It's really hard to describe what you are looking for. Pictures would be helpful, but it would be certain elements of the design which would be pointed out. There's just not enough room in this web site for the post. But basically, the more boring the tire, the quieter it would be.
Don't forget the other things you can do to try to minimize noise. Not only are they effective, but you won't have to compromise safety.
I think the change in mpg needs to be stated as a pecentage. This gives us a feel as to how big the problem is. For example if my van dropped 2 mpg - from 10 to 8 - I'd be looking for the fuel leak - which I found! However, if I had a 40 mpg Honda, this could simply be variation from reading to reading.
But to answer your question: New tires can cause increases in fuel consumption. First OE tires are compounded so that they have low rolling resistance (and they sacrifice wear to get it), and replacment tires aren't. Also worn out tires have less rolling resistance than full treaded tires. This is because rolling resistance is proportional to mass. So going to a wider tire will increase the mass and also increase rolling resistance.
And going from a S speed rated tire to an H speed rated tires will also increase the mass.
in nov 03, consumer reports magazine tested 18 performance tires (tested them - not a reader survey) they made "rolling resistance" measurements on a dynamometer.
bad tires (high resistance) were firestone affinity LH30 ( a top rated by tire rack readers surveys!) general exclaim yoko avid h4 cooper lifeliner touring kelly charger pirelli p6
best (lowest resistance were michelin mxv4 plus goodyear eagle ls uniroyal tiger paw tour HR
your librarys reference desk will have a copy of that issue ============================================ not much data on things like this. the tire industry does not want you (a consumer) to be able to compare they want marketing and the salesman to decide. the tire industry for example in many cases will not tell you how WIDE the tire is _ michelin will not - they will tell you the SECTION WIDTH - but that is not the tread on the ground width - I wrote them and asked, and michelin said "that measurement is not required by the government and we do not list it or give it out. Course its not exactly a secret - go find the tire and look at it. some companies -do give that measurement - kumho and firestone do I think. It varys more than you think too in the same size tire - I have been looking at 195 70 14 tires and the tread width varies by almost an inch, out of about 6 inches wide among different tires of the exact same size
I have a 2003 VW Jetta TDI which has an EPA of 42/49 mpg. It is interesting to note, that two of the three tires that comes OEM are so called "lower rolling resistant tires".
michelin mxv4 plus goodyear eagle ls
Also to flesh out other lowest rolling resistant tires, look to the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic hybrid and also the Insight.
what keeps more tire stores from buying more of the Hunter "force" balancing machines that measure also the stiffness of the tire in different places? -Are they too expensive? -too hard to train up on? -or will then too many of the stores tires be "defective"
seems it would be a whole new standard of balancing tires. I almost never get the OE smoothnesss in replacement tires- I have a few times, but the OE is usually the best and toyota uses a force type machine at the japanese factory
The tires at the stores would have a high failure rate. My dealer indicated that replacement tires they get for new car tires and service tires that have problems, themselves have problems. I was there when they were putting on replacments for a GrandAm tires. The replacements were awful when they were being balanced.
The machine also has a learning curve. It requires some intuition and logical thinking skills.
The Toyos (Proxes T1-S) are shockingly quiet for a summer performance tires. WAY quieter than, say, the Bridgestone PP S-03, or GoodYear F1 GS-D3, the Yokohama AVS ES-100 and AVS Sport or the Kumho MX (my other top choices). They supposedly achieve this through softening the sidewall a teensy bit.. This does lead to a little squirminess (compared to the others) but its still light-years better than the average All Season tires' sidewalls.
At 1K miles of VERY HARD usage, they're doing great, wear is unnoticeable (there is scrubbing - but that's attributable to my driving style). Theyr eact very well to rollover reduction via increased air pressure (40s up front and 25-ish in the back) when I need that kind of performance. Obviously - I don't run it at those settings for too long, or on extended trips.
Don't compare these to older All Season Toyo proxes (FZ4 etc). These are now the official Speed World GT racing tire! On cars like yours and mine!
If you're looking for All Seasons - the Toyo proxes4 are supposed to be among the best, as are the Falken ZIEX ZE-512.
I'll try to write an updated review in another 4K miles, and then again later ...
I had these tires put on my car recently and they are so much better that the Bridgestone Portenza's that came oem on the car. Same manufacturer, but what a difference in ride quality, wet or dry. With only a 1000 miles on them, the car rives better than when new, and eventhoug I paid a higher price than other tires I was thinking about, I'm 100% satisfied!
The Sandman :-)
P.S. The ride is vibration free up to 90, have'nt gone over that. Wonder what kind of balancing machine the store has.
Bad luck - I had a paper clip, one small wire end part of which went thru the sidewall of my bridgstone dueler h/T tires - they have only 2000 miles on them 225 70 16 - very slow leak - no structural damage but no one sells tubes anymore so its new tire time. any other choices?
I think they are closer to $80k with the alignment machine which is a lot. Unless you are a tire-store and have that thing in use all day long it doesn't pay to have one.
1) The GSP9700 costs about twice what a ordinary balance machine costs. That's a pretty big increase for some folks.
2) There are some places where the value of a precision balance job just doesn't pay off in customer satisfaction. In places where the roads heave and breakup over the winter, customers don't really notice out of balance tires.
3) There are some vehicles that are incredibly sensitive and after a while most tire shops figure out which ones they are and take appropriate steps. The GSP9700 is a good tool for those vehicles and some would consider it overkill for the others.
thanks what are appropriate steps? seems an internal tire stiffness would be invisible to a person running a common balancing machine. ================= re cost - the tire shop I use is independant, and honest, 5 locations, they do a huge business, one man runs balance machine full time I have NEVER seen it not running. 20k or 80k they can afford it tho a small shop might not seeemsif it would get you a good balance job for the 3 or 4 years tires last it would be worth it.
"re cost - the tire shop I use is independant, and honest, 5 locations, they do a huge business, one man runs balance machine full time I have NEVER seen it not running. 20k or 80k they can afford it tho a small shop might not seeemsif it would get you a good balance job for the 3 or 4 years tires last it would be worth it. " <unquote>
While I can understand your point of view, you are not really hooked up with the reality. If you were they probably would have done it already!
So for example, if you pay 6.50 per tire for balancing, are you now going to be willing to pay 12-15 dollars per tire, in part to cover the increased investment, operating costs etc etc? You have now turned a commoditzed service into a specialized service! Does this necessarily mean they can not afford the machine? NO. not at all. if the new balancer for example allowed them some multiple of increased productivity.
Also, some of it can be a systems thing. Now that you have the increased capability, do you need or see a market for the alignment system? Also now if you do that you have to send all your guys to traing classes etc etc. Using your example, now it is x 5. That is the good news! The bad news is how much business can he now afford to lose? Of course the real question is how much will he really lose? It would be great if he gained at least the multiple of the customer base that he had when he was using less expensive equipment, in terms of the multiple of the investment in his equipment. (ie 100,000 dollars equipement investment= say 9000 customers a year at 30 dollars per , so 400,000 = 36,000 customers.)I think you would agree that this is highly unlikely.
...works for me. I was always disappointed by the lack of smoothness on replacement tires compared to OEM. Then I bought a set of performance tires on steel wheels from tirerack and they used the Road Force system to mount and balance them - perfect!
Then I went to the hunter.com website which lists tire locations that have the 9700 Road Force system - and I have had three sets of tires rebalanced, all with remarkable improvements in smoothness.
The only time I went back to standard balancing was picking up a set of Kumho 716's on sale at Sears. There, I asked that they match low spot/high spot based on the marks on the tire and wheel (most tires come with a sticker or temporary imprint on the low spot, and most wheels have the high spot marked inside the wheel on a steel wheel, or you use the valve stem location on an alloy wheel. Much to my surprise, the result was the same as the Road Force system.
Why don't more tire stores do this high spot/low spot matching? BF Goodrich's customer service line was the source of the "tire mark/wheel mark" info, not tirerack or my local tire dealers. Isn't this information out there?
BTW, in terms of tire quality, I put 4 new Goodrich Traction T/A's on a Neon and now the car pulls to the right, despite not pulling before and having three different wheel alignmnents at two different shops. The original dealer rotated tires and replace one, the pull is reduced but still present. What gives?
BTW, in terms of tire quality, I put 4 new Goodrich Traction T/A's on a Neon and now the car pulls to the right, despite not pulling before and having three different wheel alignmnents at two different shops. The original dealer rotated tires and replace one, the pull is reduced but still present. What gives? =========== YOU need to move the tires around one at a time to see which one is pulling or pushing
Then I went to the hunter.com website which lists tire locations that have the 9700 Road Force system - and I have had three sets of tires rebalanced, all with remarkable improvements in smoothness. ========= what did they charge to rebalance?
I think the best use of the machine would be to identify "crappy tires" ones that are defective but are round and balance fine but have funky internal stiffness.
The places around here that use the Hunter systems charge app 12-15 dollars per tire. The ones that don't use Hunter systems are as cheap as 6.50 per tire.
Here in NY/NJ it's $10 for "cheap" mount/balance at Costco/BJs, Tire-specific shops and small places charger 12-17 for Mounting and balancing. I've had my tires mounted and balanced by both generic and hunter machines. I guess I'm lucky as they always balance out w/o a problem.
Is required on 2001 and up Pathfinders, according to those who have had problems with the original tires and replacements. I get to find out this fall when I get my first new set.
I wonder if this is a function of wheel design (aluminum wheels)?
Big O Tires charges $15 per wheel for disposal of old tire, mounting of new tire with new valve stem, and balancing using adhesive weights (no Hunter machine). It seems reasonable to me!
Found the biggest wheel weight I've ever seen in my parking garage today. Given the size of this honker, someone is running around with a seriously unbalanced wheel right now!
are a GREAT practical joke - we'd take 30-40 oz of stick-on weights and place them inside the front wheel of one of our buddy's cars - once he'd hit 40-45 mph or so, it feels like the car was going to shake apart.
Sears has these on sale in Northern California and I couldn't resist swapping out the stock Goodyear LS 185/60-15 tires for 195/60-15 Kumhos, out the door $281. A steal compared to my recent unsatisfactory upgrade to Goodrich Traction T/A (V rated, however) on another car (which now has the tire pull I complained about).
Before installation on the Scion xA: no tire pull, no vibration, smooth ride. After the Kumhos: no tire pull, no vibration, smooth ride.
The differences? Slightly better turn-in response, but not twitchy like on the Traction T/A's on the Neon. VERY quiet, noticeably more so than the already quiet Goodyear LS's. A smoother ride, but I was running the LS's at 35 psi based on a cold morning fill, whereas my guess is the Sears store put in the factory 32 psi and it was a midday fill when it was warmer.
I would call this a "grand touring" tire due to its quiet and comfort, but on long onramp sweeps, and when hanging left turns at intersections, the grip is definitely "high performance."
I have put about 200 miles on so far so can't report wet traction, and I haven't been up to the mountains yet, where I can really tell the differences in tires. However, right now I feel secure, safe and comfortable, and would recommend them to friends...unless they were paranoid about the Korean origin and low price.
Conner over at his message board has knocked Kumhos for being low priced and aimed more at tuners. It is possible that in the ultra high performance niche, his criticism is correct compared to more upscale ultra high performance tires. However, these H rated 716's are a real bargain upgrade over the typical S and T rated stock tires that come on the cars I buy - where the factory tires are designed more for the last possible mile per gallon for EPA rating purposes.
That having been said, the Goodyear LS tires that came stock on my Neon and xA (and on my former VW Golf) are worlds above the stock Goodyear GA's that used to come on Neons.
In terms of my tire experiences so far I would rank the tires thusly:
Goodyear GA - poor
Goodyear LS - good
Dunlop Sport A2 - no better than Goodyear LS, but cheaper
Bridgestone 950's - overrated - a safe bet, but no better in the rain than LS's and Sport A2's, but more expensive (of course the special tread compound designed to retain wet traction as the tire wears may make a significant difference for extended users); not as good as Traction T/A's in the dry.
Goodrich T/A, Walmart Excentia equivalent - nice stiff sidewalls give good steering response, but difficult to balance suggesting less than perfect design and/or quality control. Used to be the cheap alternative, but after trying Kumho 716's, and considering the service at Sears beats Walmart seven ways to Sunday, I'd go the Kumho route first next time.
Goodrich Traction T/A - an ultra high performance tire at a budget price. Easy to balance, but I have an unresolved tire pull issue that makes me question quality control again. Goodrich's warranty hotline is very supportive and helpful, but after spending two unsuccessful days at a tire shop trying to resolve the problem, but another day at a second alignment shop to make sure my suspension is ok, I'm not sure its worth the time and trouble. Note that these are the V rated version and the H and T rated tires may be quite different in handling, performance etc. I have to say that despite my worries about quality control, my "comfort level" with Goodrich is still higher than Kumho due to the years each supplier has been in the marketplace - is this prejudice against a new low cost provider?
At this point I regret putting the Traction T/A's on the Neon, because of all the hassles, but am happy with the Kumho's, due to zero hassles and exceeded expectations...but the Traction T/A's definitely upgraded the Neon's handling and performance much more than the Kumho's did on the Scion.
Thanks for the heads up on the tires that you have been using. I have the VW Jetta TDI, but have gotten down the tire replacements to some of the ones you are using: specifically 1. Bridgestone RE 950 2. GY LS-H 3. Goodrich Traction TA-H 4. Kumho 716
I actually have 32k on the OEM GY LS-H's and my wear patterns seem to indicated going to 80-85k is more than do able. In some of the research I have done (barring quality issues) indicates the Goodrich Traction TA-H is a good compromise. Along with the Kumho 716's I am also considering the Falken Ziex 512's.
I have a 2004 PT Cruiser Touring Edition with 7000 miles on it. It came with goodyear eagle ls 205/55/16 tires. I put a set of Michelin Hydro Edge and put the goodyeras on another car that needed tires. I have noticed with the Michelins that the ride is much smoother but the steering feels lighter...if that makes any sense. It seems to take less effort to turn the wheel when you are driving down the highway. It handle good as before but there is less steering resistance with the new tires. Can a different tire have this effect? It is something that I have to get used to because with the Goodyear there was more of a steering resistance than with the Michelins.
I've posted on the Sequoia board about a problem I'm having. My '03 2WD Sequoia has 23K miles, and roughly 3K miles on new Bridgestone Dueler H/Ts.
Starting at about 20 mph and continuing to 70 mph, I get a droning noise. The pitch increases with the speed. It's gotten louder over the past 3K miles.
Is it possible that this is a problem with the tires? Anyone else had noise problems with these tires?
Recently discovered a 1.5" long crack on the sidewall of the right rear tire of our 2003 AWD Buick Rendezvous. The tires are Firestone Affinity HT P215/70R16 - not great tires, but at least they have plenty of tread left at 18K miles. The service manager of our Buick shop said it might have cracked upon impact with a pothole & recommended that we replace this tire. After considering it, would it be wise to install a new tire with no wear - making it a larger diameter than the others? I had hoped to get more miles out of this set & then replace with Michelin LTX M/S or Cross Terrains. I'd rather not buy a pair of Affinity tires. What about a pair of Michelins (open to suggestions) in the rear and leaving the Affinities in the front?
Obviously the best situation is to have all 4 tires the same - same size, same pattern, same state of wear. That way the vehicle has the intended amount of oversteer / understeer characteristics, especially at the limit of adhesion.
The next best situation is to have similar tires on an axle. That way the ABS operates properly.
However, all this goes out the window when AWD is part of the picture. And every AWD is slightly different, so it is best to rely on the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.
So on your Buick - what did the service manager say?
Thanks capriracer, The Buick was in for other service last week & the tire was almost an afterthought; service manager said we "should definately replace it". Only later did I think about this & realize it didn't sound quite right. They're closed today so I'll call tuesday & discuss it.
This is a rear tire. What do you think about replacing both on that axle with the same model tire, moving them up front & increasing their time up front between rotations to "catch up" to the wear of the originals that have 18K on them? Ultimately, all four would wear enough to merit replacing with 4 better tires at one time. btw, I don't think the Versatrak AWD engaged once in the past year. Thanks again.
You could play catch-up with the rotations if the original tires show very little wear. Otherwise, it's safer to put new tires on the rear and leave them there.
Thanks to corvette and paisan. I believe the Subaru is permanent AWD (normally 80/20 or 90/10? until slippage occurs and then more is directed to rear).
My understanding of the GM Versatrak AWD, used only on Buick Rendezvous and Pontiac Aztek (maybe the new Rainier?) is that it is a part time AWD. During normal driving, 100% goes to front wheels; upon detecting slippage, some power is shifted to rear wheels. So nearly all the time (for us) it is a FWD vehicle. The driver cannot select AWD.
I'll be talking to GM dealers tomorrow to see what they recommend. I don't want to risk an AWD repair to save $250 for two additional tires. But I also don't want to waste the lightly worn tires if I don't have to just because 1 has sidewall damage. I also now see where this can be a risk in a permanent AWD vehicle.
Check with GM and see what they say, make sure to get whatever they tell you in writing and keep it with your warranty.
You are correct the Isuzu and Subaru systems put power to both axles all the time that's why you need to have symetrical tire sizes. The problem is that on the Versa track, if the sizes are different F/R then the computer *may* decide that the ones with the smaller diameter are slipping and transfer power away from them to the other axle that could be bad on the system.
I like the ES100s very nice tires wear well, handle well, and Yokohamas are good quality. I've been underwhelmed by the Kumho ASXs. The only good Faulkens I've come across are the Azenis Sports.
Traded my MB 190E on a new C class. New car has longer wheelbase is actually heavier than the 190 but I feel beaten to death riding around on city streets. The old car rode like a limo and I knew this was going to be stiffer, but one month into this I'm really a little disappointed. Probably should have done another test drive. Stock tires are Michelins, and wheels are 16" and are inflated to specs. Are there any solutions to soften this up a little bit? Thanks.
IIRC Mercedes uses 225/50/16 Pilot XGT H4's (all-season model) on the current C-class. Would 15" wheels even clear the brake calipers on the current model?
Thats what I like about my Highlander - it has 70 series tires. My wifes infinity has 65 series - rough ride. Hate to think how 60, 55, 0r 50 series tires ride
My wife's car has 45 series tires.. But, the number is just a percentage of the bead width.. A 225/45 tire will have a taller sidewall than a 195/45 tire. Also, suspension travel makes a big difference. Admittedly, hers is a little thumpy over expansion joints, but overall rides well.
Comments
Don't forget the other things you can do to try to minimize noise. Not only are they effective, but you won't have to compromise safety.
Hope this helps.
But to answer your question: New tires can cause increases in fuel consumption. First OE tires are compounded so that they have low rolling resistance (and they sacrifice wear to get it), and replacment tires aren't. Also worn out tires have less rolling resistance than full treaded tires. This is because rolling resistance is proportional to mass. So going to a wider tire will increase the mass and also increase rolling resistance.
And going from a S speed rated tire to an H speed rated tires will also increase the mass.
Hope this helps.
bad tires (high resistance) were
firestone affinity LH30 ( a top rated by tire rack readers surveys!)
general exclaim
yoko avid h4
cooper lifeliner touring
kelly charger
pirelli p6
best (lowest resistance were
michelin mxv4 plus
goodyear eagle ls
uniroyal tiger paw tour HR
your librarys reference desk will have a copy of that issue
============================================
not much data on things like this. the tire industry does not want you (a consumer) to be able to compare they want marketing and the salesman to decide. the tire industry for example in many cases will not tell you how WIDE the tire is _ michelin will not - they will tell you the SECTION WIDTH - but that is not the tread on the ground width - I wrote them and asked, and michelin said "that measurement is not required by the government and we do not list it or give it out. Course its not exactly a secret - go find the tire and look at it.
some companies -do give that measurement - kumho and firestone do I think.
It varys more than you think too in the same size tire - I have been looking at 195 70 14 tires and the tread width varies by almost an inch, out of about 6 inches wide among different tires of the exact same size
michelin mxv4 plus
goodyear eagle ls
Also to flesh out other lowest rolling resistant tires, look to the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic hybrid and also the Insight.
-Are they too expensive?
-too hard to train up on?
-or will then too many of the stores tires be "defective"
seems it would be a whole new standard of balancing tires.
I almost never get the OE smoothnesss in replacement tires- I have a few times, but the OE is usually the best and toyota uses a force type machine at the japanese factory
The machine also has a learning curve. It requires some intuition and logical thinking skills.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Toyos (Proxes T1-S) are shockingly quiet for a summer performance tires. WAY quieter than, say, the Bridgestone PP S-03, or GoodYear F1 GS-D3, the Yokohama AVS ES-100 and AVS Sport or the Kumho MX (my other top choices). They supposedly achieve this through softening the sidewall a teensy bit.. This does lead to a little squirminess (compared to the others) but its still light-years better than the average All Season tires' sidewalls.
At 1K miles of VERY HARD usage, they're doing great, wear is unnoticeable (there is scrubbing - but that's attributable to my driving style). Theyr eact very well to rollover reduction via increased air pressure (40s up front and 25-ish in the back) when I need that kind of performance. Obviously - I don't run it at those settings for too long, or on extended trips.
Don't compare these to older All Season Toyo proxes (FZ4 etc). These are now the official Speed World GT racing tire! On cars like yours and mine!
If you're looking for All Seasons - the Toyo proxes4 are supposed to be among the best, as are the Falken ZIEX ZE-512.
I'll try to write an updated review in another 4K miles, and then again later ...
With only a 1000 miles on them, the car rives better than when new, and eventhoug I paid a higher price than other tires I was thinking about, I'm 100% satisfied!
The Sandman :-)
P.S. The ride is vibration free up to 90, have'nt gone over that. Wonder what kind of balancing machine the store has.
-mike
Thanks
-mike
1) The GSP9700 costs about twice what a ordinary balance machine costs. That's a pretty big increase for some folks.
2) There are some places where the value of a precision balance job just doesn't pay off in customer satisfaction. In places where the roads heave and breakup over the winter, customers don't really notice out of balance tires.
3) There are some vehicles that are incredibly sensitive and after a while most tire shops figure out which ones they are and take appropriate steps. The GSP9700 is a good tool for those vehicles and some would consider it overkill for the others.
Hope this helps.
seems an internal tire stiffness would be invisible to a person running a common balancing machine.
=================
re cost - the tire shop I use is independant, and honest, 5 locations, they do a huge business, one man runs balance machine full time I have NEVER seen it not running.
20k or 80k they can afford it tho a small shop might not
seeemsif it would get you a good balance job for the 3 or 4 years tires last it would be worth it.
20k or 80k they can afford it tho a small shop might not
seeemsif it would get you a good balance job for the 3 or 4 years tires last it would be worth it. " <unquote>
While I can understand your point of view, you are not really hooked up with the reality. If you were they probably would have done it already!
So for example, if you pay 6.50 per tire for balancing, are you now going to be willing to pay 12-15 dollars per tire, in part to cover the increased investment, operating costs etc etc? You have now turned a commoditzed service into a specialized service! Does this necessarily mean they can not afford the machine? NO. not at all. if the new balancer for example allowed them some multiple of increased productivity.
Also, some of it can be a systems thing. Now that you have the increased capability, do you need or see a market for the alignment system? Also now if you do that you have to send all your guys to traing classes etc etc. Using your example, now it is x 5. That is the good news! The bad news is how much business can he now afford to lose? Of course the real question is how much will he really lose? It would be great if he gained at least the multiple of the customer base that he had when he was using less expensive equipment, in terms of the multiple of the investment in his equipment. (ie 100,000 dollars equipement investment= say 9000 customers a year at 30 dollars per , so 400,000 = 36,000 customers.)I think you would agree that this is highly unlikely.
Then I went to the hunter.com website which lists tire locations that have the 9700 Road Force system - and I have had three sets of tires rebalanced, all with remarkable improvements in smoothness.
The only time I went back to standard balancing was picking up a set of Kumho 716's on sale at Sears. There, I asked that they match low spot/high spot based on the marks on the tire and wheel (most tires come with a sticker or temporary imprint on the low spot, and most wheels have the high spot marked inside the wheel on a steel wheel, or you use the valve stem location on an alloy wheel. Much to my surprise, the result was the same as the Road Force system.
Why don't more tire stores do this high spot/low spot matching? BF Goodrich's customer service line was the source of the "tire mark/wheel mark" info, not tirerack or my local tire dealers. Isn't this information out there?
BTW, in terms of tire quality, I put 4 new Goodrich Traction T/A's on a Neon and now the car pulls to the right, despite not pulling before and having three different wheel alignmnents at two different shops. The original dealer rotated tires and replace one, the pull is reduced but still present. What gives?
===========
YOU need to move the tires around one at a time to see which one is pulling or pushing
=========
what did they charge to rebalance?
I think the best use of the machine would be to identify "crappy tires" ones that are defective but are round and balance fine but have funky internal stiffness.
-mike
I wonder if this is a function of wheel design (aluminum wheels)?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
esp when you figure a tire is really only in balance at one speed?
i have had Michelin tire - maybe 3 in my life that had NO weights needed
Before installation on the Scion xA: no tire pull, no vibration, smooth ride. After the Kumhos: no tire pull, no vibration, smooth ride.
The differences? Slightly better turn-in response, but not twitchy like on the Traction T/A's on the Neon. VERY quiet, noticeably more so than the already quiet Goodyear LS's. A smoother ride, but I was running the LS's at 35 psi based on a cold morning fill, whereas my guess is the Sears store put in the factory 32 psi and it was a midday fill when it was warmer.
I would call this a "grand touring" tire due to its quiet and comfort, but on long onramp sweeps, and when hanging left turns at intersections, the grip is definitely "high performance."
I have put about 200 miles on so far so can't report wet traction, and I haven't been up to the mountains yet, where I can really tell the differences in tires. However, right now I feel secure, safe and comfortable, and would recommend them to friends...unless they were paranoid about the Korean origin and low price.
Conner over at his message board has knocked Kumhos for being low priced and aimed more at tuners. It is possible that in the ultra high performance niche, his criticism is correct compared to more upscale ultra high performance tires. However, these H rated 716's are a real bargain upgrade over the typical S and T rated stock tires that come on the cars I buy - where the factory tires are designed more for the last possible mile per gallon for EPA rating purposes.
That having been said, the Goodyear LS tires that came stock on my Neon and xA (and on my former VW Golf) are worlds above the stock Goodyear GA's that used to come on Neons.
In terms of my tire experiences so far I would rank the tires thusly:
Goodyear GA - poor
Goodyear LS - good
Dunlop Sport A2 - no better than Goodyear LS, but cheaper
Bridgestone 950's - overrated - a safe bet, but no better in the rain than LS's and Sport A2's, but more expensive (of course the special tread compound designed to retain wet traction as the tire wears may make a significant difference for extended users); not as good as Traction T/A's in the dry.
Goodrich T/A, Walmart Excentia equivalent - nice stiff sidewalls give good steering response, but difficult to balance suggesting less than perfect design and/or quality control. Used to be the cheap alternative, but after trying Kumho 716's, and considering the service at Sears beats Walmart seven ways to Sunday, I'd go the Kumho route first next time.
Goodrich Traction T/A - an ultra high performance tire at a budget price. Easy to balance, but I have an unresolved tire pull issue that makes me question quality control again. Goodrich's warranty hotline is very supportive and helpful, but after spending two unsuccessful days at a tire shop trying to resolve the problem, but another day at a second alignment shop to make sure my suspension is ok, I'm not sure its worth the time and trouble. Note that these are the V rated version and the H and T rated tires may be quite different in handling, performance etc. I have to say that despite my worries about quality control, my "comfort level" with Goodrich is still higher than Kumho due to the years each supplier has been in the marketplace - is this prejudice against a new low cost provider?
At this point I regret putting the Traction T/A's on the Neon, because of all the hassles, but am happy with the Kumho's, due to zero hassles and exceeded expectations...but the Traction T/A's definitely upgraded the Neon's handling and performance much more than the Kumho's did on the Scion.
I actually have 32k on the OEM GY LS-H's and my wear patterns seem to indicated going to 80-85k is more than do able. In some of the research I have done (barring quality issues) indicates the Goodrich Traction TA-H is a good compromise. Along with the Kumho 716's I am also considering the Falken Ziex 512's.
Starting at about 20 mph and continuing to 70 mph, I get a droning noise. The pitch increases with the speed. It's gotten louder over the past 3K miles.
Is it possible that this is a problem with the tires? Anyone else had noise problems with these tires?
Thanks in advance.
I had hoped to get more miles out of this set & then replace with Michelin LTX M/S or Cross Terrains. I'd rather not buy a pair of Affinity tires. What about a pair of Michelins (open to suggestions) in the rear and leaving the Affinities in the front?
Obviously the best situation is to have all 4 tires the same - same size, same pattern, same state of wear. That way the vehicle has the intended amount of oversteer / understeer characteristics, especially at the limit of adhesion.
The next best situation is to have similar tires on an axle. That way the ABS operates properly.
However, all this goes out the window when AWD is part of the picture. And every AWD is slightly different, so it is best to rely on the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.
So on your Buick - what did the service manager say?
The Buick was in for other service last week & the tire was almost an afterthought; service manager said we "should definately replace it".
Only later did I think about this & realize it didn't sound quite right. They're closed today so I'll call tuesday & discuss it.
This is a rear tire. What do you think about replacing both on that axle with the same model tire, moving them up front & increasing their time up front between rotations to "catch up" to the wear of the originals that have 18K on them? Ultimately, all four would wear enough to merit replacing with 4 better tires at one time. btw, I don't think the Versatrak AWD engaged once in the past year.
Thanks again.
-mike
I believe the Subaru is permanent AWD (normally 80/20 or 90/10? until slippage occurs and then more is directed to rear).
My understanding of the GM Versatrak AWD, used only on Buick Rendezvous and Pontiac Aztek (maybe the new Rainier?) is that it is a part time AWD. During normal driving, 100% goes to front wheels; upon detecting slippage, some power is shifted to rear wheels. So nearly all the time (for us) it is a FWD vehicle. The driver cannot select AWD.
I'll be talking to GM dealers tomorrow to see what they recommend. I don't want to risk an AWD repair to save $250 for two additional tires. But I also don't want to waste the lightly worn tires if I don't have to just because 1 has sidewall damage. I also now see where this can be a risk in a permanent AWD vehicle.
You are correct the Isuzu and Subaru systems put power to both axles all the time that's why you need to have symetrical tire sizes. The problem is that on the Versa track, if the sizes are different F/R then the computer *may* decide that the ones with the smaller diameter are slipping and transfer power away from them to the other axle that could be bad on the system.
-mike
Tires I am looking at are the
Yokohama ES100s as well as
Hankook Ventus Sport K104,
Nitto NT NeoGen ZR,
Kumho Ecsta ASX, and
Falken Azenis ST115
Any knowledge regarding these tires? Thanks
-mike
Stock tires are Michelins, and wheels are 16" and are inflated to specs. Are there any solutions to soften this up a little bit?
Thanks.
Krzys
If it is the Pilot tires, that explains everything. They are a summer tire with a very stiff sidewall for extra handling.
The MXV4s are a much more comfortable ride in quality and sound, but can not hold a candle to the Pilots in the handling department.
Finally, if you do have the MXV4s, the only option might be to get smaller rims (such as 15") to increase tire padding in the ride.
-mike
I'll save your notes for tire-buying time. It just seems like the suspension doesn't have the "floaty" ride that the old 190 did.
Maybe I really am old enough for a Cadillac.
My wifes infinity has 65 series - rough ride.
Hate to think how 60, 55, 0r 50 series tires ride
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator