If you had stated the tire size up front we could have cut to the chase sooner. Be that as it may, the sizes restrict the field. (in your case tire rack drops down to 31 tires). But that does not necessarily make the narrowed choices "better."
On the other hand (tricky) if you are willing to mix and match sizes a bit, the GY Eagle F1 GS-D3 occupies the #1 spot. I am projecting a bit as I had fairly good experiences with the GY Eagle F1 Super Car's. Absolutely ferocious dry grip. GY has vastly improved the wet grip (among other factors) :shades: Also it would be hard to ignore the #3 choice Bridgeston Potenza RE 050 A's. Two buddies have them OEM. They of course do not last too long on Porsche Carrera's one auto the other 6 speed. I have about 100 miles on each one, but really haven't "lived" with this tire.
What are your conditions? (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.
My gas mileage has gone up slightly with my new Nokian WRG2 SUV tires, or what ever they are called.
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.
Wrt bj02176, I've same experiences with my Nokian WRG2's on the Forester. Have had no trouble in rain (or any tire spin when accelerating on wet roads). Am hopeful they will work well once snow and Ice arrive in Portland.
Thanks for the comments. I live in London, Ontario (between Detroit and Toronto) and had to deal with snow and ice for nearly six months in a year. Ideally, should use snow tires for winter and all seasosn for summer. Instead wondering whether we can get away with using all weather tires such as Nokian WRG2 throughot the year.
We drive about 20,000 km/year (12,500 miles/year) and is it reasonable to expect that WRG2 will last for four years?
Given your situation (if it were me) I would go with the Nokians WRG2. For the other 6 mos (where you do not need the (compromised) winter characteristics) I would get and run much cheaper all seasons!
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.
And so YOUR recommendations are...??? Really not much sense to me to put less than performance tires on a car meant for performance. So what is the big deal? Make the leap! Really, dont want to go with one of the BEST? Hey Michelin does have the A/S's??? So does GY with the F1 A/S, etc., etc. They even make dedicated winter tires (another adjustment) , if that is a real concern. The best is to have multiple sets of 4 rims, and one can custom adjust!? :shades:
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.
You are suggesting high performance summer tires to a person who requested all season capability. 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
Indeed you agree with what I said about dedicated (snow) tires. :shades: While I did not say it, but hinted at it: there is a REAL danger if one is not dialed into the realities,. i.e., having false confidence the A/S designation will mean stellar snow/ice traction.
Actually Nokian (WRG2, but there is a whole line) has V rated A/S (with rare *snow designator) in the close to applicable sizes.
Nokian has said repeatedly the WRG2, and the older WR, will accommodate all season driving; very unusual for a winter rated tire. They will not have the handling precision of a summer tire (the WRG2's newer design is better than 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).
This is turning into an interesting complex multi options discussion. In the target sizes, we have gone from 137 products to 31 and now categories within categories.
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.
The sipes in all season winter tires should help with wet roads, and slippery roads from leaves, oil, etc.
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:
I am very confused. A couple of years back, I replaced the T rated Contis on an Altima with 60K mi. warranteed S rated Uniroyals with Tire Kingdom's blessings. Ride and handling were affected only minimally, but they only lasted 32K mi. I just replaced them with Sumitomo T rated tires with a 75K mi warranty and am very happy so far. I think the early tire wear I get has more to do with the So. FL road surfaces and temp as I don't get much more than 30K mi. on any tires I've had. I keep them inflated and rotate and align regularly. The shop that sold me the Sumitomos told me to keep them closer tp 40lbs than the car specs 32 lbs for better wear and gas mileage. I also saw this in a tire dealer trade journal. I usually run my tires a few lbs over anyway, so I'm trying this out.
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.
I am not a fan of going down in speed rating, but I am frequently in the minority.
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.
Our cars recommend 32 psi all the way around but just wondering if going to say 35 or 36 psi will be a problem? I had a pulling issue when I replaced my tires due to a known Civic problem, so they replaced one tire due to a "tire pull" but the car still pulled even after a 2nd alignment. I basically had to put in 36 psi all around and go down from there to make the car go straighter. It's at about 34 now. Not perfect yet...but better. Is it because of the tires I bought...Fuzion HRI's or is it a tire pressure problem? Just like it when my wheel is straight and the car tracks straight at the same time.
Now I am getting confused!? I ran a tire search on Tirerack and found that the tires for the 04 Sonata size ran from Y(186 mph), W(168), Z > 149 mph) ( to V (149 mph) (almost across a wide spectrum) link title
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.
Upshot: Upgrade to a T rated tire from an S rated tire.... BETTER !? ...but.... need 74,300 miles to really tell !? :shades:
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)
I had a set of the Bridgestone Turanza Serenity's installed on my Outback. I've got almost 2,000 miles on them now and they are a vast improvement over the OEM Bridgestones in terms of wet traction, comfort, and noise. We haven't had any snow yet, so I don't know how they'll do in that respect. They have a higher tread wear rating than the OEM's that they replaced and those tires lasted a long time so I'm expecting these to last at least as long. Happy with them so far.
Yokohama gets high ratings in my book for offering an excellent tire that performs better than Michelins for a fraction of the price. I've got a set of the Avid W4S for my Mazda 6 (replacing the OEM Michelins) and have driven them through plenty of wet and dry conditions through a range of temperatures, and they've never disappointed me. Excellent performance in both dry and wet, with no tire squeal or loss of traction when driving spiritedly through corners (unlike the Michelins, which complained almost constantly). Braking performance exceeds the Michelins through any conditions, and after 12K miles, the tread looks as good as new. I have dedicated snow tires for winter, but the light snow that I have exposed the Yokos to doesn't phase them at all.
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.
I took my old Chrysler into Sam's Club today to get the tires replaced. On the way home I noticed that the car drifted to the LEFT a little. Not a big deal but enough to notice.
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
Got these for the wife's Mazda 3s back in November and so far they are pretty decent tires...prefer them over the Fuzion HRI's that I got in the same size for my Civic. They just seem to hold the road better in the turns. Even the Kumho Solos tires that came on my daughter's new Hyundai Accent grip much better than the Fuzions. Will definitely keep both these tires on my radar once the Fuzions wear out, but since I drive less than 7k per year, think they'll be around for awhile. Definitely check out the Yokahama and Kumho line of tires if in the market for new sneakers.
It's funny how people have the mindset, and I'll admit that I do too, that you have to wear out your tires before you replace them. If you have a shirt or a pair of shoes that you don't like, you don't feel compelled to wear them out before buying another. What is it with tires?
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!
Changing tires does NOT guarantee you will no slide off the road and hit a tree. Indeed you are not supposed to run tires passed legally bald! The funny part is those types of accidents deaths are very seldom due to tire failure.
Indeed new information documented at tire rack indicate that three sets of tires might be the real ticket combinations 1. . rain tires (work best at 6/32nd or more) 2. snow tires are considered bald @ 6/32nds 3. dry grip is best for the more worn tire.
So for example,This area has relatively no need for #1 and #2.
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
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.)
I've been to many alignment shops over the years and the occasional tire shop (tyre btw is the spelling in Australia not Canada) and they have said don't go with the door jam or car manufacturer's recommendation because it's always too low and you'll wear out your tires prematurely, I know several people including myself having to need to replace their tires at 20,000 miles of just city non aggressive driving. At one point in time, my car dealer was inflating their tire pressures 4 PSI above the recommended tire pressure.
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.
Yes and no. In the past manufacturers "low-balled" the door jam tire pressure recommendations, then annotated the owner's manual with instructions to increase the tire pressure for sustained high speed (80 mph+) driving or full loads.
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.
I agree, that's what I heard....35/36 all around. I have tried on my other vehicle years ago the chalk test where you draw a lone over the tire and see where the chalk line remains and increase or decrease pressure accordingly. I havent done that in years, but I recall if I did this, the psi was definitely at least 4 psi over the recommended door jam recommendation.
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.)
if magic 35 PSI all around is not leftover from good all days when all US made (or even sold) tires has maximum pressure listed at 35 PSI. Times have changed and US cought up to the rest of the world; now it could be 35, 44, 51 or something else.
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.
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).
I'm probably going to be shipping a car from NY to the caribbean. Right now it rolls on Goodyear GSD3s for 3 seasons, and Blizzaks in the winter. Where it would be going I'd obviously eliminate the need for the Blizzaks. In addition, the speed/handling balance woould be different in the caribbean...roads are not high speed, but twisty. So as I look at buying new rubber, I can stay with ultra high performance summer rubber, or I can drop down a notch.
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?
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.
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.