215s or 235s...fuel and comfort

[larrylamb]

I don't know if we ever got to the bottom of which vans came with which tyres. I don't think it was a simple as Beaches got 215s and Oceans got 235s. Even within the Oceans, I think there was some variability. My 150 T6 Ocean had 215s. Perhaps all the 204s / 199s had 235s?

I specced 17" Cascavel's on my 140 SE and it came with 235 all season tyres fitted. Very pleased with the ride. I've stopped looking at MPG data, too many variables.

 

[B J G]

Are you sure that's right? I thought the fuel consumption rating was RELATIVE to the tyre size.... So a very wide tyre can be an A, just as a skinny tyre can have an E rating.
We all know the ultra low fuel attempts use bike size (narrow) tyres.....probably for that reason.

Bringing that back to our closer options, a B rated 215 would use less fuel than a B rated 235.

I'm not looking for a fight on this... I collected my 235s today (from 215s), based on the feedback here. I'll report my 'ride' and fuel consumption feeling in an appropriate time.

Point that I was making is that merely saying "I changed from 215 to 235 and got worse fuel consumption" is merely giving the tyre width change information, no mention of from tyre brand model to which tyre brand model.
It can be assumed that the original 215 commercial rated tyre was produced by one of the Prime brands but the 235 may have been classed as mid or lower range brand.

from the feedback I would gather that the 215 Commercial tyre would give the best fuel economy

In many cases the bling effect of big and wide wheels (to fill the arches) takes priority in decision making and reduced fuel consumption seems to come as a surprise or disregarded.
Another can of worms opened.

 

[Calimili]

from the feedback I would gather that the 215 Commercial tyre would give the best fuel economy

Yep, that's what the majority of commercial trade users of T6 vans are using for fuel economy and tyre longevity. Not necessarily the best performing tyre though

 

[B J G]

Confirmation on another tyre/wheel change giving lower consumption average.

T32 van owner with a Pendle remap was getting 44mpg on original steel wheels, changed to larger rim and wider tyres and had 38mpg on same useage. No tyre sizes known.

 

[2into1]

So am update to this thread. Following the views expressed here and elsewhere on the forum I opted for Michelin Cross Climates SUV in the larger of the two Cali sizes 235x55x17. They are 103 load rated. They have B, B, 69db respectively for their fuel, wet grip and noise ratings.

So hopefully without any 'confirmation bias' I'm happy to report I'm pleased with my choice.

I made the swap directly from my winter set which were Dunlop sp winter sport 3d in the narrower 215x60x17s. They were 104/102 load rated with E, C and 70 for their efficiency, wet and noise scores.

For comparison, when Cali's come equipped with the narrower summer tyre, they seem to come with Continental van contact 200 with a 109/107 rating. These rate B, A and 72db for fuel, wet and noise.

My primary hope in opting for the wider 235s was to benefit from a better ride, thanks to their 10psi lower running pressures. I hoped to be not too penalised in fuel consumption due to the higher contact area and the lower pressures.

Well, the ride has improved considerably - I'd say at the top of my expectations. (and my sliding hatch now stays closed!). More minor road imperfections are floated over and major ones now don't feel as if the suspension is being ripped off. I should say that now I'm back in a T5 it's noticeable how the ride and isolation has improved with the 5.1 and the 6.

So I'm putting all of that improvement down to the lower tyre pressures, as in my case the load rating of my before and afters is the same. If you are coming from the Continental Van Contacts with 109/107 stiffer wall, you may notice an even better improvement.

I'm not the type of driver who drifts my van around corners so have no observation as to whether I have more grip from the change.

So to the fuel consumption penalty: @Amarillo had reported a big increase in consumption that seemed to coincide with his change from the narrower tyre (on 16s) to the 235 width on 17s. It wouldn't be surprising given the extra width and the fact the 235s 'look flat' even when properly inflated, so a lot of energy must be consumed by the constant reshaping of the tyre.

I'm happy to report though that I haven't been able to detect a difference in consumption BUT remember I swapped from an E fuel rated winter tyre to a B rated one. That alone will have won me something to offset the expected increase in consumption. If you are coming from the narrow, high pressure B rated Continental tyre to the wide, low pressure 235 Cross Climate, then I expect you would notice the difference in consumption.

Finally those narrow Continentals have a noise rating of 72db vs the 69 of the wider cross climates so you would expect less road noise.

(Note, this is a comparison of the SUV cross climate tyre. A few members here have fitted the Agilis version of the Cross Climates but that is a very different, more commercial tyre with high load ratings and a very different tread pattern. They are 109 load rated and B, A, 73db for fuel, wet grip and noise.)

 

[Amarillo]

So to the fuel consumption penalty: @Amarillo had reported a big increase in consumption that seemed to coincide with his change from the narrower tyre (on 16s) to the 235 width on 17s. It wouldn't be surprising given the extra width and the fact the 235s 'look flat' even when properly inflated, so a lot of energy must be consumed by the constant reshaping of the tyre.

Very early indications are a slight improvement in fuel consumption following a warranty replacement of the EGR pipe and front off side shock absorber. The noticeable drop in fuel consumption may not have been entirely due to a change in tyre.

 

[clarinetbcn]

(Note, this is a comparison of the SUV cross climate tyre. A few members here have fitted the Agilis version of the Cross Climates but that is a very different, more commercial tyre with high load ratings and a very different tread pattern. They are 109 load rated and B, A, 73db for fuel, wet grip and noise.)

Crossclimate Agilis are available in 102-104 load ratings in 215 16s and 17s.

 

[2into1]

Crossclimate Agilis are available in 102-104 load ratings in 215 16s and 17s. View attachment 55260View attachment 55261

You'll notice that the 215x60x17 with 104/102 rating is faded out on your images perhaps suggesting they aren't fully available (even in Spain) as a quick search of blackcircles, national tyre service, tyre leader and oponeo in the UK all only list the 107/109.

 

[Jabberwocky]

These are the tyres fitted to my Cali (New and Old). They were factory fitted. The ride quality and road noise of the 235's are significantly better than the 216's I had on my first T6. I took these two benefits to be really important as we have made, and do plan, some major road trips across Europe. The 215's I had on my old Cali were quite crashy and after a long days driving on some of Norways roads it really was quite nice to just sit and be quiet and for my fillings to feel like they will stay in my mouth a little longer!!
There is a down side - the fuel consumption (but I'm not too bothered - after all I just spent £60k on a Van!) but it's difficult to provide a number because at the same time I opted for the 6sp manual box over the DSG that I had in my first Cali. That said I estimate a loss of 3/4 mpg overall. How much due to each of these two spec differences I don't know? However a quick calculation of a 3mpg penalty over a 4k road trip (Say Croatia and back) would show approx cost increase of just less than £50. If I am honest I'm lucky enough not to be overly worried about that number because for me the better ride quality and lower road noise is easily worth that. (Oh, and all the usual clatters and rattles we have come to expect of a Cali are much reduced). It makes the Cali even more like a car to drive and that must put an even bigger smile on my face!