View Gallery (1)

195-205/55 R16 2 sizes 2007

Michelin Energy Saver

Name: Michelin Energy Saver
Brand: Michelin
Rating: 3.8 (137 reviews)

Previous Michelin Tyres Premium Touring Summer Next

The Michelin Energy Saver is a Premium Touring Summer tyre designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

8.2

Tyre Reviews Score Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews

Medium Confidence View Breakdown

Dry Grip

83%

Wet Grip

71%

Road Feedback

74%

Handling

71%

Wear

85%

Comfort

80%

Buy again

69%

Expected Mileage 33,142 miles High Confidence

137 Reviews

76% Average

3,210,708 miles driven

8 Tests (avg: 6^th)

Parameter	Value	Description
`safety_weight`	0.7	Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
`performance_weight`	0.55	Weight multiplier for performance metrics
`comfort_weight`	0.4	Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
`value_weight`	0.45	Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
`user_reviews_weight`	0.15	How much user reviews contribute to the final score
`test_data_weight`	0.8	How much professional test data contributes to the final score
`consistency_weight`	0.05	How much score consistency contributes to the final score
`recency_decay_rate`	0.95	Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
`min_test_count`	1	Minimum number of professional tests required
`min_review_count`	5	Minimum number of user reviews required
`score_version`	1.9	Current version of the scoring algorithm
`score_normalization_factor`	1.1	Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
`confidence_factor_weight`	0.2	How much data confidence affects the final score
`position_penalty_weight`	0.2	Penalty applied for poor test positions
`gap_penalty_threshold`	12	Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
`min_metrics_count`	2	Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
`limited_data_threshold`	2	Number of tests below which data is considered limited
`single_test_penalty`	0.75	Score multiplier when only one test is available
`critical_metric_penalty`	0.7	Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
`critical_metric_threshold`	70	Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
`position_exponential_factor`	1.2	Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
`position_exponential_threshold`	0.9	Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
`gap_multiplier_critical`	3	Multiplier for critical gap penalties
`max_category_weight`	2	Maximum weight any single category can have
`max_score_limited_data`	9.5	Score cap when data is limited
`bayesian_prior_weight`	1.5	Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
`bayesian_prior_score`	7	Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
`evidence_test_multiplier`	1.9	Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
`evidence_metric_divisor`	3	Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
`evidence_review_divisor`	10	Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
`combined_penalty_floor`	0.2

Test	Publication	Date	Size	Position	Metrics
2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test	Auto Bild	2018	195/65 R15	5/20	10 metrics
2012 European Summer Tyre Test - 165/70 R14	ADAC	2012	165/70 R14	2/15	0 metrics
2011 Finnish ECO Touring Tyre Test		2011	205/55 r16	13/15	0 metrics
2011 European Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14	ADAC	2011	175/65 r14	3/15	0 metrics
2011 European Summer Tyre Test - 195/65 R15	ADAC	2011	195/65 r15	8/14	0 metrics
2010 Auto Bild Eco Tyre Test	Auto Bild	2010	205/55 r16	5/5	0 metrics
2010 Auto Zeitung Premium Touring Tyre Test	Auto Zeitung	2010	205/55 r16	7/9	0 metrics
2010 European Summer Tyre Test - 185/65 r15		2010	185/65 r15	6/12	0 metrics

All Tests

View Test Results

Tests

6^th

Average

2^nd

Best

13^th

Worst

Latest Tyre Test Results

2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test

195/65 R15 • 2018

5^th/20

Lowest wear and excellent rolling resistance. Short braking distances and precise handling in the dry.

Poor curved aquaplaning, high purchase price.

2012 European Summer Tyre Test - 165/70 R14

165/70 R14 • 2012

2^nd/15

Very balanced, top marks in the wet, low fuel consumption.

2011 European Summer Tyre Test - 195/65 R15

195/65 r15 • 2011

8^th/14

Very balanced tyre, scores well in all safety related tests.

Weakness in the wet.

Alternative Tyres

Continental PremiumContact 7

9.9/10

Pirelli Cinturato C3

9.7/10

Nokian Hakka Blue 3

9.6/10

Michelin Primacy 5

9.4/10

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

9.3/10

Falken ZIEX ZE320

9.1/10

Michelin Primacy 4 Plus

8.9/10

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN

8.8/10

BFGoodrich Advantage 2

5.8/10

Show All Summer Premium Touring tyres

Size	Fuel	Wet	Noise
16 inch
205/55R16 91 H	D	B	70
195/55R16 87 H	C	A	70

View All Sizes and EU Label Scores for the Michelin Energy Saver >>

Questions and Answers for the Michelin Energy Saver

Ask a question

March 29, 2019

Hello Tyre Reviews! I wonder if you can help me please? I need to replace the two front Michelin Energy Saver tyres on my Mini Cooper 1.5 which came with it when new (195 55 R16 W). Is this the best tyre do you think? I've seen some reviews saying they're not very good in the wet. I don't mind paying the high price for Michelin. But are there any other worthy alternatives that I should consider please? Many thanks for your time and help! Ian

Check out the second half of our <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rQoBeUH9hY">tyre recommendation video here.</a>

August 25, 2020

How many years this tires can stored under normal weather condition ( I’m from Sri Lanka, so it’s basically summer all around year) , before use. (Rubber in tires started to hardened after some years, that’s why I asked this question)

Tyre manufacturers recommend 2 years before selling, and a total of ~5 years before the tyres age out and need replacement.

Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Size	Price Range
205/55 R16	£107.99 - £130.99 (2 Prices)	Compare Prices >>
Available in 2 tyre sizes - View all.

Review Summary

Based on 109 user reviews

Across 109 reviews, the Michelin Energy Saver is praised for exceptional tread life, low rolling resistance/fuel economy, and generally low noise/comfort, making it a strong choice for calm, high-mileage driving. However, many users report weak wet/cold grip especially as the tyre ages or nears 3mm tread, and frequent age-related cracking/hardening, with some noting soft/fragile sidewalls. Dry grip and predictability are typically adequate but not sporty. Overall sentiment is positive, with durability and efficiency as standout strengths and wet-weather/ageing performance the main drawbacks.

Strengths

Long tread life/durability
Low rolling resistance/fuel economy
Low noise/comfort
Predictable handling in dry
Value over life/mileage

Areas for Improvement

Poor wet/cold grip (worsens as they wear/age)
Age-related cracking/hardening
Soft/fragile sidewalls
Reduced feedback/sportiness

Top 3 Michelin Energy Saver Reviews

Given 76% while driving a Toyota Prius III (195/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 90,000 easy going miles

Good tyres. The rear tyres on my Prius 3 plug-in (2012) are still the original ones. They are not yet worn down to the wear indicator mark but are showing superficial cracking. So i just decided to replace them after 145k (90k UK miles) kilometres and 11 years. Ridiculous mileage for a set of tyres. The front tyres have been replaced after 7 years and unknown (for me) km's. The front tyres were replaced with energy saver again in 2019. Now they are nearing the wear indicator mark so i am replacing them together with the back tyres for a full new set.

I will not be buying them again as they are no longer for sale. I am buying all season tyres instead since the performance of this type of tyre has improved by a lot over the years.

It's important to know that i drive with a large focus on fuel efficiency. I try to avoid braking hard since i use regenerative braking as much as possible, just as long as i am not annoying other traffic. I don't have the adequate knowledge (or experience with other tyres) to fill in most of the scores in step 2, other than that they behaved very well. There is nothing noteworthy exept for the -in my opinion- extreme wear resistance and low rolling resistance.

Helpful 908

November 1, 2023

Given 80% while driving a Fiat Qubo (185/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 26,000 average miles

This tire came with stock. I used 4 years 45000km. Threads not wear to much, however after 3 years it is started crack on sides. And after 3 years it started tearing teeths. My last trip, over 2000km it is cracked on threads. Same things happened my father’s car too. So, nice tire but not long last. I order Crossclimate 2 for replacement. I am thinking not use anymore my Blizzak for winter.

Helpful 934

May 26, 2022

Given 84% while driving a Hyundai i20 (185/65 R15) on mostly motorways for 43,200 easy going miles

The tyres came with the car, after 7 years of use and 69500Km (43200 miles) they started to show signs of dry rubber from the wear itself whey would probably last for more than 100000Km (62000 miles), the car was not parked in a garage, but at a relatively sheltered and covered location, for my drive style these are perfect.

On the dry they are perfectly fine, on the wet they never gave me any scares or surprises. When being pushed they don't give away the grip suddenly making them quite predictable.

Being 185/65R15 the comfort is quite good, but road feedback is quite tame, you can feel if they are gripping well, but they are quite cushioned.

I often drive in highway and, while I don't have a comparison, I believe that they helped quite a lot in the fuel consumption, time will tell if the replacements will achieve such consumption.

I replace them with what was available at a reasonable price, sadly these are not longer available and their replacement, the Energy Saver Plus, are not easily available and are really expensive, Primacy 4 are somewhat expensive as well, in the end I went for the Continental UltraContact UC6 as they were quite cheap (when compared with the previous alternatives) and well regarded, hopefully these will last at least 50000Km.

Helpful 760

October 4, 2022

How would you rate the Michelin Energy Saver?

Click a star to start your review

Latest Michelin Energy Saver Reviews

Given 63% while driving a Skoda (205/55 R16) on a combination of roads for 65,000 average miles

OE tyres on Skoda Superb Combi 2015 1.6 TDi GreenLine. Tyres had a long lifespan, and performed ok, but a lot of that is overshadowed by the dry rotting that these Michelins have. To make matters worse, the left front tyre got a broken belt in the middle of the thread! Very dangerous stuff! Btw the dot code was from 2014 and this happened in 2020. I don't like to recommend these, although this is a old tyre replaced by the Energy Saver +, which in turn have kind of been replaced by the e.Primacy. The ES+ is still made in some smaller sizes, but I dont recommend buying them.

Helpful 837

March 20, 2022

Volkswagen (205/55 R16) on for 21,000 miles

The Energy Saver tyre has one significant weak link - poor wet grip. When pulling out onto wet roundabouts or T junctions, I experience very poor grip which is quite concerning at times. In dry conditions the tyre is great and very long lasting. We have done 21k miles and the tyre is now at 3mm. I can't stand them any more so swapping now.

Helpful 920

November 25, 2021

Given 53% while driving a Citroën berlingo (205/60 R16) on a combination of roads for 12,000 easy going miles

I bought the car a year old. This tyre was the factory default. They did just above 10,000 miles. The front tyres were almost on marker. 3 out of the 4 tyres were badly cracked at the base around the threads so much they would have failed MOT. I have looked this up and found many had similar issues, they say due to the soft compound. When I drove it in light rain it felt like I was skating, was literally so bad. I have joined an fb group for this car and half of the owners complained about the same. They said it was OK brand new but as it wore down it got terrible. Basically all of them opted for different tyres when they nedded/decided to replace. Don't get me wrong I am not against the brand, I had winter tyres a few years back of it and they were brilliant, but I'd say being a premium tyre with premium price this particular tyre is not worth it. Also bear in mind I had them "used" so my experience and rating is for that, I didn't drive them brand new. Also the car is a 7 seater almost van like family car so not driven in a sporty fashion. I have mid range tyres on my other car which overall perform way better.

Helpful 888

November 18, 2021

Given 76% while driving a Peugeot 208 1.6 vti (195/55 R16) on mostly motorways for 36,500 easy going miles

I bought a four years old car with only 10.000 km and the original tyres. I travel 50.000 km since then and the tyres thread still have few millimwters. I believe the rubber become old and hard (8 y.o.), infact the adherence and traction in wet is now very poor. My driving style is mostly quiet, except very very few times on mountain roads. I appreciate the confort in term of noise and the ability to absorb road roughness. The fuel consumption was also very low, but also due to my driving style.

Helpful 841

September 24, 2021

Given 76% while driving a Toyota Yaris (195/60 R15) on a combination of roads for 10,000 spirited miles

Been using these tires for 2 months and 10,000 kms so far. the weather is too hot and sunny all year round with bad roads and asphalt (a big challenge for any tires). grip Was very good initially but dry and wet grip deteriorated after only 10,000 KMs. Exceptionally silent tires so far, they almost cause no sound. soft side wall, good for unpaved and harsh roads. will see how would they survive as i wont replace them before completing 70,000 more kms

Helpful 841

July 23, 2021

Given 95% while driving a BMW 320d efficient dynamics (205/60 R16 W) on a combination of roads for 24,000 average miles

These were fitted on my car when I bought it, they had about 6mm of tread (they were made at the start of 2019). After 24000 miles I must say I'm impressed, they are now at 3mm. They have dealt with all sorts weather really well and there has been no noticeable loss of performance. The only criticism is that there are nascent small cracks appearing in the side wall. I would buy them again as I've got lots of miles out of them.

Helpful 862

January 30, 2021

Given 29% while driving a Vauxhall Astra H 1.8 Estate (205/55 R16) on mostly town for 12,000 easy going miles

Tyres dated from 2013 to 27th week 2015. All have cracked really badly. Wet grip awful. Failed an mot bad. All 4 being replaced tomorrow. My mot man advised never to buy Michelin tyres as they crack. Last tyre purchased cost £83.50. Waste of money. Totally gutted. I run a merc on continentals. No problem whatsoever. My astra is getting well rated budget tyres tomorrow. All 4 for £210 inc fitting. Avoid Michelin at all inflated cost!

Helpful 820

November 8, 2020

Given 69% while driving a Fiat Grande Punto 1.3Multijet 75bhp (185/65 R15 T) on a combination of roads for 20,000 spirited miles

I've used these tyres for 3 years on my car, and they are overall good, but there's a flaw I have to mention: for the first 2 years I didn't notice any problem in any conditions, but at the end of their life the wet performance decreased by much, and the last times I drove them in rainy conditions the grip simply wasn't there, I had to go much slower to prevent dangerous situations. I did not expect that from a tyre rated "A" for wet grip. I've been able to drive the new model (Energy Saver +) on my dad's car, and I have to say that is much better in the wet at the end of its life.

Helpful 792

November 7, 2020

Given 69% while driving a Renault Clio 1.5 dCi 86 (185/55 R16 H) on mostly town for 35,000 average miles

I bought these tires after reading very positive ADAC test review. They wrote these tires are really good in all conditions and will also last very long. I've never had tires that are both good and longlasting, it's usually one or the other and I would not believe it if was just a manufacturer promo claim. Since ADAC also confirmed it on their testing ground I believed. My experience is that these really are extremely longlasting, comfortable and low noise tires. But also terrible for me in the wet, I have 0 confidence in them on the wet motorway. I corners car feels so light, slightly drifting to the outside with me being scared to turn more not to lose it. There is quite a lot of "meat" above the wear markers, but I have to change them.

Helpful 950

September 27, 2020

Given 54% while driving a Hyundai Ioniq (195/65 R15) on mostly town for 25,000 average miles

For fuel saving, it did great job. However, not fun, grip and feedback not good. Noisy after 10k.

Helpful 974

August 20, 2020

Given 77% while driving a BMW F30 320D (205/60 R16 H) on a combination of roads for 20,000 spirited miles

I have these tyres for 3 years now on my summer wheels. They are ok for most drivers, but they are quite bad on wet surfaces when it’s below 15 Celsius. They also feel a bit unsecure at higher speeds (over 160 kph - 100 mph). My Skoda Octavia with Goodyear Eagle F1 gsd3 feels a lot better at high speeds than the 3series with Michelin Energy Saver. The fuel economy compared to the winter tyres that I use (Goodyear ultragrip 8) is not so different. Probably 0.2 l/100km less on the Energy Saver. During colder mornings the back of my car goes sideways quite fast if I accelerate a bit harder. Conclusion: I will go for other tires next season.

Helpful 794

August 9, 2020

Given 45% while driving a Volkswagen Polo 6N (215/65 R16) on for 100 miles

It is the worst tire that I have ever used. It came with VW Polo stock, and I ve changed them Continental All Season. Michelin Energy saver is especially bad on wet roads in both ways handling and braking. I do not recommend this tire

Helpful 1054

April 26, 2020

Rate the Michelin Energy Saver

187 reviews submitted this month Earn your Contributor badge

Menu

Michelin Energy Saver