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 would go with the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2.
Any comments and suggestions on these choices?
Sri.
(I have lived in snow ice and rain (upstate NY). Traveled extensively in NE during the winter. Iived in snow, ice, rain,altitude (CO), tropics (Miami, Fl, rains, storms, shines, several times a day) and CA where in a lot of places it very rarely rains to snow , ice, etc.
I hear good to GREAT things about the Nokian's line, but their short life (and probably fuel mpg loss) are issues to me. Also since I very rarely do much time in either snow/ice nor rain, most of the running would be done in so called "normal" conditions. So I would tend to lean toward snows for winter and normal all seasons tires for the rest. Nokians seem to offer a 2 in one gig (close to dedicated snows to all seasons) but like I said ,short life is probably the premium/penalty and is a deal breaker issue (for my .02 cents)
Fact is if you keep under 55 mph you can drive in snow, ice, rain, with nary an issue, IF you are ok with driving like you are on egg shells.
Now that I have a hundred miles on or so them they handle great, no vibration, noise is the same as with the stock Continentals on my CRV.
No snow yet, so who knows how they will be
I thought the Fortera Triple treds were great also, had them on my 2005 Escape and they did very well during an afernoon snow storm where all kinds of vehicles were stuck on 128 in the Boston area especially on off ramps.
We drive about 20,000 km/year (12,500 miles/year) and is it reasonable to expect that WRG2 will last for four years?
Thanks again,
Sri.
I just priced Nokians in passing (2 of my sizes); and each size is a min of 2x the prices of my current running replacements (actually 2.33 X in one case).
I fully expect to get a min of 100,000 miles out of each category, even as past experiences put the oem tires @ 74,300/120,000 miles. While this takes nothing away from the Nokian (or other tires for that matter) the spectre of 2x the price @ half the wear is an issue for me (given my conditions) Plus I would be spending 15 per tire (mounting and balancing) as a min 2x faster.
Since I do not have practical experiences with the Nokian WRG 2, others that have it might chime in. UTOQ ratings of 400 indicated your goals are more than realistic.
PS2 is not meant to be driven in winter.
The same is true for Goodyear F1 GS-D3.
Krzys
Krzys
It might be germane to note that all that WIDE tread that gives almost ferocious dry grip and normall 10-20% less wet grip is WAY counter productive in snow/ice.
I have had 265/40/17's with 295/35/18's at 6500 ft on twisting Colorado Rocky Mountain roads in snow storms, but the truth is I would not recommend it even with A/S tires !!!??? On the other hand I routinely use 275/70/16's so called A/S on ski trips.
Even though I agree with your choices for all days above 45F (7C) the problem is when it is cold.
If I owned BMW 330 with sport package (staggered wide or very wide tires) I would have separate set of wheels for winter.
TireRack has a long list of available options for 2006 BMW 330i with sport package:
-1
225/45R17
205/50R17
OE
225/40R18
or
225/40R18F
255/35R18R
If I were using only one set of tires I would have picked 225/45R17 all around. Price difference between 18 and 17 inch tires would pay for some chunk of new 17 inch wheels.
Michelin Pilot Sport A/S Plus
225/40R18 222 each
255/35R18 354 each
225/45R17 180 each
Krzys
Actually Nokian (WRG2, but there is a whole line) has V rated A/S (with rare *snow designator) in the close to applicable sizes.
WR designed in 2002), but should otherwise work well.
Another nice thing about WRG2 is they are rated XT and can handle an unusually high tire pressure (51 psi). While I don't see any reason to run PSI this high, it does suggest the WRG2's are unusually sturdy.
However, if you don't have a lot of rain or snow, the WRG2 may be overkill and another All Season tire can suffice. Some of the Dunlops Performance tires are reputed to have decent ice traction (so says Consumers Union).
It might be interesting to even bring arcane tidbits to the mix.
So for example while I would agree Nokian WRG2's can be run "all seasons", wear and wear patterns can be and are factors. So for example, since the situation is 6 months and probably half the mileage (12,500/2=) 6250 miles are winter, long term goals could be to preserve the sipes and blocks that work well during winter. In effect they are less applicable, aka "used LESS"up to USELESS during the other 6 months. On the other hand, for the other 6 months, the arcane information is: dry grip is actually better for more worn tires. So you can put other "all seasons" or max performance summer tires during the other 6 months.
I will see how the replacement Toyo 800 Ultra's do in the longer term.
Many summer tires claiming high performance (read, grip) have few sipes or grooves and a softer compound that helps grip the road. However, those tires usually have no warranty, wear fast and prove middling to useless in anything but dry conditions.
For those who have the space to store alternate tires and wheels, and do a lot of summer driving, having one set of wheels with summer tires, and another set of wheels with winter tires, makes a lot of sense.
But if you don't have the space... what then ?
I would say that is more about the compromises you are willing to make, given the percentage driving and your skill and safety factor that you want to have. A/S or all seasons for most winter conditions should do just fine. You can do cable or real chains for the EXTREME stuff.
They now have one category not readily available then, performance winter tires.
Short story.... LONG: I had driven numerous times in snow /ice, etc etc in the mountains (6500 ft altitudes) At that time there were no designated "A/S all seasons tires. So I ran the tires du year at the time. I did carry/ run snow cables (not enough clearance for chains) when absolutely FORCED to by chain control points, but was really ok and used to driving in extreme winter conditions. So for example when I went to live for the first time in WINTER (4 seasons weather ie,upstate NY), I decided to get winter snow tires (STUDDED) . After one seasons' use, I came to the conclusion it was a waste. The studs while it gave almost tank like grip, steering, traction, etc were a HUGE mistake. The dedicated snow tires were just a MISTAKE. :lemon:
Now my '06 Sonata 4 cyl. is almost due for tires with 28K mi. on the V rated Michelins. My research seems to indicate that opinions are split as to whether or not it's okay to move to an H rated tire to save a few bucks and get a little more treadwear or if doing that will compromise ride, braking and handling and hence compromise safety. I can get V rated tires for 6-10 bucks more per tire than H rated ones. The Sonata has a floaty/mushy suspension to begin with and I would not want to make that any worse. I'm seeking the expert advice from tire experts.
Going down in speed rating is also in the direction of going down in handling - both the way it feels and the way it grips. Also, as tires age, their properties change, and a tire's ability to withstand speed and load decreases. Not to mention the affect inflation pressure has on speed capability.
However, I can see going down from a V rated to an H rated, but I don't recommend anyone use anything lower than an H rated - and that is particularly true for South Florida - which is #5 on the list of states with tire durability issues.
If you are moving down in ratings, I would also pay attention to the load index.. You definitely don't want to move down there..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Just like it when my wheel is straight and the car tracks straight at the same time.
The Sandman :confuse:
On first look, complete and utter overkill!? I don't imagine the wear as being too terribly long! Dooda's post on his anecdotal tire wear miles confirms my first impression. My own experiences are 56,000 miles on a Y rated tire (186 mph) , Z06 Corvette.
I really did not perceive the 04 Sonata as an autobahn cruiser. It struck me more as a Honda Accord competitor, albeit 4 door family sedan, etc.
Of course I do not perceive my 03 VW Jetta TDI with H rated tires (max rated speed of 130 mph can actually go 125 mph) as an autobahn cruiser, but in fact.... IS. I have literally cruised all day (11 hours) at close to xxx speeds and the H rated tires were/are literally "troopers". Tire wear is @ 110,000 miles on the oem (crappy, but given wear perhaps not so crappy) GY LS-H's. Let me make it clear I am not making a case for downgrading to H rated tires. But why are they putting these speed ratings on 4 door family sedans which will probably never see north of 90 mph? Thanks in advance for your response/s.
On another car 04 Civic, S rated tires comes oem. The oem tires were rated 23 rd out of 24 in that category, (THANK heavens for the #24 rated tire, mine didnt take dead LAST honors) It got 74,300 miles on a 320 UTOQ.38-42 mpg on a purposeful commute for which the car was primarily chosen for. One can say what one will about oem tires but they are the ones used to verify the epa ratings for that vehicle. At the time the oem tire was more expensive than the replacement and now is every so slightly less expensive. So far I am pretty close to spot on in the mpg department sans the drop in mpg due to switching to new tires. I also gained slightly better load and speed ratings.
The oem tire was Dunlop SP20 FE, Currently it has vaulted ahead of its previous rating and is now a whopping 18 th of 20 ranked. Replacement was/is Toyo Ultra 800 (T rated, 700 UTOQ)
Any comments?
I also will need tires soon for an 06 Civic EX, and am thinking the Avid H4S for that.
I would appreciate hearing about any pernal experience with these tires.
thanks
Scott
Considering they were HALF the price per tire compared to the Michelins, even if I get half the treadlife (which I think I'll exceed easily), they're well worth it.
Anymore however, the ratings change almost every quarter. Aggressive pricing can give one the opportunity to try well rated different oem offerings.
I have always had good luck with Yokohama's, albeit seems to yield lower tread life. I currently have Yokohama Geolander H/T-S G051, the long time "gold standard" being Michelin LTX M/S (I am also running Bridgestone's A/T Revos) . I do not normally try to shop across applications in one line but Michelin would be one, Yokohama and Toyo would be 2 other examples. Look at the Toyo offering for your Honda Accord. I also currently have the Toyo offering for the Honda Civic (odd sized) I also have the 265/40/17, 295/35/18's.
The thing that is bugging me is that on the way out the car had a slight drift to the RIGHT. This I attributed to the crown of the road.
Could something have happened during routine tire mounting that would cause this? Should I be concerned about anything mechanical with this older car that could cause the track to shift due to something as minor as a tire change?
The guys at Sam's seemed to be doing everything right. They even used a torque wrench for the final lug nut tightening. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Definitely check out the Yokahama and Kumho line of tires if in the market for new sneakers.
The Sandman
I guess it's a matter of scale. Tires cost as much as several pairs of shoes.
But a bad pair of shoes is unlikely to cause you to slide off the road and hit a tree.
The Accord sees about 8K a year, so longevity is not the most pressing issue. The Michelins are terribly noisy, and the sidewalls are checking at this point. The existing tires are 5 years old, with 42K on them. Not quite worn out, but with the weather we've been seeing in the North West, it's past time to replace.
The Accord is our "trip car", so we wanted a quieter tire. I understand the Yoko's are better in this regard?
Oregonboy,
LOL!
You're right about not replacing the tires even when we aren't happy with them. I got a good laugh from youy comment. If you google "cheap b*****d", my picture shows up!
So for example,This area has relatively no need for #1 and #2.
The US based BMW Advanced Driving Course recommends BMW owners inflate to maximum tire recommended pressures for everyday driving.
Manufacturers pressures are minimum pressures for low speed round town driving and obviously still not enough. http://www.drivers.com/discussions/messages/8/29.html
Any thoughts?
1) The discussion you linked is from 2001. It seems to be Canadian based, as most posters are referring to tyres.
2) The quote you put in italics about the "US based BMW Advanced Driving Course"? Nothing cited to back that up... just one poster writing that.
3) The maximum pressure listed on a tire sidewall is the maximum pressure for that tire. That single tire could be the recommended fitment for vehicles with placarded recommended pressures from 29 psi to 38 psi.. How can 45 psi or 51 psi, or whatever the max pressure on the sidewall, be the proper tire pressure for every one of those vehicles?
As one of the more salient posters in that discussion asked, "Bob, what the heck are you smoking?".
Can you use a pressure higher than the recommended pressure? Certainly.
Will it be the MAX pressure listed on the tire? Not in a million years...
regards,
kyfdx
visiting host and arbiter of common sense
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
BMW's have 2 pressures listed on their placards and I am sure the BMW group was referring to that - and not the max pressure listed on the sidewall of the tire.
Further, what is listed on the sidewall of a tire is governed by a regulation that has been interpreted differently by different tire manufacturers. In other words, what is written on the sidewall is NOT based on some technical capability - other than to say, it should be interpreted as it is listed - a maximum (IMHO, there are some exceptions.)
In addition, my owners manual states for WINTER tires, increase the PSI at least 4.3 PSI than what is recommended on the door jab.
Nowadays due to the Ford Explorer fiasco, most manufacturers have increased the door jam tire pressure recommendations to allow more of a margin of error due to driver neglect/inattention.
The original reason for lower tire pressures was to increase comfort.
The recent reasons for increased tire pressures is to increase mileage - which works to a point, but has RAPIDLY diminishing returns. In fact, in the study I recollect, there was next to no improvement in mileage with current cars in running tires over the "door jam" recommended tire pressures.
I first raised my eyes at Walmart inflating my tires during an oil chnage to the then ghastly, to me, level of 35 psi despite my protestations that 35 psi was way above the then-manufacturer's recommendation of 28 psi (which has since increased to 32 psi). I thought they were grossly unprofessional, but actually they were smarter than me, in a dumb way, for the following reasons:
1. There aren't any tires I know that can't safely handle 35 psi, or will wear funny as a result, so 35 psi isn't a negative safety issue.
2. Tire pressure is seldom checked by modern drivers, so 35 psi offers a MUCH safer margin of error for cars that ONLY get their tire pressure checked during an oil change.
3. Cars at oil changes have been driven to the oil changer. The standard recommendation for "hot" tires is to overfill them by 5 psi over the factory recommendation to make up for the "hot" instead of "cold" reading. Which is close to 35 psi (all roads lead to 35 psi!). (BTW, I have confirmed that this is true - I drove my car to a gas station in the morning, just a couple of miles, filled tires to 35 psi, checked them the next morning after sitting and they measured 32 psi - the factory fill recommendation; but the tire pressure monitor reads 35 psi in the dashboard after my daily commute.)
Finally, there is a person running a driving school who is a former stunt driver and teaches safe and also stunt driving to amateurs who are interested. His tire recommendation, as I read it several years ago? 35 psi for all cars all the time.
Like I said all roads point to 35psi!
1) Chalk test: Look at this graphic:
http://www.geocities.com/barrystiretech/footprint.jpg
Notice the wide range of loads and inflation pressures. Also notice that while the length of the footprint changes depending on the load and inflation pressure, the width of the footprint is virtually the same. In other words, footprint width is not a reliable method of determining the proper inflation pressure - so the chalk method doesn't work 100% of the time.
2) Given that the load carrying capacity of tires is a function of tire size and inflation pressure - and that there are different sized tires on vehicles with similar weights - the usage pressure can't be the same for all vehicles.
3) Since the footprint size varies considerably, it seems reasonable that "safety" would be compromised as the inflation pressure is raised above a certain point. (I think we all agree that there is a lower pressure limit to this "safety" issue as well.)
I think capriracer wrote long time ago that load tables used to end at 35 PSI entry. But these were US tables. European and Japanese manufacturers were using tables with more entries for higher pressures.
Krzys
PS I could be wrong, listen to capriracer ;-)
The load table for Standard Load passenger car tires for European and Japanese manufacturers ends at 36 psi (technically, it's 250 kPa or 2.5 bar). The US version is 35 psi.
However, all tire standards (US, Europe, Japan, etc.) allow the use of higher pressures for passenger car tires - and they have standardized on 1) the rated pressure (the end of the load table) , 2) 44 psi (300kPa = 3.0 bar), or 3) 51 psi (350 kPa = 3.5 bar) (applies to Standard Load Passenger car tires only).
Krzys
I think I remember reading something about the effects of high ambient temperatures on high performance tires; does anyone have an opinion, or any data on this?
Thanks
Rubber degradation is a function of temperature. For every 10°C rise in temperature, reaction rates double.
Plus ocean surfaces generate ozone.
So you should replace the tires every six years, just to be on the safe side.
I understand that all rubber deteriorates, I just thought that the sticky stuff deteriorated faster.
As to changing tires every 6 years, well, I've never had a set of tires on any car for that long - I either were them out, or get interested in trying the new "best" way before then. Of course, with the economy as is, I just might have to find one set and really, really like them.