Gen 3 Insight Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Does Touring get less MPG due to increased wheel weight?
That is most likely the case. The LX/EX and Touring both wear a 215 for width so it is not an increase in contact patch/resistance. Weight would then be the only culprit left.

Aftermarket wheels such as what I put on ours could either increase or decrease the weight. We went from 27 pounds to 21 pounds per wheel. Should be more in line with what the 16 inch wheels on the LX/EX weigh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Entire car weight is also a likely culprit

LX weighs 2987 pounds
EX weighs 3000 pounds
Touring weighs 3078 pounds

There are only 91 pounds separating the LX from the Touring. Tires and wheels make up about 30 pounds of that extra weight for the Touring. Leather interior, fog lights, and other extra features round out the other 60

Tires
215 /55 R16 = 20 pounds each
215 /50 R17 = 21 pounds each
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
I think bigger tires on the Touring is the main reason for the lower mpg (17" tire - 51 city / 45 highway) than the EX/LX (16" tire - 55 city / 49 highway).

Another difference between the Touring and EX/LX is weight distribution, albeit slight. All 3 trims have a rough weight distribution of 61% front, 39% rear - but the Touring's weight split is 0.5% closer to being a 60/40 split. While this % difference sounds minor, it translates to ~155 lbs of weight being carried more toward the rear on the Touring, rather than over the front wheels... every time the car accelerates from stop. I think this affects how effective acceleration is and associated energy losses.

Some online reviewers have said the mpg difference is due to curb weight (e.g. Touring has sunroof), but I don't buy this because the trims only have 80 lbs total difference (Touring = 3078 lb, EX = 3000 lb). Some of us EX/LX owners added spare tires to our cars which brings up the weight, yet we are still getting at/above Honda's stated mpg.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
It might have to do with the Conti tires that come on the Touring. They don't appear to be low rolling resistance tires or made with a compound to keep the tire cooler unlike the Michelin tires for the LX/EX .
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
I think both OEM tires/companies tout low rolling resistance from silica compounds, though materials/technology may be differ by company.
- Continental ProContact TX: "state-of-the-art silica compound that lowers rolling resistance and greatly improves gas mileage"
- Michelin Energy Saver: "100% silica new generation compound" and "low rolling resistance reduces fuel consumption"

But to be fair, Consumer Reports does refer to the Energy Saver A/S as "exceptionally low" rolling resistance. Costco carries the Energy Saver A/S in the size that will fit the Touring, so will be interesting to do a comparison if someone with a Touring changes to this as future replacement tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
I think both OEM tires/companies tout low rolling resistance from silica compounds, though materials/technology may be differ by company.
- Continental ProContact TX: "state-of-the-art silica compound that lowers rolling resistance and greatly improves gas mileage"
- Michelin Energy Saver: "100% silica new generation compound" and "low rolling resistance reduces fuel consumption"

But to be fair, Consumer Reports does refer to the Energy Saver A/S as "exceptionally low" rolling resistance. Costco carries the Energy Saver A/S in the size that will fit the Touring, so will be interesting to do a comparison if someone with a Touring changes to this as future replacement tire.
Or if anyone has a touring that swapped out for the 16" ex/lx wheel tire combo.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
The touring wheels themselves weigh more than the EX's, and the tires are not quite as efficient. It takes more energy to spin them up. It's definitely not the overall gross weight. I have a spare setup and a bunch of other incidentals in the trunk (not to mention my fat ass in the driver's seat), and I can still put up some great numbers in my EX.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
Yep, the difference is +5 lb per tire position on the Touring; a few forum members previously weighed/compared. :)
https://www.gen3insight.com/forum/161-tires-wheels-brakes-steering-suspension/78-17-inch-touring-wheel-weight.html

EX/LX OEM WHEEL - Weight (without tire): 22.71 each
EX/LX OEM TIRE - Michelin Energy Saver (215 /55 R16) = 19.95 lb each
EX/LX OEM TOTAL: 42.66 lb each

Touring OEM WHEEL - Weight (without tire): 27.0 lb each
Touring OEM TIRE - Continential ProContact TX (215 /50 R17) = 20.50 lb each
Touring OEM TOTAL: 47.50 lb each
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Also, the Touring model has heavier seats because of the leather, being electric and heated. There extra weight is added because of the subwoofer and power sunroof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Also, the Touring model has heavier seats because of the leather, being electric and heated. There extra weight is added because of the subwoofer and power sunroof.
The subwoofer weighs about the same as one of the tweeters in the touring. We can safely take it mostly out of the equation. 🤪 😛
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
I know it has been discussed on here before, but the Insight seems to be minimally affected by weight, some of the members have even expressed this when dropping a kid off at college, the trip there and back loaded vs unloaded had very similar fuel economy numbers.

We all know that the car is extremely sensitive to rolling resistance (if not look at your fuel economy on a rainy day). Yes the touring set up has more unsprung weight, but also more rolling resistance in tire design. The only thing going for it (possibly) is if the wheel/tire combo is a larger diameter, it should help on long cruises, lower rpm of drivetrain for same speed, and unsprung weight is essentially more inertia at speed, requiring less input to maintain speed.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
I know it has been discussed on here before, but the Insight seems to be minimally affected by weight, some of the members have even expressed this when dropping a kid off at college, the trip there and back loaded vs unloaded had very similar fuel economy numbers.
Agree! +80 lb weight on the Touring accounts for differences like sunroof, wheels, and subwoofer and is minimal effect in the bigger picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
I think both OEM tires/companies tout low rolling resistance from silica compounds, though materials/technology may be differ by company.
- Continental ProContact TX: "state-of-the-art silica compound that lowers rolling resistance and greatly improves gas mileage"
- Michelin Energy Saver: "100% silica new generation compound" and "low rolling resistance reduces fuel consumption"

But to be fair, Consumer Reports does refer to the Energy Saver A/S as "exceptionally low" rolling resistance. Costco carries the Energy Saver A/S in the size that will fit the Touring, so will be interesting to do a comparison if someone with a Touring changes to this as future replacement tire.
Found this for the Michelin ES rolling resistance coefficient: https://www.greenhybrid.com/forums/f22/rolling-resistance-figures-few-tires-17500/

Kind of an old post and not US tires but that seems to be a good clue on why my mpg on the highway isn't great with the Touring.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top