I am curious if the newest tires coming to market by the different makers will be safer. The safety rating standards for tires will be changing.It seems most of the newer tires coming out should be built to meet the newer standards.This doesn't mean that many tires can't meet the upcomung standard but some probably can't. I also wonder if some newer tire are heavier than the previous models. I do wish all tiremakers would publish the weights of their tires.
I have a two year old Bonneville with 30K on Goodyear RS-A's. Size 235/55/17. I noticed dry rot starting around the rim and also in the grooves between the tread blocks. There is still some life left, maybe 10K.
Need opinions regarding your thoughts on safety. Can I expect to run these out without problems?
I have never seen this on two year old tires in the past. I generally wear them out before this starts.
Cracking is a common thing with tires and you named the 2 most common places. It's a natural phenomenon and all tires will crack eventually.
Here are the things that will accelerate the cracking: Low inflation, heat, high speeds, intermittent usage (sits for weeks, then used)and some tire dressings.
Light cracking is just fine, but if it gets too deep, then it's time to worry.
I went ahead and got them, but I'm wondering--isn't there something about the red circle on the outside of the tires? Isn't it supposed to be aligned with something? And there's not one on one of the tires (right rear) -- I haven't checked to see if maybe it's on the inside...
Is the mounting match dot (if that's what it is) the same across brands?
I have 16" stock wheels, no sports package (they're 205/55). Here's my question. The psi on the door jam recommends 30 psi front, 35 psi rear with normal load (e.g. up to 4 people). Full load is recommended at 35 psi front, 42 psi rear. The dealer had it set at 35 front, 40 rear. The sales person said keep them at 35 psi all around. 30 seems too light in the front since tire pressure will drop at points and I'm not confident about those pressures. But the other question for me is the differential between front and rear since BMW recommends a difference in all cases. For instance, if I set the pressure at 32 front and 37 rear, is that okay? Usually it's only me or my wife and me in the car. Any psi tire advice really appreciated.
Its time for new sneakers for my 2001 Accord EX I-4 5spd (195/65 15), current Michelin MXV4 are down to ware bar at almost 45K and very noisy. Narrowed it down to Bridgestone Potenza RE 950 or Yokohama YK420. Now I am also interested in this new commer: Michelin HydroEdge
I was also looking at Yokohama AVS dB S2, but lot of comments on them being noisy only after 20K. So those are out.
Road noise good grip and value (OEM Michelins are too expensive for me) are important. I am in Dallas Fort Worth so snow is not an issue.
Potenzas are listed at $75 on tiretrack and Michelin HydroEdge for $92 at 1010tires. Any suggestion on another brand/tire/price would be appreciated. Thanks
The most recent issue of COnsumers Reports tested tires in this catagory (ie "touring" AS). Top rated was a Falken. The Dunlop SP SPort A2 also did well, as did one of the Bridgestones.
They do break out the score by catagory, so you might want to take a look (some are poor in snow but good in noise, for instance). Should be able to find something that meets your needs.
Just another source of unbiased info.
ALso, I have the A2s on both my cars, and they work very well.
thanks, zues--I do recall reading somewhere that they're mounting-matching somethings, though...I'll look it up...and I wonder if it matters if one is on the inside and the rest are on the outside (the 716s aren't directional or asymmetrical, though)...
I'll keep looking, but good to hear your Kumhos are doing well. After about 15 miles ours are great too LOL! Seriously, we've got rain today so I'm really dying to take them out and accelerate up a hill and see what happens...
too bad, my new Kumho 716s don't come in your size...
but I disqualified the yokos and, reluctantly, the falkens, after I read (on tirerack and other consumer rating sites--not experts but just fwiw) that they decline precipitously re wet handling after first 12-15K miles...most tires do decline, but folks really mentioned the drop off on those.
Someone posted here (is it post 3030? at the top of my page here) about the Hydroedges--
might also want to look into the Continentals--I *had* ordered the conti extreme contacts for my car, but they're SO popular they've been out of stock for over 6 weeks now...and looking to mid-November before I could get them in--but there are also Conti Touring Contacts...it may be that the extreme contacts were a great tire in their lineup and the tourings not so great, but worth checking out too...
Dunlops got not so good remarks from consumers, too...good luck on deciding and please come back and post your choice--
First, completely discount anything a sales guy tells you - pathological liars and all that.
I'm thinking the reason for the pressure differential is to keep understeer the primary handling mode - and that maintaining it is a good thing.
This would make sense about the full load requiring more inflation (full load meaning stuff in the trunk) The 32 / 37 split is OK, but personally I'd go for the higher 35 / 40 if you can stomach the ride, but then again I like cars the are really responsive.
That red circle might mean a couple of things, and match mounting might be one of them.
Best to contact Kumho and ask, as these sorts of things vary greatly throughout the industry.
Example: Ford uses green stripes, BMW uses white dots, Nissan uses red reflective dots... and every tire manufacturer who supplies these car companies has to do the same thing. I'm not sure who is doing what.
I had to let my response to this question cook for a while. Needed to really get philosophical and decide what were the real problems and would the new testing regulations (and all the other things) make a difference.
I think the new testing regulations are only going to have a minor effect. These types of tests are more suited to testing the basic design concept and most of the recent problems are more manufacturing related.
The pressure monitoring devices are probably going to have the biggest effect. Low inflation pressure is such a large problem and so many tire related problems can be solved by simple inflation pressure checks.
The next biggest hurdle is the age factor. Just came back from a tire symposium where a guy tried to artificially age tires - in response to NHTSA's request for a test. He couldn't get reasonable results and the actual age of a tire seemed to be more of a factor that how many miles it had.
Are the newer tires going to be heavier? Maybe, but weight = cost (more or less) and a truly great tire design will generally work regardless of how much it weighs. Personally, I think lighter is better (because thinner is better for heat generation.), but thicker means the stress is more spread out so it's generally more robust.
in 1984 the factory service manual for my oldsmobile said the dots represented the heaviest part of the tire, and were to be mounted with the dot opposite the valve stem. even had a picture.
Just one follow-up question. If I run the 35 front 40 rear inflation, will I wear the tires prematurely in the center? In other words, can that be considered over-inflated somewhat and affect the wear? It seems more air helps handling, which I'm interested in, but I want to be sensible about how I treat the tires. Thanks so much for your initial feedback--very helpful to my understanding about all this. And yes---ignore the sales person advice!!!
Your tires may wear more rapidly in the center, but I don't think we are talking huge differences here. Frequent rotations will also help keep this to a minimum as the front tires tend to wear out shoulders and the rears tend to wear out the centers.
As far as being sensible? Checking the inflation on a regular basis is the most sensible thing you can do. Besides, incresed inflation generally improves the wear rate (stiffer tire = less defelection = less squirm)
I was at a Tire Discounters tire store in our area when they told a lady in her thirties that her tire blew out on the side because it was overinflated when she hit whatever it was AND they wouldn't honor the road hazard guarantee. She had a small BMW.
The tow and cambre on rear tires of a Z-axle Bimmer means you likely won't wear the centre first anyways, even with high pressure. They'll probably wear on the insides as they're set up that way for stability. For that reason, BMW doesn't recommend rotation since the front and rear wear patterns are so different -- unlike FWD, the fronts do some work steering while the rears do some work powering so it isn't as bad as the disparity in wear of front tires on a FWD.
With relatively low profile tires, 40PSI is nowhere near max. inflation. Max. is probably at least 45PSI, more likely 51PSI or so. Higher rear pressure will help to control understeer and promote oversteer.
The Michelin tires probably aren't marked for high spot because they are made well enough there isn't a high spot or heavy spot. I don't believe I've seen markings on any Michelins I've bought.
is in the same book with "why is the sky blue" and "how big is the universe".
Why worry about the dots? They don't label a tire defective, they mark mounting points on OEM wheels at the factory - if you don't have the corresponding marks on your wheels, it's useless.
Besides, there would only be a few grams of difference in balancing by mounting one way or another - you have more residual dirt on your wheels than that!
I need some advice on tires rims and tire sizes. I have a set of 15 inch rims from a 1997 Odyssey which had 205/65-R15 tires on them. I traded this car in for a new 2004 Accord which had 205/60-R16 tires on them.
My question is, can I use these 15 inch rims on my new Accord that has 16 inch rims. I need a set of snow tires for the winter and since I have these 15 inch, I thought maybe I can save a few bucks. I also looked on the web site and noticed that the 2004 Accord LX model uses 205/65 R15 tires instead of the 16 inch like on my Accord EX model. Any help or advice will be appreciated. Or if you can point me to a web site that can answer my question.
I posted in 3030 my satisfaction with Hydroedges but let me very clear. I have a 1999 HO LX in which the OEM tire was replaced with the aquatread III and a 2000 Accord SE. The Accord OEM tire was the Michelin MXV4 plus.
I have now replaced both the HO and the Accord with the Hydroedge and am very happy with the tire but my impressions with each vehicle is different.
Honda Odyssey Now have quite a bit of miles of driving under my belt with the Hydroedge and it is an excellent tire and noticeably better in every way from the OEM Affinity and the Aquatread III’s. CR rated the Michelin X one as the best all season tire in an earlier report and the Hydroedge is the replacement to the discontinued X-one. Michelin states it has better snow and wet grip. In any event the hydro edge is better in grip, wet and dry and hydro planning, and comfort and noise than any other tire I have experienced for Vans and would recommend these tires to any one as a replacement Van tire.
2000 Accord SE At the risk of stating the obvious my Accord handles exceptionally well and a ridiculous comparison I know but far superior to the Van. The Michelin MXV4 Pluses were very very good with dry grip handling and good in snow.
My dissatisfaction with the MXV4+ was really hydro planning and mediocre wet handling caused by inadequate tread wear. I am putting 20,000 miles a year on the Accord and that would translate into replacing tires every 2 years vs. 4 for the hydroedge.
Now I have about a 1,000 miles of driving on the Hydro edge for my Accord and can make a few observations:
The MXV4 is an H rated tire and the Hydro edge is T rated. The Michelin site does not even compare these tires so those 10’s and 9’s for the two tires mean nothing, as they are different classes of tires.
Dry Pavement. Driving hard on 5 mile and 15 mile an hour turns in dry weather the MXV4+’s felt more secure. The hydroedges seem to fold in on themselves (Just an impression maybe the tire experts, which I am not, can explain better what’s happening and why I have this impression.) they do not lose grip per say they just do not feel as secure.
On wet pavement in hard turns the MXV4+ seems to slide more than the Hydro edge. In Hydro planning the Hydroedge is far superior to the MXV4+. Simply put a little bit of a puddle on the road would cause a tremendous drag on the MXV4 and you could feel loss of road contact at moderate or even slow speeds while the Hydro edge cuts thru much better.
Ride comfort the hydroedge is much better than the MXV4. On smooth pavement the MXV4 was excellent but across bumps the MXV4 seemed to transfer a jolt. The Hydroedge absorbs the bump and the Jolt is not transferred to the driver.
Tread life the Hydro edge should easily win out.
My recommendation is the Hydroedge if tread life, comfort, and all season capability is your desire (have not tested Hydroedge in snow yet) but expect a noticeable degradation in handling performance vs. the MXV4+.
Again I stress these are my impressions and I would be curious to see test results for the road holding index for the MXV4 vs. the Hydroedge on an Accord to prove out my impressions. One person suggested that I increase the PSI from 30psi to 35psi and dry handling might be better. Have not tried this yet. Please note that Hydroedge handling is good but MXV4 seems better.
In any event if handling were the key I would stick with H rated tries or above.
#3054 of 3066 way back when by wain Oct 15, 2003 (7:02 pm) in 1984 the factory service manual for my oldsmobile said the dots represented the heaviest part of the tire, and were to be mounted with the dot opposite the valve stem. even had a picture.
I recently visited Hunter Engineering HQ in St Louis while doing research on wheel and tire care and they remarked that the above info was correct when steel wheels were common, but now that almost all OE wheels are cast aluminum the above no longer applies. Yes, it's still critical to know where the high and low spots are on a tire and a wheel, but now it takes sophisticated machinery to detect it and ensure the best possible mounting points for the tires and the wheel weights.
The visit to Hunter was terrific and I learned a great deal about not only their products but the industry. Got the "$20 demo" of the GSP9700 and was totally amazed at its capabilities. A great company making great products was my overall impression of Hunter.
Suppose you have a car that has two good tires and two poor tires. In the interest of safety, should the best tires go on the back or front?
I know a lot of you will say to just replace the poor tires. My friend plans to do that in the near future, but in the meantime, where should the poor tires go - front or back?
Tire wear is not the issue. Only safety. I have a Susan B. Anthony dollar riding on your answer.
Some tire mfr's like Goodyear and Dunlop suggest that you put the best tires on the rear of a front wheel drive vehicle. They state that the rear tires will lose traction first in an emergency maneuver or in bad weather conditions. It's been my experience in winter driving that the tire companies are correct.
From Goodyear's website:
Q: When buying just two new tires, should they be put on the front or rear?
A: When radial tires are used with bias or bias belted tires on the same car, the radials must always be placed on the rear axle. Never mix radial and bias-ply tires on the same axle. When you select a pair of replacement tires in the same size and construction as those on the car, we recommend you put them on the rear axle. A single new tire should be paired on the rear axle with the tire having the most tread depth of the other three.
you don't want the car swapping ends when braking, or losing traction going downhill, and the like. so the grippiest ones go on back, whether you have FWD or not. you will find it hard to get the good ones mounted on the front, they will argue you to a pulp first.
And why is it that whenever I'm late getting a start somewhere is always when I run into road construction?
Oh, O.K., (teenage sarcastic sigh) I'll let you get by with the answer re the dots. I did contact Kumho anyway (I like my info, or else I wouldn't be frequenting this website ) and I'll let you know what they say...
We're loving these tires, btw. We know we're comparing them to our old worn out Michelins (which were only T rated when we got them anyway), but they're definitely quieter and don't skid on the turns that the old tires skidded on, have kept traction in the rain (what's with the aftermarket siping thing? --meaningless, potentially harmful moneymaker or actual improvement?)...we're happy at well over 100 miles on them LOL
Most folks in business are inviting targets for litigation. So most of them will take the route that avoids the litigation.
No one could successfully argue that the old tires on the rear is the safest. So almost every business will state the new tires go on the rear.
Recognizing that tires have to be rotated, this seems like an absurd position, but that is the nature of the beast.
But, as a consumer you can put the tires anywhere you like, without fear of litigation.
And since the front tires on FWD wear 2 1/2 times as fast as the rears, it might make some sense to keep the "new" tires on the front longer between rotations.
Unless these two bad tires you speak of are bad enough to be a concern for failure, it doesn't make much difference. Since any tires shouldn't stay in the same place longer than 5-8K, it really doesn't matter. Now, if these tires are bad enough that you are concerned about a failure, then they shouldn't be there at all. A blowout on the front or the rear can be equally dangerous to an inexperienced driver. The only other factor that may matter is the wear ratio that capriracer referred to. That is correct. There is about a 3 to 1 wear ratio from front to rear on FWD vehicles so they'll last longer on the rear.
Most all recommendations that you will get are given from a prospective of the life expectancy of the tire, not you safety.
My father-in-law and I have a bet concerning tires. I would appreciate your opinion (and if you have data to back it up, even better.)
The car in question is a 4dr Accord, so it's front wheel drive. Also for the sake of arguement, assume the new tires are the exact same brand and type as the old tires. The old tires have 30K on them and approx 4/32 left on the tread so they arent worn completely yet.
The Question:
If you were to install only two new tires on this car, would you want both new tires in front or both in back? Why?
are considerably more important than the rears on a front-drive car. The front does 70-75% of the braking, all the turning, and all of the power application. The rears, while important for keeping the car "planted" during corners and in inclement weather, are still just "along for the ride", compared to the fronts.
Considering the commonality of the size you're talking about, and versions available for $50 or less, I'd recommend against buying just 2. If you DO replace just 2, with only 4/32" remaining, you'll need to replace the rears within a month, anyway. Also, at 4-5/32", a tire is more prone to flats and curb/rock damage than a full tread tire.
My recommendation is to not shortcut your safety. And if your lady gets stranded with a flat at 9:00 at night and finds out it was because you only changed 2 tires...I'm sure she won't be happy.
Costco has a big sign stating that if only two new tires are to be mounted, they will be placed on the rear. They get a lot of objection from customers but simply state that for safety reasons they will be mounted on the rear period end of discussion.
If the rears on your accord tend to have uneven camber wear as some cars do, put the two fronts on the rear and put the two new tires on the front. This assumes the tires have been at their present location for 5k or more.
Your problem is with two new tires when you rotate the tires, you'll be putting the worn ones on the front in about 10k or less. When you do that, you won't like the feel of the old tires after having the new ones there. You'll be getting about 10k more from two tires. Then you'll be visiting the tire store for buying two new tires. What's the additional purchase time 6 months from now worth? I'd think it's better to buy 4 now.
On my car I'm favoring time in rotation spent on the front on two tires, so they're going to wear earlier and need replacement. My rears will have enough tread left to keep longer. I'm rotating so I have deep tread on front during winter snow.
Actually, all four tires will be changed. Three reasons: 1. This car carries the wife and kids 2. I dont like the OEMs 3. I prefer changing all four at once.
We were just discussing possibilities and the question came up where we had different opinions. We were curious as to who was right.
The Car Talk radio show (ack, competitors!) discussed this issue a month or so ago. The consensus was that the new tires should go on the rear. Naturally I've forgotten the gory details :-)
I'm traveling and can't do the research this week, but I do agree that replacing all four would be a better bet.
I just installed my Suspension Techniques lowering springs - combining dropping the car 2", installing 1" wider wheels and the Kuhmo tires, the difference in handling over stock (my '03 PT GT) is incredible.
The PT went to first car show yesterday - the only "tuner style" PT there, amongst a bunch of platic chrome stick on cars. So may of these PTs look like they were magnetized and driven through the automotive section of K-Mart - all the cheap plastic stuff just jumped off the shelves and onto the cars.
It was interesting to get comments from the old folks who only chrome up and decorate their PTs...I've built mine to drive and race autocross - totally different attitude.
And no, it doesn't have a loud exhaust or a bunch of goofy graphics - it does have white tuner wheels, though.
If it is a front wheel drive vehicle, I would vote for putting the new tires on the front. Three reasons:
Blowouts on front steering wheels will be harder to control, so put the best ones on the front.
Stopping and steering control will be better as well, as most of the stopping force is from the front wheels.
If used tires are very worn, they will wear faster on the front, so if you neglect changing these, at least you will get more miles out of them by putting them on the rear.
xfactor: great summary and review. Question: how does the Hydroedge compare to the MXV4+ in terms of road noise? I realize that tire pressure and wear can have an influence on how loud a tire seems, but can you make any generalizations?
I'd agree with the suggestion to put them on the drive wheels. Of course, bad tires are never a good idea, nor recommended, but if you need to stretch them that's what I'd suggest.
My reasoning is that on RWD you have the best tires on the least controllable wheels and on FWD you can often pull yourself out of trouble...the back end does what the front end tells it to.
Comments
From the Yukon side....
Need opinions regarding your thoughts on safety. Can I expect to run these out without problems?
I have never seen this on two year old tires in the past. I generally wear them out before this starts.
Thanks for any replys.
There is certainly a greater risk of tire failure on a dry-rotted tire.
Here are the things that will accelerate the cracking: Low inflation, heat, high speeds, intermittent usage (sits for weeks, then used)and some tire dressings.
Light cracking is just fine, but if it gets too deep, then it's time to worry.
Hope this helps.
I went ahead and got them, but I'm wondering--isn't there something about the red circle on the outside of the tires? Isn't it supposed to be aligned with something? And there's not one on one of the tires (right rear) -- I haven't checked to see if maybe it's on the inside...
Is the mounting match dot (if that's what it is) the same across brands?
thanks in advance
I wasn't familiar with the model of Kuhmos you were looking at - all I'd be able to do is refer you to the Tire Rack and their survey section.
I have Kuhmo 712s (225/45WR-17) on my PT GT - I love 'em. And they were $86 each.
http://www.1010tires.com/tire.asp?tirebrand=Michelin&tiremode- l=HydroEdge%3Csup%3ETM%3C%2Fsup%3E
I was also looking at Yokohama AVS dB S2, but lot of comments on them being noisy only after 20K. So those are out.
Road noise good grip and value (OEM Michelins are too expensive for me) are important. I am in Dallas Fort Worth so snow is not an issue.
Potenzas are listed at $75 on tiretrack and Michelin HydroEdge for $92 at 1010tires. Any suggestion on another brand/tire/price would be appreciated. Thanks
They do break out the score by catagory, so you might want to take a look (some are poor in snow but good in noise, for instance). Should be able to find something that meets your needs.
Just another source of unbiased info.
ALso, I have the A2s on both my cars, and they work very well.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I'll keep looking, but good to hear your Kumhos are doing well. After about 15 miles ours are great too LOL! Seriously, we've got rain today so I'm really dying to take them out and accelerate up a hill and see what happens...
but I disqualified the yokos and, reluctantly, the falkens, after I read (on tirerack and other consumer rating sites--not experts but just fwiw) that they decline precipitously re wet handling after first 12-15K miles...most tires do decline, but folks really mentioned the drop off on those.
Someone posted here (is it post 3030? at the top of my page here) about the Hydroedges--
might also want to look into the Continentals--I *had* ordered the conti extreme contacts for my car, but they're SO popular they've been out of stock for over 6 weeks now...and looking to mid-November before I could get them in--but there are also Conti Touring Contacts...it may be that the extreme contacts were a great tire in their lineup and the tourings not so great, but worth checking out too...
Dunlops got not so good remarks from consumers, too...good luck on deciding and please come back and post your choice--
I'm thinking the reason for the pressure differential is to keep understeer the primary handling mode - and that maintaining it is a good thing.
This would make sense about the full load requiring more inflation (full load meaning stuff in the trunk) The 32 / 37 split is OK, but personally I'd go for the higher 35 / 40 if you can stomach the ride, but then again I like cars the are really responsive.
Hope this helps.
Best to contact Kumho and ask, as these sorts of things vary greatly throughout the industry.
Example: Ford uses green stripes, BMW uses white dots, Nissan uses red reflective dots... and every tire manufacturer who supplies these car companies has to do the same thing. I'm not sure who is doing what.
(I know, not much help this time!)
I think the new testing regulations are only going to have a minor effect. These types of tests are more suited to testing the basic design concept and most of the recent problems are more manufacturing related.
The pressure monitoring devices are probably going to have the biggest effect. Low inflation pressure is such a large problem and so many tire related problems can be solved by simple inflation pressure checks.
The next biggest hurdle is the age factor. Just came back from a tire symposium where a guy tried to artificially age tires - in response to NHTSA's request for a test. He couldn't get reasonable results and the actual age of a tire seemed to be more of a factor that how many miles it had.
Are the newer tires going to be heavier? Maybe, but weight = cost (more or less) and a truly great tire design will generally work regardless of how much it weighs. Personally, I think lighter is better (because thinner is better for heat generation.), but thicker means the stress is more spread out so it's generally more robust.
Hope this helps.
As far as being sensible? Checking the inflation on a regular basis is the most sensible thing you can do. Besides, incresed inflation generally improves the wear rate (stiffer tire = less defelection = less squirm)
Hope this helps.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
With relatively low profile tires, 40PSI is nowhere near max. inflation. Max. is probably at least 45PSI, more likely 51PSI or so. Higher rear pressure will help to control understeer and promote oversteer.
After I had my tires changed the new tires (Michelin Pilot) have no dots and seem to be mounted randomly relative to the dots on the rims.
Is this ok? Or are they improperly mounted? Thanks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'll contact Kumho and ask them.
Why worry about the dots? They don't label a tire defective, they mark mounting points on OEM wheels at the factory - if you don't have the corresponding marks on your wheels, it's useless.
Besides, there would only be a few grams of difference in balancing by mounting one way or another - you have more residual dirt on your wheels than that!
Relax and enjoy your new tires.
I have a set of 15 inch rims from a 1997 Odyssey which had 205/65-R15 tires on them. I traded this car in for a new 2004 Accord which had 205/60-R16 tires on them.
My question is, can I use these 15 inch rims on my new Accord that has 16 inch rims. I need a set of snow tires for the winter and since I have these 15 inch, I thought maybe I can save a few bucks.
I also looked on the web site and noticed that the 2004 Accord LX model uses 205/65 R15 tires instead of the 16 inch like on my Accord EX model. Any help or advice will be appreciated.
Or if you can point me to a web site that can answer my question.
I have now replaced both the HO and the Accord with the Hydroedge and am very happy with the tire but my impressions with each vehicle is different.
Honda Odyssey
Now have quite a bit of miles of driving under my belt with the Hydroedge and it is an excellent tire and noticeably better in every way from the OEM Affinity and the Aquatread III’s. CR rated the Michelin X one as the best all season tire in an earlier report and the Hydroedge is the replacement to the discontinued X-one. Michelin states it has better snow and wet grip. In any event the hydro edge is better in grip, wet and dry and hydro planning, and comfort and noise than any other tire I have experienced for Vans and would recommend these tires to any one as a replacement Van tire.
2000 Accord SE
At the risk of stating the obvious my Accord handles exceptionally well and a ridiculous comparison I know but far superior to the Van. The Michelin MXV4 Pluses were very very good with dry grip handling and good in snow.
My dissatisfaction with the MXV4+ was really hydro planning and mediocre wet handling caused by inadequate tread wear. I am putting 20,000 miles a year on the Accord and that would translate into replacing tires every 2 years vs. 4 for the hydroedge.
Now I have about a 1,000 miles of driving on the Hydro edge for my Accord and can make a few observations:
The MXV4 is an H rated tire and the Hydro edge is T rated. The Michelin site does not even compare these tires so those 10’s and 9’s for the two tires mean nothing, as they are different classes of tires.
Dry Pavement.
Driving hard on 5 mile and 15 mile an hour turns in dry weather the MXV4+’s felt more secure. The hydroedges seem to fold in on themselves (Just an impression maybe the tire experts, which I am not, can explain better what’s happening and why I have this impression.) they do not lose grip per say they just do not feel as secure.
On wet pavement in hard turns the MXV4+ seems to slide more than the Hydro edge. In Hydro planning the Hydroedge is far superior to the MXV4+. Simply put a little bit of a puddle on the road would cause a tremendous drag on the MXV4 and you could feel loss of road contact at moderate or even slow speeds while the Hydro edge cuts thru much better.
Ride comfort the hydroedge is much better than the MXV4. On smooth pavement the MXV4 was excellent but across bumps the MXV4 seemed to transfer a jolt. The Hydroedge absorbs the bump and the Jolt is not transferred to the driver.
Tread life the Hydro edge should easily win out.
My recommendation is the Hydroedge if tread life, comfort, and all season capability is your desire (have not tested Hydroedge in snow yet) but expect a noticeable degradation in handling performance vs. the MXV4+.
Again I stress these are my impressions and I would be curious to see test results for the road holding index for the MXV4 vs. the Hydroedge on an Accord to prove out my impressions. One person suggested that I increase the PSI from 30psi to 35psi and dry handling might be better. Have not tried this yet. Please note that Hydroedge handling is good but MXV4 seems better.
In any event if handling were the key I would stick with H rated tries or above.
Hope this helps.
in 1984 the factory service manual for my oldsmobile said the dots represented the heaviest part of the tire, and were to be mounted with the dot opposite the valve stem. even had a picture.
I recently visited Hunter Engineering HQ in St Louis while doing research on wheel and tire care and they remarked that the above info was correct when steel wheels were common, but now that almost all OE wheels are cast aluminum the above no longer applies. Yes, it's still critical to know where the high and low spots are on a tire and a wheel, but now it takes sophisticated machinery to detect it and ensure the best possible mounting points for the tires and the wheel weights.
The visit to Hunter was terrific and I learned a great deal about not only their products but the industry. Got the "$20 demo" of the GSP9700 and was totally amazed at its capabilities. A great company making great products was my overall impression of Hunter.
I know a lot of you will say to just replace the poor tires. My friend plans to do that in the near future, but in the meantime, where should the poor tires go - front or back?
Tire wear is not the issue. Only safety. I have a Susan B. Anthony dollar riding on your answer.
Thanks,
Bob
From Goodyear's website:
Q: When buying just two new tires, should they be put on the front or rear?
A: When radial tires are used with bias or bias belted tires on the same car, the radials must always be placed on the rear axle. Never mix radial and bias-ply tires on the same axle. When you select a pair of replacement tires in the same size and construction as those on the car, we recommend you put them on the rear axle. A single new tire should be paired on the rear axle with the tire having the most tread depth of the other three.
Oh, O.K., (teenage sarcastic sigh) I'll let you get by with the answer re the dots. I did contact Kumho anyway (I like my info, or else I wouldn't be frequenting this website
We're loving these tires, btw. We know we're comparing them to our old worn out Michelins (which were only T rated when we got them anyway), but they're definitely quieter and don't skid on the turns that the old tires skidded on, have kept traction in the rain (what's with the aftermarket siping thing? --meaningless, potentially harmful moneymaker or actual improvement?)...we're happy at well over 100 miles on them LOL
No one could successfully argue that the old tires on the rear is the safest. So almost every business will state the new tires go on the rear.
Recognizing that tires have to be rotated, this seems like an absurd position, but that is the nature of the beast.
But, as a consumer you can put the tires anywhere you like, without fear of litigation.
And since the front tires on FWD wear 2 1/2 times as fast as the rears, it might make some sense to keep the "new" tires on the front longer between rotations.
Hope this helps.
Most all recommendations that you will get are given from a prospective of the life expectancy of the tire, not you safety.
The car in question is a 4dr Accord, so it's front wheel drive. Also for the sake of arguement, assume the new tires are the exact same brand and type as the old tires. The old tires have 30K on them and approx 4/32 left on the tread so they arent worn completely yet.
The Question:
If you were to install only two new tires on this car, would you want both new tires in front or both in back? Why?
Thanks.
Considering the commonality of the size you're talking about, and versions available for $50 or less, I'd recommend against buying just 2. If you DO replace just 2, with only 4/32" remaining, you'll need to replace the rears within a month, anyway. Also, at 4-5/32", a tire is more prone to flats and curb/rock damage than a full tread tire.
My recommendation is to not shortcut your safety. And if your lady gets stranded with a flat at 9:00 at night and finds out it was because you only changed 2 tires...I'm sure she won't be happy.
If the rears on your accord tend to have uneven camber wear as some cars do, put the two fronts on the rear and put the two new tires on the front. This assumes the tires have been at their present location for 5k or more.
Your problem is with two new tires when you rotate the tires, you'll be putting the worn ones on the front in about 10k or less. When you do that, you won't like the feel of the old tires after having the new ones there. You'll be getting about 10k more from two tires. Then you'll be visiting the tire store for buying two new tires. What's the additional purchase time 6 months from now worth?
I'd think it's better to buy 4 now.
On my car I'm favoring time in rotation spent on the front on two tires, so they're going to wear earlier and need replacement. My rears will have enough tread left to keep longer. I'm rotating so I have deep tread on front during winter snow.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We were just discussing possibilities and the question came up where we had different opinions. We were curious as to who was right.
Thanks for your replies.
I'm traveling and can't do the research this week, but I do agree that replacing all four would be a better bet.
Steve, Host
PT GT) is incredible.
The PT went to first car show yesterday - the only "tuner style" PT there, amongst a bunch of platic chrome stick on cars. So may of these PTs look like they were magnetized and driven through the automotive section of K-Mart - all the cheap plastic stuff just jumped off the shelves and onto the cars.
It was interesting to get comments from the old folks who only chrome up and decorate their PTs...I've built mine to drive and race autocross - totally different attitude.
And no, it doesn't have a loud exhaust or a bunch of goofy graphics - it does have white tuner wheels, though.
Blowouts on front steering wheels will be harder to control, so put the best ones on the front.
Stopping and steering control will be better as well, as most of the stopping force is from the front wheels.
If used tires are very worn, they will wear faster on the front, so if you neglect changing these, at least you will get more miles out of them by putting them on the rear.
I don't know what those are.,..
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Here's mine:
http://www.5zigenusa.com/wheels.html
My reasoning is that on RWD you have the best tires on the least controllable wheels and on FWD you can often pull yourself out of trouble...the back end does what the front end tells it to.