Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Are you under 40 and think that you might not be able to afford a brand new vehicle when you purchase your next car? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/16 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Run-flat, self-sealing, PAX tires for Minivans

1356731

Comments

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    If the 'three parts' you are referring to are the PAX tire, inner support ring, and PAX rim, I see no possible reason why either the inner support ring or PAX rim should require replacement. The rim is just a rim (albeit special sized to take the special tire). And so long as you haven't had a flat and therefore run on the inner support ring, I don't see why the ring should need to be replaced.

     

    I think you've seen some posts which indicated that if you have a flat and the Honda dealer needs to replace it, that they will replace the entire unit (tire/ring/rim). This is because the PAX tire requires special mounting equipment and most Honda/Michelin dealers don't currently have the mounting equipment. Therefore, they would have to replace the entire unit.
  • "Being replaced by DVD"?? Writes like a true novice tech buyer; the replacement of tapes by DVD was done half a decade ago, DVD itsself being replaced by new types of discs coming soon. For what it's worth, using cutting digital phot equipment is part of my job. I make decisions on what technology to buy, what to avoid on daily basis. There are common theme you can find why VHS succeeded whereas MicroChannel did not: proprietary solutions always lose to industrial standards in a competitive market. The minimal technological edge a proprietory solution may possess at launch time does not matter at all in the great scheme of things. It's only a ploy to corner a maket, and consumers know it and won't allow it to succeed.
  • Exactly!!! If PAX rims could take regular sized run flats in addition to taking PAX tires, I may well give it a try.
  • I am voting with my feet. No pax for me. I do not trust the local dealer to have a pax waiting for me. They could not be bothered to change the oil on my vehicle when I asked WRITING. Why, any PAX they had would carry an added dealer markup even if nobody wanted it.
  • I am NO technophobe. I am an engineer for a major company that tests new technologies for my livlihood. I am usually the first person using a new technology. PAX is a good technology and idea. BUT deployed poorly and is proprietary.

     

    Film, VHS, and HDTV all will NOT leave you stuck in the road on a cold weekend! Cameras, VCRs, and TVs are REPAIRABLE! They can be serviced by many sources. NONE of these items are made by, and controlled by, ONE company.

     

    By the way HDTV has taken years to become a standard and still has not been widely deployed in every house because of two major problems. One, there were too many versions of it (NOT ONE STANDARD) and is way too expensive. Kodak came out with a new camera in the eigthies that was proprietary. It was and "INSTANT" camera. Many bought them. Poloroid sued, won, and there were MANY cameras in the garbage when the film supplied dried up... LESSON can be learned here.

     

    PAX, had NO reason to be an odd size. VHS is only one size! There was no reason to have no donut spares or snow tires available before being made STANDARD on the Honda ODDITY Touring with NO way to use anything else, except an attempt to control "TWHEEL" sales.

     

    Michelin's track record for this is poor. Costs are high. Chances of PAX catching on are very if-y. I was not interested in waiting around and being the experiment. NOT on a 40K minivan. Why do I need to pay the premium for their test.

     

    Honda should and I BET WILL make PAX an option on Touring next year. Then the owners of the 2005 Honda "ODDITY" Touring will not be happy to be the proud owner of "THAT ONE!" This will be a pure business decision when Touring sales are lost to Toyota and others and also to the lower end model EXL as buyer realize they been cornered.

     

    Now if you want PAX, are aware of all the info on PAX. And still want them like the gentlemen on this forum that is disabled. You should be able to buy PAX as an option and NOT be forced. Nothing wrong with PAX technology and you know the facts. This is why I bought a Toyota Sienna XLE LTD. Since Honda gave me no choice on Touring.

     

    Stephen A
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    I have a strong feeling that six months from now, these conversations will cease. I think the Touring Odysseys were simply released before the interstructure for PAX tires was fully in place.

     

    I believe that in a few months there will be many more PAX stores and that other brands will come to market with tires that fit these wheels. I believe someone mentioned this has already happened.

     

    Honda is a very smart company that isn''t about to blindly grasp a new technology without careful long tern thinking and consideration. I see the use of PAX or similar systems becoming the norm in the future. I could be wrong, but only time will tell us.
  • isell, why would any business invest in the equipment and training necessary to support these tires at this time? They're only being used by one mainstream vehicle, and only on the high end model of that vehicle (the Touring Odyssey, of course). And why would other makers start making them at this time for the same reasons? A few years, possibly. But not a few months...
  • gkkimgkkim Posts: 17
    "....Writes like a true novice tech buyer."

     

    Brightness04 - if you'd like to talk about the technology, great. Leave the directed personal remarks out.

     

    Consumer will resist change. We'll see how technology evolves.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    Good question. I would expect the price of the necessary equipment to drop as these become more widespread. Again, time will tell.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    And maybe BMW's in the late 80's were released before the interstructure [sic] of TRX tires was fully in place.....
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    Steve, your attempt to prove that a (limited) number of TRX tires are available at the Tire Rack thoroughly misses the point.

     

    The cars for which these tires were OEM equipment are now worth not much more than a set of these tires now cost.

     

    My brother's 1987 BMW 735i--in mint condition with barely 100K on the odo--has a blue book value of about $2,000. And I GUARANTEE you that a Mustang 5.0 of the same vintage is worth LESS than the $844 set of TRX tires you mentioned.

     

    The bigger problem with PAX is how the laws of economics promise to keep prices high for replacement parts of proprietary technology.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Ok, then the counter-argument is that PAX tires are worth the higher prices since they deliver features and peace of mind important to a portion of the buying public that other tires can't deliver.

     

    And they'll be available for a decade or two for those buyers.

     

    Steve, Host
  • cccompsoncccompson Posts: 2,388
    No, Steve, - they do not, in fact, deliver anything that is unique as conventional run-flats have been in use for some time.

     

    PAX is merely a run-flat oddity at present.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Ok, then the counter-argument is that run-flat, self-sealing and PAX tires are worth the higher prices yada yada yada.

     

    I haven't priced self-sealing tires, but I understand that you pay a premium for run-flats similar to the PAX tires.

     

    Steve, Host
  • cccompsoncccompson Posts: 2,388
    My point (and that of some others here) is that PAX offers no unique advantage over conventional run-flats but, at least as of now, has a couple of distinct disadvantages:

     

    1) No other tire in the world can be mounted on a PAX rim and

     

    2) There is a possibility of being stranded (for a day or two) while getting a replacement.

     

    Too bad Honda opted to make it standard on the Touring in the U.S. - PAX was a dealbreaker for me.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    My guess is that the technology of the PAX rim is non-compatible with a conventional one. So an odd size was necessary to prevent someone from (inadvertently more than purposely) mounting a conventional tire tire on a PAX rim. Not unlike the reason why your LP tank on your outdoor grill screws backwards. Probably a liability issue more than anything....
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    What 'additional features' did TRX tires deliver?

     

    Even if they'll be available for a decade, the question is 'at what cost?' Ten years from now, the third owner of the Odyssey Touring with 125K on the odo will be swapping these rims for something else because it'll be cheaper--just like BMW and Mustang owners are doing now.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    I'm not sure why I'm playing contrarian since I've always replaced my donuts with full size spares, but...

     

    No other tire in the world can be mounted on a PAX rim

     

    The percentage of people who buy rims is pretty small; even in the snowbelt most folks don't bother with mounted snowtires, but just swap them out twice a year.

     

    Ok, there's your lead-in for the lack of snow tires for the PAX rims <g>.

     

     

    Heywood, the advantages (additional features) of run-flats should be self-evident. Whether being able to drive on an otherwise flat tire outweighs the detriments is for your pocketbook to decide.

     

    Steve, Host
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    My question was what advantages/additional features did TRX tires offer (not PAX)?
  • cccompsoncccompson Posts: 2,388
    Steve, I have no desire to further the debate (and have never mounted snow tires on a front wheel drive vehicle) - I've already decided and, as I said, PAX cost Honda the sale of one Odyssey Touring to this household.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    I don't know the details about TRX tires, but someone in here said they were earlier versions of run-flats. For some people, not having to stop on the side of the freeway to change a tire is an advantage.

     

    Cccompson, I always kept mounted snows around when I lived in Anchorage, and I always drove FWD vehicles up there. Here in Boise I have studded snow tires mounted on steel rims for my Outback, but didn't bother to swap them out this year.

     

    I forget - did you buy the AWD Sienna?

     

    Steve, Host
  • user777user777 Posts: 3,341
    ..you presume that what ever happened to the tire allows you to continue to ride on that run-flat and that you don't have to stop where you are. what happens when the tire's side-wall is compromised and you can't drive on it. you've got to tow it right?

     

    ok - it's a paranoid and contrived scenario, but i think people need to get inside the heads of the people who are getting vehicles with runflats, AND, they are buying full-size spares (run-flat or not), AND possibly carrying the spare with them (or not)... why are they going to those lengths?

     

    it would seem that *IF* the PAX system allowed for non-PAX runflats, or conventionals to be installed, then there would be more people willing to be early adopters of the new technology...

     

    aren't plenty of people complaining about the availability of regular runflats when they've had to replace a tire? you do have to replace the tire after driving on it for X miles don't you?

     

    ???

     

    are people forgetting that? if you can get to a dealer or tire installation shop (AND they are still open), but they haven't got the tire physically there, then what do you do?

     

    you stop (for longer than you wanted - no doubt).

     

    being able to mount a conventional or run-flat is additional flexibility.

     

    and good point about the snows. how about just being unhappy with tire wear, or wet traction, road noise etc?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    the tire's side-wall is compromised

     

    I've had one of those situations in 30 some driving years (ran over something that ruined my tire). But I think that argument is a bit of a stretch since you'll be in similar shape if a belt breaks or whatever that Saab example was.

     

    I bet the PAX tire would have to be pretty shredded for the inner ring to fail to support the van.

     

    Steve, Host
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    Heywood, why do you keep bringing up, ad nauseum, the 25 year old TRX tires?

     

    Don't you think Michelin learned a lesson? Please remember that Michelin pioneered the radial tire back in, I think, 1948??

     

    What do you think negative people like yourself had to say about them at that time?

     

    Since you like dredging up history, Ford introduced the ill fated Edsel in 1958. Do you think they may have learned something from that?

     

    Personally, I think this subject has been beat to death!
  • Steve, I am with you man. I just bought a Ody Touring and had issues with the idea of PAX. I actually owned a Renault Turbo Fuego (Yeah, my wife makes fun of it too) with TRX tires. Kept it for 98K miles and replaced tires a couple of times. While they weren't available at every corner gas station, I got 'er done.

     

    If I get a flat tire and my in-laws house is 175 mile away, I just turn around and go home. If I get the flat on the road and it's less than 125 miles to their house, I keep going. The most painful part of that experience would be the extra time I need to spend at their house.

     

    I've seen too many stories about people killed while changing a tire on the freeway. The side of a highway is not a user-friendly environment. Trust me, I've changed enough tires on a dark highway that I would rather not have to do it again.

     

    The BIG issue for me is this: My wife and kids often go to the lake without me because of my work schedule. Do I want my wife to have to change a tire in the middle of the night with the kids in the car either on a busy highway, or in the middle of a dark country road? NO!!!!! Talk all the trash you want about having to wait for another tire, delay, inconvenience, cost, etc. PAX provides me with the widest margin of error.

     

    Simple as that. This is not to say everyone doesn't want to do what keeps their family safe as well; everyone wants that. However, in my view, based on the published reviews, this gives me the widest margin of safety error. Yes, there are other run flats options that provide protection. Every review I've seen says the PAX is the best performing, safest option. With that said, I don't give a rat's patoot about availability or price.

     

    I guess I am betting that Honda and Michelin will put the resources into making this thing a success. If I have the same issues in a couple of years, I guess it will be an inconvenience, but I made my choice and will accept it.

     

    Supply chain issues, yup. Locked into a specific tire option at this time, looks like it. Provide my wife and kids the widest safety margin, absolutely. No contest.

     

    Of course, your mileage may vary.
  • davenowdavenow Posts: 171
    it's the people who have the "safety-at-any-cost" attitude which fuels the debate as to proprietary systems getting away with $$$$ versus &#147;not-really-worth-the-price&#148; and &#147;It-can-be-done-with-current-technology&#148; champions.
  • It's not so much "safety at any cost" as "the best safety at a premium cost" as I see it.

     

    If Michelin invests the R&D to provide a product that has a technology advantage, then they can and should charge a premium for that technology.

     

    "Safety at any cost" sounds a little meek to me. Heck, I drive old british sports cars around occasionally and I can tell you there is NO safety in those!

     

    I do agree however, there is always a decision to be made regarding value add (added safety in this case) vs. extra cost incurred. I'm sure people will feel that this is a no brainer both ways. Some people here feel there is no value added compared to what's offered. I feel there is and am comfortable with the extra cost and perceived inconveniences downstream ( single tire vendor, high cost, potential down time, etc.)

     

    To each his own.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    Yes, I have the XLE AWD. Also an extra set of RFT snow tires and OEM rims.

     

    TRX tires were not run-flats. We have a vehicle in the family that has them, so I can attest to this.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    You probably think so, as you're trying to sell Tourings. PAX tires are in no way comparable to the introduction of radial tires. It's apples and oranges. If you think we're all going to be driving on PAX tires ten years from now, you're entitled to your opinion.

     

    The history of TRX is relevant, and Michelin isn't necessarily limited to one mistake. "Fool me once, shame on you....." And it was 15 years ago, not 25. My brother's BMW is an '87.

     

    The history of the Edsel is NOT relevant for comparison purposes here. The car broke no new ground, was over-priced, and was ugly. And Ford has made many similar mistakes since-- most recently with the new Thunderbird. In both cases, people voted with their pocketbooks, and I predict they will do the same with PAX.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    Ah, the age-old 'wife-and-kids' argument. As I have said here before, the added 'safety' and 'peace-of-mind' of PAX tires can also be had with conventional run-flats. If you don't give a hoot about cost or availability, then you're Michelin's dream customer....

     

    If safety at any cost is your priority, then you should make your wife and kids wear helmets in the car. I am serious. It would virtually elimate the risk of head injury. I dont know about you, but the 'cost' of constant 'hat head' and looking silly is too high for my wife....
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    The helmet suggestion gets tossed around now and then - some Aussie inventor was working on one that looked like a head band a few years ago.

     

    Good point about conventional run-flats, but I'm under the impression that they aren't much cheaper than the PAX tires, and not much more common. Rims would be another story.

     

    Steve, Host
  • Wondering, if the tires can go 125 miles @ 50 mph, will they go a longer distance at a lower speed, say 150 miles @ 40 mph? This could help you get where you need to go, if its late or a weekend.
  • Come now, why is it it when people engaged in a discussion have nothing new to say, they resort to referring to the opposite point of view as "the age-old" defense?

     

    In the end, what does availability mean? Overnight? Honda is covering cost and overnighting replacements for the first year. Seems to me that this is acknowledgement that they are ahead of the curve, and are willing to belly up to the bar to fix that. Will they replace PAX with something else? Maybe, but I still am getting the value of a superior runflat technology and the added margin of safety in provides.

     

    I have yet to see any reputable auto magazine or reviewer say that conventional run-flats are superior, or even the equal of PAX. All say that PAX is superior. Did I read that wrong? I don't think so. I believe PAX has a longer deflated range, a better ability to withstand a sudden deflation at speed, better run flat capabilities. I am certain that on a minivan or heavier SUV or truck, that the PAX system is inheritently more stable than a "stiff" sidewall.

     

    So will I pay a premium for a product, that according to experts provides a higher margin of safety? Yes, in this case I am. PAX has superior capabilities and I will pay the premium for it.

     

    As for the hat head, my wife may in fact object. No issue for me, I keep the hair military spec.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    Please, don't put words in my mouth. I have no idea if PAX or similar tires are going to be the wave of the future and neither do you.

     

    You don't like them and others do in spite of your great efforts to slander them.

     

    The fact I happen to sell Hondas has nothing to do with any comments I may make.

     

    And, yes, this subject has been literally beaten to death.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    If you consider the extra 25 miles or so that a PAX tire can run flat to be the additional 'margin of safety,' then I concede the point that PAX is 'superior' technology. In my opinion, this is the one (marginally) tangible benefit of PAX over conventional run-flats.

     

    But if PAX lays an egg, you will stuck with these, and forced to ante up for scarce replacements, or get new rims.

     

    I can replace my conventional run-flats with regular tires at any time. This, to me, is worth 25 fewer run-flat miles.

     

    Also, I can order conventional run-flats from the TireRack. Try ordering some PAX tires on-line....
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    I didn't.

     

    Not many.

     

    I doubt it.

     

    In your opinion.
  • What is the range of your runflats? I thought most runflats were in the 50 to 75 mile range. That is quite a difference, being 75 to 50 miles.

     

    Is your runflat range higher?

     

    I admit, if they lay an egg, for the next 4 years I will be forced to ante up for expensive tires. Then again, so what? Unlike marriage, this isn't a lifetime committment, and I feel comfortable that I will be able to get tires for the time frame I will keep this car.

     

    Also, I believe the "donut" technology is superior in case of sidewall blowout, as well as retaining control during a highway deflation, according to the reviews I've read.

     

    Again, to each his own.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    I just checked the Dunlop DSST brochure. Tires are rated for 100 miles at speeds not to exceed 55 MPH. This is enough distance to allow my 'wife and kids' to get the vehicle within range of a cellular signal, or to a warm and safe location and call a tow truck and wait. The additional 25-50 miles PAX offers isn't worth living with the cost and availability issues of proprietary technology.

     

    As far as a sidewall blowouts are concerned, I would think they are exceedingly rare. Again, if you insist on eliminating every possible risk, then you better buy those helmets....

     

    Life has some risks.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    I'm happy you can afford to change vehicles every four years.

     

    What about the guy who gets the car after you?

     

    I have no doubt that people like you who were willing to buy this vehicle new in the first place have less resistance to the cost of PAX. But it's the replacement cost of the tires during years 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 that will tell the tale.

     

    But if your horizon is only four years, good for you. You are certainly in a position to love it and leave it, and let the second or third owner deal with replacement issues.
  • cccompsoncccompson Posts: 2,388
    No, as I posted yesterday in a Sienna thread, I've given up on the idea of a Toyota also.

     

    The bad weather here last week reaffirmed the utility of my Chevy Avalanche so I'll stick with it.

     

    However, given Honda's 2.9 financing at present, I'm now shopping for a new Pilot for my wife.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    I missed that (I miss a lot around here <g>). My nephew likes his Avalanche a lot. Have fun shopping.

     

    Steve, Host
  • Ha ha. Yep, that's me, Love me and Leave em.

     

    Man, I feel young and single again!
  • Yep, the 100 miles sounds like a good, sound distance and I'd probably be happy with that. Here in Indiana, that should get you to a decent sized city.

     

    As for the sidewall blowouts, they probably are rare, but I've experienced a couple in my old 91 Nissan 300ZX and one in an Audi 90. I guess I am much more willing to accept the risk if it's just me. Certainly, I understand there is risk.

     

    The reason I bought the Ody is that I just felt it was a much more solid vehicle than the Toyota, I liked the runflats and what I read in the car mags, plus, they gave me a much higher trade in on my Acura MDX. My wife had a list of reasons, mine came down to, subjectively, it seemed more solid than the Toyota.

     

    The Toyota was more plush, no doubt, rode softer. I went into the dealer expecting to buy it, but after driving both back to back, I liked the more solid, to my mind, feel of the Honda. I drive an Audi, which is a firmer ride, so perhaps that factors into it. Certainly, the Toyota is a great vehicle, and from my mind, they are close enough that I could see someone choosing either.

     

    I started out wanting to buy a Chrysler T&C LTD, as I could get a GREAT deal on it, but after sitting in the Toyota and Honda, it was a no brainer to limit my choice to those 2.

     

    Anyways, best of luck to you with your Toyota. I'll meet you in a couple of years, and you can buy the beer, based on your savings with the Dunlops!
  • If the technology involved in PAX has truely significant safety advantage, Michelin would be making it into regular sized tires. Thank about it, what's the size of the entire tire-replacement market? what's the size of the minivan tire market alone (presumably people own minivans care about safety)? What the Odyssey market size alone? compared to Touring Edition only? PAX is a marketting scheme to lock you into a proprietary wheel size, pure and simple.

     

    Whatever temporary advantage you may gain, you will be paying more for less functional tires in a few short years; i.e. paying more and getting less safety than regular sized tires in short order. It look less than three years for my old TRX. That's how I learned my lesson. Meanwhile, if your van's tires ever blow, your wife and kids are stuck riding in vehecles far less safe than the minivan while waiting for the tires to arrive.
  • In other words, cost was an issue despite all the protestation to the contrary. The high trade-in for MDX at the Honda dealership made you give up the AWD safety advantage of the Sienna option. Presumably you bought AWD for a reason 3-4 years ago with the MDX.
  • Yeah there was a reason. I bought the AWD MDX because my wife had driven minivans for 9 straight years and wanted to be cool. She wanted an SUV because of the room and the MDX was the best fit of reasonable size, comfort, and yes, safety for the family.

     

    The price difference between the Honda and Toyota was minimal. I don't need 4 wheel drive and wasn't looking to buy an AWD Sienna. Contrary to popular opinion, I wasn't the one who brought up wearing a helmet. However, in my mind, the Honda seemed a more solid vehicle.

     

    As for the tires, yes, I saw an advantage with the runflats. I still do. They are reviewed by the auto mags as a superior product, and rated higher than any other runflat solution. Am I supposed to feel bad that I factored their superior reviews into my decision somehow?

     

    Pax, Schmax, I don't care. For the next year, my tires will be replaced for free. After that, I can buy replacement tires to go on the current wheels, and if I am locked into Michelin tires, so what? They are good tires.

     

    The fact that the Honda dealer gave me a better trade in, made it an easy decision. Both are good vans. If the Honda dealer had given me the same, or less, I still would have bought the Honda. Heck, I coulda bought the Chrysler for at least $6K less, so yeah, cost was not an issue.
  • If cost were no issue and safety at all cost is the policy, one should buy AWD minivan whether one perceives there's any need whatsoever. I'm sure the place where you live rains even if it does not snow. One can never presume never to drive in snow in the entire vehicle ownership period (unless you live in Saudi Arabia or something, even then, AWD has advantage in flash floods). The only downside to AWD is wear-and-tear and gas consumption, both are cost issues. AWD with VSC can pull through a corner faster than FWD; that means collision avoidance. The safety advantage of AWD is far more significant than what minimal difference there is between PAX and other run-flat solutions, even now, even when PAX tires are working.

     

    The real danger of PAX comes in when one tire is blown. Your wife and children will have to ride in much smaller and less safe vehicles while waiting for the replacement tire to arrive.

     

    Then in a couple years, PAX tire will in all likelihood be surpassed by standardized run-flats, just like the TRX traction advantage was nullified and surpassed by regular tires less than three years after my old BMW came out.
  • First of all, you presume way too much. What makes you think that my wife and children will ride in smaller and less safe vehicles while waiting for my tire to come? First, you assume that the tire will not appear overnight, as promised. Second, you presume they will be driving in what, a Grand Am? Poor assumption. Even if the system doesn't work as promised, and you have not proven that it will not, and they need a car other than the very safe Audi sitting in the garage, then they will drive in something similar. I guess you are grasping at straws to prove your point regarding PAX shortcomings.

     

    You seem to feel that someone selecting PAX is uninformed, as foolish as your purchasing TRX, or for that matter, my purchasing TRX back in the early eighties. I replaced tires back then, and I didn't have to wait a week for them to arrive, as I hope you didn't. I've seen here that people on the road received their tires next day, as promised. So, what's the issue? I accept the potential of the perceived inconvenience, you don't. Fine.

     

    Besides, I never said safety at all costs, go back and read what I said. I said, to each his own. I said that PAX is a superior technology, and that I am willing to pay a premium to receive that technology. I also said Heywoods Dunlops seemed like a viable choice. I did not say they were a better choice.

     

    You have yet to show any data refuting the advantages that the auto reviewing professionals say PAX enjoys. If you don't think it's worth the extra cost, fine, you've voted with your pocket book. I guess I just feel that I don't mind the extra cost for extra value, or in this case, margin of safety. Different circumstance, maybe I say no.

     

    Do you really want to argue about AWD and its advantages? It has nothing to do with my suggestion that I was willing to pay for this safety upgrade.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    You may as well give up. These forums tend to attract people who just want to argue.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    Just like you?
Sign In or Register to comment.