Tests 71 · 1 test Owners 69 · 137 reviews
Best test result: #2 of 20 in 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (wear)
Head-to-head
Updated
Michelin Energy Saver vs Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT — Compared
Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 1 + 0 road tests and 137 + 12 owner reviews. How we score
Energy Saver is ahead, 69–55
Add your size for an exact match
/R
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests – · none yet Owners 49 · 12 reviews
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
69
Dry
Energy Saver +1653Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests 71 ≈ 58 (est.) Reviews found online 68 45 Energy Saver: 60% × 70.6 + 40% × 67.6 = 69
Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 58.4 (est.) + 40% × 45.1 = 53
No road tests of dry for Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
68
Wet
Energy Saver +1157Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests 69 ≈ 60 (est.) Reviews found online 67 52 Energy Saver: 60% × 69.1 + 40% × 66.7 = 68
Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 60.2 (est.) + 40% × 51.6 = 57
No road tests of wet for Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
68
Comfort
Energy Saver +1355Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 69 (est.) ≈ 65 (est.) Reviews found online 68 48 Energy Saver: 40% × 68.9 (est.) + 60% × 67.8 = 68
Turanza ER300 RFT: 40% × 65.3 (est.) + 60% × 48 = 55
No road tests of comfort for Energy Saver or Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
70
Noise
No comparison–Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests 72 – Reviews found online ≈ 67 (est.) – Energy Saver: 60% × 72.2 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 70
No owner ratings of noise for Energy Saver. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
-
74
Treadwear
Energy Saver +1757Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests 74 ≈ 61 (est.) Reviews found online 74 51 Energy Saver: 60% × 74.4 + 40% × 74.1 = 74
Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 60.8 (est.) + 40% × 50.9 = 57
No road tests of treadwear for Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
64
Handling (owners)
Energy Saver +1252Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Reviews found online 64 52 -
75
Efficiency
No comparison–Why this score
Source Energy Saver Turanza ER300 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests 75 –
Scores at a glance
| Category | Michelin Energy Saver | Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 69 | 55 |
| Dry | 69 | 53 |
| Wet | 68 | 57 |
| Comfort | 68 | 55 |
| Noise | 70 | – |
| Treadwear | 74 | 57 |
| Handling (owners) | 64 | 52 |
| Efficiency | 75 | – |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Weight the categories that matter to you
Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Recomputed
Headline score
69
/ 100
Energy Saver
55
/ 100
Turanza ER300 RFT
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A Energy Saver
Pros
- Exceptional tread life and long-lasting durability
- Noticeable improvements in fuel economy and low rolling resistance
- Low road noise and high levels of driving comfort
Cons
- Subpar wet-weather grip and traction, especially as the tires age
- Prone to dry rotting, cracking, and hardening after a few years
- Poor performance and sliding in cold or winter conditions
Tire B Turanza ER300 RFT
Pros
- Decent dry grip and acceptable comfort for a run-flat tire
- Impressive tread life and mileage reported by highway and long-distance drivers
- Reliable OEM fitment integration for compatible vehicles like BMW models
Cons
- Subpar or near-zero grip in wet conditions, frequently causing traction control activation
- Harsh and noisy ride quality typical of the run-flat construction
- Rapid tread wear reported by some drivers on mixed roads
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Michelin Energy Saver | B · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 4 | — |
| Rim diameters | 15″ – 16″ | — |
Which one should you actually buy?
69
/ 100
Michelin Energy Saver
55
/ 100
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT
Winner: Michelin Energy Saver — better treadwear, dry and comfort. It leads or ties in every category we score. Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 12 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Pick tire A
You want the longest tread life
Michelin Energy Saver scores 74 vs 57 on treadwear.
Pick tire A
You want the most grip on dry roads
Michelin Energy Saver scores 69 vs 53 on dry.
Pick tire A
You want the most comfortable ride
Michelin Energy Saver scores 68 vs 55 on comfort.
Pick tire A
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Michelin Energy Saver scores 64 vs 52 on handling.
Tire A · Michelin Energy Saver
Tire B · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Energy Saver or Turanza ER300 RFT?
Which is better in the wet, Energy Saver or Turanza ER300 RFT?
Michelin Energy Saver, 68 vs 57 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Energy Saver or Turanza ER300 RFT?
Michelin Energy Saver, 69 vs 53 on our dry score.
Which is more comfortable, Energy Saver or Turanza ER300 RFT?
Michelin Energy Saver, 68 vs 55 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Energy Saver or Turanza ER300 RFT?
Michelin Energy Saver, 74 vs 57 on our treadwear score.
How do we compare tires?
Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.
Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology