Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
Scary - good post.
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
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.
TIA
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.
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?
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?
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.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
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.
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!
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.
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.
http://www.nokiantires.com
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
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.
Thanks,
Pierre
Something to consider?
Grand High Poobah
The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
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.
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.
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*
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.
"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.
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?
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".
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.
Including a Bridgestone RE910. T rated. 60,000 mile treadlife warranty.
My suggestion is to buy this tire and drive happy.
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.
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?
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.
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
Steve, Host
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.