79
/ 100
Objective (60%)
70/100
1 professional test
User signal (40%)
76/100
137 owner reviews
Prices change daily — check the retailer for your size.
Head-to-head
Updated September 2026
Michelin Energy Saver vs Yokohama S306 — Compared (September 2026)
Our Relative Score blends 60% objective test data with 40% owner-review signal — so any two tires can be compared even if they were never tested on the same day.
VS
68
/ 100
Objective (60%)
–/100
No test data yet
User signal (40%)
66/100
17 owner reviews
Prices change daily — check the retailer for your size.
VerdictWinner: Michelin Energy Saver — better wet, comfort and treadwear. It leads or ties in every category we score.
Read full
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made via links on this page.
Category breakdown
7 categories, side by side
Each bar is the Relative Score for that category. Expand a tile to see the test results and owner ratings behind it.
Dry
Score (0–100)
S306 leads by 1
Why this score
| Source | Energy Saver | S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | 79 | – |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 83 | 82 |
Wet
Score (0–100)
Energy Saver leads by 17
Why this score
| Source | Energy Saver | S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | 79 | – |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 71 | 59 |
Snow
Score (0–100)
Comfort
Score (0–100)
Energy Saver leads by 16
Why this score
| Source | Energy Saver | S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 80 | 64 |
Noise
Score (0–100)
Why this score
| Source | Energy Saver | S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | 37 | – |
Treadwear
Score (0–100)
Energy Saver leads by 11
Why this score
| Source | Energy Saver | S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 85 | 74 |
Handling
Score (0–100)
Energy Saver leads by 9
Why this score
| Source | Energy Saver | S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 71 | 62 |
Scores at a glance
| Category | Michelin Energy Saver | Yokohama S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 79 | 68 |
| Dry | 81 | 82 |
| Wet | 76 | 59 |
| Snow | 52 | – |
| Comfort | 80 | 64 |
| Noise | 37 | – |
| Treadwear | 85 | 74 |
| Handling | 71 | 62 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Personalize
Weight the categories that matter to you
Wet grip and treadwear start at “Important” — the two things buyers rank highest. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Recomputed
Headline score
79
/ 100
Tire A
68
/ 100
Tire B
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
From owners
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews across retailers and review sites — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
The Michelin Energy Saver is widely regarded as a class-leading tire for longevity and fuel efficiency, often exceeding 40,000–60,000 miles for many users. While it excels in dry conditions and provides a comfortable, quiet ride, it receives consistent criticism for a decline in wet-weather performance as the tread wears down and a tendency for the rubber compound to develop sidewall cracking over time.
Pros
- Exceptional tread life and durability
- Noticeable improvements in fuel economy
- Low road noise and high ride comfort
- Reliable dry-weather handling and stability
Cons
- Significant loss of wet-weather grip as the tire ages
- Susceptibility to sidewall cracking and dry rot after 3-4 years
- Hard compound can feel 'skating' or insecure in cold or wet conditions
- Lack of road feedback for spirited driving
Observations
- Users with heavier vehicles or those driving on rough, pothole-prone roads noted that the sidewalls can be fragile and prone to damage.
- Drivers of small hatchbacks (e.g., VW Polo, Ford Fiesta) frequently reported that the tire significantly improved steering lightness and overall handling compared to budget alternatives.
- Owners of high-mileage commuters and taxis consistently praise the tire for its cost-per-mile value, despite the performance drop-off in later years.
The Yokohama S306 is a polarizing tire that excels in dry conditions and longevity but receives significant criticism for its poor wet-weather performance. While some users appreciate its durability and value, many report a lack of confidence and traction when driving on damp or rainy surfaces.
Pros
- Excellent dry weather grip and handling
- High tread longevity and durability
- Stiff sidewall provides good steering feedback
- Cost-effective price point
Cons
- Consistently poor wet weather traction
- Harsh ride quality and high road noise
- Tendency to tramline on uneven surfaces
- Unstable at higher speeds on certain performance vehicles
Observations
- Performance-oriented vehicles like the VW R32 and Mazda3 report significant dissatisfaction with wet grip and ride comfort.
- Users with heavier, steady-driving vehicles like the Ford Mondeo report higher satisfaction levels, suggesting the tire may be better suited for touring than spirited driving.
Specifications
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Michelin Energy Saver | B · Yokohama S306 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer Premium Touring tires | Summer Touring tires |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
Final verdict
Which one should you actually buy?
79
/ 100
Michelin
68
/ 100
Yokohama
Winner: Michelin Energy Saver — better wet, comfort and treadwear. It leads or ties in every category we score.
Pick tire A
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Michelin Energy Saver scores 76 vs 59 on wet.
Pick tire A
You want the most comfortable ride
Michelin Energy Saver scores 80 vs 64 on comfort.
Pick tire A
You want the longest tread life
Michelin Energy Saver scores 85 vs 74 on treadwear.
Pick tire A
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Michelin Energy Saver scores 71 vs 62 on handling.
Tire A · Michelin Energy Saver
Tire B · Yokohama S306
More comparisons
Also compared with
Michelin Energy Saver also compared with
How do we compare tires?
Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements) normalized against the best tire in each test and weighted toward recent tests. 40% comes from thousands of owner reviews collected from retailers and review sites. When a tire has only one of the two, we use what exists and say so.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score.