Well, don't forget that old tires sound/feel a lot worse than new tires, almost universally, irrespective of brand.
So this is what happens - a car manufacturer (rightly or wrongly) uses the big tire manufacturers, e.g. Michelin, Continental, etc. The tires wear off and then comes the time for replacement. People look to save a few bucks and buy the cheaper offerings, and of course they like the new tires (as all new tires feel better). Then they deduce that the cheaper tires are better.
Not necessarily so. If they changed the old Michelins with new Michelins, the difference would have been equally dramatic, IMO.
Also, don't forget, that cheap tires tend to deteriorate faster than the more expensive ones (there are exceptions, of course). So even if initially the tires are comparable, the quality tires tend to wear out slower. In my experience, I've never had a tire stay in balance as well as most Michelins do.
P.S. This is why sites like tirerack are skewed towards cheaper tires - people mostly compare expensive worn out tires with inexpensive new tires.
Just one person's experience but I put these on my 94 Integra and they were great for the first 10,000 miles but after that I could never get them balanced. They were cupping very badly even though the alignment was perfect and rotations were on schedule. They were cheap but after 20,000 miles the shaky steering wheel led me to put some BFGs on them and those rode great for then next 40,000 until i sold the car
I'm not familiar with the Nokian brand since they are not sold around here, but my idea of a cheap tire is the $30 store brand from Sears! The vast majority of tires found on new cars would fall in the category of what some here are calling cheap. I feel a lot safer with a new $60 tire than a $120 tire that has less than half the tread remaining.
... many people have a skewed viewpoint. They compare their old, worn tires to new ones, and proclaim how great the new ones are, even if the new ones are a cheap, second rate tire. However, you sometimes have to take into consideration how "old" the old ones were.
The Continentals that I was refering to were only 18 months and 7000 miles "old". I don't feel that is all that old for a tire, and I also don't think that 30-35% of the tread should have been used up in that short a period of time.
Whether or not my Falkens hold up over time remains to be seen. I put them on the car late last year, put about 800-1000 miles on them, and then removed them for the winter. They went back on this spring, and now have another 2000 miles on them. All I can say is, so far, so good.
I look to cheaper tires from top brands. The Firstone Firehawk Indy 500 tire has been out one year is a modern design and has gotten some decent reviews from tire rack. Road hazzards can take down any tire. If you can get decent performance at a lower price, it makes replacing a damaged tire eaier to swallow. I like checking out the tirerack customer reviews. I look for comment that repeat and that I can apply to similar tread types across brands.
Very valid point - about most people comparing new tires to old ones.
However, I have Falken ZIEX ZE-512 on my Mazda Protege with around 10K miles on them, and just bought a new Mazda 6 that came with OEM Michlin MXH4 (or V4?) tires.
The difference, even with the greater wear on the Falkens, is remarkable! The Protege is not THAT much lighter than the 6, and the contact patch (195 vs 205) is about proportional. However, the Falkens do much better in flowing heavy rain water as well as dry traction on sharp turns and on/off ramps. Both cars have the most advanced suspensions in their respective classes and feel remarkably similar (composed, confident and tossable) to drive. So when one set (Michelins, fully scrubbed in, 1000+ miles on them) slip-slide in certain situations and the Falkens keep on gripping the road (and I can tell, by now, how far from the limits I am when I drive the Falkens), then a difference in abilities becomes apparent! And being made of the hard rubber they are, the X-series Michelins don't really have a cushier or quieter feel. Yes, they'll last a lot longer, but at the cost of preogressively less Zoom_Zoom, and then where's the point of owning a Mazda?
So my perspective is perhaps not as skewed as that of many others. While comparing new tires on the SAME car would be better, as far as ratings are concerned, H through V, and profiles, respectively 55 and 50 (Michelin/Falken) - I know which tire company would get MY money when I next buy new tires!
I am thinking of putting new tires on my car (Nissan Maxima). The original tires had a load index and speed rating of 91H. The new ones will be 89V.
So this is higher speed rating but the load index is lower. Can anyone say if this is a bad idea? I think 89 corresponds to 1279 lbs, and 91 to 1356 lbs.
Ok, thanks. But don't you think that 1,279 lbs per tire is very close to the original 1,356 lbs per tire, both of which are more that adequate for a 3,200 lbs Maxima?
Your Maxima has a GVWR listed on the build tag. It's always *best* to make sure your tires are up to the task of handling that much weight, even if you never approach it in your typical useage.
Ok, you got me motivated to go to the car and check the GVWR. It turned out to be 4,310 lbs. (The empty weight is about 3,200 lbs., I think.)
So assuming the 60/40-weight distribution published by Nissan I get:
1,293 lbs. per front wheel and 862 lbs. per rear wheel when the car is loaded to GVWR.
So you are right I am a little short on the front side - a 89V tire will support 1,279 lbs., that is 14 lbs. short. However, if the car is loaded to the brim the weight shifts somewhat back (as you put stuff in the trunk), so even at full load I don't think I will exceed the tire load index.
What do you think?
Plus don't forget the new tire will be V-rated (unlike the old one which is H-rated). That has got to account for something.
The speed rating doesn't count for anything if you're exceeding the tire's load rating.
I think that your best and safest bet is to look for a tire that gives you the exact characteristics you're looking for, plus the the correct load rating.
All the tire experts I know (i.e. people who deal with tires for a living) tell me that load rating is much more important than speed rating. Speed ratings are not meaningless but load ratings are critical.
If you can find a comparable tire to the one you want to buy with a load rating that meets the factory spec, you'll be good to go.
Besides, there's a lot of engineering judgement that goes into the required load capacity of the tires on a vehicle.
And it is always good engineering practice to have overcapacity (also known as reserve capacity) regardless of what component is being discussed. This is precisely the arguement that Firestone made relative to the Explorer. And they have a very valid point. If a person exceeds the load capacity of the tires, there can be potentially tragic results.
I got a buddy with a Tahoe that went thru 3 Firestone Wilderness tires, one flat after another. Got fed up with Firestone, kicked down almost $700 for a new set of Michelins, he got his first flat last week.
I don't know what they put in the gravel in some states but its murder on tires.
...is where I live, there's a junkyard on the east side of the county that crushes old cars. They then load these old hulks, along with the associated loose, sharp, bits and pieces, and transport them on open bed trailers to the west side of the county. Once on the west side, the cars are shredded.
The hauler uses the east/west interstate to get from one side of the county to the other, the same road I have to use to go back and forth from work. Bottom line, three destroyed tires in the last 4-5 years.
This is why you sometimes hear me "banging the drum" for lower priced tires. Yes, I usually believe that you get what you pay for, but I can't afford to keep replacing $100-$150 tires. In fact, the last one of my tires that got cut up was a $300 GoodYear "run flat" on my Corvette. OUCH!! Good thing the Chevy dealer sold me the road hazard warranty!
i wanted to get some bigger tires for my 99 4runner sr5, im looking at the Cavalier A/T tires size 31*10.5*15 -----> is this a good tire? does anyone have any reviews about it? i got an offer for 4 tires plus install (new) and everything for $315, good deal? are there better deals with better tires?
I had the Rover A/T on my '98 Sidekick and loved them. They made it look much more agressive than the wimpy looking Bridgestones that came on it. HOWEVER, even though the tire had a high treadwear rating, they only lasted 31k miles. They were pretty much bald when I traded the sidekick in back in June with 55k, almost 56k on it. The original Bridgestones only lasted 24k. The Rovers handled extremely well, were quiet, and gave a pretty decent ride, and like I said, looked great. I was planning on replacing them with another set of Rovers, but got the explorer instead. It has Goodyear Wranglers on it, and they are MUCH louder and ride a little harder. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it.
new Kuhmo 712s for my PT GT. FedEx just delivered them from the Tire Rack and I'll try them out this weekend at the autocross course.
I changed from a 205/50-17 Goodyear RSA H-rated (OEM junk, IMO) to a 225/45-17 W-rated tire. Should be fun. The Tire Rack showed using a 235-45-17, but I'm not changing wheels - their recommendation was for a 7.5-9" wheel, mine are 7s.
Kumho 712's are the budget autocrossers favorite. I'm sure you'll like em. I too am not a fan of the Eagle RSA so I'll bet the GT will handle *much* better with the new tires. Lemme know how well they work for you.
All are excellent tires. I would go for the S/T b/c it looks like it belongs on a SUV or Truck. But If mileage or noise is your concern buy the Touring. These have an 80k warranty.
Sam's Club sells a tire called the BFG Advantage Plus these seem to be great tires for my friends RAV-4. Hardly any wear after 35k miles. Cheap too. Only like $50 each if I remember correctly.
What is this black liquid they put on the tires' edges when mounting tires? I always wondered about that... Is it glue (to keep the air from escaping) or is it grease (to help mount it)?
The lube also lubricates the beads so they seat easier. When they don't slide easily over the safety humps - or worse over the edge of the drop center - the beads can be torn and not only is there a possibility of a leak, it is possible to force air into the fabric of the tire eventually leading to a separation.
There are several lubricants available and they are all water soluable, meaning none are petroleum based. Petroleum based substances will attack rubber.
Thanks to all the expert advice here, I furnished myself with a nice set of new tires. I got the correct size, load index and speed rating, as the collective here convinced me was an important thing to do.
I have a question, though - after running the tires for about 30 miles at highway speeds I registered a 3 PSI increase in the pressure. I remember my old worn out tires used to increase by only about 1 PSI. Is this tire brand related (i.e. Toyo vs. the new Michelins) or is it to do with the fact that the tires are new? Or could it be that the tires weren't mounted correctly and excessive heat is somehow generated? I don't lose any air - it's just the greater difference between morning pressure, and the pressure after driving at highway speeds for a while.
Hard to know for sure if its brand or model related. Perhaps the new tires have a higher rolling resistance which builds more heat. I believe brand new tires have a higher resistance by nature (fresh, soft rubber vs. old, hard rubber) so this issue may decrease with some wear. But an increase of pressure after a few miles of driving is very common and nothing to worry about.
Could be your morning temp is lower than it was. The rule is 10 deg. fahrenheit is about 1 pound. If you started out 10 deg. cooler, then the pressure would be less and the rolling temp later would be a higher increase because the tires roll at about the same equilibrium temp after your 30 mi.
Also could be the other tires expanded a little more due to increased pressure, while the newer tires are more rigid in their volume so the pressure is increased by being kept in the same volume.
that almost everyone who is into cars enough to post on boards like this hates the OEM tires that came on their cars. Everyone thinks that they are smarter than the engineers who designed the cars.
I've spoken with several car business engineers who set up car options. They are always outranked by the beancounters who nickel and dime them into choices they wouldn't normally recommend.
Each tire manufacturer then does the "lowest bidder" thing, and we end up riding on junk on our new cars/trucks.
With tires, just like when I was in the military, it doesn't please me - we had a saying - "Remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder".
Each tire manufacturer then does the "lowest bidder" thing, and we end up riding on junk on our new cars/trucks.
Not necessarily though. I leased a 97 M3 that came with (what I thought) pretty good (alas summer only) tires. When I was at the BMW dealer once I saw a load of M3 with Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires. These are very sought after after-market tires.
Many high end German car manufacturers put good tires on their cars.
... That has been highly discussed on the Corvette Forum is rolling resistance. The OEMs have to worry about that in order to please the CAFE standards. Therefore, they frequently by-pass the sticky tires for those that will offer better fuel mileage.
We, in the aftermarket, can purchase whatever tires we want for cars, without having to contend with some of the other issues.
These tires came on my new Sentra and I was wondering how good they really are in terms of quality. The wear rating is only at 160 with the other 2 ratings at an A. The tire size is 195/60/15. The car seems to drive very well, but plan to go to a 195/65/15 when the time comes to replace them. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Zues, Bret...any advice from the tire guru's?
They're OK. Kinda like the RSA's Zueslewis had on his PT. Nothing to write home about. Bridgestone makes a zillion variants of this tire to gain OE business from mostly Asian automakers.
There are plenty of tires that are as good if not better than the RE92.
I've seen wear ratings as high as 500, so mine are pretty low rated obviously. What makes the differemce in the wear ratings between diferent tires? And are the higher rated tires made with a better rubber compound? Thanks as always!
are usually made with a harder compound, increasing life, but decreasing grip. The best best is the middle of the road on treadwear ratings like the Dunlop SP Sport A2 (formerly D60 A2) - my hand-down favorite for normal/sporty use in normal fitment sizes.
Be careful with going to a 195/65-15 - in addition to the obvious speedo error, you may have a rub problem with your strut towers (spring perch is awfully close).
Other great tires are the Yoyohama Avid H4, The Pirelli P400, the Dunlop Sport 4000 A/S, and the Continental CH95. A little more money buys you the Michelin XGT H4 and MXV4, but I'm not a convinced Michelin fan.
Comments
So this is what happens - a car manufacturer (rightly or wrongly) uses the big tire manufacturers, e.g. Michelin, Continental, etc. The tires wear off and then comes the time for replacement. People look to save a few bucks and buy the cheaper offerings, and of course they like the new tires (as all new tires feel better). Then they deduce that the cheaper tires are better.
Not necessarily so. If they changed the old Michelins with new Michelins, the difference would have been equally dramatic, IMO.
Also, don't forget, that cheap tires tend to deteriorate faster than the more expensive ones (there are exceptions, of course). So even if initially the tires are comparable, the quality tires tend to wear out slower. In my experience, I've never had a tire stay in balance as well as most Michelins do.
P.S. This is why sites like tirerack are skewed towards cheaper tires - people mostly compare expensive worn out tires with inexpensive new tires.
The Continentals that I was refering to were only 18 months and 7000 miles "old". I don't feel that is all that old for a tire, and I also don't think that 30-35% of the tread should have been used up in that short a period of time.
Whether or not my Falkens hold up over time remains to be seen. I put them on the car late last year, put about 800-1000 miles on them, and then removed them for the winter. They went back on this spring, and now have another 2000 miles on them. All I can say is, so far, so good.
However, I have Falken ZIEX ZE-512 on my Mazda Protege with around 10K miles on them, and just bought a new Mazda 6 that came with OEM Michlin MXH4 (or V4?) tires.
The difference, even with the greater wear on the Falkens, is remarkable! The Protege is not THAT much lighter than the 6, and the contact patch (195 vs 205) is about proportional. However, the Falkens do much better in flowing heavy rain water as well as dry traction on sharp turns and on/off ramps. Both cars have the most advanced suspensions in their respective classes and feel remarkably similar (composed, confident and tossable) to drive. So when one set (Michelins, fully scrubbed in, 1000+ miles on them) slip-slide in certain situations and the Falkens keep on gripping the road (and I can tell, by now, how far from the limits I am when I drive the Falkens), then a difference in abilities becomes apparent! And being made of the hard rubber they are, the X-series Michelins don't really have a cushier or quieter feel. Yes, they'll last a lot longer, but at the cost of preogressively less Zoom_Zoom, and then where's the point of owning a Mazda?
So my perspective is perhaps not as skewed as that of many others. While comparing new tires on the SAME car would be better, as far as ratings are concerned, H through V, and profiles, respectively 55 and 50 (Michelin/Falken) - I know which tire company would get MY money when I next buy new tires!
So this is higher speed rating but the load index is lower. Can anyone say if this is a bad idea? I think 89 corresponds to 1279 lbs, and 91 to 1356 lbs.
Thanks!
The fact that the new tires have a higher speed rating means nothing unless they are installed on a vehicle that corresponds to their load rating.
So assuming the 60/40-weight distribution published by Nissan I get:
1,293 lbs. per front wheel and 862 lbs. per rear wheel when the car is loaded to GVWR.
So you are right I am a little short on the front side - a 89V tire will support 1,279 lbs., that is 14 lbs. short. However, if the car is loaded to the brim the weight shifts somewhat back (as you put stuff in the trunk), so even at full load I don't think I will exceed the tire load index.
What do you think?
Plus don't forget the new tire will be V-rated (unlike the old one which is H-rated). That has got to account for something.
I think that your best and safest bet is to look for a tire that gives you the exact characteristics you're looking for, plus the the correct load rating.
Here's a list of 37 tires with proper load ratings to choose from:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Compare1.jsp?startIndex=0&vehic- leSearch=true&width=215%2F&ratio=55&diameter=16&s- ortCode=45350&minSpeedRating=H&ratio=55&width=215%2F&- amp;diameter=16&minLoad=S&search=true&pagelen=20&- pagenum=1&pagemark=1&performance=UHP&performance=HP&a- mp;performance=GT&performance=UHPAS&performance=HPAS&- performance=GTAS&speed_rating=HR&speed_rating=VR&spee- d_rating=WR&speed_rating=YR&speed_rating=ZR
Have fun!
If you can find a comparable tire to the one you want to buy with a load rating that meets the factory spec, you'll be good to go.
What if the distribution is 65/35?
Besides, there's a lot of engineering judgement that goes into the required load capacity of the tires on a vehicle.
And it is always good engineering practice to have overcapacity (also known as reserve capacity) regardless of what component is being discussed. This is precisely the arguement that Firestone made relative to the Explorer. And they have a very valid point. If a person exceeds the load capacity of the tires, there can be potentially tragic results.
Hope this helps.
Steve, Host
I don't know what they put in the gravel in some states but its murder on tires.
The hauler uses the east/west interstate to get from one side of the county to the other, the same road I have to use to go back and forth from work. Bottom line, three destroyed tires in the last 4-5 years.
This is why you sometimes hear me "banging the drum" for lower priced tires. Yes, I usually believe that you get what you pay for, but I can't afford to keep replacing $100-$150 tires. In fact, the last one of my tires that got cut up was a $300 GoodYear "run flat" on my Corvette. OUCH!! Good thing the Chevy dealer sold me the road hazard warranty!
The above is a link to an article titled "Goodyear struggling to avoid bankruptcy."
It is from Bloomberg News via today's Philadelphia Inquirer.
Scary news for the last major US tiremaker.
"Goodyear's stock closed yesterday at $5.18... down from more than $75 a share in 1998."
Sounds like a telcom or software company.
thanks jon
In the 31X10.50X15 size, I recommend the Dunlop Radial Rover A/T (my favorite all-around truck tire). The Tire Rack has them for $78 each.
Another great tire my friends and I have dealt with is the Yokohama Geolandar H/T for $80 a tire.
Check out www.tirerack.com for more info.
I changed from a 205/50-17 Goodyear RSA H-rated (OEM junk, IMO) to a 225/45-17 W-rated tire. Should be fun. The Tire Rack showed using a 235-45-17, but I'm not changing wheels - their recommendation was for a 7.5-9" wheel, mine are 7s.
H4
T4
S/T
Touring
Aegis
All are excellent tires. I would go for the S/T b/c it looks like it belongs on a SUV or Truck. But If mileage or noise is your concern buy the Touring. These have an 80k warranty.
Sam's Club sells a tire called the BFG Advantage Plus these seem to be great tires for my friends RAV-4. Hardly any wear after 35k miles. Cheap too. Only like $50 each if I remember correctly.
There are several lubricants available and they are all water soluable, meaning none are petroleum based. Petroleum based substances will attack rubber.
Hope this helps
And smell good, too!
I have a question, though - after running the tires for about 30 miles at highway speeds I registered a 3 PSI increase in the pressure. I remember my old worn out tires used to increase by only about 1 PSI. Is this tire brand related (i.e. Toyo vs. the new Michelins) or is it to do with the fact that the tires are new? Or could it be that the tires weren't mounted correctly and excessive heat is somehow generated? I don't lose any air - it's just the greater difference between morning pressure, and the pressure after driving at highway speeds for a while.
Any thoughts?
Also could be the other tires expanded a little more due to increased pressure, while the newer tires are more rigid in their volume so the pressure is increased by being kept in the same volume.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I just HAD to work that out for myself! It is a good approximation.
tidester, host
A little more road feedback, of course, that the junk OEM H-rated Goodyear RSAs, but well worth it in turn-in reponse and general road feel.
The Sandman :-)
Each tire manufacturer then does the "lowest bidder" thing, and we end up riding on junk on our new cars/trucks.
With tires, just like when I was in the military, it doesn't please me - we had a saying - "Remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder".
Not necessarily though. I leased a 97 M3 that came with (what I thought) pretty good (alas summer only) tires. When I was at the BMW dealer once I saw a load of M3 with Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires. These are very sought after after-market tires.
Many high end German car manufacturers put good tires on their cars.
On a Ford F-150 or a Toyota Corolla, though, forget it.
We, in the aftermarket, can purchase whatever tires we want for cars, without having to contend with some of the other issues.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Zues, Bret...any advice from the tire guru's?
As always, mucho thanks guys!
The Sandman :-)
There are plenty of tires that are as good if not better than the RE92.
Thanks as always!
The Sandman :-)
Be careful with going to a 195/65-15 - in addition to the obvious speedo error, you may have a rub problem with your strut towers (spring perch is awfully close).
Other great tires are the Yoyohama Avid H4, The Pirelli P400, the Dunlop Sport 4000 A/S, and the Continental CH95. A little more money buys you the Michelin XGT H4 and MXV4, but I'm not a convinced Michelin fan.