snow tires in winter weather, and I often drive in Germany, so that all-seasons also had to be 'snow-certificated' (if that is a word). Quatracs met the requirements, except that they had a 'D' rating for fuel efficiency, while my stock tires were 'B' (on a scale from A to E, being A the best. There are no A tires in this size), so I was afraid for my economy.
But actually they turned out to be equal, or better. You can see it in my fuel log. You can't point where I changed tires, but the economy has more or less been rising since I have that car.

[7milesout]

Space Wolf - That is good info / feedback.

I'm not in need of tires ... yet. I'm at 11k miles. But I tend to like to know what I'm going to do, versus having to scramble to figure it out at the last second. But in my warm climate, I wonder if maybe that could lead to tire problems. Oh well, ya never know.

I'll take care of these tires and make them last as long as possible. But when replacement time comes, I'll be going with the Quatracs.

Thanks!


7milesout

[Mark]

Space Wolf - That is good info / feedback.

I'm not in need of tires ... yet. I'm at 11k miles. But I tend to like to know what I'm going to do, versus having to scramble to figure it out at the last second. But in my warm climate, I wonder if maybe that could lead to tire problems. Oh well, ya never know.

I'll take care of these tires and make them last as long as possible. But when replacement time comes, I'll be going with the Quatracs.

Thanks!


7milesout

The Vredestein Quatrac 5 tires are listed at a lighter weight than the Dunlop Enasave tires. Quatrac 5 tires are 3PMSF rated tires (three-peak mountain snowflake symbol). If you do some driving in snow, these are a good tire to consider. My guess is they will be a softer rubber, & they may wear a bit faster than an all-season (M+S) tire. I wouldn't expect the life of the Quatrac 5 to be much difference than the Dunlop Enasave tires, but they should offer superior traction.

If you're not driving in snow, I think there are better choices for about the same money. Lately, Dunlop Enasaves have been running about $161/tire, which helps other look like a good value.

I lost a Dunlop Enasave to a sidewall blow out @ 15,000 miles. To keep tires the same on each axle, I bought a pair of $40 Federal SS657 tires at the time. I found no difference in economy, & they offered slightly better traction when new. I wouldn't say the Federal lasted any longer than the Dunlop, but they were 1/3 the cost at the time of purchase. I am not seeing the Federal tires being offered that much lately. Federal have gone up in price and some other options have appeared on the scene, too.

I can't spout out great claims about tires, because I haven't had 4 matching tires on my Mirage since the summer of 2018 (last 40,000 miles). I currently have a pair of newer Nexen tires up front & my old Dunlop Enasave tires on the rear. Don't make the assumption that I got 55,000 miles out of my Dunlop tires. I have 4 different pairs of tires, & I only use the Dunlop tires in the rear during the summer months. My Dunlop tires are quite worn, & they won't be used after this summer is done. Dunlop tires make me uneasy. I carry an extra full size tire in my Mirage when I do longer trips.

So far I am impressed with Nexen N'Priz AH5 (460AA/50,000 mile) tires. They are listed the same weight as the Dunlop Enasave tires and are usually about half the price ($76 @ Walmart today).

I have a pair of Kumho Solus TA31 (500AA/60,000 mile) mounted on rims ready to go (they will replace the Dunlop tires eventually). I feel these may be the best value ($63/tire @ Walmart today) for a 165/65r14, but I haven't used them yet. This is how Kumho describes this particular tire -

"The Kumho Solus TA31 is a passenger touring tire with a symmetric tread design. This tire is one of the most versatile touring tires on the market because it combines all-season performance with premium ride features. The tread pattern delivers a rare mix of comfort and all-weather driving performance all while being engineered to last longer. The wide shoulder blocks deliver a soft contact edge with the road for better steering and traction as well as enhanced corner gripping. The symmetric tread pattern reduces vibration and noise while offering reduced fuel consumption. Mileage is not sacrificed by the advanced dual compound which delivers comfort and superior steering response."

I am not making any claims here about being a tire expert. I am also not making any bold claims about fuel economy with any of these tires. I am experimenting with different 165/65r14 tires, but that takes years not weeks. Even with that, I currently don't own 4 matching tires. This winter my Nokian Nordman 7 snow tires will go up front, & the brand new Kumho tires will go on the rear. I will move the Kumho tires to the front the following spring, & my Nexen will go the rear. I take care of my tire rotations this way, & I have cloned sensors in 4 of my 8 tires (codes can be changed if needed).

Unlike Space Wolf, we don't have as many 165/65r14 tire choices. Likewise, Top Fuel's point about considering 175/65r14 tires is legit. That gives one lots of choices to pick from.

Speaking of the 175/65r14 Falken Sincera SN250 A/S tires, which do have a great rating (700AA/80,000 miles). Discount Tire continued to list this tire in a 165/65r14 size for quite some time. I continued to question them on this. I asked to see an actual pic of the tire & everything. They were claiming they were 80,000 miles tires, but the reality most likely was these were the Sincera SN250A A/S (320BB/no warranty offered) tires that Mitsubishi is putting on their 2021 Mirages.

I politely asked them to list the tire properly on their site, because I felt they were misleading their customers by all this. After about 5 emails over the course of a few months, they dropped the tire instead of fixing the listing of it. Or it's just blocked from me seeing it. I wasn't asking them to drop the listing. I was asking them to represent it fairly to their customers. Oh well, that didn't work out I guess.