In that case I would get the 795 as a summer tire but also a set of Kumho winter tires for ice and snow weather. If I didn't want to change tires I would probably get the Regatta 2 as an all season but I wouldn't run the 795 in winter.
i live in coastal SC - heavy snow for 4 min once each 12 years!!!!! 795s rate 18 of 36 in tirerack survey - only a few reviews posted over 100,000 miles which islow so what I was looking for was otehr people who had tried them (795s)
Guy I work with really likes the wheels you helped me pick out for my Accord and he asked for your opinion on his ride. He has a 2001 black Miata and want to go with "the classic roadster look". He said the only thing he found were some 15 x 6 wire wheels that were a little too pricey at $1,600. What would you recommend? Thanks.
I notice many of the posts here talking about the compromise of using an "all season" tire over a dedicated snow or winter tire in the snow. What about the compromise of using a snow or ice tire on dry pavement 98% of the time between snowfalls?
I had Blizzaks on a Sentra a few years ago. It was a tank in the snow, wouldn't be stopped. But, when the roads dried off, I had to remember I wasn't driving on the summer tires because the Blizzaks got pretty nasty in corners. I need to replace the OEM RE-92's on my WRX wagon before winter (those things are horrible in snow) and am considering the Conti Extreme Contact all season due to the amount of "dry road" driving I will be doing. I've had mixed success with the X-1. I had them on a 96 Impreza Outback AWD wagon. They were great in rain and snow for about the first 25K miles, then they went downhill fast as the sipes wore down. By 40K they were useless in snow. So much for 80K mileage ratings. Up north, I count on 40K tops before the tread is too shallow to be any good.
If you want compromise snows that corner well, don't get Q rated Blizzaks or Arctic Alpins, get H rated Dunlop Wintersports or Pirelli Snowsports or similar instead. The sidewalls are much stronger, not quite as good in deep snow but much better than all seasons for good handling. They don't grip quite as well on dry pavement as performance tires and have some tread squirm due to the deep pattern but they give all seasons a run for their money on dry, dig in to snow better, the sipes work much better on ice and they are much stickier at low temps than AS rubber.
I ran Dunlop SP Wintersport M3s last winter (October to April with all the snow last season) and was very pleased with them on my MINI Cooper. I'll be swapping them back on as soon as the temps drop. I only expect to get two good seasons out of them since I don't baby them on dry pavement and I run night TSD snow rallies on them too (they get some serious use).
I agree with your X-1 comments. I have them on my Saturn LW200 wagon and they were good for one winter, slippery for the next one so I got some Arctic Alpins for it (which is why I know they are kind of flubbery on dry, even for a family station wagon). For that car they are fine but I'd never put Alpins on my MINI (H rated Pilots maybe).
I don't think the Kumho winter tire is a compromise at all, equal to OEM all season IMO. I'm waiting for a set for my new car but the storm damage in Busan has slowed shipments.
They rated last in that survey but that was a survey of OE tires. Kumho is OE on Kia so its probably a real cheap tire. On tire rack.com different kumhos get different reviews some real good (716) some bad 722, some in middle 795
One of the problems with J D Powers surveys is that tires are surveyed at the same time the vehicles are surveyed. So this year's survey is looking at 2002 vehicles with the tires that came on the vehicle. It is absurd to even ask any questions about durability - tires or otherwise. Plus it is common knowledge with those who really study the survey that there is a "halo effect" - a vehicle rating high in the survey generally gets high ratings for its tires. I think the Kumho's on the Kia is a good example of that.
When J D Powers first published the tire survey, there was a minipickup that got low appearance ratings on its tires. After considerable research - including looking that the individual comments - it was apparent that the problem was the tire size - the customers wanted something larger. That was a good comment, but it came out somewhat off the mark in the survey.
Firestone LH30's. My wife recently ruined a Turanza LS-H (nice grand touring tire) and I am thinking of going cheaper this time. I will replace 2 and keep the good LS-H as my "road warranty".
After putting 81K on the OEM Michelins on my 01 Accord, I really hate only getting 25K before ruining this tire. Lots of tread let.
I have a 2000 Si that needs new tires. I really like the Continental ContiExtremeContact which has gotten rave reviews but it comes in 205/55 15 instead of 195/55 15. The 205/55 15 is not a recommended size for the Si (205/50 15 is) but I really like the tire. Would I be better off getting a lesser tire like the Yoko Avid in the recommended size or a superior tire like the Conti? Thanks for the advice.
... I know this is all about personal opinion, but a 15" wheel on that car doesn't look as good as a 16 or 17" wheel. At least move to a lower profile tire to provide that car with shoes commensurate with its heart! Consider 205/50-15 or something in that ballpark, if available. Read some articles on how changing the tire width/profile (Plus Zero) affects handling, ride, speedo etc - and try to avoid changing the rolling diameter
I wrote and asked what the tread width was of a Michelin Harmony tire, 195 70 r14 and the 205 size too. michelin wrote back and said they did not release tread width because it was not regulated by a gov standard, and people might compare the widths (w/o a standard). How convenient for the tire industry - where the rubber meets the road is not released.
I had a high-speed blowout yesterday in our '01 Odyssey, front drivers-side at 65 mph. Not sure what I ran over but it left a quarter-inch hole in tne middle of the Symmetry's trend. The tire partially separated from the rim before I could get the van slowed all the way down, but there was no visible damage to the wheel. I was impressed in how well the van handled the blowout. It tracked straight and I had control the whole time. The Symmetrys have 49K so its time to replace them. I agree with other comments here that they are somewhat noisy, so I may go with another Michelin or some other brand.
I'm shopping for replacement shoes for my 2000 Olds Alero (215/60/15). I'd consider my driving style average to slightly aggressive (I like to make 'em sing on the off-ramps sometimes), and I'm looking for something with decent winter traction, but hopefully quieter than the current BFG Touring T/A's. I'm looking at Goodyear Aquatred 3, Michelin Destiny (some private label for Discount Tire), Michelin Hydroedge, and Bridgestone Turanza LS-T. How important is it for me to stick with a "touring" tire (OE BFG's or Bridgestones) vs. an "all season" (Aquatred, Destiny, etc)? Thanks in advance for your input!
I've been pleased with the Avid T4's that I put on my '95 Firebird last year, but as it is my summer car only, I haven't put a lot of miles on them, nor can I offer input on how they handle winter weather. Hope this helps.
Needed new tires after the blowout the other day and I wanted something that will last longer that the OEM Symmetrys. I was set to buy the Turanza LS-T but decided to take a chance on the new Hydroedge. Haven't read any reviews on this since its new, but it has an 85,000 mile treadwear rating. This was the first set the dealer had installed, so I guess I'll be the guinea pig and I'll let you know how they perform. I've already noticed they are quieter than the Symmetrys. They have a directional tread design and look really cool on the Odyssey.
i replaced the OEM Michelin Symmetrys with Toyo Proexes TPT. they have been great so far. 6k miles. also they handle great in the rain and we hadn't had snow yet since i got them. IMO, i really didn't like the michelins. they didn't really last that long and had terrible wet traction. i live in MD and we get more rain than snow. Hope this helps.
Help us out here. Tell us what you need in a tire and we can toss out some suggestions. Let's start with what tire size you need (look on your current tires or your owners manual).
Michelin makes an excellent tire so I have no idea what your friend is basing his opinion on. Without a specific model we can't offer an opinion on the BFGoodrich tire you mentioned.
Help us out with specifics and we can help with advice.
for a minivan. I see a fair bit of snow but the city does a good job of cleaning it. The OEM tires are Dunlops and i was going to go with BF Goodrich (TA/80 or its equivalent from Costco ) which i have on our car and am extremely pleased. smooth ride and reasonable wet traction is all i am looking for. After all its a minivan so aint gonna take fast curves. During snow season it will almost exclusively be driven on paved city cleaned streets.
I saw the tires from sears last weekend and since they were 25% cheaper per tire i thought i would get some opinions on it as i couldnt find anything on the web.
I switched to BF Goodrich tires on my '01 Sienna from the OEM Dunlops and am quite pleased. They are much better in the rain and snow than the Dunlop SP40's were (I'm in Minnesota). Mine anti-lock were on all the time back when I had the Dunlops. Now they hardly ever kick in with the BF's.
The BF's I got were at Sam's club (called "The Advantage Plus").
Compare the tread style along with the treadwear rating number, like 680, and the warranty period along with the traction and temperature rating with Michelin's tires ont heir website.
I couldn't check Sears website (under construction) or I could have tried to match up the tires from the websites.
I've had good luck with Michelins since Sears first sold them in this country with tubes in the X tire. A high mileage tire always has harder rubber and sometimes deeper tread rubber, so that may be what your friend didn't like...
If the BFGoodrich Control T/A M80 has been working for you on another car, I say stick with it. It'll be a good choice on the minivan too.
You're looking at about, what, $75-80/tire on the BFG? So that Sears tire is about $60/tire? That's a great price on a Michelin. Sorry I don't have info on it.
Since a few have recommended it and plus i have personal experience i would go with it. It costs about $20 per tire extra when you factor in installation but i think thats money well spent.
1999 HO LX 88,000 miles. In a nutshell Firestone affinty's terrible. Replaced with Goodyear Aquatreads III's Overall tire very very good was very happy with them but for snow traction it was fair at best but still better than affinity's Tires looked worn at 58,000 miles (probably would have gotten another 5,000 or so miles). Just switched to the Michelin Hydroedge and the tire is much quiter and has more grip both wet and dry (Aquatreads III's were worn so maybe not a fair comparison). In any event made the switch with the hope of at least matching the Aqutread III's but with better snow traction and treadwear. So far Hydroedge tires are better but have not tested in snow yet. I also considered in my decision a consumerreports article that discussed tires losing 14% wet grip after only half tread life was gone and thus decided to go with the longest tread life tire (85,000 miles).
10,000 miles on the hydroedge and happy enough with them that I am replacing the Michelin MX4 pluses (OK tires overall) on my 2000 Accord SE with the Hydroedge also. Only B rated for tempature but I am not racing with these things anyway. As can be seen I am more interested in treadlife as I place about 20,000 miles a year on each vehicle. Let you know how it turns out after the winter.
When you replace with the same size, use the same inflation pressure.
When you change sizes - ah, ah, - you need to recalculate and that's not easy to do without a load table for both the old size and the new size. I have those tables and I'll be glad to help.
What if you drive a pickup and have 4 ply tires on it, and then switch to 6 ply in the same size? More plies means more load capacity, right? But for the same kind of driving, use the same pressure as the 4 ply sneakers?
Inquiring minds, lol :-). Is this one of those permutations you hinted at back in April? (capriracer Apr 9, 2003 7:28pm). I have a buddy w/ 4 plies on his ext. cab F150 and the tire shop is trying to get him to switch to 6 ply tires, so I'm not just making you run to your tire tables for exercise <g>.
(And thanks for popping in over in the Yukon board).
In the context of load capacity, the term "ply" no longer applies. And for good reason.
Plies are layers of cord. Today's modern radial tires have 1 or 2 plies (plus the belts which don't count) - even truck tires (and by truck I mean 18 wheeler stuff)
There used to be a term "ply rating", which was a way of saying "the equivalent to X number of plies, except we used a stronger cord so we used less plies because it's cheaper to manufacture." Usually that's what people refer to when they say "ply". Easy to see why it is confusing.
The current way of expressing this is by "Load Range" and they come in A, B, C, etc.
Except for passenger car tires which come in "Standard Load", "Extra Load", and "Light Load". Be careful of the "LL" tires. These are generally low aspect ratio and don't have the load carrying capacity they seem to have if you strictly look at size equivalence.
But to answer your question: Yes, you would use the same pressure even though you have different load ranges. For example: If you have a vehicle that calls for 65 psi Load range D and you put on a Load Range E (maximum 80 psi), you would still use 65 psi. Although a good argument could be made to at least add some pressure to increase the load capacity for increased reserve - always a good thing! And even if you don't actually use the increased inflation pressure, the tire is built a bit stronger (usually). I say usually because I know of one manufacturer where the Load Range C's and D's are the same. Turns out it is actually cheaper to manufacture a Load Range C to Load Range D specs and save $$ by not having to make machine changeovers.
BTW, the Load Range E tires would have additional load capacity because they can use increased air pressure. This is true regardless: air = load. Bigger tire OR more inflation = higher load carrying capacity.
But I think your buddy is being suggested to go from P metric to LT metric Load Range C. The problem with this is that LT metric tires require a higher inflation pressure to carry the same load. I know this doesn't make sense, but it has to do with the intended purpose of each of these types of tires and then how they are designed to achieve that purpose.
The idea of going from a P metric to an LT metric does have some good rationale, but the ride will probably be worse. And to do this the "right" way you need to use higher inflation pressures. But plenty of people have used the same inflation and gotten away with it. I try to stay away from that discussion because I want to reduce the risks and I'm fairly sure this doesn't. So my recommendation is to use a larger P metric rather than switching to LT metrics.
But the issue that was brought up in the Yukon board was about P metric tires and the difference in what is stamped on the sidewall.
It used to be that P metric tires (built to US standards) had a maximum inflation of 35 psi and that what was stamped on the sidewall. (except for Extra Load tires). The European standards have a special provision that allows the use of increased pressures for certain conditions (generally high speed operation, but there are others). In order to bring the world to one standard, the US standardizing body (The Tire and Rim Association) adopted the same provisions. Theoretically, all P metric tires should now show either 44 or 51 psi max on the sidewall, but some manufacturers haven't yet changed their molds over (not an insignificant task)or are resisting the change (I don't understand why).
But the important point here is that THE LOAD TABLE DID NOT CHANGE! (nor did the actual construction) So the Tire Store Guy didn't know what he was talking about. But then again, this wasn't the first time some "expert" at a tire store was wrong.
Oh, yes - the permutations I hinted at? It was about the "Standard Load" vs "Extra Load", Load Range C vs Load Range E
As an engineer I was captivated by the technical background info in that note. I had no idea that the number of plies wasn't literal.. And that there is a totally different set of ratings outside the US.. Maybe all that info was a little much for the average Joe or Josephine..??
Are you a member of the "Tire and Rim Association"? If not, it seems like you should be on their tech committee, at the very least..! Or better yet, the editor of a nationally syndicated weekly Tire Column alongside the auto review editors in our Sunday papers..!!
I've been waiting for my raxifragin' Extreme Contacts to come in, long enough to watch the reviews pile up at tirerack singing the praises of the above tire...now I'm second-guessing myself, especially with rainy season, thinking I should get h rated rather than v anyway...the other tire I was tied with was the falken ziex 512s--but now I'm reading that although those are wonderful the first year, great wet traction, they go down steeply after the first, say, 10k-15k miles...
Does anyone have any more experience/opinion on the ecsta 6716 hp4s wrt wet traction halflife? Rainy season started here in the PNW *this* week and every acceleration up a hill is an adrenaline-charging experience...I want new tires FAST.
Thanks for any advice on this. (I have a camry xlev6, just drive it mostly around Portland [where you can offroad in the middle of the city, not kidding, so easily poppable tires will not be acceptable], and if you know Portland, you'll know that acceleration and agility sometimes mean the difference between life and death--these drivers stink! I need wet traction and good handling--smooth ride is relatively close secondary, but noise is a tertiary issue)
There are several tire standardizing organizations in the world and they all cooperate with each other. TRA is probably the most influential, but the European Tire and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) is a very close second. Most everyone else uses the standards as published by these 2 bodies, and will augment the standards to apply to a particular local situation - meaning they try to avoid conflicts.
Even between ETRTO and TRA, they try very hard to avoid conflicts and the issue of the maximum inflation pressure is a good example.
Does anyone remember when tire sizing looked like this: FR78-15. This was an attempt by TRA to make it easier for folks to determine what tire they needed to have. (Just use the same letter or higher). This was fairly quickly replaced by the P metric sizing we have now. ETRTO had gone a different direction and as European vehicles came over to the US, the problem of correct tire sizing still existed.
TRA decided to put a P in front of the size because there were differences between the methods used to calculate the load tables. HOWEVER, these differences are fairly small and for practical purposes the sizes are interchangeable.
BTW, manufacturers belong to TRA (tires, wheels, valves, etc). I have known almost every rep from the company for that last 30 years, but haven't had the honor myself. Probably because I'm more on the end user part of the business.
I'm planning on retiring soon and would like to get into consulting work, so I'm looking for opportunities. I've started putting together a web site and it will be up pretty soon. The idea of a newsletter is good, but I think I need to tie in with something already being published. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Comments
716 more into high performance stuff
wish they did
that tire gets good reviews
795s rate 18 of 36 in tirerack survey - only a few reviews posted over 100,000 miles which islow so what I was looking for was otehr people who had tried them (795s)
Jim
http://www.panasport.com/fs16.html
Another way to go is a Boyd Coddington or Torque Thrust type wheel -
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/index.mv?photo+98347.jpg
the last one is a BIG photo...
JD Power
I usually check these, but I guess having six browser windows open confused me :-)
Thanks Jim & Wain!
Steve, Host
differs from tirerack surveys though which is about aftermarket
irritating there is no scientific info on tires (numbers) for things like noise.
I had Blizzaks on a Sentra a few years ago. It was a tank in the snow, wouldn't be stopped. But, when the roads dried off, I had to remember I wasn't driving on the summer tires because the Blizzaks got pretty nasty in corners. I need to replace the OEM RE-92's on my WRX wagon before winter (those things are horrible in snow) and am considering the Conti Extreme Contact all season due to the amount of "dry road" driving I will be doing. I've had mixed success with the X-1. I had them on a 96 Impreza Outback AWD wagon. They were great in rain and snow for about the first 25K miles, then they went downhill fast as the sipes wore down. By 40K they were useless in snow. So much for 80K mileage ratings. Up north, I count on 40K tops before the tread is too shallow to be any good.
I ran Dunlop SP Wintersport M3s last winter (October to April with all the snow last season) and was very pleased with them on my MINI Cooper. I'll be swapping them back on as soon as the temps drop. I only expect to get two good seasons out of them since I don't baby them on dry pavement and I run night TSD snow rallies on them too (they get some serious use).
I agree with your X-1 comments. I have them on my Saturn LW200 wagon and they were good for one winter, slippery for the next one so I got some Arctic Alpins for it (which is why I know they are kind of flubbery on dry, even for a family station wagon). For that car they are fine but I'd never put Alpins on my MINI (H rated Pilots maybe).
On tire rack.com different kumhos get different reviews some real good (716) some bad 722, some in middle 795
When J D Powers first published the tire survey, there was a minipickup that got low appearance ratings on its tires. After considerable research - including looking that the individual comments - it was apparent that the problem was the tire size - the customers wanted something larger. That was a good comment, but it came out somewhat off the mark in the survey.
Hope this helps.
After putting 81K on the OEM Michelins on my 01 Accord, I really hate only getting 25K before ruining this tire. Lots of tread let.
Ce la vie.
michelin wrote back and said they did not release tread width because it was not regulated by a gov standard, and people might compare the widths (w/o a standard).
How convenient for the tire industry - where the rubber meets the road is not released.
Don't sweat it - unless you have a clearance problem on a hot rod project, 1/4" here or there won't make a difference.
tire rack charts do not show tread width
they show section width
Tirerack has:
Yokohama Avid Touring ($41)
Yokohama Avid T4 ($41)
Sam's Club has:
BF GoodRich GPH ($52)
Which would you recommend? I'm leaning towards the Yokohama, but not sure. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.
Steve, Host
tidester, host
I'm shopping for replacement shoes for my 2000 Olds Alero (215/60/15). I'd consider my driving style average to slightly aggressive (I like to make 'em sing on the off-ramps sometimes), and I'm looking for something with decent winter traction, but hopefully quieter than the current BFG Touring T/A's. I'm looking at Goodyear Aquatred 3, Michelin Destiny (some private label for Discount Tire), Michelin Hydroedge, and Bridgestone Turanza LS-T. How important is it for me to stick with a "touring" tire (OE BFG's or Bridgestones) vs. an "all season" (Aquatred, Destiny, etc)? Thanks in advance for your input!
mcrrt
mcrrt
mcrrt
Any tire older than 6 years ought to be replaced.
IMHO
I have a friend who says these are crappy. Anyone has any experiences with these.
Also any opnions of Bf goodrich all seasons
this is for a Sienna
Michelin makes an excellent tire so I have no idea what your friend is basing his opinion on. Without a specific model we can't offer an opinion on the BFGoodrich tire you mentioned.
Help us out with specifics and we can help with advice.
smooth ride and reasonable wet traction is all i am looking for. After all its a minivan so aint gonna take fast curves. During snow season it will almost exclusively be driven on paved city cleaned streets.
I saw the tires from sears last weekend and since they were 25% cheaper per tire i thought i would get some opinions on it as i couldnt find anything on the web.
The BF's I got were at Sam's club (called "The Advantage Plus").
I couldn't check Sears website (under construction) or I could have tried to match up the tires from the websites.
I've had good luck with Michelins since Sears first sold them in this country with tubes in the X tire.
A high mileage tire always has harder rubber and sometimes deeper tread rubber, so that may be what your friend didn't like...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You're looking at about, what, $75-80/tire on the BFG? So that Sears tire is about $60/tire? That's a great price on a Michelin. Sorry I don't have info on it.
thank you all.
10,000 miles on the hydroedge and happy enough with them that I am replacing the Michelin MX4 pluses (OK tires overall) on my 2000 Accord SE with the Hydroedge also. Only B rated for tempature but I am not racing with these things anyway. As can be seen I am more interested in treadlife as I place about 20,000 miles a year on each vehicle. Let you know how it turns out after the winter.
gmfan007 "GMC Yukon/Chevy Tahoe" Oct 9, 2003 6:47pm
So when you replace the OEM tires, can you still rely on the placard recommendations?
And what do you do about the psi when you plus size your tires?
Steve, Host
When you change sizes - ah, ah, - you need to recalculate and that's not easy to do without a load table for both the old size and the new size. I have those tables and I'll be glad to help.
Inquiring minds, lol :-). Is this one of those permutations you hinted at back in April? (capriracer Apr 9, 2003 7:28pm). I have a buddy w/ 4 plies on his ext. cab F150 and the tire shop is trying to get him to switch to 6 ply tires, so I'm not just making you run to your tire tables for exercise <g>.
(And thanks for popping in over in the Yukon board).
Steve, Host
In the context of load capacity, the term "ply" no longer applies. And for good reason.
Plies are layers of cord. Today's modern radial tires have 1 or 2 plies (plus the belts which don't count) - even truck tires (and by truck I mean 18 wheeler stuff)
There used to be a term "ply rating", which was a way of saying "the equivalent to X number of plies, except we used a stronger cord so we used less plies because it's cheaper to manufacture." Usually that's what people refer to when they say "ply". Easy to see why it is confusing.
The current way of expressing this is by "Load Range" and they come in A, B, C, etc.
Except for passenger car tires which come in "Standard Load", "Extra Load", and "Light Load". Be careful of the "LL" tires. These are generally low aspect ratio and don't have the load carrying capacity they seem to have if you strictly look at size equivalence.
But to answer your question: Yes, you would use the same pressure even though you have different load ranges. For example: If you have a vehicle that calls for 65 psi Load range D and you put on a Load Range E (maximum 80 psi), you would still use 65 psi. Although a good argument could be made to at least add some pressure to increase the load capacity for increased reserve - always a good thing! And even if you don't actually use the increased inflation pressure, the tire is built a bit stronger (usually). I say usually because I know of one manufacturer where the Load Range C's and D's are the same. Turns out it is actually cheaper to manufacture a Load Range C to Load Range D specs and save $$ by not having to make machine changeovers.
BTW, the Load Range E tires would have additional load capacity because they can use increased air pressure. This is true regardless: air = load. Bigger tire OR more inflation = higher load carrying capacity.
But I think your buddy is being suggested to go from P metric to LT metric Load Range C. The problem with this is that LT metric tires require a higher inflation pressure to carry the same load. I know this doesn't make sense, but it has to do with the intended purpose of each of these types of tires and then how they are designed to achieve that purpose.
The idea of going from a P metric to an LT metric does have some good rationale, but the ride will probably be worse. And to do this the "right" way you need to use higher inflation pressures. But plenty of people have used the same inflation and gotten away with it. I try to stay away from that discussion because I want to reduce the risks and I'm fairly sure this doesn't. So my recommendation is to use a larger P metric rather than switching to LT metrics.
But the issue that was brought up in the Yukon board was about P metric tires and the difference in what is stamped on the sidewall.
It used to be that P metric tires (built to US standards) had a maximum inflation of 35 psi and that what was stamped on the sidewall. (except for Extra Load tires). The European standards have a special provision that allows the use of increased pressures for certain conditions (generally high speed operation, but there are others). In order to bring the world to one standard, the US standardizing body (The Tire and Rim Association) adopted the same provisions. Theoretically, all P metric tires should now show either 44 or 51 psi max on the sidewall, but some manufacturers haven't yet changed their molds over (not an insignificant task)or are resisting the change (I don't understand why).
But the important point here is that THE LOAD TABLE DID NOT CHANGE! (nor did the actual construction) So the Tire Store Guy didn't know what he was talking about. But then again, this wasn't the first time some "expert" at a tire store was wrong.
Oh, yes - the permutations I hinted at? It was about the "Standard Load" vs "Extra Load", Load Range C vs Load Range E
Plus a few more.
Hope this helps.
As an engineer I was captivated by the technical background info in that note. I had no idea that the number of plies wasn't literal.. And that there is a totally different set of ratings outside the US.. Maybe all that info was a little much for the average Joe or Josephine..??
Are you a member of the "Tire and Rim Association"? If not, it seems like you should be on their tech committee, at the very least..! Or better yet, the editor of a nationally syndicated weekly Tire Column alongside the auto review editors in our Sunday papers..!!
Thanks...
Steve, Host
Does anyone have any more experience/opinion on the ecsta 6716 hp4s wrt wet traction halflife? Rainy season started here in the PNW *this* week and every acceleration up a hill is an adrenaline-charging experience...I want new tires FAST.
Thanks for any advice on this. (I have a camry xlev6, just drive it mostly around Portland [where you can offroad in the middle of the city, not kidding, so easily poppable tires will not be acceptable], and if you know Portland, you'll know that acceleration and agility sometimes mean the difference between life and death--these drivers stink! I need wet traction and good handling--smooth ride is relatively close secondary, but noise is a tertiary issue)
Thanks for the complement.
There are several tire standardizing organizations in the world and they all cooperate with each other. TRA is probably the most influential, but the European Tire and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) is a very close second. Most everyone else uses the standards as published by these 2 bodies, and will augment the standards to apply to a particular local situation - meaning they try to avoid conflicts.
Even between ETRTO and TRA, they try very hard to avoid conflicts and the issue of the maximum inflation pressure is a good example.
Does anyone remember when tire sizing looked like this: FR78-15. This was an attempt by TRA to make it easier for folks to determine what tire they needed to have. (Just use the same letter or higher). This was fairly quickly replaced by the P metric sizing we have now. ETRTO had gone a different direction and as European vehicles came over to the US, the problem of correct tire sizing still existed.
TRA decided to put a P in front of the size because there were differences between the methods used to calculate the load tables. HOWEVER, these differences are fairly small and for practical purposes the sizes are interchangeable.
BTW, manufacturers belong to TRA (tires, wheels, valves, etc). I have known almost every rep from the company for that last 30 years, but haven't had the honor myself. Probably because I'm more on the end user part of the business.
I'm planning on retiring soon and would like to get into consulting work, so I'm looking for opportunities. I've started putting together a web site and it will be up pretty soon. The idea of a newsletter is good, but I think I need to tie in with something already being published. Any thoughts would be appreciated.