P5 of 20
Beat 79% of the field
Michelin Energy Saver Test Results
Tested 2010 to 2018
3 publications
Tested 8 times by independent publications, the Michelin Energy Saver averages a finish of 6th.
- 8Independent tests
- 0Test wins
- 2Podium finishes
- 6thAverage finish
- 50%Field beaten on average
- 3Publications
8 tests, 2010 to 2018
- Test win
- Second
- Third
- Average 50%
The latest test
Record by discipline
Where the Michelin Energy Saver finished in each measured discipline, across every test that measured it against at least two other tyres. Field beaten is the share of the other tyres it outranked in that measurement.
| Discipline | Tests | Avg finish | Field beaten | Firsts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry | ||||
| Dry Braking | 1 | P11 of 20 | 47% | - |
| Dry Handling | 1 | P7 of 20 | 68% | - |
| Wet | ||||
| Wet Braking | 1 | P17 of 20 | 16% | - |
| Wet Handling | 1 | P16 of 20 | 21% | - |
| Straight Aqua | 1 | P8 of 20 | 63% | - |
| Comfort | ||||
| Noise | 1 | P5 of 20 | 79% | - |
| Value | ||||
| Wear | 1 | P2 of 20 | 95% | - |
| Value | 1 | P11 of 20 | 47% | - |
| Rolling Resistance | 1 | P3 of 20 | 89% | - |
Head-to-head record
Overall finishing position against the tyres that have most often shared a test with the Michelin Energy Saver. Only tyres tested alongside it at least three times are listed.
| Rival | Shared tests | Ahead | Behind | Level | Finished ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Continental Premium Contact 2
5 shared: 0 ahead, 5 behind
|
5 | 0 | 5 | - | 0% |
 Goodyear EfficientGrip
4 shared: 2 ahead, 2 behind
|
4 | 2 | 2 | - | 50% |
 Dunlop SP Sport Fast Response
4 shared: 0 ahead, 4 behind
|
4 | 0 | 4 | - | 0% |
 Nokian V
4 shared: 0 ahead, 4 behind
|
4 | 0 | 4 | - | 0% |
 Barum Brillantis 2
3 shared: 3 ahead, 0 behind
|
3 | 3 | 0 | - | 100% |
 Pirelli CINTURA/TO P1
3 shared: 3 ahead, 0 behind
|
3 | 3 | 0 | - | 100% |
 Goodyear DuraGrip
3 shared: 3 ahead, 0 behind
|
3 | 3 | 0 | - | 100% |
 Sava intensa hp
3 shared: 3 ahead, 0 behind
|
3 | 3 | 0 | - | 100% |
 Kumho Solus KH17
3 shared: 3 ahead, 0 behind
|
3 | 3 | 0 | - | 100% |
 Bridgestone Turanza ER300 Ecopia
3 shared: 1 ahead, 2 behind
|
3 | 1 | 2 | - | 33% |
 Pirelli CINTURA/TO P7
3 shared: 0 ahead, 3 behind
|
3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% |
 Vredestein Sportrac 3
3 shared: 0 ahead, 3 behind
|
3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% |
Against its own line
The same record for the tyre it replaced and the tyre that replaced it.
| Tyre | Tests | Wins | Avg finish | Field beaten |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michelin Energy E3B Predecessor | 0 | - | - | - |
| Michelin Energy Saver This tyre | 8 | 0 | 6th | 50% |
| Michelin Energy Saver+ Successor | 14 | 1 | 9th | 53% |
Performance Analysis
Drawn from 8 tests. Updated November 5, 2025.
Michelin Energy Saver shows a clear eco-touring profile: consistently excellent rolling resistance and strong wear/longevity, with competent dry control, but recurring wet grip limitations. It places mid-pack overall (avg 6.1 across 8 tests) with occasional podiums in smaller sizes, yet suffers in challenging or wet-weighted tests and when compared against broader premium fields. Pricing/value can be weak despite efficiency benefits.
Performance Strengths
-
Efficiency & Rolling Resistance
Strong
Details
- 2010 Auto Zeitung: Top marks in rolling resistance
- 2018 Auto Bild: 3rd/20 rolling resistance (+13.5% from best)
-
Wear/Longevity
Strong
Details
- 2018 Auto Bild: 2nd/20 wear (+4.7% from best, 47,580 km)
- Multiple eco-focused tests highlight durability orientation
-
Dry Handling/Control
Moderate
Details
- 2010 Auto Zeitung: "In the dry the Michelin is precise and easily controllable"
- 2018 Auto Bild: Dry handling 7/20 (+1.7% from best)
-
Overall Results in Smaller Sizes
Moderate
Details
- 2012 European 165/70 R14: 2/15 overall
- 2011 European 175/65 R14: 3/15 overall
-
Rolling resistance
Strong
in 3 of 5 tests
Details
Lowest wear and excellent rolling resistance
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)Excellent rolling resistance
- 2011 Finnish ECO Touring Tyre Test (2011)Low rolling resistance, high fuel-saving potential, dynamic driving characteristics on dry roads
- 2010 Auto Bild Eco Tyre Test (2010)
-
Dry handling
Moderate
in 2 of 5 tests
Details
Short braking distances and precise handling in the dry
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)Low rolling resistance, high fuel-saving potential, dynamic driving characteristics on dry roads
- 2010 Auto Bild Eco Tyre Test (2010)
-
Tread life
Minor
in 1 of 5 tests
Details
Lowest wear and excellent rolling resistance
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)
Performance Weaknesses
-
Wet Grip & Wet Handling
Strong
Details
- 2018 Auto Bild: Wet braking 17/20 (+12.8% from best); wet handling 16/20 (+4.6%)
- 2010 Auto Bild Eco: Highest fuel savings but worst wet grip
- 2010 Auto Zeitung: Wet score 92/221; aquaplaning weakness; sacrifices wet performance
-
Value/Purchase Price
Moderate
Details
- 2018 Auto Bild: Price 20/20 (+50% from best), value 11/20 (+45% from best)
-
Inconsistency Across Sizes/Tests
Moderate
Details
- 2011 Finnish ECO Touring 205/55 R16: 13/15 overall
- 2011 European 195/65 R15: 8/14 overall vs. strong small-size podiums
-
Dry Braking Peak Performance
Minor
Details
- 2018 Auto Bild: Dry braking 11/20 (+8.7% from best)
-
Aquaplaning resistance
Moderate
in 2 of 5 tests
Details
Poor curved aquaplaning, high purchase price
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)Extended stopping distances and understeer on a wet road surface, reduced aquaplaning safety reserves
- 2010 Auto Bild Eco Tyre Test (2010)
-
Wet grip
Moderate
in 2 of 5 tests
Details
Weakness in the wet
- 2011 European Summer Tyre Test - 195/65 R15 (2011)Poor wet performance
- 2011 Finnish ECO Touring Tyre Test (2011)
-
Wet braking
Minor
in 1 of 5 tests
Details
Extended stopping distances and understeer on a wet road surface, reduced aquaplaning safety reserves
- 2010 Auto Bild Eco Tyre Test (2010)
Do owners agree with the tests?
Every tester write-up on the Michelin Energy Saver (5 tests) and 108 owner reviews were tagged for the aspects they judge. Where both have spoken, this is how they line up.
Where owners and testers agree
- Tread life strength in 1 of 5 tests 51 praise, 9 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Dry grip strength in 1 of 5 tests 30 praise, 4 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Rolling resistance strength in 3 of 5 tests 20 praise, 4 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Dry handling strength in 2 of 5 tests 10 praise, 3 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Dry braking strength in 1 of 5 tests 4 praise, 0 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
Where they disagree
- Wet braking weakness in 1 of 5 tests 5 praise, 1 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
Raised by owners, not by any test of this tyre
- Road noise no test mentions it 22 praise, 7 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Ride comfort no test mentions it 15 praise, 4 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Puncture resistance no test mentions it 1 praise, 11 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
- Performance when worn no test mentions it 2 praise, 9 criticise of 108 reviews · Read those reviews
Every test, newest first 8
Strong = top two of the field in that measurement. Weak = bottom two.
2018 1 test
2012 1 test
P2 of 15
Beat 93% of the field
2011 3 tests
P13 of 15
Beat 14% of the field
2011 Finnish ECO Touring Tyre Test
Its the usual story for the Michelin Energy Saver - excellent rolling reistance but at the expense of wet performance. This tyre is due an update.
P3 of 15
Beat 86% of the field
P8 of 14
Beat 46% of the field
2010 3 tests
P5 of 5
Beat 0% of the field
P7 of 10
Beat 25% of the field
P6 of 15
Beat 55% of the field
Back to the Michelin Energy Saver overview
Owner reviews, sizes and EU label data, comparisons and the Tyre Reviews score. All Michelin tyres