Let's start with a new tire. Both the tread pattern and the road surface interact to create noise. The problem here is that it is difficult to predict what the road surface macrotexture is, so a tire pattern can be optimized for it.
Clearly a smooth tire would be best for noise (there are some exceptions to this), but this would not be good for bad weather traction.
Given that a tire has to have both circumferential grooves (the most effective technique for hydroplaning) and lateral grooves and sipes for both wet traction and snow traction, it's a matter of choosing grooves and sipes that interact with the road surface in a way the spreads the noises being generated across a wide range of frequencies, thereby minimizing that peaks that would be heard as noise - a very difficult thing to do.
One of the techniques to minimize tire vibrations - which includes things that can be felt as well as heard - is pitch sequencing. If you look at the tread pattern of a tire, you will notice the size of the tread elemments varies in size around the circumference. The pattern is more or less random. This prevents a harmonic from being set up.
Now what about a worn tire? It is possble to wear a pattern into tire that will generate noise.
Vehicles like to have a bit of toe in so they feel stable. This toe in creates a bit of extra wear on tires that comes out as feathering and heel and toe. If allowed to grow, cupping and diagonal wear. Depending on the road surface, the amount of toe in, and the tread pattern (not to mention the tread compound), this wear pattern might be more auditory than tactile.
But feathering and heel and toe are normal wear mechanisms, so don't be fooled that if you have feathering, you have a problem. (Go out to your vehicles and rub the tires both directions. I'll bet that at least some of the tires, most likely the ones on the free rolling axles, will have sharpish edges rubbing one direction and not the other. THIS IS NORMAL!!!)
So to answer the question - It's basically tread pattern, but more time spent in research optimizing the tread pattern yields less noise generation. So it's also quality and price.
I have a 1999 buick regal LS with performance package. tire size 225/60/16. Need to replace set of michelin tires x-one that were with the car when I purchased the car last year. I really enjoyed the ride of the x-ones and would like some advice on what is a very good replacement tire. My car has the grand touring suspension package so I dont know if I need a performance tire vs. a touring tire. thanks for any advice.
Take a look at BF Goodrich Traction T/A series tires. I have some on a 2002 AWD Caravan Mini and love them. Great handling, quiet, long wearing, etc, etc
thanks for the info. follow-up, do either of the two tires mention(turanza/traction T) run quite? thats one of the nice features my buick has, a nice smooth,quite ride. thanks.
I'm considering a set of these Firestones for a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. I have always found Firestones to be by far the most satisfactory tires for my vehicles. In this case, I can get a very good sale price if I strike while the offer is in effect. Any commentary would be appreciated.
Second that on Bridgestone Turanza LS-H tires. Put them on our 2005 Subaru Outback Limited. Great ride, super handling in rain....and just fine in snow too.
Agreed with above... Make sure you get the specific Turanza model recommended for your car. Check out Tirerack.com, and they'll point you in the right direction.
Tires are indeed very quiet, and they're not as pricey as some of the competition either. They're the right choice for my money...
Since I bought the 2003 Odyssey, the van tends to pull to one side. The dealership has done several alignments and I also have Michelin replace two tires. Then, the dealership changed the camber bolt. These measures seem to solve the pulling problem. However, the pulling occurs again after the tire rotation recently. I also noticed that the two newer tires are now in the front when the van pulls to one side.
The Honda service said that I got bad tires again and I have to talk to Michelin's dealership. I went to Sears. They try to identify which tire is causing the problem. They then showed me that one wheel of the newer tires is wobbling. They said that the bent wheel is causing the pulling. Well, the Honda service doubt that the bent wheel is the cause.
Please advise what the cause is and what to do with that.
the RPM means how fast the engine is turning (that is, the crankshaft is spinning). So, a higher number means that the engine is working harder to maintain a certain speed.
It ties into mileage under the assumption that if it isn't running as fast, it will use less gas.
If we are talking about the tires/wheels then revs. per mile is the number of rotations of the wheel in one mile.
I don't think you can reliably correlate this number to fuel efficiency. There are too many other variables. For an extreme example, you can't mount Prius wheels on an SUV and expect to get 50 MPG!
What you can say is each time the wheel rotates once there is a certain loss of energy. Rotating it more often per mile on the same vehicle in the same conditions would loose more energy. If you changed the tire diameter, for example by going from a 50 series tire to a 70 series while keeping the other numbers on the tire the same, you would lower the number of revs. per mile. This would not necessarily improve mileage however.
First, tire rolling resistance (and therefore loss) varies by tire size and type.
Second, by changing the tire diameter, you in effect change the gearing (engine to road), and that can effect mileage (usually lower engine RPM will give better mileage but not always - for example you can get poorer mileage by "lugging" the engine). In general, if you don't stray too far from the stock values, increasing tire diameter can give you better mileage. Don't expect miracles however. You may see 5 to 10% if you are lucky. Remember, vehicle manufacturers are pressured to build units that give the "best mileage they can reasonably get", both by government regs. and by sales pressure. Improving on what the engineers worked for months on is possible, but there will be tradeoffs.
You can usually get slightly better mileage by increasing tire pressure a few PSI above the recommended value, but you will then probably wear the centre of the tread faster than the sides, decreasing tire life.
You must always fully consider the tire/wheel load requirements if you are planning on changing them from the manufacturers chosen size.
I think that rolling resistance (lower the better for mileage) will make a bigger difference to you then. Just keep in mind that the trade off is usually les cornering grip, since there ain't no free lunch.
The latest issue of Consumer's reports (just came yesterday) has a big test on all season tires. take it for what you want, but one of the catagories they rate is rolling resistance. it is interesting reading though.
Revolutions per miles is an indication of the overall diameter of the tire. It has nothing to do with fuel economy, expect that a larger diameter tire is like a lower numerical rear axle ratio. However, larger diameter tires weigh more and so the effect on fuel economy is minimal.
I finally managed to find a tire tread depth gage, and tonight I checked my tires. I took my best estimate/closest whole number when measuring.
I have about 23,000 miles on my 2001 Toyota Prius' OEM tires, I think that's about 2 years of service (I'd have to double-check my notebook in my car for the exact date). My usual pressure is about 41F/39R.
OEM Bridgestone Potenza RE92 XL P175/65 R14 84S original tread depth is supposedly 10/32" Measuring the 4 main grooves: left outside ---> inside; right inside ---> outside left front: 7, 8, 8, 7 ; right front: 5, 7, 6, 5 eft rear: 6, 7, 7, 7 ; right rear: 6, 6, 5, 4
My husband has about 24,000 miles on his 2004 Toyota Prius with OEM tires. That's just shy of 2 years. Usual pressure is around 40F/38R.
OEM Goodyear Integrity P185/65 R15 86S original tread depth is supposedly 10/32" Measuring the 3 main grooves: left outside ---> inside; right inside ---> outside left front: 6, 8, 7 ; right front: 6, 7, 5 left rear: 5, 7, 6 ; right rear: 5, 6, 5
Unfortunately, neither car has been in for an alignment yet. But the tires do get rotated (or so says my paid work orders) at every oil change (6 months or 7500/5000 miles).
So, I have more tread wear on the edges, and it looks like about 2/32" of tread wear per year...
Just some data points for those out there...
Anyhow, the question I have is: is it time to dump these tires, or should I hold onto them for another season? (I know a number of Prius owners hate the OEM tires...)
I know that I need to invest in some snow tires for this upcoming MA winter. Last winter I kept sliding backwards down my paved but icy driveway with my 2001, and my husband slid into a snowbank or two with his 2004 BC (and the front bumper still keeps popping off of some of its clips).
I was thinking of just going straight to some Nokian WR A.W.P.2 tires (4-season tires with the Severe Service emblem) for full-time use, but...
Should I/can I just put the Nokian WR onto the current aluminum rims for this winter, change back to the OEM tires for the upcoming spring/summer/fall 2006, and then remount the WRs for the following winter and on? Or should I get some steel rims just for this winter for the WRs, and then move them back when I dump the OEMs?
Or should I just buy some steel rims and winter tires (Bridgestone Blizzak WS50 or Nokian RSI), and then have to look into buying another 3-season tire (Nokian NRHi/i3) in another year or so? (This seems much more expensive and more hassle than just going for the WRs above, but...)
Just looking for any tire/wheel advice. Thanks in advance!
I personally like getting dedicated steel wheels and leaving the snows mounted on them. It is cheaper ongoing (since you don't have to pay for monting and unmounting), and easier on the wheels, not having the tires on and off, plus avoiding the winter salt, crap and potholes.
So, in your case, I would get the dedicated snows, and then just put the current wheels/tires back on, and use them until you think they are used up, then get new ones. Normally I would get summer tires, but you will probably be better off with an all season, just don't have to worry as much about snow capabilities.
If I had new tires mounted on either of those cars, I would get a four-wheel alignment. I also think that when any part of the tread gets down to 4/32", that tire is going to be a bit dodgy in the rain (and really bad in the snow). Since it's on the rear, that makes your car more prone to oversteer (mentioned above).
I almost got jacked twice because of my rims.... i regret customizing my car my advice would be just to leave it stock and get better tires rather the stock ones and THATS IT!!!
In Consumer Reports latest tire ratings, the Michelin Hydroedge was rated "mediocre" under the category of hydroplaning. This was surprising as this tire was made to handle the wet stuff, as well as recalling the Hydroedge commercials a few years back showing the tires speeding thru standing pools of water and rain. Any thoughts on how/why this would be so?
Has been riding on their reputation and name recognition for too long?
That's why I like the CR reviews. I'm not sure how they do the tests, but they are pretty thurough so I assume their is some validity to them, and they seem oblivious to the name.
I do not know about the Hydroedge format, which I thought was a trendy appearance and hoped was as effective as advertising.
BUT as far as the rest of Michelin tires they HAVE been RIDING on their reputation. It's a reputation for round tires that stay round and hold their balance. It's a reputation for using them on the H platform for GM when the light weight parts of the suspension and a rigidity or something allows slight vertical/horizontal vibrations caused by tire crush differences as they roll (force variation) as the cure for other brands of tires that aren't as well made.
I put Harmony's on my 98 to replace X-Ones that are over 80K and have about 25% of tread depth left but have lost grip in snow. They are great in water and in snow.
I recall one of the tire reviews for CR a few years ago being criticized for an odd outcome (winter tires?) and suggestions being made of conflict. That would be really rare for CR to have an outside conflict. Opinions, yes; conflicts, no. I hope they have learned how to evaluate tires well since they started a few years ago.
98 LeSabre. They really gripped in snow last winter. I have Symmetrys on my 03. They also gripped when new. And of course they've worn down 30K worth. They've stayed round and never needed to be rebalanced after the dealer got the wheels and tires and alignment straightened out with a Hunter 9700 force balancer at 10K.
Well, they rated all-season tires( is that the same as touring tires?) and winter tires. The Goodyear Assurance Triple Tred was rated number 1...#2 Michelin X Radial, #3Hankook Mileage Plus, #4 Yokohama Avid TRZ, #5 Michelin Hydroege. Michelin Harmonys were rated #7, Pirelli Cinturato #12 and Goodyear Weatherhandler LS was last at #18.
So, while the Hydroedge fairly scored well overall against the competition...in the hydroplaning category it tied for last with 7 others recieving the middle score of "good"(empty circle).Meaning 11 other tires scored better in the hydroplaning category. The CR quick pick had the Hydroedge performing "capably" but was "nosier" "with mediocre hydroplaning resistance"
I had the HydroEdge tires on my old Altima, and they were quiet and smooth riding. Not particularly sporty, but that's not what they're designed for. They were fine in the rain and snow, and I couldn't detect any wear when I sold the car 10,000 miles after I installed the tires (word to the wise: don't buy high-end tires shortly before selling your car). They have an extremely high wear rating.
The Hydroedge has a 90,000 mile warranty, and did very well in CR tread life rating. I suppose noise level is a bit subjective. I have read that some people feel the Hydroedge is quiet and some think they are noisy. Would be nice if you could pull into a tire store and demo a set of tires for say 10 bucks.
I'm torn between the traction t/a and yokohama avid h4s for my 95 nissan maxima SE. I'm looking for a H rated, all season tire with the best possible snow/ice traction as possible without having to go to dedicated snow tires. I had a set of traction t/a tires on my wife's corolla (they were not H rated however) and I wasn't particularly pleased with uneven tread wear I observed despite being mindful of alignments. However, I'm willing to give the goodrich tires another try. Does anyone have any comments on these two tires for my vehicle and requirements?
.....of a web site, or even a formula a person could use to determine optimum tire pressure? It seems to me you could use some type of a forumula where you'd plug in your vehicle (or vehicle weight), tire size, tire type, etc., and it would spit out an optimum pressure. I know tire pressures are listed on door stickers and also in owner's manuals, but those don't do any good when different size tires are used.
Speaking of pressure questions - I recently had a set of BF Goodrich Traction T/As installed at my local tire shop. They are the same size as the original OEM tires. The door frame label says 28psi for all 4 tires. After I got my car home from the tire shop, I let it sit over night, and then went out to see what pressure the tire shop set them at. All 4 were set at 42psi. I thought this was pretty odd. Any reason why they would have done this? I wondered if maybe the guys misread the guage, and put them at 42 while thinking they were at 32???
The answer is yes and no. There is even a tire industry manual which is marketed and sold to tire professionals but I have never seen it.
So for example the easiest is to start with the max sidewall pressure on the recommended tire for ones application. Common ones are 35, 44, 51 psi. Me I do 85% of max sidewall pressure. Since most of my tires are 44 psi the point of departure that has worked across different sets of tires has been 38 psi.
For example on a Jetta TDI half load recommendation is 26 psi front and rear. Full load recommendation is 30 f, 41 r. So really one can put in 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41. psi.
For many years I have noticed that practice at many tire installation places. My theory has been that the guys in the shop leave the higher pressure, thinking that the typical buyer waits far too long to re-air the tires after the purchase. Then, again, it might sometimes be that 42 lbs is used to seat the tire bead to the rim and it never gets deflated to the recommended level. If the 42 lbs is over the max pressure noted on the sidewall, I'd let air out to at least that level. It might be safer.
42/44 max sidewall pressure is within specfications. Also it is an unofficial measuring guide in case the customer does truly ignore checking tire pressure and tries to blame the shop for his neglect of the product. It is commonly known that a tire loses app 1# per mo. So if the TDI oem calles for 26 psi, then 42-26=16 psi or 16 mo of neglect. So if the average yearly miles are 12-15 miles, then hes also ignored 2-4 rotations.
I know where to find the formula, but it's so complex you can't even write it correctly using normal script like we have on this web site. That's why they have books of these tables. But these books are expensive (over $50) so it just doesn't make sense to have one unless you are in the business.
And that's one of the reasons I frequent these web sites - to answer such questions.
But the important point here is that the load table doesn't give you the optimum - it gives you the MAX load the tire should carry at a given pressure.
Now let's discuss this "85% rule". Ruking and I have a disagreement as to the validity of this rule, so let me give you my take on the subject.
The maximum pressure that is written on the sidewall of a passenger car tire has nothing - let me say that again - nothing - to do with the load vs inflation pressure curve. It has everything to do with 1) reducing heat generation at high speeds and 2) the way different people interpret the language of the law.
P metric standard load tires reach their maximum load capacity at 35 psi. But it is permissible to use higher inflation pressures under certain circumstances. The standardizing bodies have selected 44 psi and 51 psi as possible alternatives. (those come out in SI units as 3.0 bar and 3.5 bar). So it is up to the tire manufacturer to decide what he wants to put on the sidewall. But even if 35 psi is put on the sidewall you can still use 44 psi, because it is part of the standard.
I know, this is terribly technical, but welcome to my world.
"The maximum pressure that is written on the sidewall of a passenger car tire has nothing - let me say that again - nothing - to do with the load vs inflation pressure curve."
Then would you agree that oem's such as VW have it incorrect?
For example, the Jetta TDI placard (mine specifically) (which I would think carries some legal liabilities) says for Half load 26 psi F/R. For Full load 30 F and 41 R. If as you say it has "nothing" to do with load and inflation pressure then why do they print such balderdash? So why not put anything from 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, or as you say overload of a 44 psi tire is ok then 45,46,47,48,49,50,51,. Can we go still higher?
I am by no means an expert in the field, just a consumer whose life and limbs are "riding on the tires".
....this was so complicated. I've had good results (i.e., ride comfort, handling, tire wear, etc.) running tires this size on this vehicle at 28 psi. I think I'll just continue doing so.
I purchased a 1999 Buick Regal LS, with 54k miles on it, last year. The tires on them seemed to be fairly new...maybe 10-15 k miles....currently around 25k. Rotated them about 5 months ago...seems the front tires have some small cracks around the outer tread and the outer wall. Appears to be confined to surface. And have recently read some vehicle manufacturers are suggesting replacing tires after a certain number of years( 7 years?) Any need for tires to be replaced? Thoughts on replaceing tires after so many years instead of going by remaining tread depth?
"If the 42 lbs is over the max pressure noted on the sidewall, I'd let air out to at least that level. It might be safer."
The max pressure on the side of the tire is 44. I lowered them to 33 to soften the ride up a bit - at the "manufacturer's recomendation" of 28, they look a little slack to me. I tend to vary my tire pressures quite a bit depending upon if the car will be carrying a load, or if I will be doing some beach driving (in which case I go down to @20), or if it is just normal commuting. I don't think I have ever exceeded 36 though. I try to stay on top of tire pressure monthly.
Comments
Let's start with a new tire. Both the tread pattern and the road surface interact to create noise. The problem here is that it is difficult to predict what the road surface macrotexture is, so a tire pattern can be optimized for it.
Clearly a smooth tire would be best for noise (there are some exceptions to this), but this would not be good for bad weather traction.
Given that a tire has to have both circumferential grooves (the most effective technique for hydroplaning) and lateral grooves and sipes for both wet traction and snow traction, it's a matter of choosing grooves and sipes that interact with the road surface in a way the spreads the noises being generated across a wide range of frequencies, thereby minimizing that peaks that would be heard as noise - a very difficult thing to do.
One of the techniques to minimize tire vibrations - which includes things that can be felt as well as heard - is pitch sequencing. If you look at the tread pattern of a tire, you will notice the size of the tread elemments varies in size around the circumference. The pattern is more or less random. This prevents a harmonic from being set up.
Now what about a worn tire? It is possble to wear a pattern into tire that will generate noise.
Vehicles like to have a bit of toe in so they feel stable. This toe in creates a bit of extra wear on tires that comes out as feathering and heel and toe. If allowed to grow, cupping and diagonal wear. Depending on the road surface, the amount of toe in, and the tread pattern (not to mention the tread compound), this wear pattern might be more auditory than tactile.
But feathering and heel and toe are normal wear mechanisms, so don't be fooled that if you have feathering, you have a problem. (Go out to your vehicles and rub the tires both directions. I'll bet that at least some of the tires, most likely the ones on the free rolling axles, will have sharpish edges rubbing one direction and not the other. THIS IS NORMAL!!!)
So to answer the question - It's basically tread pattern, but more time spent in research optimizing the tread pattern yields less noise generation. So it's also quality and price.
Hope this helps.
Thanks.
For the money, these are tough to beat.
Just make sure you get the Turanza LS model... There are a lot of Bstone tires with the Turanza name...
Also, they are sort of pricey...
regards,
kyfdx
Host-Prices Paid Forums
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Doug
Tires are indeed very quiet, and they're not as pricey as some of the competition either. They're the right choice for my money...
And you don't have to go far for Tire Rack advice:
Ask Connor at The Tire Rack
Steve, Host
However, the pulling occurs again after the tire rotation recently. I also noticed that the two newer tires are now in the front when the van pulls to one side.
The Honda service said that I got bad tires again and I have to talk to Michelin's dealership.
I went to Sears. They try to identify which tire is causing the problem. They then showed me that one wheel of the newer tires is wobbling. They said that the bent wheel is causing the pulling.
Well, the Honda service doubt that the bent wheel is the cause.
Please advise what the cause is and what to do with that.
Thanks.
It ties into mileage under the assumption that if it isn't running as fast, it will use less gas.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I don't think you can reliably correlate this number to fuel efficiency. There are too many other variables. For an extreme example, you can't mount Prius wheels on an SUV and expect to get 50 MPG!
What you can say is each time the wheel rotates once there is a certain loss of energy. Rotating it more often per mile on the same vehicle in the same conditions would loose more energy. If you changed the tire diameter, for example by going from a 50 series tire to a 70 series while keeping the other numbers on the tire the same, you would lower the number of revs. per mile. This would not necessarily improve mileage however.
First, tire rolling resistance (and therefore loss) varies by tire size and type.
Second, by changing the tire diameter, you in effect change the gearing (engine to road), and that can effect mileage (usually lower engine RPM will give better mileage but not always - for example you can get poorer mileage by "lugging" the engine). In general, if you don't stray too far from the stock values, increasing tire diameter can give you better mileage. Don't expect miracles however. You may see 5 to 10% if you are lucky. Remember, vehicle manufacturers are pressured to build units that give the "best mileage they can reasonably get", both by government regs. and by sales pressure. Improving on what the engineers worked for months on is possible, but there will be tradeoffs.
You can usually get slightly better mileage by increasing tire pressure a few PSI above the recommended value, but you will then probably wear the centre of the tread faster than the sides, decreasing tire life.
You must always fully consider the tire/wheel load requirements if you are planning on changing them from the manufacturers chosen size.
The latest issue of Consumer's reports (just came yesterday) has a big test on all season tires. take it for what you want, but one of the catagories they rate is rolling resistance. it is interesting reading though.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I have about 23,000 miles on my 2001 Toyota Prius' OEM tires, I think that's about 2 years of service (I'd have to double-check my notebook in my car for the exact date). My usual pressure is about 41F/39R.
OEM Bridgestone Potenza RE92 XL
P175/65 R14 84S
original tread depth is supposedly 10/32"
Measuring the 4 main grooves:
left outside ---> inside; right inside ---> outside
left front: 7, 8, 8, 7 ; right front: 5, 7, 6, 5
eft rear: 6, 7, 7, 7 ; right rear: 6, 6, 5, 4
My husband has about 24,000 miles on his 2004 Toyota Prius with OEM tires.
That's just shy of 2 years. Usual pressure is around 40F/38R.
OEM Goodyear Integrity
P185/65 R15 86S
original tread depth is supposedly 10/32"
Measuring the 3 main grooves:
left outside ---> inside; right inside ---> outside
left front: 6, 8, 7 ; right front: 6, 7, 5
left rear: 5, 7, 6 ; right rear: 5, 6, 5
Unfortunately, neither car has been in for an alignment yet. But the tires do get rotated (or so says my paid work orders) at every oil change (6 months or 7500/5000 miles).
So, I have more tread wear on the edges, and it looks like about 2/32" of
tread wear per year...
Just some data points for those out there...
Anyhow, the question I have is: is it time to dump these tires, or should I hold onto them for another season? (I know a number of Prius owners hate the OEM tires...)
I know that I need to invest in some snow tires for this upcoming MA winter. Last winter I kept sliding backwards down my paved but icy driveway with my 2001, and my husband slid into a snowbank or two with his 2004 BC (and the front bumper still keeps popping off of some of its clips).
I was thinking of just going straight to some Nokian WR A.W.P.2 tires (4-season tires with the Severe Service emblem) for full-time use, but...
Should I/can I just put the Nokian WR onto the current aluminum rims for this winter, change back to the OEM tires for the upcoming spring/summer/fall 2006, and then remount the WRs for the following winter and on? Or should I get some steel rims just for this winter for the WRs, and then move them back when I dump the OEMs?
Or should I just buy some steel rims and winter tires (Bridgestone Blizzak WS50 or Nokian RSI), and then have to look into buying another 3-season tire (Nokian NRHi/i3) in another year or so? (This seems much more expensive and more hassle than just going for the WRs above, but...)
Just looking for any tire/wheel advice. Thanks in advance!
So, in your case, I would get the dedicated snows, and then just put the current wheels/tires back on, and use them until you think they are used up, then get new ones. Normally I would get summer tires, but you will probably be better off with an all season, just don't have to worry as much about snow capabilities.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
If I had new tires mounted on either of those cars, I would get a four-wheel alignment. I also think that when any part of the tread gets down to 4/32", that tire is going to be a bit dodgy in the rain (and really bad in the snow). Since it's on the rear, that makes your car more prone to oversteer (mentioned above).
Steve, Host
That's why I like the CR reviews. I'm not sure how they do the tests, but they are pretty thurough so I assume their is some validity to them, and they seem oblivious to the name.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
BUT as far as the rest of Michelin tires they HAVE been RIDING on their reputation. It's a reputation for round tires that stay round and hold their balance. It's a reputation for using them on the H platform for GM when the light weight parts of the suspension and a rigidity or something allows slight vertical/horizontal vibrations caused by tire crush differences as they roll (force variation) as the cure for other brands of tires that aren't as well made.
I put Harmony's on my 98 to replace X-Ones that are over 80K and have about 25% of tread depth left but have lost grip in snow. They are great in water and in snow.
I recall one of the tire reviews for CR a few years ago being criticized for an odd outcome (winter tires?) and suggestions being made of conflict. That would be really rare for CR to have an outside conflict. Opinions, yes; conflicts, no.
I hope they have learned how to evaluate tires well since they started a few years ago.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
They really gripped in snow last winter.
I have Symmetrys on my 03. They also gripped when new. And of course they've worn down 30K worth. They've stayed round and never needed to be rebalanced after the dealer got the wheels and tires and alignment straightened out with a Hunter 9700 force balancer at 10K.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Michelin Harmonys were rated #7, Pirelli Cinturato #12 and Goodyear Weatherhandler LS was last at #18.
So, while the Hydroedge fairly scored well overall against the competition...in the hydroplaning category it tied for last with 7 others recieving the middle score of "good"(empty circle).Meaning 11 other tires scored better in the hydroplaning category. The CR quick pick had the Hydroedge performing "capably" but was "nosier" "with mediocre hydroplaning resistance"
I suppose noise level is a bit subjective. I have read that some people feel the Hydroedge is quiet and some think they are noisy. Would be nice if you could pull into a tire store and demo a set of tires for say 10 bucks.
I'm torn between the traction t/a and yokohama avid h4s for my 95 nissan maxima SE. I'm looking for a H rated, all season tire with the best possible snow/ice traction as possible without having to go to dedicated snow tires. I had a set of traction t/a tires on my wife's corolla (they were not H rated however) and I wasn't particularly pleased with uneven tread wear I observed despite being mindful of alignments. However, I'm willing to give the goodrich tires another try. Does anyone have any comments on these two tires for my vehicle and requirements?
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.jsp?type=HPAS
When it comes to me replacing;the two tires you mention are some of my top choices, also for a TDI Jetta 195-65-15
Does anyone know why neither of these tires were included in the recent CR report?
I recently had a set of BF Goodrich Traction T/As installed at my local tire shop. They are the same size as the original OEM tires. The door frame label says 28psi for all 4 tires. After I got my car home from the tire shop, I let it sit over night, and then went out to see what pressure the tire shop set them at. All 4 were set at 42psi. I thought this was pretty odd. Any reason why they would have done this? I wondered if maybe the guys misread the guage, and put them at 42 while thinking they were at 32???
So for example the easiest is to start with the max sidewall pressure on the recommended tire for ones application. Common ones are 35, 44, 51 psi. Me I do 85% of max sidewall pressure. Since most of my tires are 44 psi the point of departure that has worked across different sets of tires has been 38 psi.
For example on a Jetta TDI half load recommendation is 26 psi front and rear. Full load recommendation is 30 f, 41 r. So really one can put in 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41. psi.
And that's one of the reasons I frequent these web sites - to answer such questions.
But the important point here is that the load table doesn't give you the optimum - it gives you the MAX load the tire should carry at a given pressure.
Now let's discuss this "85% rule". Ruking and I have a disagreement as to the validity of this rule, so let me give you my take on the subject.
The maximum pressure that is written on the sidewall of a passenger car tire has nothing - let me say that again - nothing - to do with the load vs inflation pressure curve. It has everything to do with 1) reducing heat generation at high speeds and 2) the way different people interpret the language of the law.
P metric standard load tires reach their maximum load capacity at 35 psi. But it is permissible to use higher inflation pressures under certain circumstances. The standardizing bodies have selected 44 psi and 51 psi as possible alternatives. (those come out in SI units as 3.0 bar and 3.5 bar). So it is up to the tire manufacturer to decide what he wants to put on the sidewall. But even if 35 psi is put on the sidewall you can still use 44 psi, because it is part of the standard.
I know, this is terribly technical, but welcome to my world.
Then would you agree that oem's such as VW have it incorrect?
For example, the Jetta TDI placard (mine specifically) (which I would think carries some legal liabilities) says for Half load 26 psi F/R. For Full load 30 F and 41 R.
If as you say it has "nothing" to do with load and inflation pressure then why do they print such balderdash? So why not put anything from 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, or as you say overload of a 44 psi tire is ok then 45,46,47,48,49,50,51,. Can we go still higher?
I am by no means an expert in the field, just a consumer whose life and limbs are "riding on the tires".
The max pressure on the side of the tire is 44. I lowered them to 33 to soften the ride up a bit - at the "manufacturer's recomendation" of 28, they look a little slack to me. I tend to vary my tire pressures quite a bit depending upon if the car will be carrying a load, or if I will be doing some beach driving (in which case I go down to @20), or if it is just normal commuting. I don't think I have ever exceeded 36 though. I try to stay on top of tire pressure monthly.