Are 17 inch ecopia tires worth it for efficiency?

need new tires, 4x ECOPIA EP422 PLUS (215 /50 R17 95V XL BSW) will cost 850 to install, ugh, are these worth it on the 17 inch rims? from what I understand bigger rims are usually less efficient, I get ok efficiency on my bald Michelin energy savers, does anyone have any experience with ecopias on the 17 inch rims? i would like to get as many miles / kwh as possible.

just noticed poking around the forum, some people have 215/55 R17 sized ecopias on their leaf, hows that working out? they're 20 bucks cheaper per tire and maybe should be a little more efficient because there's less rim to sidewall vs the stock tire size, is there any clearance or fitment issues? On discount tires website it claims they wont fit my vehicle. Im a little worried about it being an SL tire instead of XL tire, not sure how much that matters.

I would suggest looking at q6" rims with 205 width tires. That's what comes on the S+ and they work pretty well. You get a 5%+ range boost as well.

DougWantsALeaf said:

I would suggest looking at q6" rims with 205 width tires. That's what comes on the S+ and they work pretty well. You get a 5%+ range boost as well.

Click to expand...

ill consider smaller rims in the future, but for now I need new tires. one is leaking and another has a nail in it

If you want cheap but decent, try Goodyear Eagle L/S. I got a set of four for my last Leaf for $300 from an Ebay tire dealer. Made in the US, too - or they were then, at least.

I'm in the same boat come spring. Those eco's are pricy. I have my eye on a Hankook tire the Kinergy ST, good reviews and a 70,000 miles warranty just like the eco's but wonder how efficient they will be on the leaf? Tirerack has them for $81 each , they are classified as a eco tire whatever that means. The 205 55 16 weighs 18lbs and max pressure 51psi. The ecopieda plus is $122 each 19 lbs 51psi .

I went from worn out ecopia tires inflated to around 50psi to brand new energy saver all season tires inflated to 38psi and to my surprise I saw no reduction in range.
So if you need all the range the leaf can give you like I do then you should get energy savers.
Oh and shop around 3 months ago I was able to get 2 energy saver tires off ebay for $100 each shipped to my door after I ran over something at night and destroyed a energy saver tire with about 8,000 miles on it.
Got 2 because $100 shipped was a great price and so I would have a spare, because same thing happened a few years ago to me.

osi said:

need new tires, 4x ECOPIA EP422 PLUS (215 /50 R17 95V XL BSW) will cost 850 to install, ugh, are these worth it on the 17 inch rims? from what I understand bigger rims are usually less efficient, I get ok efficiency on my bald Michelin energy savers, does anyone have any experience with ecopias on the 17 inch rims? i would like to get as many miles / kwh as possible.

just noticed poking around the forum, some people have 215/55 R17 sized ecopias on their leaf, hows that working out? they're 20 bucks cheaper per tire and maybe should be a little more efficient because there's less rim to sidewall vs the stock tire size, is there any clearance or fitment issues? On discount tires website it claims they wont fit my vehicle. Im a little worried about it being an SL tire instead of XL tire, not sure how much that matters.

Click to expand...

If I were shopping for 17" tires, I would get these:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pirelli-Cinturato-P7-All-Season-Plus-215-50R17-91-V-Tire/43082175

Only $90 each and they will have better traction than the Energy Savers and Ecopias at the expense of range.

These might be worth considering:

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/wto/d/phoenix-tires-bridgestone-ecopia-95/7234151745.html

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/wto/d/phoenix-tires-bridgestone-ecopia-95/7240556164.html

I put 215/55 R17 Ecopia Plus tires on my 2015 SL and they were far superior in wet braking traction, dry traction, and handling compared to the OEM Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires. Efficiency of the Ecopias was at least as good, if not better, than the Michelins. My first replacement set of tires on the 2015 were original size (215/50 R17) Continental sport performance tires and they really reduced the range. When the Continentals needed replacement, I chose one size larger Ecopias because they were more readily available and I wanted a little more ground clearance. I would not recommend 215/55 if you might need to use tire chains, but that is not an issue for me in Phoenix.

I replaced the 215/50 R17 OEM Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires on my 2019 SL Plus with Bridgestone DriveGuard (run flat capable) 215/55 R17 tires at 15,000 miles because the front tires were bald. I prefer the slightly larger 215/55 R17 tires for a little extra ground clearance and they cost less than 215/50 R17 tires (and the larger size is more readily available). I like the DriveGuards because I don't need to worry about punctures stranding me, but they did reduce the range a bit. If range is a major concern, I would go with the Ecopias in 215/55 R17 (as long as you don't anticipate a need to use tire chains). I have said it in other threads and will say it again here--I consider the OEM Michelins that came on my 2015 and 2019 to be the worst passenger car radial tires I have owned and will never purchase them as replacement tires.

I replaced the 205/55 R16 OEM Bridgestone Ecopia tires on my 2011 SL with Michelin MXM4 sport performance tires of the same size and saw a significant drop in efficiency.

Also, my experience is that there was very little difference in efficiency between the 2011 with 205/55 R16 tires on alloy wheels vs. the 2015 with 215/50 R17 tires on alloy wheels as long as the tires were similar. There is a difference in efficiency between low rolling resistance tires such as the Ecopias and either run flat capable or true sport performance tires.

Good write up. Curious on the 16" vs 17" efficiency. Do you think the 205 width vs 215 width does much efficiency wise?

While I could imagine a little at low speeds, I wouldn't think ot would do much at high speeds vs. Wind resistance.

I still struggle with how the S+ does so much better than the SV/SL+ at 70mph, unless its truly a centripetal force difference in that wheel size and a small aero improvement as the car rides a bit lower.

I think that it's the lower ride height. One of the ways the 2018+ Leafs in general get better efficiency is an overall drop of 1/2" in ride height.

DougWantsALeaf said:

Good write up. Curious on the 16" vs 17" efficiency. Do you think the 205 width vs 215 width does much efficiency wise?

While I could imagine a little at low speeds, I wouldn't think ot would do much at high speeds vs. Wind resistance.

I still struggle with how the S+ does so much better than the SV/SL+ at 70mph, unless its truly a centripetal force difference in that wheel size and a small aero improvement as the car rides a bit lower.

Click to expand...

Simpler car for simpler people- ALWAYS more efficient! not running those power-hungry computers!

The alloy wheels have large openings that allow air flow which might create more drag compared to the steel wheels on the S (especially at highway speed). Overall weight of the tire and wheel combination should not be much different. The HVAC system on the S may weigh slightly less and there is probably slightly less auxiliary power draw on the S compared to the well-equipped models. Also, the odometer error needs to be accounted for when comparing efficiency because the smaller outside diameter of the tires on the S may cause the odometer to record more miles for the same actual distance. These are all small things, but they may add up to enough to yield measurable differences. As noted before, the difference between sport/performance tires and low rolling resistance tires is definitely noticeable.

The systems on the SV+ do run 200 watts "hotter" than the S+, Leafspy will show you that. That accounts for lets say 1 mile of range per hour of driving. I have side by side test covering the same distance and adjusted (for GPS) speed...still a pretty big difference.

Doug,

I suspect most of your difference is due to wheels and tires along with the small amount of extra weight with the SV. I assume you still have OEM tires on both cars so the S+ has Ecopias on steel wheels while the SV+ has Michelins on alloy wheels. As noted previously, the alloy wheels have larger openings and may introduce more aerodynamic drag at highway speeds.

S+ has alloy wheels. (S has the steel wheels)

I do need to weigh them both.

DougWantsALeaf said:

S+ has alloy wheels. (S has the steel wheels)

I do need to weigh them both.

Click to expand...

If you're going to do that, might as well switch out the wheels to the other LEAF so we can see what what the actual gain or loss is. I know it's a lot of work, but I think we all would appreciate your scientific study.

thank you all for the reply's, i went with the 215 55 r17 ecopias, and they seem to work well for the few miles i drove. they were at 38psi, i'll inflate them to 44

osi said:

thank you all for the reply's, i went with the 215 55 r17 ecopias, and they seem to work well for the few miles i drove. they were at 38psi, i'll inflate them to 44

Click to expand...

I think you will be happy with your choice. Rotate them every 5,000 miles and keep them inflated to around 44 psi. My experience has been that they offer great wet braking traction on wet pavement with oil residue (common in Phoenix due to extended time between storms) if inflated to 44 psi, but not good if only inflated to Nissan-recommended 36 psi. I believe this is because the tires distort under extreme braking load if not adequately inflated.

If the sidewall max pressure is 44psi, you may also want to consider 40-42psi. That should also work fine.