Michelin Energy Saver+
Fördelar och nackdelar
av våra specialister
Michelin Energy Saver+ 175/65 R14 82T är ett populärt sommardäck för mindre och medelstora bilar, ofta valt av förare som vill köra både ekonomiskt och bekvämt. Tack vare lågt rullmotstånd och en speciell silica-gummiblandning rapporterar många användare lägre bränsleförbrukning och därmed lägre driftskostnader under däckets livslängd. Däcket är också känt för sin långa livslängd och kan vid normal körning klara många tiotusentals kilometer, vilket delvis kompenserar för det högre inköpspriset. På våt väg presterar det i allmänhet bra, med tillförlitliga bromssträckor och ett förutsägbart beteende som ger trygghet i regn. Energy Saver+ beskrivs dessutom ofta som tyst och bekvämt, väl lämpat för daglig pendling och längre resor. Nackdelen är att fokus tydligt ligger på effektivitet och hållbarhet snarare än på extremt sportigt grepp eller mycket skarp styrrespons. För förare som ofta kör väldigt sportigt kan andra alternativ passa bättre, men för köpare som främst värdesätter ekonomi, livslängd och komfort är detta ett mycket starkt alternativ.
Recensioner av Michelin Energy Saver+
Baserat på 70 recensioner
NU categoric ...clar nu as cumpara aceasta anvelopa dupa 3000 km de mers pe sosea anvelopa spate a capatat o galma ...deviatie nici nu pot descrie....repet fara sa fac offroad...nu pot sa mi explic deoarece in primi 1000 km a mers bine...dezamagit....va las un telefon 0723362588
NU categoric ...clar nu as cumpara aceasta anvelopa dupa 3000 km de mers pe sosea anvelopa spate a capatat o galma ...deviatie nici nu pot descrie....repet fara sa fac offroad...nu pot sa mi explic deoarece in primi 1000 km a mers bine...dezamagit....va las un telefon 0723362588
cristian cana
22 oktober 2025
MOT rejected after 7 years of use. Reason: drought cracks up to the canvas in several places. Tires still had 3.6 to 3.8 mm profile. 2 front tires, front wheel drive, 90% highway kms, all cracks on the outer rim. Bizarre.
MOT rejected after 7 years of use. Reason: drought cracks up to the canvas in several places. Tires still had 3.6 to 3.8 mm profile. 2 front tires, front wheel drive, 90% highway kms, all cracks on the outer rim. Bizarre.
Anonymous
16 april 2021
MOT rejected after 7 years of use. Reason: drought cracks up to the canvas in several places. Tires still had 3.6 to 3.8 mm profile. 2 front tires, front wheel drive, 90% highway kms, all cracks on the outer rim. Bizarre.
MOT rejected after 7 years of use. Reason: drought cracks up to the canvas in several places. Tires still had 3.6 to 3.8 mm profile. 2 front tires, front wheel drive, 90% highway kms, all cracks on the outer rim. Bizarre.
Anonymous
16 april 2021
I didn't notice anything about "Energy Saving". The tire drives quite well, as you would expect from a premium manufacturer, and makes normal noises. After 20,000 km there were still 2x 6 mm / 2x 5 mm of the profile. But only a 7 mm profile was new.
I didn't notice anything about "Energy Saving". The tire drives quite well, as you would expect from a premium manufacturer, and makes normal noises. After 20,000 km there were still 2x 6 mm / 2x 5 mm of the profile. But only a 7 mm profile was new.
Rainer Lange
12 januari 2021
I didn't notice anything about "Energy Saving". The tire drives quite well, as you would expect from a premium manufacturer, and makes normal noises. After 20,000 km there were still 2x 6 mm / 2x 5 mm of the profile. But only a 7 mm profile was new.
I didn't notice anything about "Energy Saving". The tire drives quite well, as you would expect from a premium manufacturer, and makes normal noises. After 20,000 km there were still 2x 6 mm / 2x 5 mm of the profile. But only a 7 mm profile was new.
Rainer Lange
12 januari 2021
