Tyre reviews Michelin Energy E3A. Page 5 640

Decent basic tires for neat city driving
Were in the base on the Kia Ceed car. The rubber is decent, handling and braking are good, it starts to "squeal" early and skids only when cornering in a turn. Noise at speeds between 50 and 90. Soft sidewalls and no rim protector.
Pros: Good handling and braking on narrow asphalt.
Cons: Noise. Soft edge and no rim protection.

Not for Russian roads

I bought it 2 years ago. I feel it's time to throw it away. Over the first year, it wore out by 50% + constant side cuts and bulges. After every bump, a hernia. I used to have Bridgestone B65, I didn't have such problems. The sidewalls are very weak. The tire is designed for moderate driving on well-asphalted roads. In terms of grip, comparing to Bridgestone

A good tire for drivers who don't think they're aces

In general, good rubber, if you don't think you're Schumacher and McRae in one person. For confident movement from point A to point B, it's more than enough. The only minus is that the brakes are weak until you warm them up (after several kilometers of driving). As for the noise, I won't comment, I have nothing to compare it to. Russian-made tires, which doesn

The best that was
It's not worth comparing with domestic ones, and so everything depends on the driving style and the car, I agree: tires for asphalt and careful drivers
Pros: if only the price
Cons: city

3 fatal cuts on three tires out of five

Michelin Energy summer (made in Russia) 195 / 65 R15 - 95 H. I've never had a worse tire in 20 years of driving. Even Omskshina Matador, even BL was more reliable. I didn't want to take it with the new car Focus Universal - they imposed it on me. At 20,000 km of mileage on three tires (with calm driving only on highways -

excellent
excellent tire for the city and highway. low rolling resistance, the car goes by inertia just excellent, holds speed. After Bridgestone, it seems soft. Small irregularities are better "eaten". Balanced perfectly, no beats. There's no point in doing it in the mud.
Pros: economical, holds the road well
Cons: expensive, smokes on the dirt road

very noisy

Standard tires for Kia Ceed. I bought the car in winter - I put on Hakkapelitta studded tires. Literally just a week ago, I changed to Michelin. The noise has increased many times!!! Complete discomfort((((

Tires are just super!

All pluses, economical, quieter tires I haven't seen, rode half a winter on them - they hold very well. Take it and don't think, Misha justifies every ruble. Two minuses - weak sidewall, external appearance is not very good in my opinion

Excellent tires for asphalt and wet roads

2 seasons worn 40%, the working car has driven through all the Carpathians and Crimea, economical, low noise on rough asphalt, on cobblestone in the rain in the city it holds perfectly - I didn't expect, on the highway in the rain it's also excellent, dry asphalt if warmed up is also great, not immediately though. I think it will last until the end of the summer. Manufacturer - Poland.

DON'T BUY!

I bought it last spring. Installed it. Was very pleased. Turns are excellent. Holds well on a wet road. There were no questions about the tire. I drove 10,000... and a bulge appeared on the sidewall of the rear wheel! I bought a new wheel (waited 1.5 months). Installed it. A week later, a BULGE appeared on the front wheel in the SAME PLACE as on the rear one. The