  ...“designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold in the state as original equipment.”

My nose for unintended consequences says manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average.

That being said, the quoted figures do sound good. Maybe less compelling in someplace like Texas with very low gas prices:

  The energy commission calculated that more efficient tires cost between $6 and $26 more per set, but that increase is more than offset by reduced fuel consumption. It put net savings at $85 to $153 over the lifetime of the tire when gasoline is $4.60 a gallon, though the savings could be 25 percent higher with this year’s price spikes.

▲ kube-system 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average.

OEMs do the opposite already because their official MPG ratings are calculated using the OE tires. OE tires are sometimes criticized as prioritizing fuel economy too much at the expense of longevity and performance.

I don’t see a reason that a car manufacturer would be incentivized to help tire manufacturers sell the cheapest tires on the market

▲

paddy_m 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Car manufacturers watch the cost of every piece of the bill of materials. Cars compete on price, and the assortment of pieces which add perceived value to consumers. Outside of performance and very highend luxury cars, tires are an afterthought to the average car buyer.

	▲	kube-system an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, which is why most optimize tires primarily for price, fuel economy, and NVH, because those are the things which a consumer notices the most when buying a vehicle: "what's the price, what's the EPA estimate, and did I like the test drive?" Some manufacturers even source tires that have lower tread depths than typical replacement tires, in order to decrease noise and increase MPG at the direct detriment to tread life. Tesla is one of the manufacturers that does this, which is one exacerbating factor for their notoriously poor tire life. They literally come with less tire!

▲ majormajor 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> My nose for unintended consequences says manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average.

They won't want to do that because it'll hurt their advertised mileage/range.

This is aimed at the different incentives between selling tires to manufacturers (make sure mileage is good, balance that against raw cost) vs direct to consumers (up front cost is king).

There are doubtless still some potential loopholes that will be explored, though some of the most obvious (like reducing tread depth, mentioned here, appear to have been considered already: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a71509031/california-tire-... ). It doesn't appear to be that naive.

It's also something that's hard to find info on when shopping for tires, so more transparency should help consumers.

▲ roksprok 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These calculations cannot possibly be true. That extra cost is way too small when tires have such a wide range of prices.

▲ Gabrys1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the original tires on my 2016 mazda 6 I bought new from a dealer in California were quite bad. Dunlop something. Bad on wet, okay on dry, lasted for short time. Replaced them after 2 years if I recall correctly. I wonder if original tires are any better 10 years later...

▲ cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>My nose for unintended consequences says manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average.

They already do. They mostly do it for handling and NVH though. And tire makers compete pretty seriously to be the OEM tire on a given car because it's a guaranteed-ish number of sales plus subsequent sales from all the people who just buy the same thing because clearly those work fine why think about it.