By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.