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 am hoping you don't mean that Michelin owns the Pirelli brand name - as that is not true.
Pirelli is an Italian based tire manufacturer, and while they own the rights to the Armstrong brand (and a couple of others) they do not have any connection to Michelin - other than the obvious one.
BTW, while Michelin owns the rights to the Uniroyal brand in the US, Continental owns the rights to the Uniroyal brand in Europe.
And to complicate things further:
The Dunlop brand is owned by three different tire manufacturers who are only allowed to use that brand name within a particular part of the world.
So be very careful when reading about who owns a particular brand name.
Which specific models are you looking at? For what vehicle will these go on? Do you drive in any snow/ice conditions?
overpricedfair valueMichelin = fairly priced for excellent quality for being round, rolling round, and staying round through their oife. Michelin tires give excellent life and traction. And a person in a discussion recently bought Michelin radials at CostCo and took advantage of $70 off for 4 tire purchase.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The same could be said for just about any other tire maker, but they're less expensive.
Case in point: OEM 17" tires for a 2004 Mazda 6 - Michelin Pilot HX MXM4. TireRack has them at $197 EACH, and that's the lowest price I've seen for them anywhere. Meanwhile, there are excellent choices listed from Dunlop, Kumho, and General, just to name a few, for less than $100 per tire.
Not only that, but after 35K miles on the Michelins, they were VERY loud, and the tread was barely the legal depth for NY. Wet traction was terrible from the beginning, and simply scary after 35K miles, and I bought snow tires after the first 2" snowfall that I experienced, because I had NO traction, especially on hills.
Considering there are excellent choices from other makers that excel above the Michelins in ALL areas (including my current Yokohama Avid W4S) and are far less expensive...
Yeah, they're overpriced.
My question is whether it is necessary to replace all 4 tires when I only need 2 new ones. My 2 front tires are about bald and rear tires still ahve a year of tread on them. I have heard mixed ideas on this topic from people I know, including mechanics. I know I need a 4-wheel alignment when I put tires on, but can i put the good rear 2 tires on the front, new ones on the back and do the 4-wheel alignment?
Thanks
>same could be said for just about any other tire maker
It can be said, but it won't necessarily be true. There's a reason Michelins were the factory replacement of choice when GM was troubleshooting vibration on their H and C bodies. The Michelins were round under load. Other companies can cut costs on the build techniques but the product won't necessarily be the same. E.g., my Michelins on my 03 were 6, 8, 9, and 12 units of force on the Road Force balancer. The service manager said that other tires were way higher than that, including the popular brand of tire he was putting on a Grand Am the same day.
My experience has been that Michelins last a long time in miles. They give great service at staying round under load.
You may have a different opinion. I have mine from my experiences with Michelins through the years.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you check manual you should be able to find that Subaru suggests to use tires that are within 1/4" of each other, and it is 1/4" of circumference.
If you have quite new tires and need to replace one then it may make sense to replace one tire and put it wherever your subaru may notice it the least (like my 2005 Legacy GT has open front differential but LSD [Limited Slip Diff] in the rear - if I need to use one mismatched tire it would go on front axle).
Another option is to shave new tire(s) to match the old ones.
But if your 2 good tires are already worn then you need to replace 4.
Krzys
For me this just adds a new reason for not wanting to bother with AWD.
What is the symptom of the problem that is causing you to take it to the mechanic in the first place? How old is the vehicle, how many total miles on the vehicle, how many miles on these tires, has the vehicle been recently aligned, has the vehicle had any suspension parts replaced, vehicle ever been in a major accident, are you the original owner of this vehicle so that you understand it's history, etc?
Now could you have 4 tires which are causing vibrations at 60 mph, yes. But this symptom could be caused by vehicle out of alignment or worn suspension parts, which cause unusual wear on the tire, which makes the tire go out of balance or out of round. Could you also have a damaged wheel, yes.
Some folks use the term when they see tires with irregular wear - and some use the term to mean tires with separated belts.
What is most likely is that you have irregular wear. Irregular wear is caused by misalignment and aggravated by insufficient inflation pressure and insufficient rotation practices.
My experience says that the published alignment tolerances are too wide. Not the target value, but the allowable deviation from that value. I think it ought to be half of what is published.
Put another way, the alignment should be within the inner half of the spec.
You should be aware that even vehicles that do not have a pull can be out of alignment. There are settings where one out of spec condition is offset by another out of spec condition – typically camber vs toe.
So I think both are wrong.
If resurfacing the rotors stopped the high-speed braking vibration, then the rotor was definitely the problem..
You probably need new tires, but I'd have someone look over the rest of your suspension/alignment... If you have suspension problems that are creating early tire wear, then getting new tires will just mask the problem, until the new tires start wearing abnormally..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You are better off with matched tires on the same axle. Not sure how you ended up with one odd ball.
Also it's better to find if an exterior problem caused the rotor to warp, such as dragging slides on the caliper that had rusted or tightened up in some way or the piston not pulling back as it should or even a defective brake hose to that caliper.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I am curious how they compare with regular non run flat tires? Also are they much less harsh than Bridgestone runflats (which I find to be very harsh)?
Debating whether to to get the regular or the ZP model. Thoughts?
Krzys
TPMS, of course.
Krzys
The tire has ~15,000 miles on it and never had a flat.
I guess I'll go have the tire cleaned out. Maybe it'll be a 2 carat diamond ring.
I know the "correct" answer, but.....
Plus, the signs that the rubber has deteriorated do not appear on unused tires. Flexing is required for the cracks to develop. And cracking is a sign that things are bad - lack of cracking doesn't mean things are good.
You also have to consider that a tire failure at 70 mph could cause potentially fatal resuts, where a 25 mph would probably not be so dramatic. Needless to say, an old tire would be much more prone to failure than a fresh one.
Last thought: The scenario you've proposed means that at 15,000 miles, the tire would be 15 years old. Does this sound like a good idea?
Then in Oct., have my new Dunlop snows mounted on the "old" rims that are on the car now. And look for a good deal on new summer tires in the meantime.....& cool it at highway speeds.....most of my driving is around town anyway.
OTOH, my local Costco has Michelin - Pilot® Exalto® A/S 225/55R16 tires at a decent price, + a $70 coupon off. They get exc. consumer ratings on Tire Rack. I know there are other cheaper choices, but it would be easy for $500-ish.....
I assume this means that 215/70-15 tires could fit the car width-wise. I am also guesing that extra ~1 inch radius would still allow enough clearance. But is it safe to assume that the wider tires would fit on the existing wheels?
I understand that these tires would create a bit of error in speedometer readings, online calculator indicates it'd be off about 7.5%.
Would there be any other issues with doing this?
Even though, yes, it seems like a tire up to 225mm would fit, no, I wouldn't guarantee that a 215/70-15 would fit. You probably have a 6" wide rim which means a 215 may fit on there-- each tire size has recommended and allowable rim widths.
But that's a tall tire and even though it's narrower than a 225/45-17, we don't know the rim width and offset of the 15 and 17 inch wheels... so even if you could mount the tire on the rim, it might rub the fenders or struts.
Proceed carefully... unless you're sure someone has tried the same combination you're thinking of, and it worked fine for them.
You don't say what car this is... From the sizes, I'm going to guess a sporty FWD hatchback... like a VW GTI? Or an Impreza?
Way too tall..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I'd check with the dealer before doing this. I'm just looking for potential use for newish tires on a minivan that could potentially be disposed of as a clunker and I happen to have a Jetta that will need tires soon.
edit: sounds like this wouldn't work.
it feels good to drive on a tire that actually flexes.
I wound up putting the 10 y.o. unused tires on my bmw. They were already mounted on unused bmw rims. I was under the gun, because in Mass., when your car fails inspection, it's illegal to drive it until you get it "fixed".
I did call costco about buying these Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S I wanted, about $600 for 4. They gave me a hard time, claiming that 16" tires were not a factory option on yr. 2000 5-series (??!). (They were standard with the Premium package). They said they'd sell me the tires, which they'd have to order, but would refuse to install them (??!).
I also checked tire rack, but after 10 minutes of arguing with the idiot at costco, I drove up the street to my local indie bmw mechanic, who put on the 10 y.o. unused tires & rims for about $40. Went back to the inspection station, where the guy was visibly upset, because he had tried to high-pressure me into buying really over-priced tires from him.
So I got rid of the dreaded "R" sticker, & got a passed inspection sticker.......& in 2 months I have to get my (new) snows mounted on the old rims, so......
i just had the emissions test done on my 1991 mustang.
it is too old to be OBD II, so they have to test it on a dyno.
while it was being tested, i could remember hearing it, which seemed unusual.
when i checked the report it indicated the test was done @ over 2300 rpm.
1000 rpm = 40 mph, so do the math. :mad:
that test was one of my motivations to finally get some new tires.
of course, i bought them from someone else.
I would never drive a summer tire in snow or ice because I know they are not designed for it but I could see taking them out occasionally in cold weather on dry pavement.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
For discussion purposes, let me take a stab. So called "summer tires" are optimized for performance within temperature parameters (when warmed) . No harm/ foul taking summer performance tires in cold but dry pavement. But unless compromised for that, the tires do not perform as best they could when say temps are 75 F up to 110 F.