I have driven a MB e320 with oem Michelins and with the Continental ContiExtremes and it is literally like night and day. The next tire in line would be the Falken Ziex ZE 512's, Bridgestone G009 seem like a pretty good tire also.
I have also driven a BMW 330i with Bridgestone Turanza's vs Michelin Pilot Sports A/S and again while probably rated a bit higher than H rated tires, the word sticky comes to mind, and a "tad" more expensive it that makes a difference.
thanx for the advice. It's between the Conti's and the Falken's. Falken's are tempting because of the cheapness factor, but i dunno how they will be in the long term.
I had Avid Tourings on my '98 Mitsubishi Diamante. They were quiet and comfortable. However, I thought the sidewalls were too soft in corners and their traction in the wet wasn't the best. I had unusual wear and paid for a 4-wheel alignment that turned out to be largely unnecessary. Back to the tire dealer and they ultimately gave me a pro-rated refund on three of the four tires as defects (tread separations).
The replacement tires I got were the Pirelli P3000 Cinturato which were firmer handling and better in the rain than the Avid Touring. One trade-off was a slight increase in road noise. I'd buy the P3000's again but probably not the Avid Touring.
After looking at the Yoks on the Tire Rack web site, it appears the Avid Tourers and the Avid T4's are very similar tires. The Tourers are "S" rated, while the T4's are "T" rated tires. Both tires seem to be getting good reviews by their owners, with the T4's getting slightly better reviews. Since these tires will be replacing the "H" rated OEM Dunlops on my MPV, I may want to consider the T4's as they would have a bit stiffer sidewall. I don't want "H" rated tires as replacements. The sidewalls are actually too stiff and the ride is harsh. I want a smoother riding, quieter tire.
are the self leveling rear shocks the stiffest shocks on the market? i would like to stop some of the roll around corners, without replacing the rear springs.
I have these tires, 225-60-16, on a 97 Grand Prix and after 7k they have been good. Very good dry and wet traction and decent in light snow. Cornering is better than the OE Eagle LS's. I do not think sidewalls are too soft. No noticeable tire wear. Good quiet firm ride. Car handles very good with them. A great value!
I recently put a set of the Yokohama Avid V4S 215/50/17 on my '03 Accord and I am very happy with them. IMO they handle well in both wet and dry conditions and for a low profile tire they ride reasonably well and are quiet. I have only had them on the car for 1,500 miles but at this point I am totally satisfied. I probably gave up some cornering ability for more treadwear with these tires but that is exactly what I wanted and only time will tell.
the supercharged one...pretty much fun. I'm probably going to do Falken Azenis Sports or Yokohama Parada Spec 2s...I want a LOW treadwear rating and a radical outer contact patch.
I won't do 2 sets of tires and wheels, I prefer to buy sticky tires that last a year or so, and not hassle with carting another set of tires to the races every weekend.
After several weeks of research, I finally resolved to purchase a set of the Kumho KW11 snow tires for our Mazda MPV. I had already priced a set mounted on steel wheels from TireRack and went in to order today (12/16/04). Much to my chagrin and disappointment, they have run out of stock and don't plan to reorder! Does anyone know of any comparable outfits (in quality and pricing) that you know of that carries those Kumhos KW11's and steel wheels (and does the mounting/balancing)? I have done some "googling" this morning and cannot seem to find a place that carries that tire!
I'm getting new tires installed on my '03 Infiniti G35 Coupe tomorrow, which hasn't had an alignment job since it left the factory but which doesn't currently pull or give any wear indications on the old tires that it needs one.
The installer (surprise) is highly recommending I get an alignment done, however. Any thoughts?
I would agree with Driftracer as a general rule, once a year is good! It sets a baseline every year! So for most folks that is 12,000-15,000 miles. However personally I am conflicted about it. On the one hand a base line is good. However, you CAN get the guy that really doesnt know how to align, or what specifications are correct for your car, tires, your driving??
Part of why I am conflicted is I have a Corvette Z06 that can be (aligned) set up for almost any type of situation, and there is a structural situation that "the by the book specifications" will in fact cause more inner tire wear. This is ok if you know about it before hand, don't care or just want the stock 1.09 G performance, but normally folks find out when it is too far gone to do anything about. I found out quite early and basically have 4 years and 67,000 miles of wear on it. The oem tires normally give out before 25,000 I got 56,000 miles with 3/32 left(enough for peeling the track for a day!) Not a big deal for some to replace a set of 1400 dollar tires early. I am also on track at 45,000 miles on a VW Jetta TDI to do 85-95,000 miles on crappy oem tires and I have yet to align it, for the wear is very even across the tread.
You can get yourself a set of calipers (if you have them already even better) or even a three dollar WalMart tread gauge and take three measurements, outer, middle, inner. Those numbers and/or tire rotations also will tell you if the wear is even or not. Then you can decide from the evidence.
I got a 3 year alignment policy for both our cars from Tires Plus for $79. plus 3 free oil and filter changes, a special they had going on. I get the cars checked now every 6 months or so, and I like the piece of mind...sorta like a cheap insurance policy.
The wife and kids always seem to be hitting curbs and those few potholes we get down in South Florida, so it is well worth it to get this policy for us!
I had a Sear's "lifetime" warranty that I paid 75 dollars for and literally ran 250,000 miles, and had the tires; balanced,rotated, and 2/4 wheel aligned every 5,000 miles, or app 50 times or 3-5 times per year. Basically, I should have kept the car because each 5,000 miles in effect cost me 1.50 each time, for rotation, balance, and alignment! (retail value of app 60-100 dollars each time) :)Sears uses and has used the Hunter systems both for alignment and tire balancing. Needless to say they've been close to the state of the art for the past 18 years. Again this is a part that adds to the conflict. To say that this was NOT a DEAL would be utterly bizarre! Even with this type of rotation and balancing and alignment, the tires actually lasted a fair to a good bit shorter than some or most cars I have now that have almost literally been ignored by the above description.!!?? Any explanation from the gurus????? To help put things in context!
I also had this on my '88 Corolla FX and I surely got my moneys worth...and then some, for the 9 plus years that I owned the car. As I recall, I paid $89. for the policy.
Also, some vehicles CAN'T be "aligned" other than front wheel toe in (such as a Pathfinder). If it's not pulling or wearing the tires an alignment check is a waste of money! Four wheel alignments also seem to me a waste of money unless you have a performance vehicle such as my 93 RX-7. If you have a rear solid axle housing and no adjustment points all they do is tell you it's out (happened to me with a 90 4Runner).
So what I get from this, given my own experiences and also from some of the gurus and other folks experiences is that even baseline alignments, i.e. a policy of once very 6 mos 12 months etc can be a waste. So a good set of calipers or 3 dollar Wallymart special tire gauges or even white chalk board chalk might be good tools to use.
Although, I must admit that getting a 4 wheel balance rotation and alignment for 1.50 a pop was probably a good deal! :)Abeit: unnecessary.
Here's the kicker - my 2001 Pathfinder steering linkage is very simple. The rack and pinion connects directly to the two front wheels - no "idler arm", no second rod interconnecting the wheels. So did they build the right/left steering compensation into the rack and pinion box? I'm talking of the need to have the inside wheel turn more than the outside wheel due to a smaller turn radius. Maybe the vehicle doesn't have this compensation built in. It seems to steer/handle very well. At least for a 4300 lb vehicle. I tend to "play" on winding roads a lot, so I know it handles well. It doesn't seem to scuff the tires more than any other vehicle I've owned.
What you are describing is called "ackerman". (There are some variations in the spelling.) In your case, it is controlled by the angle of the steering arms attached to your front hubs.
Here's the complication: If you go through all the math and computer simulations, you'll find that for a given speed and a given radius turn, there is one "perfect" akerman setting. Take that setting and you can develop a "speed vs turn radius" curve that describes how the vehicle was designed. Stray too far from that curve and you could wind up with tires that wear funny and some handling issues.
As a general rule, most cars are designed for highway driving (mostly large radius curves), so most cars may problems when operated in the city, (tight corners) or when driven hard. Interestingly, these 2 conditions require the opposite "correction". Tight corners requires more akerman and aggressive, high speed driving requires less.
Just found it rather shocking when I first saw how simple the linkage was. Two joints only in the whole steering system. Less to fail for sure, and I see my double "A" arms are involved as you describe. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Ah...no...Ah...not the A arms. They hold the ball joints
I was talking about the steering link that comes off the hub that is connected to the tie rod ends. Imagine a line between the 2 ball joints. If you imagine another line thru the tie rod end and thru the 1st imaginary line, parallel to the ground, then that line will determine the "akerman". If the line is pointed straight ahead, then you have "Zero Akerman", also know as parallel steer. My E-150 has that and when I turn a sharp corner, you can sometimes hear the one tire being dragged.
Simple to check. Any alignment machine will give a reading of toe out on turns or turning radius, aka Ackermann angle. It's one of the primary measurement angles.
Hmm, I know several people with 1994-200? S10s and Sonomas that complain of the tires squealing during low speed turns. Sounds like the ackerman angle is to blame!
As far as alignments go, I got a four-wheel alignment when I purchased my used 2002 Altima (former rental car). The front was barely out of whack, the rear was out very badly. Thankfully, both were adjustable. It's been about 8 months since I last had it aligned. Does Sears still do lifetime alignment warranties?
I need to get a new set of tires for my wife's Toyota Avalon. It has Michelin MXV4s on it from the factory, but I'm not going to pay the price for new Michelins, especially since the stock tires are almost worn out at 35,000 miles.
For my wife's Avalon, I am more interested in a smooth, quiet ride and decent rain and snow performance than I am in dry handling. I want all-season tires that are good at everything. She has the XLS model, which has 205-60-16 tires.
The tires I am considering are the Falken ZE-512 (about $60 per tire), Yokohama Avid H4 or T4 ($70), Kumho ECSTA HP4 ($60), and Goodyear Assurance ComforTred ($95).
Can anyone offer advice about tires for my wife's Avalon?
Wow! This discussion on wheel alignment makes me feel like I walked into the advanced physics course in college when I should be in Wheel Alignment 101. I need to take the prerequisite!
This is a duplicate of my topic in N&V, it's big news IMHO.
Anyone with more than a couple of years behind the wheel can attest to the fact that tires are one of the most maintenence intensive parts of any modern automomobile, mostly becauise they contain air under pressure.
Now comes Michelin, the inventor of the pnuematic tire with a new product the "Twheel" that functions without the need for air.
I would not want them due to the performance penalty and the relatively short 50 mile range in case of "flats".
Some long term disadvantages vs the short "WHAT IF" 50 mile range: 1 higher cost 2. rougher ride 3 higher wear 4. less performance 5. If you run them the advertised range, the tires are shot anyway. (vs ability to repair cheaply most non run flat "flats", to be reused)
Some models of Corvette's have had so called run flats for a number of years. I think they were adopted because on the Corvette, carrying a spare was not in the cards.
Read the article, these aren't "run-flats". They are non-pneumatic tires w no need for air, ever!
I'm sure Michelin is hard at work solving the noise problem which was the only problem noted by the tester. I for one think it's high time someone transcended the necessity for each vehicle to contain five* separate vessels of compressed air and the attendant problems associated with it.
*I'm counting the spare which of course would be rendered unnecessary.
I've read a few articles about it (as well as prototype polyurethane wheels, etc.). They still have some of the same issues as run-flats; in addition to the noise that you mention, there's availability, expense, ride quality, load capacity etc.
Change is good, but I don't think these alternatives are going to take over in the very near future.
You're no doubt right, non-pneumatic tires aren't going to be on your next car. There's a lot of research to be done and bugs to workout but if it's being looked into seriously by Michelin I have no doubt that it will happen in our lifetimes.
There are some truck and SUV owners who wouldn't like being able to air down for the beach and air up for pulling the boat or camper. Not to mention the high mpg hobbyists who like their tires rock hard.
Don't forget, off-road rollerbladers went back to pneumatic tires!
Slashdot picked up your Tweel story. This was an interesting link someone posted - apparently you won't be able to cruise very fast through the Ozarks. <g>
The Yokohama Geolanders that come with the Forester are not very sticky or grippy. I'm interested in any reports from Forester drivers using more performance-oriented tires such as the Dunlop SP 5000 or the Yokohama AVS dB S2. Thanks.
"For my wife's Avalon, I am more interested in a smooth, quiet ride and decent rain and snow performance than I am in dry handling. I want all-season tires that are good at everything. She has the XLS model, which has 205-60-16 tires."
I have posted a tire report on the Goodyear Assurance Triple Tred on the 2005, Subaru board, Comment #5988.
I have an '03 Forester, and ditto my feelings on the Geolanders. I felt the traction was poor, hydro-planing was frequent, and in snow, I was experiencing slippage and too much of ABS kick in. So, I got dedicated snow tires, and later, traded in my Geolanders for Falken ZE-512 (about $60 per tire). I got $20 for each of the 4 Geolanders, and they took those with 5/32 of tread on them. Love the Falkens for non-winter driving. Try them, and you won't believe that its the same car.
Comments
I have also driven a BMW 330i with Bridgestone Turanza's vs Michelin Pilot Sports A/S and again while probably rated a bit higher than H rated tires, the word sticky comes to mind, and a "tad" more expensive it that makes a difference.
Will more than likely go for the Conti's.
The replacement tires I got were the Pirelli P3000 Cinturato which were firmer handling and better in the rain than the Avid Touring. One trade-off was a slight increase in road noise. I'd buy the P3000's again but probably not the Avid Touring.
The Sandman :-)
I won't do 2 sets of tires and wheels, I prefer to buy sticky tires that last a year or so, and not hassle with carting another set of tires to the races every weekend.
The installer (surprise) is highly recommending I get an alignment done, however. Any thoughts?
TIA.
If he's too expensive, you can always take it to Pep Boys or Midas, provided you don't get the "mechanic" who just finished high school.
Part of why I am conflicted is I have a Corvette Z06 that can be (aligned) set up for almost any type of situation, and there is a structural situation that "the by the book specifications" will in fact cause more inner tire wear. This is ok if you know about it before hand, don't care or just want the stock 1.09 G performance, but normally folks find out when it is too far gone to do anything about. I found out quite early and basically have 4 years and 67,000 miles of wear on it. The oem tires normally give out before 25,000 I got 56,000 miles with 3/32 left(enough for peeling the track for a day!) Not a big deal for some to replace a set of 1400 dollar tires early. I am also on track at 45,000 miles on a VW Jetta TDI to do 85-95,000 miles on crappy oem tires and I have yet to align it, for the wear is very even across the tread.
You can get yourself a set of calipers (if you have them already even better) or even a three dollar WalMart tread gauge and take three measurements, outer, middle, inner. Those numbers and/or tire rotations also will tell you if the wear is even or not. Then you can decide from the evidence.
The wife and kids always seem to be hitting curbs and those few potholes we get down in South Florida, so it is well worth it to get this policy for us!
The Sandman :-)
The Sandman :-)
Although, I must admit that getting a 4 wheel balance rotation and alignment for 1.50 a pop was probably a good deal! :)Abeit: unnecessary.
Here's the complication: If you go through all the math and computer simulations, you'll find that for a given speed and a given radius turn, there is one "perfect" akerman setting. Take that setting and you can develop a "speed vs turn radius" curve that describes how the vehicle was designed. Stray too far from that curve and you could wind up with tires that wear funny and some handling issues.
As a general rule, most cars are designed for highway driving (mostly large radius curves), so most cars may problems when operated in the city, (tight corners) or when driven hard. Interestingly, these 2 conditions require the opposite "correction". Tight corners requires more akerman and aggressive, high speed driving requires less.
Hope this helps.
I was talking about the steering link that comes off the hub that is connected to the tie rod ends. Imagine a line between the 2 ball joints. If you imagine another line thru the tie rod end and thru the 1st imaginary line, parallel to the ground, then that line will determine the "akerman". If the line is pointed straight ahead, then you have "Zero Akerman", also know as parallel steer. My E-150 has that and when I turn a sharp corner, you can sometimes hear the one tire being dragged.
Hope this helps.
I30s are like that
As far as alignments go, I got a four-wheel alignment when I purchased my used 2002 Altima (former rental car). The front was barely out of whack, the rear was out very badly. Thankfully, both were adjustable. It's been about 8 months since I last had it aligned. Does Sears still do lifetime alignment warranties?
For my wife's Avalon, I am more interested in a smooth, quiet ride and decent rain and snow performance than I am in dry handling. I want all-season tires that are good at everything. She has the XLS model, which has 205-60-16 tires.
The tires I am considering are the Falken ZE-512 (about $60 per tire), Yokohama Avid H4 or T4 ($70), Kumho ECSTA HP4 ($60), and Goodyear Assurance ComforTred ($95).
Can anyone offer advice about tires for my wife's Avalon?
Bob
Bob
Anyone with more than a couple of years behind the wheel can attest to the fact that tires are one of the most maintenence intensive parts of any modern automomobile, mostly becauise they contain air under pressure.
Now comes Michelin, the inventor of the pnuematic tire with a new product the "Twheel" that functions without the need for air.
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/03/automobiles/03cars.html?hp&ex=1- 104814800&en=2a3f53c91ba4bcc3&ei=5094&partner=homepag- - - - e
How cool is that, no more flats, slow leaks, blowouts or checking
tire pressures weekly?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Some folks are a bit resistant to proprietary run-flat tires:
Run-flat, self-sealing, PAX tires for Minivans
Steve, Host
Some long term disadvantages vs the short "WHAT IF" 50 mile range: 1 higher cost 2. rougher ride 3 higher wear 4. less performance 5. If you run them the advertised range, the tires are shot anyway. (vs ability to repair cheaply most non run flat "flats", to be reused)
Some models of Corvette's have had so called run flats for a number of years. I think they were adopted because on the Corvette, carrying a spare was not in the cards.
Steve, Host
I'm sure Michelin is hard at work solving the noise problem which was the only problem noted by the tester. I for one think it's high time someone transcended the necessity for each vehicle to contain five* separate vessels of compressed air and the attendant problems associated with it.
*I'm counting the spare which of course would be rendered unnecessary.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Change is good, but I don't think these alternatives are going to take over in the very near future.
Steve, Host
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Don't forget, off-road rollerbladers went back to pneumatic tires!
Steve, Host
Use of nonpneumatic tires
Steve, Host
I have posted a tire report on the Goodyear Assurance Triple Tred on the 2005, Subaru board, Comment #5988.
tidester, host