My point was that her car would clean up the tires slowly when they were on the rear... So she doesn't need a new set of tires, unless there was something about the tires causing the problem.
I am making an EBay purchase today of a 1999 Lexus GS400 (Alpine Silver) and will be selling my Accord. In your opinion will the 17" MBMotoring 747 wheels with the Yoko Avid V4S that you recommended for my Accord look good on the Lexus (it currently has the 16" factory alloys)? I believe they have the same lug pattern and distance between lug holes. I may just put them on the Lexus and buy some basic tires for the OEM wheels to put on the Accord to sell it.
But, even if the bolt pattern is the same, you still have to worry about the offset.. This is the distance that the mounting plate on the wheel is offset from the centerline... It is expressed in millimeters.. Usually somewhere between 20 and 50...
That is where the clearance issues usually come in..
I appreciate the response. I looked up the '99 GS400 at Discount Tire Direct and the wheels they showed that fit this car had offset ranges between 35 and 50 millimeters. I am pretty certain that my MB 747's were withing that range.
I've racked my brain for 2 days trying to figure something out.
The only thing I can think of is a resonant - like a bell ringing: The tire gets impacted - the tire resonates dimensionally - as the footprint is affected by the resonance it loses traction - the suspension jumps.
Steel belts? - well.....they are steel, so they would not stretch length wise. May be width wise stretch, but the belts criss-cross, so the deformation of the belts would be small and I think the inflation pressure would immediately cause the belt to go back to its original position. So I don't like this as an operating theory.
The more I think about it, the more I like the resonance theory.
Either what cariracer said, or, more plausibly to me, the shocks were heated past working temp. or the shock oil was foamed. No shock damping would cause that. At those speeds the shocks would be severely overloaded with such an input.
I think the oil foam would be the best explaination, as it would take a few minutes to dissipate, and I'm not sure one hit would heat the shocks enough.
More like a better guess? I have noticed this effect, BTW, after thinking it over. I love to take gravel "backroads" at speed, and over the years have been "surprized" by rather large potholes from time to time. The vehicle often takes several seconds to "recover", and before recovering it does seem to "ring". I still think it's the shock oil foamed up, reducing shock effectiveness. It's happened to me with bias ply tires (with tubes inside ) and steel belted radials.
This might be way off topic, but it seems to me a nexus; given the interelatedness of the tires in the suspension system. Other than shocks and struts leaking, the number one reason for shocks and struts not performing is the conventional suspension oil being worn out. If the shocks and struts were made to be reuseable/rechargeable it would seem to be a better design, especially given its the oil that fades far faster than the actual physical parts.
Are you sure the oil is failing? Seems to me the rubber seals and wear of the body in the shock would be the most likely failure point, particularly the seals around the valving and the piston. Oil failure is usually due to breakdown of the molecular structure by heat and catylist action. The heat required is much greater than any shock can stand.
All shocks I've ever had to replace were worn out due to leaking around the seals. Most "rebuildable" shocks are rebuildable to replace seals and adjust valving, not to replace oil. If you're interested enough you can purchase the rebuildable type. They are rather expensive though.
..."Other than shocks and struts leaking, the number one reason for shocks and struts not performing is the conventional suspension oil being worn out."...
Given the prior post, yes. Rebuildable ones are indeed more expensive, but I think it is because the majority of the market ARE disposable shocks. I also would think that shock body damage is pretty rare.
I talked with a colleague of mine who used to be a shock engineer. He said that what usually wears out in a shock is the oil seal - which is some form of elastomer (rubber, but not the same stuff as for tires).
He also said it is common for the oil to become contaminated by the stuff that is rubbed off during the shock's travel - rubber bits, metal - and some people interpret this as the oil being worn out.
I ask about our scenario with the tree limb, and he doesn't think the shock is the source of the bounce. He leans more towards the spring binding, and maybe the spring coming out of its perch.
Hi, I'm looking at buying a 2003 outback that will need new tires. I heard the bridgestone potenza's are not fantastic, any recommendations? I will be driving in all conditions, lots of snow, and would prefer a year-round tire as I have no place to store winter ones. Thanks!
We just bought an '05 Outback Limited in January which came with Bridgestone Potenza's. After 1,500 kms., the ride was so rough and "twitchy" my wife wanted her old '97 Outback returned.(which had Michelin X-Ones) After some researching, we switched them for Bridgestone Turanza LS-H tires. They are more expensive, but the improved ride and handling made the Outback into a totally different car. They are terrific in the rain, and handled the snow around Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe just fine. Enjoy the Outback!
I've heard the Michelin Pilot hx mxm4 tires that come on the 2006 Hyundai Sonata are really awful in rain and snow. Does anyone know anything about this? We're picking ours up in a couple of days, and we live where there's a good amount of rain and a whole lot of snow. Thanks... Greuper
On Michelins site it's rated at 10 for snow. It's rated at 10 for wet traction.
My Harmony tires were rated 9. Should be great in snow. It looks a little like the X-0ne used to look. After the tread wears down more than half way, there may not be as much siping left and that lowers the snow grip substantially.
Have these on my Sentra,'03, and the car rides like a different car since I put them on. The Poortenza RE-92's were horrible tires and didn't last past 11.5k miles!
Thank you. I checked out the link and it made me feel better about the tires. The Tire Rack survey was much less positive. I guess I'll have to drive the car to find out for sure. Really appreciate your help. Greuper
Despite what Michelin says, let me give you some FIRSTHAND experience with this tire.
I've got these tires as OEM 17" for my Mazda 6. After 12K miles on these tires, I can comfirm your rumor.
Dry traction is okay at best, but they will squeal easily if you push them hard. Not very confidence inspiring at all.
Wet traction is terrible! From a dead stop, it's hard NOT to have them slip on wet pavement. Cornering in wet pavement should be taken with great caution, as they break traction much sooner than in dry conditions. I know all tires do, but not to this extent! There's little hydroplaning on the highway, but as the tread wears, it's only getting worse.
Snow driving should be avoided at all cost! Living in upstate NY, when we sometimes measure snowstorm totals in feet instead of inches, tires with great traction are crucial. With 1" of snow, and the tires having only 4K miles on them, my traction control light almost stays on. With slushy snow or ice, there's barely any traction through turns, and stopping for a red light gets scary! They were so bad, I bought a set of snow tires and wheels after the first snowstorm last year.
Granted, I sometimes like to drive aggressively, but I have these problems with the Michelins when I'm on my best behavior as well.
Michelin rates their tires based on other tires they sell in the same class. Yeah, they rate well in wet and snow traction, but it's only against other Michelin-made tires in the same performance class, and the numbers are skewed at best. Not to mention they're trying to sell you as well. Do you really think Michelin would give bad ratings to their own tires? If you want more accurate, real-world ratings, trust what tirerack.com has to say about them. Last time they checked, they were at the BOTTOM in the grand-touring tire class ratings, based on customer comments and Tirerack testing as well.
Why do manufacturers use them? Simple, they're cheap. You want proof? Michelin sells my size tire for $187 A PIECE, while others in this class average about $50-$90 cheaper! In other words, Michelin basically GIVES them away to automakers to put on their cars, and then relies on suckers that will pay the outrageous price to maintain the OEM tires. I believe Mazda only pays $40 per tire to use them on the 6.
If you still want the Sonata, insist that they install different tires as part of the deal. I'd look at the Bridgestone Turanza for a replacement. They get high ratings, and they're less expensive.
Hankooks are OEM on some Ford F150's. A friend bought them and swore by them. They make performance tires, like the Ventus series. They also make cheap horrible tires. It's all which tires you choose. I like Kumhos, also a Korean tire, which are sold by Sears, TireRack etc. and which are rated by Consumer Reports.
Mainly there is a lot of markup in Hankook and Kumhos at retail tire stores. Compare the prices for Kumho's on Tirerack vs. the prices at retail stores. Retail stores can sell Kumho's for less than mainline makes, but still pocket more money. You should make sure more of the savings end up in your pocket - either get a great price, after researching the tire you are looking for, or get a mainline tire for a little more. (Think: Costco)
To vppc, thankyou, thank you! For warning me about those Douglas Touring. I was actually copnsidering buying apair! But I was suspicious....I am still looking at review and tire ads. You might want to consider a set of Cooper Touring SLE or the Touring STE. Right now Benny's has your size in the SLE on sale for $104 plus balancing, stems(if needed), taxes. They are 215-60VR16. I just noticed that this is a little over your budget(I was looking at a different size when I first priced it).I just noticed that they have the Lifeliner Classic 215-60SR16 for $75 plus. Tomorrow I am buying a pair to replace worn down dry rotted Toyo Spectrums(these might be a consideration-but price?) I wanted the SLE's but they do not have my size. frederick2
Thanks! I'm buying a used car which needs all the tires replaced, if the dealer does this for me they will prob. be hankooks (she didn't specify which exact tires) I told her to hold off on replacing them so I can chose the tires I want, or at least research them. I didn't want new potenzas put on as I have heard many bad things.
I was thinking it would be better for me to get the dealer to replace them before I bought since their cost of new tires would be much lower than mine. Of course they will try to pass it along to me in the price of the car but hopefully not as much mark-up??
I will be so glad when I have a car again and don't have to worry about this stuff!
I don't think they're prices are much lower than what you and I pay for them. Most dealers either get tires from their parts dept (esp. GM and Ford who have been promoting tire sales recently) or they get tires from a local distributor, the same place the neighborhood tire joint gets theirs from.
Dealers also make a TON of $$$$ on accessory sales, like custom wheels and tires, spoilers, tinted windows, car alarms, etc, etc. Make sure you know what they're charging you before you buy.
When I was doing some tire shopping this summer, my local GMC dealer had competitive pricing on Michelin, Bridgestone and Goodyear but they're prices were not out of this world. I ended up buying Firestone's with a rebate that brought the per tire price a good bit below my dealers price. It pays to shop around.
I'll post 3 reason why you should NOT have a vehicle dealer put new tires on a used vehicle you are considering purchasing:
1) Tire manufacturer's warranties apply to the original purchaser - which would not be you. Also you may be able to purchase road hazard insurance at a tire dealer, if that's important to you.
2) If you wait a bit to determine what the vehicle is doing, you'll be in a better position to select appropriate tires For example, you may not like the noise level, and this would be good information to have.
3) If you have a problem with the tires - a vibration for instance - then being the purchaser of the tires gives you leverage with the tire dealer - something you would not have if the vehicle dealer bought the tires.
Even if it costs you $10 more per tire, isn't it worth $40 to be able to control your own destiny? I think so.
My advice would be to use the wornout tires as a bargaining point on the price of the vehicle.
I have a set on my 97 Accord. After fixing a problem with my suspension, they have been very quiet, offer a smooth ride and great handling. The problem is that they seem to leak air to a higher degree than other tires. I wonder if others are experiencing the same problem. Although my stock alloys with 150K could be part of the problem. Thanks
I have a set on my 97 Accord. After fixing a problem with my suspension, they have been very quiet, offer a smooth ride and great handling. The problem is that they seem to leak air to a higher degree than other tires. I wonder if others are experiencing the same problem. Although my stock alloys with 150K could be part of the problem. Thanks
I would have the bead area of the rims checked and cleaned. Older alloy rims can oxidize at the bead area and causel slow leaks, especailly around the wheel weights. Also check your valve stems and cores to make sure they are tight.
Once a significant wear pattern sets in a tire, it will not completely smooth out. Also, the low spots will hit the minimum wear out point before the rest of the tread does.
I did. Love them. Greatly reduced noise, and I am not comparing old tires to new. They really are nice driving and smooth. I am impressed with the way the car takes curves and cloverleafs. But you pay. My mileage went from 28 to 26 on the highway and 20 to 18 in town. Not a huge deal to a 10-11K mile annual driver like me. I prefer less noise to a mile or two less per gallon. I do feel better about my car now, so I will hang on to it a few more years rather than trade for a new one, so maybe the Comfortreds are saving me money??Probably should have stuck with Michelin Harmony, like I have on the other car, but what the heck. Even my passengers who don't normally pay attention to such things as car noise took notice. Next tire rotation I may switch out the Harmonys with the Comfortreds and take each car for a test drive. [they wear the same size, both GM, 225/16/60] I guess I need to get a life....but tires do interest me.
I like a tire with a very meaty tread design and which ride quietly and comfortably. I found exactly what I wanted in the Bridgestone Turanza LS-T's. They work for me!
I have a '93 Tercel and I'll need to replace the tires soon and I'm looking for some input. I have a set of store brand all seasons on the car now, but they're horrible in the snow. I don't know if it's because of the tires, because the vehicle is so light, or a combination of the two. I'm looking for a set of all season tires that are good in the snow while still having at least a 50K mileage rating. Know of anything? Thanks.
I went for the Harmony by Michelin. They have a really tough bite in the snow. I put them on after the 16 inch snow at Christmas. They had more bite than the XH4s that I had before on another car. They should last 80-100K by the sidewall rating. My experience with Michelin mileage is that they overperform by 10-25%.
Discount Tires had a similar tread Agility by Michelin.
It's the tires. Light vehicles perform well in snow as less traction is required to accellerate, either sideways (turning) or forward (speeding up) or back (braking).
You can also look at the Nokian WR. I think it's rated for 60k miles. It works very well in rain, snow, and ice, and doesn't wear rapidly on dry "summer" pavement. I love mine.
I guess tires are like shoes. Everyone has their favorite brand. I decided long ago I can't afford to buy cheap things; it costs too much to fix the problems they cause. So I pick quality. A friend has Omega tires on her car. They give good mileage and are a quality private manufacture brand (check internet) that Tire Discounters near us carries.
I buy based on what the tread looks like for snow traction for those 3 or 4 good snows we sometimes get. Go showroom to showroom and physically inspect the tires and gauge them for dig capability.
I guess tires are like shoes. Everyone has their favorite brand. I decided long ago I can't afford to buy cheap things; it costs too much to fix the problems they cause. So I pick quality. A friend has Omega tires on her car. They give good mileage and are a quality private manufacture brand (check internet) that Tire Discounters near us carries.
I buy based on what the tread looks like for snow traction for those 3 or 4 good snows we sometimes get. Go showroom to showroom and physically inspect the tires and gauge them for dig capability.
I've bought some regular brands lower than top quality for cars I was going to trade in a few months and the difference showed.
I am thinking about putting on Bridgestone Dueler HL Alenza on my 2001 GMC Yukon XL Denali. The size is 265/70-17. I was looking to see if anyone has had any experieces with these tires and could give me feedback on them. They were recommended to me over the Michlein Cross Terrains.
I have the Bridgestones Duelers AT Revos. (275 70 16)They are probably better than or at least pretty neck and neck with the Michelin LTX's they replaced.
I also have the Yokohama Geolander HTS G051's but have yet to mount them on another vlehicle. I'm guessing the HL Alenza are the highway version of the AT Revos. So if they are, they are pretty primo.
I figured that...unbelievable tire! On the pricey side, but well worth the $ to me. My Sentra never drove so well. Will probaly put them on the 3 when it needs new rubber...or some from of it. Maybe the LS-H.
what are good and bad numbers? I had my two front 15,000 mileage Kumho tires done- both rims passed radial (up and down) runouts were .005 and .008. the road force with the tires was 17 pounds on one tire - rated as a pass and on the 2nd tire was 26 pounds, rated "marginal" for the tire but the tire/wheel assembly was a "pass" . 1. are these numbers good or bad? 2. what do you pay for a road force hunter 9700 machine balance? Nissan dealer in So Carolina want $40 per tire (!!) Infiniti dealer wants $35 per tire
Comments
My point was that her car would clean up the tires slowly when they were on the rear... So she doesn't need a new set of tires, unless there was something about the tires causing the problem.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I also welcome anyone else's opinion.
But, even if the bolt pattern is the same, you still have to worry about the offset.. This is the distance that the mounting plate on the wheel is offset from the centerline... It is expressed in millimeters.. Usually somewhere between 20 and 50...
That is where the clearance issues usually come in..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Ahhhh..........vibrate?
Yup, just vibrate. But if you fix the alignment and do a rotation, you'll probably not experience that.
Apparently, he has some personal problems that will keep him away from the Forums ... at least for now.
tidester, host
shl72953, "Toyota Highlander" #10141, 21 Jul 2005 8:30 pm
Steve, Host
I've racked my brain for 2 days trying to figure something out.
The only thing I can think of is a resonant - like a bell ringing: The tire gets impacted - the tire resonates dimensionally - as the footprint is affected by the resonance it loses traction - the suspension jumps.
Steel belts? - well.....they are steel, so they would not stretch length wise. May be width wise stretch, but the belts criss-cross, so the deformation of the belts would be small and I think the inflation pressure would immediately cause the belt to go back to its original position. So I don't like this as an operating theory.
The more I think about it, the more I like the resonance theory.
I think the oil foam would be the best explaination, as it would take a few minutes to dissipate, and I'm not sure one hit would heat the shocks enough.
lol, I'm glad I was able to give you and Pathstar1 a project to chew on. :-)
Steve, Host
I like the bottoming of the shock theory better than my "bell ringing" theory.
[He said, humbly bowing to superior intellect.]
Yes, I'm old.
All shocks I've ever had to replace were worn out due to leaking around the seals. Most "rebuildable" shocks are rebuildable to replace seals and adjust valving, not to replace oil. If you're interested enough you can purchase the rebuildable type. They are rather expensive though.
Given the prior post, yes. Rebuildable ones are indeed more expensive, but I think it is because the majority of the market ARE disposable shocks. I also would think that shock body damage is pretty rare.
He also said it is common for the oil to become contaminated by the stuff that is rubbed off during the shock's travel - rubber bits, metal - and some people interpret this as the oil being worn out.
I ask about our scenario with the tree limb, and he doesn't think the shock is the source of the bounce. He leans more towards the spring binding, and maybe the spring coming out of its perch.
I will be driving in all conditions, lots of snow, and would prefer a year-round tire as I have no place to store winter ones. Thanks!
After some researching, we switched them for Bridgestone Turanza LS-H tires. They are more expensive, but the improved ride and handling made the Outback into a totally different car. They are terrific in the rain, and handled the snow around Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe just fine.
Enjoy the Outback!
Doug
Every one I know who owns them raves about them.
Sly
Greuper
On Michelins site it's rated at 10 for snow. It's rated at 10 for wet traction.
My Harmony tires were rated 9. Should be great in snow. It looks a little like the X-0ne used to look. After the tread wears down more than half way, there may not be as much siping left and that lowers the snow grip substantially.
I don't find an hx version for this tire. You can use the pulldown menu labeled Find a Specific Tire at the right to check for various versions of tires.
http://www.michelinman.com/catalog/index_5.html?source=homepage
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Sandman
I've got these tires as OEM 17" for my Mazda 6. After 12K miles on these tires, I can comfirm your rumor.
Dry traction is okay at best, but they will squeal easily if you push them hard. Not very confidence inspiring at all.
Wet traction is terrible! From a dead stop, it's hard NOT to have them slip on wet pavement. Cornering in wet pavement should be taken with great caution, as they break traction much sooner than in dry conditions. I know all tires do, but not to this extent! There's little hydroplaning on the highway, but as the tread wears, it's only getting worse.
Snow driving should be avoided at all cost! Living in upstate NY, when we sometimes measure snowstorm totals in feet instead of inches, tires with great traction are crucial. With 1" of snow, and the tires having only 4K miles on them, my traction control light almost stays on. With slushy snow or ice, there's barely any traction through turns, and stopping for a red light gets scary! They were so bad, I bought a set of snow tires and wheels after the first snowstorm last year.
Granted, I sometimes like to drive aggressively, but I have these problems with the Michelins when I'm on my best behavior as well.
Michelin rates their tires based on other tires they sell in the same class. Yeah, they rate well in wet and snow traction, but it's only against other Michelin-made tires in the same performance class, and the numbers are skewed at best. Not to mention they're trying to sell you as well. Do you really think Michelin would give bad ratings to their own tires? If you want more accurate, real-world ratings, trust what tirerack.com has to say about them. Last time they checked, they were at the BOTTOM in the grand-touring tire class ratings, based on customer comments and Tirerack testing as well.
Why do manufacturers use them? Simple, they're cheap. You want proof? Michelin sells my size tire for $187 A PIECE, while others in this class average about $50-$90 cheaper! In other words, Michelin basically GIVES them away to automakers to put on their cars, and then relies on suckers that will pay the outrageous price to maintain the OEM tires. I believe Mazda only pays $40 per tire to use them on the 6.
If you still want the Sonata, insist that they install different tires as part of the deal. I'd look at the Bridgestone Turanza for a replacement. They get high ratings, and they're less expensive.
Good luck.
Mainly there is a lot of markup in Hankook and Kumhos at retail tire stores. Compare the prices for Kumho's on Tirerack vs. the prices at retail stores. Retail stores can sell Kumho's for less than mainline makes, but still pocket more money. You should make sure more of the savings end up in your pocket - either get a great price, after researching the tire you are looking for, or get a mainline tire for a little more. (Think: Costco)
I was thinking it would be better for me to get the dealer to replace them before I bought since their cost of new tires would be much lower than mine. Of course they will try to pass it along to me in the price of the car but hopefully not as much mark-up??
I will be so glad when I have a car again and don't have to worry about this stuff!
Dealers also make a TON of $$$$ on accessory sales, like custom wheels and tires, spoilers, tinted windows, car alarms, etc, etc. Make sure you know what they're charging you before you buy.
When I was doing some tire shopping this summer, my local GMC dealer had competitive pricing on Michelin, Bridgestone and Goodyear but they're prices were not out of this world. I ended up buying Firestone's with a rebate that brought the per tire price a good bit below my dealers price. It pays to shop around.
1) Tire manufacturer's warranties apply to the original purchaser - which would not be you. Also you may be able to purchase road hazard insurance at a tire dealer, if that's important to you.
2) If you wait a bit to determine what the vehicle is doing, you'll be in a better position to select appropriate tires For example, you may not like the noise level, and this would be good information to have.
3) If you have a problem with the tires - a vibration for instance - then being the purchaser of the tires gives you leverage with the tire dealer - something you would not have if the vehicle dealer bought the tires.
Even if it costs you $10 more per tire, isn't it worth $40 to be able to control your own destiny? I think so.
My advice would be to use the wornout tires as a bargaining point on the price of the vehicle.
Hope this helps.
The problem is that they seem to leak air to a higher degree than other tires. I wonder if others are experiencing the same problem. Although my stock alloys with 150K could be part of the problem.
Thanks
The problem is that they seem to leak air to a higher degree than other tires. I wonder if others are experiencing the same problem. Although my stock alloys with 150K could be part of the problem.
Thanks
I do feel better about my car now, so I will hang on to it a few more years rather than trade for a new one, so maybe the Comfortreds are saving me money??Probably should have stuck with Michelin Harmony, like I have on the other car, but what the heck. Even my passengers who don't normally pay attention to such things as car noise took notice.
Next tire rotation I may switch out the Harmonys with the Comfortreds and take each car for a test drive. [they wear the same size, both GM, 225/16/60] I guess I need to get a life....but tires do interest me.
The Sandman
Discount Tires had a similar tread Agility by Michelin.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You can also look at the Nokian WR. I think it's rated for 60k miles. It works very well in rain, snow, and ice, and doesn't wear rapidly on dry "summer" pavement. I love mine.
I buy based on what the tread looks like for snow traction for those 3 or 4 good snows we sometimes get. Go showroom to showroom and physically inspect the tires and gauge them for dig capability.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I buy based on what the tread looks like for snow traction for those 3 or 4 good snows we sometimes get. Go showroom to showroom and physically inspect the tires and gauge them for dig capability.
I've bought some regular brands lower than top quality for cars I was going to trade in a few months and the difference showed.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I also have the Yokohama Geolander HTS G051's but have yet to mount them on another vlehicle. I'm guessing the HL Alenza are the highway version of the AT Revos. So if they are, they are pretty primo.
The Sandman