Tires, tires, tires

bretfraz · May 2003

I had mine done today (had the alignment set too) so I thought I'd remind y'all to have your tires rotated and balanced. Summer is fast approaching with the Memorial Day weekend in a few days, kids will be out of school, and the family car will be in use a lot.

Also keep checking those tire pressures. With everyone thinking about fun activities its easy to ignore tire care. But nothing sucks more than having a tire problem on your way to the lake/river/beach/mountains/wherever. A little cheap maintenance now will prevent a headache when you least want one.

This has been a public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood bretfraz. I return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

zueslewis · May 2003

that many people will read that and think "Tires need maintenance?".

Scary - good post.

maxappeal · May 2003

Hello everyone,
If everyone has any informative input, or can educate me, with regards to the long term affects of adding aftermarket rims to an '02 FWD RX300.

After about the first 5M 20" wheels w/235/35/20 tires were added to the RX. So far the only real noticeable diff is slightly lower MPG. But handling is greatly improved.

I know that not everyone will agree with adding the wheels (+other toys), and some will even (for some reason?) flame me on this addition, but most will let it be for what it is- a toy (reasonable person's perspective). Remember, to each his own.

Is there anything I should be aware of that will damage the car in the short/long run? Thanks in advance!

-Mark
http://www.cardomain.com/id/belikethomas

capriracer · May 2003

Mark.

This type of change makes the whole tire and wheel assembly much more suseptible to impact damage from such thngs as potholes, curbs, road debris, etc. This is because there just isn't enough sidewall to flex. You may find yourself having to pay for failed tires and / or wheels as this type of damage isn't covered by the warranty.

I don't have any hard data for the tire size you mentioned, but it seems a little small for the vehicle. I'm thinking the tire you have has a load index of 91 or 92. You need a tire with a load index of at least 99 (load carrying capacity of at least 1700 pounds). Check the sidewall of your tire and see what is stamped there. If you are smaller than 99 (1700 #), you're running the risk of a tire failure. The risk is even higher if you aren't running 35 psi (or higher) as your inflation pressure.

Hope this helps.

evandro · May 2003

Reading the ratings for this tire at TireRack, it seems to be a worthy tire. Can anybody share some personal experiences with [non-permissible content removed] here?

TIA

maxhonda99 · May 2003

I have a 2000 Accord Coupe EX-V6 which means it came with the rare tire size of 205/60VR-16! My Michelin's are basically worn out(MXV4 Energy) so I'm looking for a set of replacement tires. So far I have basically only found 4 tires in the Accord Coupe's size that I am thinking about. The choices are Yoko Avid H4s, Dunlop SP Sport A2s, Bridgestone Turanza LS-H and LS-V.

My current MXV4 Energy tires are V-rated, but I don't have a problem with H-rated tires. I'm totally against buying the MXV4 tires because quite frankly, they are overpriced for what you get. The ride is good, but the handling in wet or dry basically sucks. And they are not extremely quiet.

What I basically want to know is what tire did 1998-2002 Accord Coupe V6 owners(205/50-16) replace their Michelin's with?? Why? And how do they like the replacements as compared to the OEMs??

ANy help would be appreciated.

sequoiasoon · May 2003

Your profile says you live in NY where? Are you looking for "all season" or "Summer performance" Check out etires.com for Nokian tires. The WR is listed as an all weather with severe snow rating. My sister has them on a 2001 Intrepid ES year round and loves them. I have them on my Sequoia for Winter only and they are better than my stock Bridgestones all around (16" instead of 17" (I had the rims and tires from previous model)) They are only H-rated in your size though! They make the NRV in your size but these are performance and not that great for winter. Rouse tire in VT will ship to your door (better prices than etires Rouse Tire Company (802) 388-4053) and Somerset Tire in Westchester County also carries Nokian. My boss put the WR's on his son's mustang and won't take them off. If you can live with 132 mph rating as compared to 149 mph (stop and go commuter traffic?) you won't be disappointed.

sequoiasoon · May 2003

Sorry dealer in Westchester is Mallory Kotzen Tire.

willz3 · May 2003

hmmmm it's that time again.. I need to replace my OEM tires. Dealer says I only need to change Rear tire, but I'm not quite sure about that.... At any rate, the Tire Rack's recommanded tires for my car (BMW Z3, 17 inch) are Bstone Potenza S-03 Pole-position, Michelin Pilot Sport, Dunlop SP Sport 8080E, Kumho ECSTA Supra 712, and Sumitomo HTR+. Top 2 are YR rated, and the Dunlop is ZR while the last 2 are WR rated.
Now that I live in Richmond and my commute is 60 Miles one way (pretty much straight highway, no turns), I think I can sacrifice performace a bit (not much chance to corner ) for the ride comfort and tread life. (120 + miles a day commute!) Any opinion/personal experience on these?

roadrobert · May 2003

Please help! OEM Michelins MX4 P215/65R16 98T lasted 58K. Replaced with MX4 P215/65R16 98S - at 93K noticed a bubble on the sidewall on front one. Rotated rears to front and used "new" full size spare with good front one on rear. I tried to buy one MX4 98T to match spare but obsolete (replaced w/ 98S - slightly different tread).
I want to replace all four with the cheapest, safest and best traction (New England winters) - not necessarily Michelins, as long as their "round"!. Any opinions?

imidazol97 · May 2003

If you want "round," you want to stick with
Michelin...
I saw the Harmony in the tire store a few months ago. It has a tread with more bite than the X-One tread, that should work better in snow. It also has a tread rubber similar to X-One for good traction in colder weather. Look on the website for Michelin and your dealer for more information. Myself I like the X-One. It keeps that stickiness even in 10 below zero driving on ice and packed snow in Ohio. Good in rain also. And very smooth, quiet ride. The Harmony had more tread open, so it's probably a little noisier.

sequoiasoon · May 2003

If any manufacturer had "cheapest, safest and best traction" tires they'd corner the market! Alway's a tradeoff somehow. Consumer reports had rated many "all season" tires about 3 months ago you could check on line or library for report. www.tirerack.com has comparisons, consumer ratings, and a bunch of other info excellent source. I really liked looking at real people evaluating over millions of miles depending on the tire(when 400 people say they ride like crap and are poor in wet and snow I tend to believe). Keep in mind that the only thing touching the road is four contact patches about the size of a 5x8 index card (check garage floor tire marks)This needs to support 2 tons of weight through all conditions. My insurance deductible is more than the price of 4 tires (never mind my family in the vehicle). Tirerack will recommend 4 dedicated snows mounted on rims that will last you many years if used winter only. Consumers said the "worst" snow tire they tested had 30-40% better traction in snow / ice than the "best" all season. I had recommended above to maxhonda the Nokian WR they are "extreme" all season ($125 per tire your size) check / call e-tires also for recomendations. Personal experience they are EXCELLENT in dry, rain, and definitely snow also 50k tread wear warranty. Good luck hope my info helps.

maxhonda99 · May 2003

sequioasoon,

Sorry, correction I live in New Jersey. So Snow isn't really a factor. Where I live it's basically all flat land and with the exception of this past winter, snow is generally on the light side.

Thanks for th advice though, I'll look into the Nokian's.

At this point though, I'm kind leaning towards the Dunlop SP SPort A2's.

sequoiasoon · May 2003

No problem, Good luck! As I posted to Roadrobert also check tirerack for all the ratings and reviews also. Whichever tire you decide, Keep checking the air pressure (at least monthly) and don't forget to check the spare! My wife's friend just blew out a tire (I got stuck changing in the rain) and OOPS only 5 psi in the 60 psi donut. Still looked full until we put it on. Today would have needed to improve greatly just to suck!

maxhonda99 · May 2003

sequioasoon,

THanks for the advice. I check my air pressure one a month, about. And about every week during the winter months.

I forgot about the spare though. I'm gonna check it on all my cars when I get home today! Thanks!

sensei1 · May 2003

I have a '99 T&C LXi AWD and replaced my OEM MX4's w/ ContiExtremes 225x60 R16 97v's. Check out the specs @ Tirerack. More tire selections too @ this size. They're definitely cheaper than the MX4's. I was disappointed w/ the MX4's. On specs I only lost 50# of load rating and they're VR rated.

A little early to tell (<1k) but I'm pretty happy with it. Pretty quiet and solid in the rain so far even with the aggressive footprint. My OEM MX4 only lasted 45k.

Good luck.

evandro · May 2003

I had it as OEM on my late Stratus and all I can say is that I've never bought another Michelin after that: it was the worst tire ever. It would be noisy on straights and on curves, have terrible traction particularly on wet pavement, wore out at just over 30000mls. I was glad to see it going and being replaced by BFG Radial T/A, a whole other world, even if made by Michelin, but without the hype charge: less than $60 each.

pblevine · May 2003

Question: In addition to TireTrack, do you all know of any other good source for legit tire reviews?

I currently have MXV4+'s which are now over 40K miles. There is still enough tread for, I estimate, 6-8K more miles. But I'm starting to learn about which tires I should use as replacements. TireTrack is pushing the Dunlop SP Sport A2's (sic?). I'm sure they are very good tires, but I'd like to read more about the subject while I have the time. Oh yah, I have a '98 Honda Accord EX V6 Coupe with 16inch wheels. I'm looking for improvements in noise, turning ability, and traction (wet & dry) and I commonly drive at 80+ mph. All comments are welcome including opinions, but I'm really looking for source material and tire review sights. Thanks.

geoffdgti · May 2003

Nokian has their new web site up.

http://www.nokiantires.com

dhoff · May 2003

I'm going to need new tires on my 99 Nissan Quest minivan this fall. The tires are 225-60R-16.

The original tires were Goodyear Eagle LS (if I remember correctly). The things I liked about them were good cornering and handling, and good steering feel. The things I didn't like were a very stiff, bouncy ride and shifted belts long before they were worn out.

I replaced them a year or two ago w/ Michelin Symmetry's. I absolutely love them, except for one thing. They are extremely quiet and smooth, and really transformed the ride of the van from "jiggly" to smooth. But, the steering feel is not that great, and the van doesn't seem to track as straight on the highway as it did w/ the Goodyears.

So I'm looking for ideas or suggestions. I've had such good luck with these Michelins that I'd like to stick with them, maybe the new Harmony? I live in the upper Midwest, so I need something in the all season/touring range. Any other ideas?

Dave

evandro · June 2003

An all-season tire that keeps showing up in TireRack's survey is Goodyear's Aquatred 3. I'm considering getting them and, for a bit more, Michelin's Harmony in about 6 months or so, when I think I'll be needing new tires on my Intrigue.

microrepair · June 2003

For those of you looking for replacement tires that are quiet, excellent in wet or dry traction, and have very good handling response, check out the Yokohama brand. They are mostly high or ultra performance tires and therefore aren't the cheapest around.

TireRack has numerous 3-way comparisons including a couple of different Yokohama tires and they come out on top in most comparo's..

I've had their Avid V4 model on my car for about 20K miles and am very happy with them. And they don't act like skis on snow. Snow tires are better, but they will get you through light snow if you use some caution.

pierreasdf · June 2003

I need a good all-season tire in 195/55/15 size (for a Protege). Living in Canada where there is snow from November to April, I already have dedicated winter tires: Nokian Hakkapellitta 1 which are tremedous winter tires. I also have had Nokian NRV for the last two summers and they were great summer tires. Now, I need a tire that can be good on light snow (october and november) but that retains some driving caracteristics of a summer tire: I don't want mushy feeling, poor cornering, soft sidewall ... So, my question is: I'm pretty sure that the WR are good in light snow, but do they deliver an interesting ride in summer conditions (may to september here)?

Thanks,
Pierre

sequoiasoon · June 2003

The WR that I have are large (265-70-16) so the sidewall flexes some. They still handle and ride very well (much better than my Bridgestones(15k more and they'll be gone anyway))On my sisters Dodge Intrepid 225-60-16 the handling improved over her stock Goodyear's in dry and huge improvement in wet. According to the Website your size is also an H-rated tire. By spec this already gives it a stiffer sidewall (not that you have much any way)to support the increased speed rating. If you have the past summer and winter experience with the nokians you know they make great tires. As for the light snow EXCELLENT! even in deeper snow they are very good.

himiler · June 2003

I had the same trouble finding a good A/S when I had the same size tire on my GS-R. I decided to get the Dunlop SP 5000 in a 205/50-15 size, and was very happy with the results.

Something to consider?

newgrad · June 2003

Hey everyone--question: The tire on my 4Runner was punctured by a nail and I took it to a well-known tire shop for repair. They fixed it using the plug and patch method. After getting home though, I noticed that there is still a little bit of a hole where the nail used to be. I assumed that the plug would have sealed it all up?? Is it normal for there to be a little bit of a hole left? The nail actually went in at an angle and the head of the nail was bent into the tire and created a groove/tear so is that what I'm now looking at?? I'm not sure if the hole goes just into the tread of the tire or if it extends further into the steel belts. Do I need to take it back to the tire shop to fix again? (I'm reluctant to do this because I also noticed they scratched up the aluminum wheel during the process of fixing the tire. Can you polish those out??) Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!

porknbeans · June 2003

I work for a design/build firm and I'm on job sites quite a bit. I get a one to two patches put in my tires a year (although I haven't had any in a very long time) and you SHOULD NOT have any opening around your patch. That is what it is there for, to fill the hole. Regarding the rip from the nail head I can't tell you what to do unless I saw it. Usually though nail heads aren't strong enough to puncture all the way through the tire and it will just be a surface blemish. The plugs also shouldn't compromise the ride quality and longevity of your tires. I would recommend going back to the tire shop and tell them that you're not happy with the product that they gave you and you want it corrected. Also let them know that although you have no way of proving it the last time you were there your rim was scratched and if it happens on this repair you'll contact corporate or the BBB or their mom. Sorry about the rim and all I could suggest is going over to the wax forum and ask MrDetailer or Bretfraz (from here in the tire forum) for their recommendation. Good luck and let us know what happens.

corvette · June 2003

newgrad,
I'm not sure I understand correctly, but the plug portion of the repair will be visible (not totally connected to the tire tread) for a while, even though it is sealed. Once you have driven on it enough, it will blend or melt into the tread of the tire, and darned near disappear.

bottgers · June 2003

I've noticed the one problem that seems to exsist, to a certain extent with any brand, and that's a lack of non-high performance tires available in the lower profile sizes. I love the look of the larger diameter wheels, and the low profile, wider tread tires. However, these tires only seem to be available in "V" and "Z" ratings. I don't like the high performance tires because the shorter and stiffer sidewalls make for a very rough ride. Also the tread life of these tires is very short, and they're usually much more expensive than touring or all season tires. There are occasions where a non high performance tire can't be found in lower profile sizes, but it's usually rare. Why the heck aren't there more of these tires available in "H", "S", and "T" speed ratings? Not everyone wants race car tires just because they're looking for something a little lower and wider.

evandro · June 2003

I agree with you. 16" wheels are common even in sub-20 family sedans. Original tires round 215/55, give or take in both measures, are almost the norm nowadays...

capriracer · June 2003

If I understand the gripe, it is that lower aspect ratio tires only come in V and Z speed ratings. These are expensive, wear quickly, and do not have a comfortable ride.

If you've encoutered a situation where only V and Z speed rated tires are available, then you're looking at aspect ratios 45 and lower.

As you go lower and lower in aspect ratio, the sidewall gets shorter and shorter. Short sidewalls benefit handling to the detriment of ride. This is pretty fundamental and can not be changed. You're going to have a tire that is going to ride badly anyway, why not take advantage of this and build some value into the tire.

In many cases, it is unknown what type of vehicle these tires are going on, so the "safe" postion is to build a tire with the most capabilities. I mean, all ultra high performance cars use low aspect ratio tires. All ultra low performance cars use high aspect ratio tires. Tires with 45 and lower aspect ratios ought to have high speed capabilities, simply because the benefit you get from low aspect ratios is better handling, which implies high performance.

I think this is a case of "You can't get there from here"!

Hope this helps.

geoffdgti · June 2003

capriracer writes:
All ultra low performance cars use high aspect ratio tires.

What about all those ghetto Honda Civics with 18" alloy wheels, huge chrome exhaust tip, wing worthy of a 747, and bone-stock engine and suspension? *grin*

bottgers · June 2003

I guess what I'm getting at is the tire companies could offer these tires in vareity instead of just the ultra high perofrmance versions. I realize the shorter the sidewall, the stiffer the ride, but a tire with an aspect ratio of 45 with a Z speed rating would ride a lot rougher than the same tire with an S or T speed rating. The Honda Civic is exactly the car I'm looking to put tires on, and this car is the perfect example to use to make my point. Many people customize their Civics with aftermarket wheels and tires. In most of the cases the wheels are larger in diameter, and the tires have lower profiles than the factory tires. Putting V or Z rated tires on a Civic is a total waste of money. It's measly 115 hp (127 hp if you splurge for the VTEC) doesn't provide enough performance to push the envelope of even the S or T rated tires, let alone needing V or Z rated tires. Even the hopped up Civics can't match the performance capabilities of H rated tires. So why not offer low profile touring tires for people who are just looking to enhance the looks of their vehicles and aren't concerned about race car performance?

bretfraz · June 2003

I'm not a mfr so I'll defer to whatever CAPRIRACER suggests, by IMO the cost savings between a Z-rated low profile and, say, a T-rated low profile simply aren't there. I think the amount of engineering that goes into a low profile design allows for an easy "upgrade" to a high speed rating for that particular tire.

Also there's an important marketing issue at play. Most of the customer base that's interested in a low profile tire wants a high speed rating regardless of whether they'll use it. So look at it from a mfr's standpoint: How big is the market for a low profile, low speed rated tire? Since every other tire mfr offers a high speed rating with their low profile designs, where is the marketing/promotional advantage for a low speed rated version of the same tire? It's almost like handing market share to your competition.

Also I think your belief that a low speed rated tire will ride smoother is inaccurate. Perhaps a tread design that focuses on low road noise would better for you, and there are several tires on the market now that fit that need.

sensei1 · June 2003

"Putting V or Z rated tires on a Civic is a total waste of money."

"So why not offer low profile touring tires for people who are just looking to enhance the looks of their vehicles and aren't concerned about race car performance?"

IMHO they're both a waste of money. I don't think tire makers would put out a "for looks only" tire.

As mentioned before, low profile and higher speed ratings go hand in hand. Lower profiles need the sidewall stiffness and the other characteristics involved in the design and manufacture to be able to handle the load and handling.

When you go to a lower aspect, you compromise load handling capacity so the tire has to be an upgrade all the way around.

Can't have one without the other. The law of physics is one point and liabilities would be the other from a manufacturer's point of view.

corvette · June 2003

True, a Civic would have to be heavily modified to achieve Z-rated speeds (150 mph), but tires with higher speed ratings tend to have more handling grip than otherwise identical tires with lower speed ratings. So, if a lower speed-rated tire on a Civic squeals through corners at the slightest provocation, it is most definitely not a waste of money to swap it for one that doesn't.

bottgers · June 2003

Let me see if I can address all your messages.

bretfraz

The cost savings might not be a huge one if your only looking at the cost of the tires, but if you factor in tread life, the cost can be a huge difference. Most Z rated tires would be hard pressed to last 20K miles, while it's not uncommon for S or T rated tires to last anywhere from 50K-80K miles.

Your statement saying most people who buy low profile tires want the V and Z speed ratings is based on what? How does anybody know? People buying the low profile tires have no choice but to buy the high performance tires because that's all that's available. The only way to really find out is to make these tires available in all the speed ratings and see who buys what.

Also, I believe my statement that S or T rated tires riding smoother is accurate. The higher the speed rating, the thicker the sidewall. The thicker the sidewall, the stiffer it is. The stiffer it is, the rougher the ride.

sensei1

You may have misunderstood the meaning of my "looks only" statement. Even S and T rated tires have to meet touring peformance standards. Just because a tire has an aspect ratio of 45 or lower doesn't automatically mean it has to be V or Z rated. The law of physics also suggests a shorter sidewall means a stiffer sidewall. There's no need to make it even stiffer still by making the tires V or Z rated.

corvette

I don't think most people change their tires because they squeal through corners. Besides, if I replace the factory 185/65/14's on a Civic with a set of 205/TR45/17's, don't you think they'd hold the road a lot better than the factory tires simply because there's a heck of a lot more rubber making contact with the road?

bretfraz · June 2003

(1) The cost savings might not be a huge one if your only looking at the cost of the tires, but if you factor in tread life, the cost can be a huge difference.
Are you referring to cost savings from a retail price standpoint? My previous post discussing this particular issue was from a mfr production cost standpoint. There are some low profile tires with fairly high UTQG rating and a decent treadlife warranty. You're not gonna get 80K out of a 45 series tire or anything like that but 35-40K is possible. Do some digging - you'll find them.

(2) Your statement saying most people who buy low profile tires want the V and Z speed ratings is based on what? How does anybody know? People buying the low profile tires have no choice but to buy the high performance tires because that's all that's available. The only way to really find out is to make these tires available in all the speed ratings and see who buys what.
Tire mfr's conduct tons of market research. They have plenty of resources available to use in helping them decide what type of tire will sell and won't sell. No tire mfr is gonna be financially foolish enough to design, test, manufacture, and market a tire just to "see who buys what".

bottgers · June 2003

Yes, I was looking at the cost from a consumer's view point. You won't get 80K out of a 45 because they're all V and Z rated. Expecting to get 35-40K from V or Z rated tires is unrealistic. It ain't gonna happen. How much R&D would it take to make low profile touring tires? Couldn't take much.

sensei1 · June 2003

"There's no need to make it even stiffer still by making the tires V or Z rated."

Sorry if I misunderstood you. A tire has a stiffer sidewall because it has less space between the road and wheel. Same amount of air pressure with lesser room makes it stiff, not much room to flex.

The V or Z rated tire is made differently - rubber compound, tread design, heat dissipation, less flex, etc. - to deliver traction, speed, handling, etc. hence the compromise in treadwear, ride comfort and so on.

The stiff sidewall is the side effect of the handling characteristics and the higher speed rating is the result of the high performance design and the material used to achieve it.

To have an S or T rated low profile would be unsafe because the materials won't hold to the design which is performance.

I just don't see how you could separate the two. Just think of it as margin of safety. You don't have to go fast to reap the benefits of a V or Z rated tire.

If you're conscious about treadwear, maybe an AS tire would be the way to go. They cost less than summer tires and generally have a higher tread life. There has to be a compromise between the amount of space being traded off with a lower aspect ratio tire.

Good luck.

bretfraz · June 2003

Somewhere I read BOTTGERS needs a 205/45-17 tire. Well, not much available in that size but if you go to 215/45-17, there are lots available.

Including a Bridgestone RE910. T rated. 60,000 mile treadlife warranty.

My suggestion is to buy this tire and drive happy.

bottgers · June 2003

A 215 wouldn't be too wide for a Civic? If not, that sounds like a great tire for what I'm looking for. Thanx.

hpulley4 · June 2003

When the OEM Firestone Affinity tires on my 2001 Saturn LW200 squealed on hard take-offs from left turns and were just noisy in general, I replaced them promptly with some Michelins. Now, I put T rated tires on that car but there are still good T rated tires and poor T rated tires. I buy tires differently for this wagon than for my MINI Cooper, as I drive them differently.

That said, my MINI has H rated tires which I don't find outrageous, either in expense or treadlife. You can get 45, 50 or 55 profile tires in H sizes and 300-400 tread life ratings from many manufacturers. W or Z ratings are not required.

Most of the speed rating is temperature related. It is the ability of a tire to be driven at speed without heating up and having problems once it gets critically hot. From the number of blowouts people experience on long trips at even relatively reasonable highway speeds, I think normal people could use good temperature resistant tires. Unfortunately, they still have to been inflated correctly to take advantage of this ability. The trade off between a hard compound which wears slowly and one which will dissipate heat at high speed is not easy to work through which is why you don't see 100000 mile Z ratings.

The thing is, to get good ride comfort you need some sidewall so the only people who should get low profile tires are performance enthusiasts. Now everyone is a poser so they sell (with relish) family cars and minivans today with 17" tires and 45 profile tires. These people should have bought something else, IMO. Now, they expect a supple ride, excellent traction AND long tread life at the same time which isn't possible.

bretfraz · June 2003

What is the width of the wheels you're installing? And what's the offset?

bottgers · June 2003

Don't know what the offset is, or even if there is any, but the width is 7".

osoriob · June 2003

Hello all,
Can anyone comment on what causes the bumps/bulges on the sidewall of a radial tire, I have heard that small bumps are OK as long as they don't exceed certain size.
If Bumps are not OK, should the tire be considered Defective and needs to be replaced?

zueslewis · June 2003

I guess you've never seen an autocross. I realize that a close-to-stock Civic can't go 160 mph, but if you roll up on a Solo II grid with S, T or H rated tires, you won't be competitive and you'll probably embarass yourself by spinning wildly and looking foolish.

There are applications for tires that are very necessary and there are tires that get used when they aren't needed.

I don't know if I helped matters or made them worse.

tboner · June 2003

there are those that can show up on DOT race rubber and still not be in the hunt, but that's a different story

My view on the whole issue is tires should last two to three years. I'm not a big fan of the 80K mile Michelins. I saw a set of those last week that still had tread, but the sidewalls were so dry-rotted.

I'm sure the tread was rock hard as well, so probably not much fun in a panic situation.

TB

stever · June 2003

I've got 80k mile Michelins and I pretty much agree with you. No dry rot, but I think the performance curve flatlined around 40k - if you can call an all-season tire on a minivan "performance."

Steve, Host

bretfraz · June 2003

Those tires I mentioned with fit fine on a 7" rim. No problem.

BTW, if you're a Costco member, they started a promo today giving you a $60 instant rebate with the purchase of four (4) Bridgestone tires. Includes special orders. Promo ends 6/29.

Same promo for Michelin tires too. Ends 6/30.

Tires, tires, tires

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles