Well I just ordered a set for the front of the gti, recommended by my tyre fitter, and they get good reviews here too from some performance car owners. Uniroyal rainsport 3's. They have cool design where the inward pattern has large deep lines to disperse water, and the outer half has diagonal lines to push water away from the car. Great in the wet apparently. Wanted the Michelins, but these are half the price, not sure how long they'll last V's the 13,000 I've squeezed out of this set.
They are rated F for economy and A for wet braking, I think exactly the same as the Super Sports I have now, so hopefully they'll be no noticeable difference. Just hope they grip well.
From what I have found myself, and from what I have read on various web sites, new tyres, even the same type as the old ones removed, give poorer economy than the ones removed. The rolling resistance of a tyre improves as the tyre wears. It is just a fact of tyre design. The grippier a given tyre is, the less fuel efficient it is. And the more worn a tyre is, the less grip it gives and the better miles per gallon! Just something we have to live with
2006 Honda Jazz 1.2i-DSi S Vivid Blue Pearl
Added to this is the fact that the replacements were new while the originals were well worn.
Deeper tread means more weight and rolling resistance. Probably 5 pounds per tire additional weight. I know what I measured, you don't.
Yes, new tires have worse fuel economy than older ones. Most of the break on a new car before best efficiency is reached is for the tires. EPA rules also limit the amount of wear on the tires used for car testing.
I took a picture when I got new rear tires last year. The Bridgestones are great, but they don't last. The Firestones that I have now are just as grippy as the Bridgestones, but they are way cheaper. I'm all for dry grip and take it easy in the rain. The one on the left is 255 the one on the right is a 245 with 8,000 miles on it.