Which Kumhos do you have, and how many miles, and what's your car? It sounds like your street hadn't been plowed before you drove it(?)--that's pretty amazing with high performance tires and 5-7".
They are Kumho Ecsta ASXs in a 195/60 15...they are supposedly "ultra high performance all season" but I think they are only "ultra high performance" because they are V-speed rated. They are on a '93 Accord EX. I had to use reverse on the cul-de-sac, and anytime I had to get out of the main grove down the middle of the road on the rest of the sub-division, but that might have been because I was too big a wuss to go fast enough to have momentum. A car would come the other way and I would move over and the car would basically stop, and after the other car passed I would reverse back into the middle and carry on going forward again. Oh and the tires have maybe 1500 miles on them right now. The Subaru, even with crummy RE-92s had no issues at all.
I have LS-Vs as replacements for the OEM S8's...on a 04 EX V6 4 door. Ive had about 20k on them now and really enjoy them. I think they are superior to the S'8s in every way.
Bridgestone Turanza LSV. I find the handling is much improved, they are far superior in rain snow and ice compared to the oem s8's, appear to be long lasting and they are quieter. Ive been really happy with them. Though as with everyone...just about any tire is better then the oem s8's
Goodyear Assurance Comfort Tread. Soft,smooth,quiet,tire. Lose a little handling and 1-2 mpg but if your car is "beating" you it's the way to go. 80k warranty last maybe 50k,prorate and get another set. Hope this helps.
The Bridgestone Turanza LSV is the highest rated tire on tirerack.com. It seems they don't have the exact size for my Accord though 205/60/16. When I change my tires, I might also get some 17" wheels. I still have some time to think about it.
Thanks for the feedback (somewhat delayed!) but in the interim I decided to ditch the all-season approach and bought dedicated winters+wheels (Michelin Pilot Alpin 205/60-17") and will be buying ultra-high performance summer Kumho ECSTA SPT, probably 225/45-17. They have very good ratings on TireRack and I like the sound of the individual reviews--plus the pricing is excellent at $82. Comments? Other suggestions for high performance summers?
Well the fact that they are all-season Kumhos and not summers would be very helpful in the snow, also that they're thinner 195s helps too. Their rating in deep snow on TireRack is pretty good, and I guess they showed their stuff! Sounds like you did a good job of plowing through the stuff behind the wheel too.
I think the dedicated winter tire is really the way to go. I know what I have is a compromise at best and I think the fact that they are brand new helps considerably. I would probably have been more likely to go that route if I knew how long I was planning on keeping that car. I think Kumho performance tires offer a lot of value, I have used their R-compound tires in autocross and time-trial track events and been pleased.
Thats odd...I got 205/60/16 LSV's from the tirerack about a year ago. I sure hope they still make them in that size just in case I need them. Maybe a bridgestone store could get them if thats what you wanted.
My mistake. They do have them in the V rated tire. I wanted the Z rated, (because they have the highest rating), but not in my size. I may just have to settle for the V rated.
May I ask what you could be doing in an Accord to warrant a Z-rated tire? I have V-rated tires on my 4-cylinder Accord, and likely won't replace them with such high-performance (and EXPENSIVE - think $800) tires.
Because of the consumer reviews on the Z rated Turanza. Many of the reviewers commented how quiet the tires were, and how much they liked them, even more than other expensive tires. I will pay the price, if the tires are worth it. The decision has not been made yet, just something I was thinking about, if I changed my wheel size.
Interesting that a Z-rated tire would be so particularly quiet; I'd think they wouldn't be as quiet as other "touring" tires.
I, for one, love the Bridgestone Potenza G009 tires on my 1996 Accord LX. They are quieter, handle better, and ride only a little harder than the Goodyears (and before those, the Michelins) I had on them. They are classified as High-Performance All-Season tires, and I love them. Not sure what size they come in, but for my 185/65-15 tires, they cost about $510 after mounting, balancing, and labor charges.
Well, the Goodyear's I'm comparing to were low-grade "Integrity" tires, so just about anything was better. I like them a lot, but really don't feel that they are noticeably louder than any other tire. They sure do handle beautifully.
I do think the Michelin MXV4 tires on my car now are pretty decent. Smooth ride, quiet enough, and great fuel mileage (light weight). Of course that light weight makes them easy to damage (blew out two MXV4s at the same time on my old car, on the same bump) and they don't handle very well with the weak sidewalls. While the Touranzas are heavier, and will probably reduce fuel mileage, I prefer something more sturdy.
My first replacement tires on my old car were the Goodyear Eagles, and they were cheaper than the Michelins. The Eagles were noisy, and not as smooth. On the second replacements I bought some Dunlop SP sport A2s, (after some research this time) and found them to be a great tire for the price. Much better than the Goodyears were.
May I ask what you could be doing in an Accord to warrant a Z-rated tire? I have V-rated tires on my 4-cylinder Accord, and likely won't replace them with such high-performance (and EXPENSIVE - think $800) tires.
Its amazing to me how people rave about the great handling of a particular vehicle and then opt to replace the tires with something of lower performance. Tires are the link that do more for handling and braking than any other component.
A v-rated tire is sturdier and stronger than a H or T rated tire because it has to deal with the greater forces and heat generated at higher speeds. These aren't necessarily expensive, my V-rated tires were $40/tire in a 195/60r15 and have been great in the snow as well as dry cornering.
Yes, but having driven my dad's 2005 Accord (before trading it on a 2007 Civic) with H-Rated tires several times, I noticed no real difference in handling. I may have at 55 MPH on a sweeping right hander made to be taken at 35, but I'm not THAT enthusiastic/dangerous behind the wheel.
$40 a tire? What kind are they that they are under $200 a set? My cheapo Goodyears were over $300 and the worst tires I've ever driven on.
I certainly would not downgrade to the H or T rated tires. The only reason I'm considering the Z rated Bridgestone Turanza's is because they have a higher rating than the V rated tires. I have no intention of driving that fast, just want the best tire I can get. The much greater cost of the Z rated tire, and the fact that they don't have them in 205/60/16 may kill this idea however.
Scroll back my friend...Kumho Ecsta ASXs. $37/tire when I purchased them. They got very good reviews online and I have been very happy with them for the few thousand miles I've had them.
For the most part, the speed rating of the tire is about strength, the tread compound and design is about handling and noise. The load rating of the tire also is a factor of tire strength (but is a relatively mute point as long as it meets the requirements for the vehicle). There is some overlap, as tires with higher speed ratings tend to have stiffer sidewalls which improve handling/ lessen ride quality. Also, tires with higher treadwear ratings tend to use harder rubber, which means a harsher ride and poorer handling.
That treadwear rating number is assigned by the tire maker itself after supposed testing using that tire vs a "standard tire." A tire with a rating of 400 should last 4x as long as this mythical standard tire. Again, this is provided by the tire manufacturer. Also, on the tire sidewall there is the word Traction followed by AA, A, B, or C. This is wet braking. That is the only thing tested under "traction" and again its tested by the manufacturer.
I am a bit surprised that the Turanza is so well loved. The G35 had those (EL-42s?, V-speed rated) and I felt they were sub-par and wore quickly for the performance they offered.
TireRack is a great resource for reviews and tire rankings, but like any survey it should be taken with a grain of salt. I find a lot of their information very helpful, I think most people don't realize how tires work or what all the numbers and letters really mean.
I found my comfort treads by exploring the tire rack survey. It was # 1 for a while now it's maybe #3. Would not buy a tire w/o reviewing the surveys. Good observations by Elroy. My oem Michelins were better handling and were +2 on mpg but hey,I was tired of being beaten daily by my stiffly suspended 02v6. I've got a 160 mph motorcycle for fun!
Well, I got new tires today. I was hoping the Michelin MXV4s would last another 10k miles (they had 43k at this point). They had plenty of tread left, but road hazards have taken a toll on them, and they had cracks in them (which make them look weak and old). After many many hours of going through tire surveys, tests, and ratings from tirerack.com and others, I chose the Bridgestone Turanza LS-V. I was looking for a tire that rode as smooth as the Michelins, but had more traction, and considering the road noise with Accords, I wanted something quiet too. The LS-Vs fit the bill. Although they are a "Grand Touring" tire, they have way more grip than the stock Michelins without being loud, like most performance tires.
On the ride home (70 miles) I quickly noticed the grip and responsiveness. These tires feel like they are stuck to the road like glue, and I will have to get used to the quick response to steering input (the MXV4s were anything but responsive). While I could still hear some road noise on expansion joints and course pavement, it was a lower tone, and not as irritating. I do expect these tires to affect my fuel mileage some (heavier, and slightly larger diameter). Hopefully it will not be dramatic.
That's about the same mileage I have gotten on the oem Michelins on 3 Accords. 45-47k. Do the Turanzas ride more smoothly than the Michelins? You can experiment w/ the tire pressure for best combination of comfort and gas mileage.
I think the ride smoothness is about the same. Where the Turanzas are an improvement is road noise, and traction. The wet traction is expected to be much better with these tires (even as the tire wears). I will have to wait until it rains, to give my own impressions though. The way I see it, any tire has sufficient grip on dry roads. It's when the road is wet, I want all the grip I can get.
Looks like a good choice. I checked the tire rack surveys. Good price w/80k warranty is hard to beat. If you get 50 k then your prorated replacements keep your lifetime cost of tires down.
17" wheels could help as far as handling (lower profile tire/ less sidewall flex). At the same time it would hurt the ride (less sidewall/ less cushion). You would have to decide which is more important (ride/handling).
It's a waste of money and will also increase your turning radius.
While the waste of money thing is an opinion and not based on anything, I am curious as to how it will increase the turning circle. If the wheel turns the same amount, how would that affect the turning radius?
If I can get the entire set for around 3-400, it might be worth it...?
You can't. If you buy cheap heavy wheels and crummy tires, you are hurting your fuel economy, your ride, and your handling. $800 might be a good target for new tires and wheels, and even that would take some deal hunting.
Do the V6 and the 4 have the same wheel well? Is the V6 longer than the 4? Is there an issue with axle clearance or steering rack clearance? What is the turning radius on the LX V6 (w/smaller wheels)?
The only issue with a wider tire would be if it was rubbing on hard turns, and I don't see that being an issue unless you go at least +2 on the sizing.
If comfort and smoothness are paramount check out the goodyear assurance comfort treads at discount tire smooth,quiet,mid priced,80k warranty. Free lifetime rotation.
My opinion is based on car buying experience. Just look @ the Honda website to see the increased turing radius of larger diameter tires. I thought you were an engineer? If you had been polite, I would have given you the #.
So if you agree that was just opinion, why are you offended?
I actually am an engineer and thats why I like data. The V6 and the 4 cylinder Accords have different turning circles due to different steering racks (v6 p/n 2317470, 4 cyl p/n 1783563). The V6 has 2.75 turns lock to lock while the 4 has 2.94. This is due to clearance of engine and transmission components (and allows them to use the same tie rods).
The 17" wheel has a 215mm footprint while the 16 has a 205mm wide footprint for a difference of 10mm. That is not the difference between rubbing and not rubbing (although it might be the difference between snow chains and no snow chains).
The difference in turning radius is because of the engine selection, not the wheels. If it were truly the wheels, one wouldn't be able to fit 17" wheels to the 4 cylinder Accords.
Again, I apologize if I offended you, but perhaps because of my engineering background, I like to operate on facts.
It is 4 feet, not 4 inches, so it is a bigger difference than you might think. Also, the only Accords with steel rims are the Value Package, and 4-cylinder LX model. Value Package . . . LX 4-cylinder . . . LX-SE, EX, EX-L (4-cylinder) . . . SE V6, LX V6, EX V6 . . . EX V6 6-Speed Manual
Embarrassingly, I looked at the specs quickly and I think,wrong. My o2 Accord V6 has 15" tires and a 36 ft turning circle. I attributed this to the smaller diameter.
I am a bit surprised that the Turanza is so well loved. The G35 had those (EL-42s?, V-speed rated) and I felt they were sub-par and wore quickly for the performance they offered.
The EL-42s are obviously not the same as the LS series. The EL-42 got some terrible reviews on tirerack.com. When asked if they would buy that tire again, most said definitely not. The EL-42s and the LS tires although made by Bridgestone are not the same tire. There were no tests done on the EL-42, which would have been more detailed.
Does anybody know the approximate weight of the stock steel wheels that come on the LX 4-cyl?
I found what I think is a good deal on some 15" alloys that weigh 14 lbs apiece- that sounds light to me I guess but I know that being heavier by just a couple of pounds could really affect the cars handling.
Except I'd probably get them in silver. They are KTMs, $55 each plus approx $30 to ship UPS ground.
I think it depends on the motivation for new wheels. If its a syling thing and you want to keep everything stock or re-use the existing tires, 15" is a good choice,and 14 lb/wheel is plenty light. If you want increased performance, I would probably go with at least a 16" wheel in part because there are very few performance tires still available in 15" sizes. There are some, they are just harder to find and 16" sizes seem to have no cost impediment and are easier to find. It should be pretty easy to find a high quality light weight 16" wheel.
Hi Gang, this message regarding tires. Had 2004 EX-L 4 Cylinder 5 speed entirely built in Japan. Had the well known drift to the right problem. Replaced the OEM Michelin with Bridgestone LSV. Immediate changes noted: Traction (wet and dry), handling AND no longer drifted to right. Put 100,000 miles in 2 years on car. NO PROBLEMS! Now have 2007 6 cylinder EX-L with NAV 6 speed trans. Same problem with drift, handling and traction. Will replace with either Bridgestone S-V OR Potenza RE 960as Pole Position Tires. Oh by the way when I went with the LS-V tires I noticed that strong cross winds did not affect the car as much.
Comments
I had to use reverse on the cul-de-sac, and anytime I had to get out of the main grove down the middle of the road on the rest of the sub-division, but that might have been because I was too big a wuss to go fast enough to have momentum.
A car would come the other way and I would move over and the car would basically stop, and after the other car passed I would reverse back into the middle and carry on going forward again.
Oh and the tires have maybe 1500 miles on them right now.
The Subaru, even with crummy RE-92s had no issues at all.
I think Kumho performance tires offer a lot of value, I have used their R-compound tires in autocross and time-trial track events and been pleased.
I, for one, love the Bridgestone Potenza G009 tires on my 1996 Accord LX. They are quieter, handle better, and ride only a little harder than the Goodyears (and before those, the Michelins) I had on them. They are classified as High-Performance All-Season tires, and I love them. Not sure what size they come in, but for my 185/65-15 tires, they cost about $510 after mounting, balancing, and labor charges.
...at 30k, OEM Mich MXM4 215/50-17's calc out 7/32.......
Granted that I tend to lead the program (I won't need tires tomorrow).....
...TireRack has rave reviews for the Pilot Exalto A/S Mich..
..anyone here impressed with their personal Exalto's perf?
..best, ez..
Its amazing to me how people rave about the great handling of a particular vehicle and then opt to replace the tires with something of lower performance. Tires are the link that do more for handling and braking than any other component.
A v-rated tire is sturdier and stronger than a H or T rated tire because it has to deal with the greater forces and heat generated at higher speeds. These aren't necessarily expensive, my V-rated tires were $40/tire in a 195/60r15 and have been great in the snow as well as dry cornering.
$40 a tire? What kind are they that they are under $200 a set? My cheapo Goodyears were over $300 and the worst tires I've ever driven on.
For the most part, the speed rating of the tire is about strength, the tread compound and design is about handling and noise. The load rating of the tire also is a factor of tire strength (but is a relatively mute point as long as it meets the requirements for the vehicle). There is some overlap, as tires with higher speed ratings tend to have stiffer sidewalls which improve handling/ lessen ride quality. Also, tires with higher treadwear ratings tend to use harder rubber, which means a harsher ride and poorer handling.
That treadwear rating number is assigned by the tire maker itself after supposed testing using that tire vs a "standard tire." A tire with a rating of 400 should last 4x as long as this mythical standard tire. Again, this is provided by the tire manufacturer. Also, on the tire sidewall there is the word Traction followed by AA, A, B, or C. This is wet braking. That is the only thing tested under "traction" and again its tested by the manufacturer.
I am a bit surprised that the Turanza is so well loved. The G35 had those (EL-42s?, V-speed rated) and I felt they were sub-par and wore quickly for the performance they offered.
TireRack is a great resource for reviews and tire rankings, but like any survey it should be taken with a grain of salt. I find a lot of their information very helpful, I think most people don't realize how tires work or what all the numbers and letters really mean.
On the ride home (70 miles) I quickly noticed the grip and responsiveness. These tires feel like they are stuck to the road like glue, and I will have to get used to the quick response to steering input (the MXV4s were anything but responsive). While I could still hear some road noise on expansion joints and course pavement, it was a lower tone, and not as irritating. I do expect these tires to affect my fuel mileage some (heavier, and slightly larger diameter). Hopefully it will not be dramatic.
While the waste of money thing is an opinion and not based on anything, I am curious as to how it will increase the turning circle. If the wheel turns the same amount, how would that affect the turning radius?
A wider tire uses more room in the wheel well, hence the nearly 4-foot larger turning radius on the V6 (17" wheel) models vs. the I-4 (15" and 16").
Any thoughts on this and whether I need to stick to certain sizes (16, 17", etc), or does it matter?
If I can get the entire set for around 3-400, it might be worth it...?
You can't. If you buy cheap heavy wheels and crummy tires, you are hurting your fuel economy, your ride, and your handling. $800 might be a good target for new tires and wheels, and even that would take some deal hunting.
The only issue with a wider tire would be if it was rubbing on hard turns, and I don't see that being an issue unless you go at least +2 on the sizing.
I actually am an engineer and thats why I like data. The V6 and the 4 cylinder Accords have different turning circles due to different steering racks (v6 p/n 2317470, 4 cyl p/n 1783563). The V6 has 2.75 turns lock to lock while the 4 has 2.94. This is due to clearance of engine and transmission components (and allows them to use the same tie rods).
The 17" wheel has a 215mm footprint while the 16 has a 205mm wide footprint for a difference of 10mm. That is not the difference between rubbing and not rubbing (although it might be the difference between snow chains and no snow chains).
The difference in turning radius is because of the engine selection, not the wheels. If it were truly the wheels, one wouldn't be able to fit 17" wheels to the 4 cylinder Accords.
Again, I apologize if I offended you, but perhaps because of my engineering background, I like to operate on facts.
All V6 Accords have the same 17" Alloy wheel, and the same 39'+ turning radius.
Besides, does the 4 inches of turning radius really matter? Hope that wasnt blasphemous... :P
Value Package
.
.
.
LX 4-cylinder
.
.
.
LX-SE, EX, EX-L (4-cylinder)
.
.
.
SE V6, LX V6, EX V6
.
.
.
EX V6 6-Speed Manual
The EL-42s are obviously not the same as the LS series. The EL-42 got some terrible reviews on tirerack.com. When asked if they would buy that tire again, most said definitely not. The EL-42s and the LS tires although made by Bridgestone are not the same tire. There were no tests done on the EL-42, which would have been more detailed.
I found what I think is a good deal on some 15" alloys that weigh 14 lbs apiece- that sounds light to me I guess but I know that being heavier by just a couple of pounds could really affect the cars handling.
Except I'd probably get them in silver. They are KTMs, $55 each plus approx $30 to ship UPS ground.
Remember the days of top-of the line Accords having 15s? They weren't so long ago actually...
If you want increased performance, I would probably go with at least a 16" wheel in part because there are very few performance tires still available in 15" sizes. There are some, they are just harder to find and 16" sizes seem to have no cost impediment and are easier to find. It should be pretty easy to find a high quality light weight 16" wheel.