Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I called Bridgestone today and the RE 92's are available again through Costco, and they go on sale starting Monday March 5th. The price per tire is $90.99 each. Four installed tax and everything works out to $ 459; minus $70 off, which makes the out the door price $389 total. Get 'em while they're hot.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
They've been in stock for about a month now, but thanks for the Costco heads up! Hmm..... I should really pick up a spare set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Noise? Comfort?

How are these tires in terms of road noise and ride comfort?
Short answer? Loud, and not super comfortable. That being said, I wouldn't buy any other tire than the RE92 as long as they are available. From what I read, there is no other tire that comes even close to the performance the RE92s deliver. My last tank average was an actual 68.5mpg (lots of hills on the way to work and back), and it would be closer to 60mpg with another tire.

just my .02 worth,
Tim Glover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,649 Posts
I've searched around here for more info, but couldn't find anything... I keep reading the praises of these tires in terms of fuel economy, but where are the numbers actually coming from -- about '5-10%' better mpgs than other tires? Also, what about them makes them so good on fuel -- the rubber compound, tread design, light weight? I can't help but think that, after 12 years, there's gotta be something better, even if it's not specifically a 'fuel saver' type of tire...

Personally, I'm on the fence, struggling with the tire decision. I bought a set of Pirelli P4s for my friend's honda civic and they are awesome tires - in terms of wet grip, low noise, ride comfort, snow traction (truly amazing for a non-specialized all-season tire), and dry grip seems OK.... Tires are expensive, so it's hard to take a chance with them - a little too costly to buy a set only to find you hate them, which has happened to me twice (on other cars)...

So, with the RE92s... I'm struggling with the kind of high price, though that Costco sale might tip me in that direction, and a couple other things: old tire design, came stock on a bunch of cars, which can indicate a not-so-great tire; low tread wear numbers; tread design looks like it'd be noisy, and I've read some comments supporting that... With the Pirellis that I know I like, at least on another car, the closest size they come in is 175-65, and they're about 4 lbs heavier per tire, which is quite a difference...

Here's a little snippet about rolling resistance I snagged from tirerack's site:
"....Tire rolling resistance has an impact on vehicle fuel consumption estimated to range from about 4% during urban driving to 7% during highway driving. The engine and driveline is estimated to consume 80% of the fuel, while the remainder is used to overcome inertia, wind resistance, converted into heat by the brakes or consumed when the vehicle is idling. The automotive industry estimates a 10% reduction in tire rolling resistance will result in a one to two percent improvement in vehicle fuel economy. While that might not seem like a lot, it can reduce fuel consumption by a couple of tanks per year and make the purchase of lower rolling resistance tires a better value over their lifetime."
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=175
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,814 Posts
The numbers are coming from people that actually tried a different tire and later switched back, some of those tried other low rolling resistance tires and say a drop with them as well.

Also note that you need the correct size RE92. Any other size RE92 will hurt your mileage as well. Apparently this tire was made specifically for the Gen1 Insight, and they had no other tire series to put it into, so they put it in the RE92 series of tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,649 Posts
Something like that would appear to be the case. I was just looking at the specs, and it's interesting to see that, even the smaller 13" RE92 is heavier than the 14", plus some other notable differences. Here's some specs for comparison, data from Tirerack:


Looking at the specs, my guess is that low rolling resistance mostly comes from harder rubber compound (note the higher treadwear number, 260), a shallower tread depth (less 'squirm'), and light weight (less mass to get going)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,649 Posts
Funny, I'm not convinced that just because it was designed for the Insight it's better: so were the rear motor mount and the MT syncros, but a lot of good that does us...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
lol... So, what must we do to convince you, Mr. skeptic? The topic has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums. Ask your ecomodder buddies. There is no shortage of rollout data on the RE92.

There is no other tire better than the P165/65R14 RE92 for MPG. Period.

Even the Michelin Energy Saver commands a 4-6% hit, and it's regarded as the next best tire. Any other "regular" tire will be 8-12%+.

You would also think that, after 12 years, there would be a car that gets better MPG than the Insight. There is not.

Low Rolling Resistance tires aren't what people want, so manufacturers haven't made them. The Michelin Energy Saver is the first tire marketed as such. When Bridgestone created the P165/65R14 tire for the Insight, they didn't have a whole lineup of LRR tires, so they lumped it in with their craptacular RE92 line. They should have taken what they learned from designing the tire and made a whole line out of it. Sure, it wouldn't have been popular, but they would have a leg up on the competition now that people are starting to look at LRR tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
Tell you what. You do the research then, and show us a better tire, and we'll buy it.

Literally hundreds of insight owners have tried literally hundreds of different makes and models of tire, and all have found the same thing. That the P165/65R14 RE92 reigns champion, by 4-6% real-world MPG over the next best thing, and 10-20% over just about everything else.

I agree, in 12 years, you would think that someone could develop a more efficient tire, and as Eli said, you would ALSO think that someone could develop a more efficient car. The reality is, the American car-buying public is still addicted to their trucks and gas guzzling full-size sedans. Until gas hits $5/gallon in the USA, you won't see that attitude change much, and consequently, the automakers won't cater to that market, because the people won't buy it. If the buying public isn't interested, the manufacturers won't make it, because they won't make money.

The 1G insight only sold 17,000 units worldwide.

The 2G insight AND the CR-Z are BOTH selling dismally.

Compare to Silverado, F150, Impala, Charger.

In Canada and Europe, the buying public is much more FE-conscious, because fuel is much more expensive there. Honda Civic has been one of Canada's best selling cars for many many years, and in Europe, diesel powered cars like the VW Jetta are much more popular.

Fuel prices for 87 octane gas yesterday:
Upstate NY: $3.60US/USgal.
South-Central Ontario: $1.30/L * 3.78L/USgal = $4.91/USgal (our dollar is roughly at parity)
UK: £1.30/L * 3.78 = £4.91/USgal = US$7.83/gal.

Since the 300,000,000-strong population of the most influential country in the world doesn't care, the makers don't produce. The statistically less-relevant 30,000,000 strong Canadian population, and 62,000,000 strong UK population are effectively ignored.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
The reality is, the American car-buying public is still addicted to their trucks and gas guzzling full-size sedans. Until gas hits $5/gallon in the USA, you won't see that attitude change much, and consequently, the automakers won't cater to that market, because the people won't buy it. If the buying public isn't interested, the manufacturers won't make it, because they won't make money.

Since the 300,000,000-strong population of the most influential country in the world doesn't care, the makers don't produce.
....
That the P165/65R14 RE92 reigns champion, by 4-6% real-world MPG over the next best thing, and 10-20% over just about everything else.

WOW! Way to bash those damned stupid, obese, Koran-burning yankees with their big fat cigars, and their F250 dually trucks in every driveway! If only they were as smart as their northern neighbors, or you.

But the reality is: Fuel price has not reached $5/gal, but the current US car sales outpace light truck sales by about 20%. (And light truck sales includes some of the more fuel efficient SUVs as well.)
Feb 2011 to Feb 2012 sales of cars increased by 24% and trucks sales by only 7.6%. (see :::: Motor Intelligence :::: powered by autodata corporation click on "new vehicle sales")

And although I do not care enough to do research in order to convince you otherwise, I bet that the US leads the world in hybrid and electric vehicle sales (as percentage of total passanger car sales).

I spent 18 years total in Europe, about 3 years in the Middle East, several months in South/Central America, and even one day in Toronto. So I am aware of other factors (besides fuel costs) which influence the car-buying habits of people in the world. I am also aware that lots of people around the world like to blame the US for every problem facing their existence.

International members on this forum are dedicated to driving responsibly and do much to advance the cause of fuel efficiency, so I am dissapointed to read blame-slinging and attempts of advancing divisive, narrow-minded, stereotypically labeled views about a particular nation.

Offense taken. No need for reply.

......
Bridgestone produces the 165-65-14 RE92 in batches, therefore supply stocks cycle up and down over the months/years. I have observed I1 owners stock up on them only to sell them later when they realized that their tires will likely be dry-rotted by the time they get around to using them.

As far as RE92 "reigns champion", well that's only in MPG numbers. I am on my third set of this model tire, and have also used a new set of imported Dunlops in this size, as well as a generic 175-75-14 set which came on my used I1. I share the sentiment with most that the sacrifice in comfort, handling and overall ride quality of our RE92 are a serious detriment. (I ride at 45 PSI) And each owner needs to do their own math on how many miles of total driving will net the fuel cost savings over the $50 per tire alternatives. For many, it is cheaper and better to drive on something else.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
Huh... I didn't think Racer's comments were offensive.

By and large, they're true. We take our cheap gas for granted, and it shows in both our vehicle buying habits and the selection of vehicles that are available. There isn't really any doubting that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,649 Posts
lol... So, what must we do to convince you, Mr. skeptic....
I don't know. Just in the last few posts you've cited +8-12%, other dude says 10-20%. The Tirerack snippet says 10% reduction in RR produces about 1-2% increase in fuel economy... The numbers are all over the place. There's probably nothing anyone can do to convince me, except maybe a controlled test... I mean, I accept that they're likely better in fuel economy. How much, I'm not sure. Then, the difference in noise/ride comfort with the RE92s versus some other more comfort-oriented tire, not sure...

I'd accept maybe a 5% hit in fuel economy if one set of tires was noisy and uncomfortable, the fuel economy set, versus the other set quiet and comfortable, the fat american set. 10% is getting up there, though, and for 20% I'd drive on the steel cords... Then the difference in quiet/comfort has to be a good spread. Like with these Pirelli P4s I mentioned, the difference between those and other tires I've had is like the difference between driving on an old section of highway and then on a nice, new, smooth section... Big difference. You can drive on the rough stuff with the P4s and it's like bad tires on the smooth stuff...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
I understood Racer blaming the US population [and consumer habits] for him not having a choice of 165-65-14 Low Rolling Resistance tires to buy. I do take offense to that.

Does Racer have the freedom in Canada to petition his government to provide subsidies to tire manufacturers in support of developing LRR tires? If so, then he should please do that instead of blaming my Joe the Plummer for driving a 1988 F150 with a straigh six.

The reference in my above post dated today shows the rate of increase for passenger cars is about three times the rate increase of trucks.
Sales volumes of TOTAL vehicle sales tip the scale for cars vs. trucks as well by about 20%. This proves the car buying habits of US consumers have changed.

Has the "US driver" taken the "cheap fuel" for granted? In the past? Probably. (The US, Great Britain, Spain etc -except Israel- also took airline and travel safety for granted prior to 2001. But as everyone knows, the world has changed.)

But there were other reasons besides fuel costs for why a family in Napoli, Italy would have purchased a diesel-powered Fiat Stilo, while an American family in suburban Cleveland, OH opted for a V8 Ford Explorer during the economically more favorable '90s. If one examines the diversity of the US geography, regional economics, and cultural habits, then it would be easy to see why a comparison between New York City residents' car buying habits would be more similar to Franfurt's resident's car-buying habits, then the overall ("average") US data vs. European "average" data.

Are the Canadians taking clean drinking water for granted? I don't know. But I hope they match the US' efforts in providing wells, funding, and education assistance to the less fortunate East African people. But if they didn't, I wouldn't be blaming "the Canadian water drinking public" for the developing fresh-water crisis on our planet.

OK, now let's get back to the RE92 availability. :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
Like I said, there is no shortage of data out there. Rolling resistance and to a lesser extent, weight, has a profound impact on Insight MPG.

When we bought Insight #2, it had some crappy 175mm tire and steel wheels on it. It felt like the car had giant blocks of concrete for tires. Seriously. I can't even begin to describe in text how much different the car felt and behaved. It just didn't want to roll. Assist came on earlier, more aggressively and for a longer period of time.. And then of course there was the whole MPG thing. It really sucked.

Replacing the tires with the RE92s and Insight rims made it feel normal again.

I understand that most people don't think of tires this way, but I cannot stress enough how much of an impact it can have. The reason for the different figures is because it depends on the tire you're comparing it to. If you put 195's on the Insight, you probably would see a 20% increase in fuel economy just by moving to the RE92.

This is all I'm going to find for you:

http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/honda-insight-forum-1st-gen-discussion/16795-michelin-energy-saver-165-65-14-replacement-tires-love-them.html#post167729

Boom, 10MPG difference. Other people have reported less. As with all things, YMMV. But one thing is for certain - the P165/65R14 is the most fuel efficient tire available for the Insight. And any other car that uses a 14" wheel.

As for ride comfort etc, I run my RE92s at 60PSI - I could care less. MPG is king for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
According to this page : Hybrid Car Sales and Stats Info | Hybrids For Sale

Japan is the #1 market for hybrids.

My point, which I'll admit kind of got conflated, was that people don't think about fuel efficiency when it comes to buying cars until gas reaches $5/gal.

Canada is only just there, and like our American friends to the south, we have way more light-trucks than is sensible, but small, comparatively fuel efficient cars are topping the sales list.

Europe is a whole different ball game. Not only do they have much better diesel passenger car penetration, but they even have significantly more fuel-efficient, smaller trucks. Partly for FE reasons, and largely because many older European cities don't have the room to drive a tractor-trailer through the streets.

Regardless, I stand by my point that what the US public is willing to buy drives the manufacturers development decisions in a big bad way.

Look at the CR-Z. In Japan, it has a backseat. North American cars have no backseat, and a cargo shelf not unlike that of our 1G insights. Honda decided that because the backseat was 'small', that the larger North American bodies wouldn't want to sit in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
Yes: I'm sour that I pay nearly $5/gal for gas, when a 2 hour drive away in Buffalo, Americans are paying $3.60. The geography and economics of it make basically zero sense.

If I lived in a border town, I would cross the border on a regular basis just to put gas in my car.

What's even more broken about that is that Canada is a net EXPORTER of oil, thanks to Alberta, but Ontario and points east run on expensive Middle Eastern oil, while Alberta ships the oil we produce down for US consumption.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top