I am not sure that I would agree or disagree. In my earlier example, it truly was cool to have "RADIAL" tires. (No, the flint stones were a year a ahead of me :P ) So in that sense, the radials of old were PRE the "all seasons" designation. My take from what I drive now is the all seasons designated tires are better than the ones in the post. And they (the old "RADIAL" tires) were just fine.
While I have never driven the so called higher speed rated winter tires, I am sure they address the higher speeds issue I had mentioned. Given that new category I would probably not go back to the "SNOW" tires unless I once again lived in places like winter in upstate NY.
Having the extra set/s of rims is truly the way to go, as you can pretty much custom tailor things for almost any category.
It's a liability thing. If the front tires slide, you continue to go straight. If the rears slide, you will probably spin
True. But, if you were about ready to plow into the rear end of a salt truck, you'd want the snow tires on the front for better braking. In would depend on the situation as to where snow tires would be the safest.... front or rear.
Exactly! That's why all four corners is the best answer.
I have 4 studded snow tires that came with my Tacoma when I bought it, (used). I bought some used rims and had them mounted, and have used them exactly once in the six years that I have owned my truck. I live in a mild climate.
If they were not studded, I would have used them more, but I am not going to drive around on studs on bare pavement. I have put in a lot of miles with them riding in the bed of the truck... just in case I should need them.
True. But, if you were about ready to plow into the rear end of a salt truck, you'd want the snow tires on the front for better braking. In would depend on the situation as to where snow tires would be the safest.... front or rear.
You still lose almost complete control by having only snows on the front. With the sudden braking or if you hit ice or any slippery condition, your back end will now flip to the front.
If you can't afford 4 snow tires, don't buy any. Instead, get some Shur Z cable chains.
I have 4 studded snow tires that came with my Tacoma when I bought it, (used). I bought some used rims and had them mounted, and have used them exactly once in the six years that I have owned my truck. I live in a mild climate.
If they were not studded, I would have used them more, but I am not going to drive around on studs on bare pavement
You could also unmount your tires yourself. Most Japanese vehicles are very light and studded tires, IMO, are the only way to go. Of course, it all depends where you live.
my '03 cadillac cts currently rides on 225/50 r17 tires. other than some odometer/speedometer issues, what will i run into by putting 225/55 r17 tires on the vehicle? is this an acceptable swap?
my '03 cadillac cts currently rides on 225/50 r17 tires. other than some odometer/speedometer issues, what will i run into by putting 225/55 r17 tires on the vehicle? is this an acceptable swap?
That will be a bigger tire, it might cause clearance issues with body or suspension components, especially through the suspension travel.
Is there a reason you want to make this change? Is it for a more compliant ride or a less expensive tire or something like that?
The difference between the 225/50/17 and 225/55/17 is the the taller one would roll 785 rev per mile vs 801 rev per mile for the first version. That's 2% less. What tolerance is allowed for difference in rolling circumference of tires? I would suspect that's within tolerance. I would think I'd get more than that going from one brand of tire to another staying within the 225/50/17 size.
I was comparing the Michelin Energy MXV4 in those two sizes on Michelin's website.
Is there a reason you want to make this change? Is it for a more compliant ride or a less expensive tire or something like that?
the main reason i'm even thinking about this is to put on a set of general altimax hp's. i've become quite fond of these on another vehicle over the last few months. being in central indiana, i don't have to worry about lots of snow and prefer a good all-around (at a good tirerack.com price too) to a summer set and a winter set.
unfortunately, they don't come in a '50'. so, i'll need to experiment with a bigger size or experiment with another tire.
i have a 2000 E250 , they have 254/75/16 tires with 8 lug bullet style rims, i was wondering if 8 lug 16 inch chevy silverado hd 2500 rims with 245/75/16's will fit my van?
the main reason i'm even thinking about this is to put on a set of general altimax hp's. i've become quite fond of these on another vehicle over the last few months. being in central indiana, i don't have to worry about lots of snow and prefer a good all-around (at a good tirerack.com price too) to a summer set and a winter set.
You are in good shape because there are lots of good tires out there. You might be interested in the Bridgestone G009 or the BF Goodrich Traction T/A as well. Both are highly rated in a variety of driving conditions and don't break the bank price-wise.
I am considering minus sizing my tires from 225/50/R18 to 225/60/R16 to soften the ride. The current original tires on my 2008 Malibu are T-rated, and I most likely would replace them with T-rated tires. Has anyone else done minus sizing for this reason, and does anyone know if the improvement in the ride would be noticeable? I understand the car may not handle as well. Are there any other factors to consider? The car does not ride firm now, but I prefer a bit softer ride.
Be sure that the smaller wheels clear the brakes and have the proper offset and width. The taller tires will probably have greater load capacity than the originals, but you should check that too.
It would also be interesting to compare the combined weight of the replacement wheel/tire combo to the originals. There is a good chance that they will be lighter, which would lead to additional improvement in ride as well as small gains in braking, acceleration, and fuel economy.
According to Tirerack, the standard size for the '08 Malibu is 215/60-16s. I'd try and stick with that size to keep the speedometer/odometer difference in check.
The LTZ model came with the 225 50 R18. The 4-cyl came with 215 60 R16.
The big question is will smaller rims fit on the brake rotors and calipers. I'll bet some fishing on sizes of replacement brake rotors and calipers will show a difference in the parts. The 16 inch rims may not clear. 17s might, but that's a question for a good tire/rim store or a progressive Chev dealership.
I didn't see any standard size 17 inch rims for the 2008 model year on the website I checked. I assume gmfornow is getting aftermarket rims.
I am considering minus sizing my tires from 225/50/R18 to 225/60/R16 to soften the ride. The current original tires on my 2008 Malibu are T-rated, and I most likely would replace them with T-rated tires. Has anyone else done minus sizing for this reason, and does anyone know if the improvement in the ride would be noticeable? I understand the car may not handle as well. Are there any other factors to consider? The car does not ride firm now, but I prefer a bit softer ride.
I would check the craigslist in your area for used take-offs from a lower trim of your vehicle. If you wanted to go with a -2 size, you could try the tires and wheels on your car to make sure they clear brakes and suspension, and make sure you like the ride.
I am sure you understand you will likely give up some handling in exchange for a softer more compliant ride, and the rims will be more protected over rough roads.
I am considering minus sizing my tires from 225/50/R18 to 225/60/R16 to soften the ride.
You should totally do that. If I had your car, that's the first thing I would do. I'd try to find a way to put 70 series tires on it. Find the smallest rims that will clear your brakes and put the tallest tires on that wont rub. Even if it means a larger than stock circumference - who cares? You'll get a taller final drive ratio out of it and better fuel economy.
I got 4 new tires yesterday. I checked the pressures when I got home with an accurate gauge. All four were at 38 psi. My last set of tires had a max of 35 psi. These new tires go up to 44 psi. I'd like to run more pressure in the front and less in the back. I already bled the rears out to 35 psi. And I'm thinking of putting more air in the fronts. Any recommendations?
I got 4 new tires yesterday. I checked the pressures when I got home with an accurate gauge. All four were at 38 psi. My last set of tires had a max of 35 psi. These new tires go up to 44 psi. I'd like to run more pressure in the front and less in the back. I already bled the rears out to 35 psi. And I'm thinking of putting more air in the fronts. Any recommendations?
Allowing they are the same size as your OEM tire, I would start with the pressures listed on the placard on your drivers door frame. In my Accord, I run ~2-3 psi over the recommendation in the front. I think it has an adverse affect on ride smoothness but it feels like the turn-in improves considerably and the car feels less flat footed.
Placard says 36 psi front and rear. Tire mechanic probably used a gauge that was +2 psi off.
This is on a front wheel drive 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan. There is never any weight or passengers in the back, and no third-row seat back there either. So the weight is front-biased, and as a result the front tires tend to bulge a little and the rears have nearly zero bulge. I'd like to run a bit lower rear pressure to smooth out the ride in back. I used to run 30 psi in back and 35 in front with my old tires.
BTW, the drivers side rear tire has already been blessed (marked) by a neighborhood cat. :mad: So much for that new tire smell! Oh well.
This is on a front wheel drive 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan. There is never any weight or passengers in the back, and no third-row seat back there either. So the weight is front-biased, and as a result the front tires tend to bulge a little and the rears have nearly zero bulge. I'd like to run a bit lower rear pressure to smooth out the ride in back. I used to run 30 psi in back and 35 in front with my old tires.
Yeah I guess the only real weight back there is the gas tank and the hatch itself. From a fuel economy standpoint, you might want to go the other way or split the difference and put 38 in the front and 33 or 34 in the back. Running the rears too far under (and I would think that would be more than -5 psi) can make the rear end want to swing around in an emergency situation. If it got low however, or the weather cooled off so the air pressure dropped, that could get somewhere bad.
Assuming the tires are the same size as listed on the placard:
One of the problems with changing the inflation pressure split front to rear is that you also change the understeer/oversteer characteristics of the vehicle. Even though the load on the tires is different front to rear, the springs and sway bars compensate for this difference.
Adding pressure to the front reduces the understeer, making it more precise. However, lowering the pressure in the rear tires makes the rear end less precise and in quick maneuvers the rear end will tend to wallowing around (How's that for a technical term?) and not follow the front as quickly. In particular, the rear will be more prone to oscillate back and forth after the front end has settled down. This could cause a spin out.
My recommendation is not to change the pressure split.
Assuming the tires are the same size as listed on the placard:
They are.
One of the problems with changing the inflation pressure split front to rear is that you also change the understeer/oversteer characteristics of the vehicle. Even though the load on the tires is different front to rear, the springs and sway bars compensate for this difference.
Adding pressure to the front reduces the understeer, making it more precise. However, lowering the pressure in the rear tires makes the rear end less precise and in quick maneuvers the rear end will tend to wallowing around (How's that for a technical term?) and not follow the front as quickly. In particular, the rear will be more prone to oscillate back and forth after the front end has settled down. This could cause a spin out.
My recommendation is not to change the pressure split.
OK, thanks. So by "not change" the pressure split, do you mean keep the 38/35 split I currently have and not change it to anything more radical, or do you recommend that I make all four tires the same exact pressure? I'm perfectly willing to run the same pressure in all four if that really is the best thing to do.
If I run the same pressure in all four, I would either go with the 36 psi recommended by the placard, or I could go higher to optimize for fuel economy. The tires are rated for 44psi max. What would be the most pressure you would recommend running in all four?
..... "So by "not change" the pressure split, do you mean keep the 38/35 split"
No, I meant not to change from the placard split.
The car manufacturers spend a lot of time testing their vehicles at the placard pressure (obviously using the placard size). They set up the springs, sway bars, and shock damping for both fully loaded and completely empty configurations. I would deviate from the placard pressure very carefully - and in particular pay attention to the way a vehicle handles in emergency situations. This type of testing is beyond the capability of the average consumer. Just driving around town is not going to reveal emergency handling issues.
My car came with all-season tires as OEM. The car reviews all agreed that this car could use "sticker tires" to enhance handling. I've found several high-performance summer and all-season tires on Tire Rack that are recommended for my car.
My question is just how much improvement should I expect? My OEM tires give me a .81g I've seen similar cars get .88g using summer performance tires. Is it reasonable to expect that type of improvement just by going to a better handling tire? I don't want to spend a lot of money for just minimal improvement.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Is it reasonable to expect that type of improvement just by going to a better handling tire?
Yes.
Okay it depends on which performance tire you get. Going from zippy the pin head retread Chinese knockoff house brand tires on the Contour to the SP8000s made an incredible difference, and then going to the Comp T/A R1s (in a 225 vs a 205 width) made again a world of difference. That was my first experience with R-compound tires (which aren't practical for day-to-day).
What size tire (some sizes, like that on my '07 Accord, don't have performance tires)? What type of vehicle? Is everything else on the vehicle up to snuff (shocks, sway bars, alignment)?
In my '93 Accord, I had to replace the shocks and several bushings in the suspension, then went from bald Michelin MXV4 "greens" to Khumo Ecsta ASXs, in the stock 195/60R15 size. The difference was 10-12 mph on my favorite offramp over the MXV4s, with less effort.
Bald tires supposedly have better traction on dry road than full-treaded tires...so unles you were down to carcass on the Michelin "greens," presumably the Kumho ASX's are just a lot better handling tire. Which has been my experience too.
Need new sneaks soon for my 2005 Accord (4 cyl, stick) sedan. Absolutely detest the OEM michelins, so will not be paying 2x the price for new ones!
I was planning on getting Yokohama Avids (prob H4s). Had them on my son's contour and they worked well, and have Yoko TRZ on our Odyssey. Drive great, but the tire shop never quite has gotten the balance dialed in.
I want opinions though on 2 others: COntinentals (not sure which ones, maybe conticontacts?). And also Bridgestone 019 (grid? pole positon? Hope I got that right, doing it from memory).
Anyone have personal experience or for the pros, industry knowledge?
Am looking for good wet weather grip (the OEMs stink), light snow capability, and really want something that will tighten up the handling a bit. Ride comfort is less improtant (though with 60 series tires, not really an issue anyway).
Tirerack recently tested them against the Bridgestone Potenza G 019 Grid, and gave the nod to the H4S, due to it's better wet traction. I also own a set of Yokos for my Mazda 6 (the Avid W4S) and can honestly say they are excellent tires. They also replaced the miserable OEM Michelins, and IMO they're better in every way possible. They offer better traction and control in all conditions, are quieter, have a better ride, and are more comfortable on the highway.
And also Bridgestone 019 (grid? pole positon? Hope I got that right, doing it from memory).
The grad kid (i forgot his exact screen name) has the Bridgestone 019s and I think Elroy said something about them also. They are "grid" and considered a "performance touring" tire I believe. The BFG Traction T/A also did alright in the scoring, IIRC.
Am looking for good wet weather grip (the OEMs stink), light snow capability, and really want something that will tighten up the handling a bit. Ride comfort is less improtant (though with 60 series tires, not really an issue anyway).
Its a craptastic size so options are severely limited, my old '93 Accord had more options with 195/60R15 then my '07 with 205/60R16 but eh, I guess I should've paid more attention before I got the car :sick: Even the Legacy has 205/55R16 which has every type of tire imaginable available. Basically, I wouldn't expect too much.
Actually I picked up a rather large bolt in my front right tire, with a head about 1/4 inch deep. I heard the clicking sound of it hitting the pavement on the way home from work. I just went back outside to check, doesn't seem to have lost much air in about 6 hours. Safe to drive for a couple days?
I'm saying it may be a good time to pick up a nail, as the tire tread is almost down to the wear bars... about 3/32. I was going to pick up another set of Yokohama T4's when they come on sale, but doesn't look as if I'll be able to wait that long.
LOL !! Sort of hard, sort of easy! Yes, if your 10 year old spare has no issues, No, if it does.
I say this half seriously and half jokingly in that, 1. more worn tires have the BEST dry traction 2. on a past set of tires, 1/32 nd in represented 14,000 miles of wear.
This is a follow-up post. I ended up going with the Hankook H725. I decided against the Yokohama AVID TRZ because of the asymmetrical design, higher price, and slightly lower CR score.
I've had the Hankooks about a month and so far I'm pleased with my decision. The tires I replaced were the Yokohama Aegis LS4. The Hankooks are noticeably (I'd even say significantly) quieter and smoother-riding. They are definitely the quietest, smoothest tires I've ever had.
They are also the most expensive tires I've ever had. The Yokohama Aegis LS4 was a mid-range tire that I paid $65 each for, and the Hankooks are premium tires that cost me $100 each. So it's perhaps not a fair comparison to make, but I'm making it anyway.
They are not bad, in fact they are often superior -- try this reasoning on:
"Tires with an asymmetrical design mix tread patterns or put more rubber on one side of the tread than the other in an effort to make one tire out of two different tread patterns. Some combine a slick-like smooth tread on half the tire (to improve traction) with a block pattern on the other half (for directional stability)."
"This is a follow-up post. I ended up going with the Hankook H725. I decided against the Yokohama AVID TRZ because of the asymmetrical design, higher price, and slightly lower CR score."
Just put a set on my 2005 Accord yesterday. The front OEM Michelins were getting marginal (the inner edges were just about on the bars on the right side). Rears had some tread left, but I always do al l4 when it is close.
Night and day difference. The Yokos actually grip in the wet. I was so used to sliding around ramps, that having traction is almost a shock.
Got 42K out of the origianls, but they have had terrible wet traction for at least the last 20.
I didn't understand what it was you were trying to say - and I still don't know.
On the one side, there can be some performance advantages, however, many asymetrical designs are so mild that there really isn't much difference - which brings me to the other side.
I've never quite understood this, but good marketing techinques will make people perceive differences in products that aren't really there - and this is one area where this is done. I'm not saying that there couldn't be differences, I am saying that people can be convinced of something that is not supported by the facts.
I think he was hinting at ( i.e.,one option that you bring up) those possibilities.
I have had for example, one set of tires with asymmetrical patterns (AND size (17 in/18 in) , width 265/295, and aspect ratio 35/40 differences. Like you say there are literally NO facts ( numbers/tests) documenting whatever it is they are saying.
I was more struck by the fact the tread came stock at 8/32 nd in instead of the more normal 10/32 nd in. In my case that worked out to app 40% less wear !!?? This is not even to mention that those tires are "odd" sizes and are almost unnecessarily more costly.
Comments
While I have never driven the so called higher speed rated winter tires, I am sure they address the higher speeds issue I had mentioned. Given that new category I would probably not go back to the "SNOW" tires unless I once again lived in places like winter in upstate NY.
Having the extra set/s of rims is truly the way to go, as you can pretty much custom tailor things for almost any category.
True. But, if you were about ready to plow into the rear end of a salt truck, you'd want the snow tires on the front for better braking. In would depend on the situation as to where snow tires would be the safest.... front or rear.
I have 4 studded snow tires that came with my Tacoma when I bought it, (used). I bought some used rims and had them mounted, and have used them exactly once in the six years that I have owned my truck. I live in a mild climate.
If they were not studded, I would have used them more, but I am not going to drive around on studs on bare pavement. I have put in a lot of miles with them riding in the bed of the truck... just in case I should need them.
You still lose almost complete control by having only snows on the front. With the sudden braking or if you hit ice or any slippery condition, your back end will now flip to the front.
If you can't afford 4 snow tires, don't buy any. Instead, get some Shur Z cable chains.
If they were not studded, I would have used them more, but I am not going to drive around on studs on bare pavement
You could also unmount your tires yourself. Most Japanese vehicles are very light and studded tires, IMO, are the only way to go. Of course, it all depends where you live.
thanks!
It is a much smaller change to go bigger in bead width than aspect ratio...
235/50-17 is a small change from 225/50-17... (slightly wider, 0.4" taller diameter)
225/55-17 is a big change from 225/50-17... (same width, 1" taller diameter)
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That will be a bigger tire, it might cause clearance issues with body or suspension components, especially through the suspension travel.
Is there a reason you want to make this change? Is it for a more compliant ride or a less expensive tire or something like that?
I was comparing the Michelin Energy MXV4 in those two sizes on Michelin's website.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Tire Size Calculator
the main reason i'm even thinking about this is to put on a set of general altimax hp's. i've become quite fond of these on another vehicle over the last few months. being in central indiana, i don't have to worry about lots of snow and prefer a good all-around (at a good tirerack.com price too) to a summer set and a winter set.
unfortunately, they don't come in a '50'. so, i'll need to experiment with a bigger size or experiment with another tire.
You are in good shape because there are lots of good tires out there. You might be interested in the Bridgestone G009 or the BF Goodrich Traction T/A as well. Both are highly rated in a variety of driving conditions and don't break the bank price-wise.
It would also be interesting to compare the combined weight of the replacement wheel/tire combo to the originals. There is a good chance that they will be lighter, which would lead to additional improvement in ride as well as small gains in braking, acceleration, and fuel economy.
Click me!
The big question is will smaller rims fit on the brake rotors and calipers. I'll bet some fishing on sizes of replacement brake rotors and calipers will show a difference in the parts. The 16 inch rims may not clear. 17s might, but that's a question for a good tire/rim store or a progressive Chev dealership.
I didn't see any standard size 17 inch rims for the 2008 model year on the website I checked. I assume gmfornow is getting aftermarket rims.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I would check the craigslist in your area for used take-offs from a lower trim of your vehicle. If you wanted to go with a -2 size, you could try the tires and wheels on your car to make sure they clear brakes and suspension, and make sure you like the ride.
I am sure you understand you will likely give up some handling in exchange for a softer more compliant ride, and the rims will be more protected over rough roads.
You should totally do that. If I had your car, that's the first thing I would do. I'd try to find a way to put 70 series tires on it. Find the smallest rims that will clear your brakes and put the tallest tires on that wont rub. Even if it means a larger than stock circumference - who cares? You'll get a taller final drive ratio out of it and better fuel economy.
Allowing they are the same size as your OEM tire, I would start with the pressures listed on the placard on your drivers door frame. In my Accord, I run ~2-3 psi over the recommendation in the front. I think it has an adverse affect on ride smoothness but it feels like the turn-in improves considerably and the car feels less flat footed.
This is on a front wheel drive 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan. There is never any weight or passengers in the back, and no third-row seat back there either. So the weight is front-biased, and as a result the front tires tend to bulge a little and the rears have nearly zero bulge. I'd like to run a bit lower rear pressure to smooth out the ride in back. I used to run 30 psi in back and 35 in front with my old tires.
BTW, the drivers side rear tire has already been blessed (marked) by a neighborhood cat. :mad: So much for that new tire smell! Oh well.
Yeah I guess the only real weight back there is the gas tank and the hatch itself. From a fuel economy standpoint, you might want to go the other way or split the difference and put 38 in the front and 33 or 34 in the back. Running the rears too far under (and I would think that would be more than -5 psi) can make the rear end want to swing around in an emergency situation. If it got low however, or the weather cooled off so the air pressure dropped, that could get somewhere bad.
One of the problems with changing the inflation pressure split front to rear is that you also change the understeer/oversteer characteristics of the vehicle. Even though the load on the tires is different front to rear, the springs and sway bars compensate for this difference.
Adding pressure to the front reduces the understeer, making it more precise. However, lowering the pressure in the rear tires makes the rear end less precise and in quick maneuvers the rear end will tend to wallowing around (How's that for a technical term?) and not follow the front as quickly. In particular, the rear will be more prone to oscillate back and forth after the front end has settled down. This could cause a spin out.
My recommendation is not to change the pressure split.
They are.
One of the problems with changing the inflation pressure split front to rear is that you also change the understeer/oversteer characteristics of the vehicle. Even though the load on the tires is different front to rear, the springs and sway bars compensate for this difference.
Adding pressure to the front reduces the understeer, making it more precise. However, lowering the pressure in the rear tires makes the rear end less precise and in quick maneuvers the rear end will tend to wallowing around (How's that for a technical term?) and not follow the front as quickly. In particular, the rear will be more prone to oscillate back and forth after the front end has settled down. This could cause a spin out.
My recommendation is not to change the pressure split.
OK, thanks. So by "not change" the pressure split, do you mean keep the 38/35 split I currently have and not change it to anything more radical, or do you recommend that I make all four tires the same exact pressure? I'm perfectly willing to run the same pressure in all four if that really is the best thing to do.
If I run the same pressure in all four, I would either go with the 36 psi recommended by the placard, or I could go higher to optimize for fuel economy. The tires are rated for 44psi max. What would be the most pressure you would recommend running in all four?
"So by "not change" the pressure split, do you mean keep the 38/35 split"
No, I meant not to change from the placard split.
The car manufacturers spend a lot of time testing their vehicles at the placard pressure (obviously using the placard size). They set up the springs, sway bars, and shock damping for both fully loaded and completely empty configurations. I would deviate from the placard pressure very carefully - and in particular pay attention to the way a vehicle handles in emergency situations. This type of testing is beyond the capability of the average consumer. Just driving around town is not going to reveal emergency handling issues.
My question is just how much improvement should I expect? My OEM tires give me a .81g I've seen similar cars get .88g using summer performance tires. Is it reasonable to expect that type of improvement just by going to a better handling tire? I don't want to spend a lot of money for just minimal improvement.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Yes.
Okay it depends on which performance tire you get. Going from zippy the pin head retread Chinese knockoff house brand tires on the Contour to the SP8000s made an incredible difference, and then going to the Comp T/A R1s (in a 225 vs a 205 width) made again a world of difference. That was my first experience with R-compound tires (which aren't practical for day-to-day).
What size tire (some sizes, like that on my '07 Accord, don't have performance tires)?
What type of vehicle? Is everything else on the vehicle up to snuff (shocks, sway bars, alignment)?
In my '93 Accord, I had to replace the shocks and several bushings in the suspension, then went from bald Michelin MXV4 "greens" to Khumo Ecsta ASXs, in the stock 195/60R15 size. The difference was 10-12 mph on my favorite offramp over the MXV4s, with less effort.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was planning on getting Yokohama Avids (prob H4s). Had them on my son's contour and they worked well, and have Yoko TRZ on our Odyssey. Drive great, but the tire shop never quite has gotten the balance dialed in.
I want opinions though on 2 others: COntinentals (not sure which ones, maybe conticontacts?). And also Bridgestone 019 (grid? pole positon? Hope I got that right, doing it from memory).
Anyone have personal experience or for the pros, industry knowledge?
Am looking for good wet weather grip (the OEMs stink), light snow capability, and really want something that will tighten up the handling a bit. Ride comfort is less improtant (though with 60 series tires, not really an issue anyway).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Tirerack recently tested them against the Bridgestone Potenza G 019 Grid, and gave the nod to the H4S, due to it's better wet traction. I also own a set of Yokos for my Mazda 6 (the Avid W4S) and can honestly say they are excellent tires. They also replaced the miserable OEM Michelins, and IMO they're better in every way possible. They offer better traction and control in all conditions, are quieter, have a better ride, and are more comfortable on the highway.
The grad kid (i forgot his exact screen name) has the Bridgestone 019s and I think Elroy said something about them also. They are "grid" and considered a "performance touring" tire I believe. The BFG Traction T/A also did alright in the scoring, IIRC.
Am looking for good wet weather grip (the OEMs stink), light snow capability, and really want something that will tighten up the handling a bit. Ride comfort is less improtant (though with 60 series tires, not really an issue anyway).
Its a craptastic size so options are severely limited, my old '93 Accord had more options with 195/60R15 then my '07 with 205/60R16 but eh, I guess I should've paid more attention before I got the car :sick: Even the Legacy has 205/55R16 which has every type of tire imaginable available. Basically, I wouldn't expect too much.
I'm saying it may be a good time to pick up a nail, as the tire tread is almost down to the wear bars... about 3/32. I was going to pick up another set of Yokohama T4's
when they come on sale, but doesn't look as if I'll be able to wait that long.
I wouldn't do a lot of traveling, though...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I say this half seriously and half jokingly in that,
1. more worn tires have the BEST dry traction
2. on a past set of tires, 1/32 nd in represented 14,000 miles of wear.
I've had the Hankooks about a month and so far I'm pleased with my decision. The tires I replaced were the Yokohama Aegis LS4. The Hankooks are noticeably (I'd even say significantly) quieter and smoother-riding. They are definitely the quietest, smoothest tires I've ever had.
They are also the most expensive tires I've ever had. The Yokohama Aegis LS4 was a mid-range tire that I paid $65 each for, and the Hankooks are premium tires that cost me $100 each. So it's perhaps not a fair comparison to make, but I'm making it anyway.
Krzys
"Tires with an asymmetrical design mix tread patterns or put more rubber on one side of the tread than the other in an effort to make one tire out of two different tread patterns. Some combine a slick-like smooth tread on half the tire (to improve traction) with a block pattern on the other half (for directional stability)."
From Yahoo Autos. . . .
"This is a follow-up post. I ended up going with the Hankook H725. I decided against the Yokohama AVID TRZ because of the asymmetrical design, higher price, and slightly lower CR score."
Krzys
As far as I know, most manufacturers only call for front to back rotations anyway, but if you like to do an X pattern, you need symetrical tires.
IMO, the advantages of the design outweigh the rotation limitations.
These days, some cars can't rotate at all, since the front and rears are different sizes.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Night and day difference. The Yokos actually grip in the wet. I was so used to sliding around ramps, that having traction is almost a shock.
Got 42K out of the origianls, but they have had terrible wet traction for at least the last 20.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
You are mistaken. We are talking about asymetric tire, not directional.
Krzys
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
In the case of a staggered set-up, you'd have one tire for each corner.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
"why assymetric is bad? I do not get it."
I didn't understand what it was you were trying to say - and I still don't know.
On the one side, there can be some performance advantages, however, many asymetrical designs are so mild that there really isn't much difference - which brings me to the other side.
I've never quite understood this, but good marketing techinques will make people perceive differences in products that aren't really there - and this is one area where this is done. I'm not saying that there couldn't be differences, I am saying that people can be convinced of something that is not supported by the facts.
I have had for example, one set of tires with asymmetrical patterns (AND size (17 in/18 in) , width 265/295, and aspect ratio 35/40 differences. Like you say there are literally NO facts ( numbers/tests) documenting whatever it is they are saying.
I was more struck by the fact the tread came stock at 8/32 nd in instead of the more normal 10/32 nd in. In my case that worked out to app 40% less wear !!?? This is not even to mention that those tires are "odd" sizes and are almost unnecessarily more costly.