connor: This is a fairly new tire and sometimes it take a while to get information to post for consumer reviews.
You noted above on Feb 15, 2005 that this was a fairly new tire. Now that its more than 8 months later what is your take?
I'm looking to replace the horrible oem Goodyear RS-A on my '06 Infiniti M35 (245/45 18) with either the Pirelli P Zero Nero M&S of the Avon Tech M550. I must confess I'm more comfortable with the Pirelli name; however that is an unfairly biased thought due to name recognition only. The Avon's are higher rated and a better price. Thanks for your input.
BTW: your tirerack website has an error on the rating comparison chart (the P Zeros are on there twice).
I am addressing only the tires Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo's in oem sized 275/70/16. These tires are quite possibly one of the best all around tires to have come around in a very long time.! While they are AT tires, they do both off road and on road quite well. I also have noticed almost no mpg change on road going from Michelin LTX (oem) to the Dueler AT Revo.
The only thing I would say is tire size selection is tricky at best. Once you deviate from the stock sizes and get the more "odd ball" sizes, the prices tend to go wildly up and the availability tends to be spotty. So even with an experts help, (like CapriRacer) you might want to cross check common sizes and across brands. Tire technology and brands change so often, you just never know when the brand you passed up one year will be THE tire and brand to get in the next year.
Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo's are a prime example. I have app 100,000- 110,000 miles on 2 past sets of Bridgestone Desert Duelers. One set had an aggressive tread and quite literally almost drove me to drinking. They also did not last very long.(50,000-55,000 miles) After the first set (oem) I resolved not to get another set of Bridgestones, lets alone the tread design. I was very happy for a number of sets with Michelin's LTX and precurser. So on the recommendation of the tire dealer I use, he said the Bridgestone's were much improved.and now had a highway design. (one of these Toyota Landcruisers was used for business 5 days a week and mountain trips to the snow easily 1-3 times per month during the season, trips to mountains and desert on weekends were absolutely routine) My 55,000 mile take was NOT much improved at all. Again, resolved to not get Bridgestone AGAIN and continued to replace with Michelin LTX's.
As a nexus to tire pressure, these are 44 psi max sidewall tires. I happened to run 35/32 psi. F/R for on road applications. My usual tread life has been between 50,000 for an earlier model 1987 TLC with app 250,000 miles: to 95,000 miles over 4 Toyota Landcruisers with the 275-70-16 size. Time will tell how the AT Revo's hold out.
Thanks for the input on the Revos Ruking1. Your opinion seems to echo that of others i have talked to. I think I will get them. They do seem to be an all around great tire.
I suppose I'm concerned that the 265/65/17 tire may be too wide for the factory 17x7 wheels that came on her Truck. I'd hate to go to a 245/70/17, as wider tire would fil the wheel wells nicely.
"there's no question siping gives a tire more edges to grip the road," but he cautioned, "it can alter the tread pattern so the tire wears more quickly."
"If a consumer has a concern about grip, he said, they should look a tire that matches their needs, rather than trying to alter the treads on the tire they selected."
Yes as a basic research item, I would go to the oem charts where whatever size/s you are contemplating has its min/max recommended wheel size, etc. etc. This ought to get you into the ball park insofar as correct fitment. Best of luck and let us know what you all finally end up with.
Based upon your formula for tire pressure I would then run Ultra High Performance Bridgestone Pole Position S03's which have a max pressure of 51 PSI at 43.35 PSI, even though the vehicle they are mounted on is placarded at 35 PSI.
Would this formula also hold true on other high performance all weather radials?
Should this improve or traction, handling and life of the tire?
I had always "heard" that higher tire pressure would in fact degrade traction.
Yes, I would start with 85% of your max sidewall pressure and then adjust as necessar in 2# increments. (1# increments are really hard to judge SOTP's)
For example, on a placarded car 30 PSI F/R, I have run (44 psi max sidewall pressure) Goodyear Eagles F1 Supercars between 38/36 F/R and have gotten 56,000 miles with 1/32 of useful wear left. Being as how they started with 8/32 in; the wear per 1/32 worked out to be 11,200 miles per . So realistically, I could have gotten 67,200.??!!!! Since I use them for longer distance, at speed, on the road touring, I elected to go to a tire with more wet potential, being unable to control weather and road conditions. I have operated in conditons (same trip) from 104 degrees ambient to 20 degrees) with rain of 4 in in 6 hours in the Mojave DESERT!!?? And rain all the way from Las Vegas NV to Grand Canyon, AZ!! ??? The snow showers were in the Colorado Rockies and at altitude! Actually this was not awe inspiring with maximum dry performance tires in the rain and in the snow storms I have sometimes found myself driving.
So now I run Toyo T1S's and it literally sticks like glue in the rain. Thank heaven no driving yet in snow showers! The wear per 1/32 in my application is trending app 14,000 per 1/32 in. Again between 38/36 psi F/R. My sense is I give up some dry performance, but the wet performance seems literally head and shoulders better.
So if I were drag racing or doing a lot of track time, the obvious arbitrator would be ET's or course time. So with those applications, tread wear life and wet performance with take a far back seat or are N/A.
Let me know what PSIs work in the applications you find yourself in.
Big O tires are only available in certain regions in the U.S. We have 3 or 4 here in Louisville,KY. Anyone have experience with these tires and can suggest/comment on a touring a/s tire for midsize Buick Regal 15" tires?
After you look there, check out the Firestone store. I must say that over the years, I have found Firestone to be the most dependable brand of tire. I even regretted giving away my Wilderness tires off my Ranger for free Goodyears, after a few weeks of driving.
By check out Firestone Store I hope you mean check the brand at other stores. My experiences shopping the Firestone Company Stores is that they had a few varieties of Firestones not normally carried at multibrand carriers, but they add all sorts of extras to the cost of getting the tires on the car and the cost of the extras is 2 or 3 times the cost at the local multibrand stores.
You experience may vary, but get the total price on the wheel and check for lifetime balancing and rotation being included or not.
Hi, I'm looking for advice. I have a 2003 E500. Continental Conti Touring 245/45 R17 95H CH95 came on the car. They seam to be fine, (good wet/dry traction and low noise) but are worn out in 35,000 miles. The manufacturer rates them for 60,000 miles. I only got about half that.
So, should I just put on new set of Conti Touring or does someone have a better recommendation?
On the SUV, I both sipe and stud. On the VW that sees commuting miles, I just sipe. On icy roads, soft winter tires with lots of siping are a miracle technology.
I use Nokians in the winter. I'm not sure I'd want some tire dealer cutting siping into some other tire.
You sipe your Nokians?! I don't think it's possible to add more siping to my Nokian WRs. And on that note, it dusted with snow on friday. In a restaurant other patrons were commenting on how slippery it was. I scared my passengers because my Pathfinder stopped so hard when I left and tested to see what they were talking about. I think they need real tires.
From reading the TireRack article regarding purchasing 2 tires at a time, the recommendation is to put the new tires in the rear and older tires on the front. This would imply to me that the tires could never be rotated. Is this correct?
Yes and no, and no and yes. Since new tires are seen to have "more traction" for "longer", one puts it in the rear for the probably unlikely situation that one takes the corners FAR too exuberantly causing the end to let go due to less or more traction: i.e., causing an accident. The problem as most folks do understand is the reality that near the end of the tread life the rubber compound has more traction. If you look at any race tire or track tire almost all come with a bit less tread thickness than normal road tires. Serious racers go as far as to shave a new tire.
The problem as most folks do understand is the reality that near the end of the tread life the rubber compound has more traction.
Ok, this one falls under new stuff I learned on Edmunds today. :-)
I see the race car drivers burning rubber but I always thought that was more to warm up the tire than to shave it down to get to the higher traction compounds.
Perhaps, I should define race and track. This is applicable to those folks who put their "street cars" in racing and or tracks: such as auto cross, tracks like Laguna Seca, Thunderhill, etc, SCCA events and the like.
So a real life example; Goodyear Eagle F1 SC's. These come 8/32 in vs a more normal 10/32 in. The dry performace grip is absolutely ferocious between 2/32in (legally bald) and 5/32 in. If it is raining: DONT!
Wow this is kind of a weird board.. You can’t start new threads?
Well anyway I have a pretty simple question, I’m getting new tires for a Honda Odyssey and am trying to choose between Michelin and Bridgestone. I have heard on another board that Bridgestone is better. The Michelins cost more and have a lower mileage rating.
So unless anyone knows something to the contrary I guess I will go with the Bridgestone’s. Also feel free to recommend a different brand al together. Thanks!
Please keep in mind that I am just talking about the the exhilarating tasks of driving to/from work and carting the kids around to where they have to go.
To be more specific, I just bought a used car - the front tires have like 6/32 and the rear have 8/32 left but the front ones are not evenly worn - possible alignment issue. So if I replace the 2 tires my plan would be to put the new tires on the front figuring they would eventually wear down to the rear ones, they I would begin rotating. According to the Tire rack article, I would have to put the new tires in the rear and move the worn ones up front. But then I would think I would never rotate them.
Given your post it seems you should be doing 3/3 things. 1.as a min, have alignment checked B if needed, realign. 2 make sure "correct" tire pressures are used 3 rotate at some interval. Best is to check to see what your oem manual recommends and decide from there.
tires depends, I believe, on FWD or RWD...if only changing 2 tires (assuming not both left or right side), then always place the new tires on the driving wheels...so, a front wheel drive gets them on the front, which obviously corresponds to the wheels that also steer, but on a rear wheel drive car, place the new tires on the rear...but be sure to check the fronts and make sure you are not steering with bald tires...
There's just enough contradictory (and anecdotal) evidence that the issue of where to put new tires will be debated for decades.
From an engineering perspective, there are a few operating conditions where putting new tires on the rear is NOT the best thing to do, BUT since most tire dealers 1) don't know what those operating conditions are, 2) don't know if the vehicle is going to operate at least 50% of the time in those conditions, 3) those operating conditions are not common, and 4) people need to have a general rule to follow, the best answer is (in the absence of any kind of qualifier) new tires should be placed on the rear axle.
OBVIOUSLY, the safest thing is to have all 4 tires the same and the way to do that is to rotate regularly. If you don't rotate reguarly and find yourself with mismatched tires, you've got 2 choices - replace a pair, or be safer and replace all 4. BTW, this thread was started by someone who BOUGHT a car and the tires where mismatched, so it wasn't his fault, but the answer still comes down to cost vs safety.
Well, how much of a difference in the tires produces a dangerous situation. My tires (FWD) had 8/32 left on the rear and 6/32 left on the front, so I rotated them to try and even them out. At what point does this become dangerous? I mean, front tires are always going to wear faster than the rear, so won't this situation occur whenever you rotate? (Just trying to understand the guidelines because I am one of those who always put the two new tires up front).
I'm referring more to putting on "better" tires than how much tread on each end. As an example, the original tires on my 2001 Pathfinder were "All Season" Japaneze Dunlop Grandtrek. Right from when they were new I thought the antilock system was way too sensitive as I would sail through intersections with it buzzing when on snow. Last year I replaced them with Nokian WR all season tires, even though they had at least a year of wear left on them. The difference was like night and day. Now the vehicle stops very well on snow and ice.
The cost of changing the tires early was probably $150-$200. The cost of sliding into someone would be upwards of $1000. Probably way upwards!
Just my two cent's worth: I live in snow country. i have tires with lowest tread on front to keep wearing them out. I occasionally rotated backs to front to smooth them out and then rotated them to the back again after 2-3000 miles. This is timed so I can have the best tires on the front during snow season and on the back most of the other months.
Then I'll replace the two fronts that are partially worn out next winter. That will give me a good tread set for digging through snow for front and the better of the used tires on the rear. This is my technique with Symmetry tires on newer car.
The older car I did this and put on two new Harmony Michelins for last winter and then put them on rear and just replaced the two worn, smoother, but still with good tread depth tires with two more new Harmonys.
I doubt any of us would notice the difference in traction between 6/32" and 8/32" in tread depth, so if it's a FWD and you elect to keep the tires for one more season I'd put the 8/32" on the front. If a RWD they'd go on the rear. Just to keep them wearing evenly.
My experience has been the rubber type is just as effective as the tread pattern/depth. The soft rubber you find on "winter tires" is much more effective than the harder rubber of "all season tires" or "summer tires". The worst of all in winter use are "high performance summer tires". They are ball bearings when cold!
With ABS monitoring differences in wheel speed, and AWD stressing the drive system if wheel tire combos have minor diameter variations, it might be good to rethink tire rotation practices, and rotate them according to measurements and not mileage. Maybe when there is 1/32" variation?
I agree that you probably need more than 2/32" variation to have a problem - unless one of the tires is on its wear blocks...but don't forget that tires need about 4-6/32" for good water evacuation. Long before tires are "unsafe" for dry roads, they are getting marginal on wet roads!
I used to wonder about ABS and different diameter tires (either from wear, improper inflation, or different size tires). If you do a simple calculation it appears there isn't going to be much of an effect - take a 24" dia. tire (typical size) with a 1/8" tread difference in wear. That calculates to just over three tenths of a percent difference in circumferance. I suspect ABS looks for at least 1% difference and it probably has to be changing as well. There is also the problem of differentials - too much of a difference can cause an LSD to start to lock, but again, it would take a pretty large difference. I don't think most of us would put up with the strange handling that would result from such a large difference in diameter. It would be too much for us before it would bother the LSD or ABS.
The point about hydroplaning is well taken. I had Brigestones on a Subaru that used to plane when they had 3/32" left before the "wear bars". I got rid of them ASAP! Front wheels that spin up then grab at highway speeds was too much excitement for me!
Have people noticed the great increase in tire prices relatively recently and especially the much higher prices for "performance tires". I do not understand why a 60 series or lower tire cost so much more than an equivalent diameter 70 series tire, especially considering that the 70 series tire probably contains more construction material. I first became aware of this phenomenon in 1999 when I purchased a new Dodge Intrepid with 225/60/R16 tires. The Intrepids that year also came with 15" wheels and tires, probably 215/70/R15. The 16" replacement tires for my car were almost twice as much as equivalent 15" tires. I know everyone will say that the 60 series tires are higher performance tires yada yada yada, but do they cost more to make. Does it cost more to make a 60 series tire vs. the equivalent diameter 70 series tire? My wife has a new Pacifica with 235/65/R17 tires which run about $180 to replace. A 235/75/R15 tire is almost the exact width and diameter as the 235/65/R17 tire, will give a smoother ride, can be purchased for well under half the price and they contain more rubber and steel. So as more and more cars move to lower profile tires we are doomed to pay more and more for less tire and get a harsher ride in the bargain. It does not seem like much of a bargain to me! Any comments?
I don't think it is the profile or speed rating anymore ("H" rated tires are no longer stiffly priced.) I think it is a matter of competition, which is driven by how popular a given tire size is. I often go Plus Zero and if that causes me to go into an odd tire size, prices skyrocket vs. a more popular combination.
The "popularity" of a tire size is driven by the auto manufacturers since I am sure that most people stick with factory spec tires. Auto manufacturers are moving from 75 and 70 series tires to 65 and 60 series tires which contain less rubber and steel, but cost significantly more. This summer I purchased a set of good 255/70/R15 performance tires for $60 each. I could have also purchased 235/75/R15 tires for about the same price. There is nothing wrong with these tires. Go to 16", same width and diameter and you will be over $100 each. Go to 17" or 18" and you will be closer to $200 each. With each increase in price you are getting less actual tire. It is simply brilliant.
Couple of comments (and let me start by saying that this is all my opinion, sprinkled with a few "factoids"):
If tire popularity is driven by auto manufacturers, then it is driven in part by auto buyers... since we choose to buy the car that looks a certain way, drives a certain way, etc. In addition, I'd have to ask what's in it for the auto guys, since the tire companies are owned and operated by different people.
I believe that higher performing, lower profile tires are more expensive for reasons that include marketing, but also include greater engineering, more technical development etc. I do not believe that the amount of rubber, steel etc. has a linear relationship with price... look at the relative weight of different tires. Looks like you are paying for the engineering necessary to make the lighter tire weigh less.
You are partially correct in that the amount of rubber and steel has an inverse relationship with price. More rubber and steel, lower tire price. The tires weigh less because there is less tire. On none of the cars that I have purchased recently have I had a choice of tire size. Auto manufacturers have gone to "performance" tires as a cheap way to make their cars handle better. Cheap that is until you have to replace the tires. I just feel that the move to lower profile tires has little benefit to the consumer at a great cost. Not that long ago you could get a set of tires for $200. Now odds are that it is twice that or much more and are you really that far ahead?
There is some validity in what was said - but there is also some falsehood.
First, it's hard to do apples to apples comparisons as the vehicle manufacturers have been moving towards higher speed ratings while they've been going to lower aspect ratios. Not only do you get better handling (which is safer for the public), but also using less of a tire's capability (or any product for that matter) is also safer for the public.
The vehicles have also been going larger in rim diameters - and in a lot of ways the use of bigger brakes has been driving this (also more safety for the public)
But to try to validate the issue on lower aspect ratio tires costing more I went to TireRack and looked up some prices on Goodyear's. Here's what I found:
P205/75R15 97S $69 22 pounds $3.14 per pound P215/70R15 97S $69 23 pounds $3.00 per pound P225/60R16 97T $73 27 pounds $2.70 per pound
All of these tires have the same load capacity and could be used in exactly the same application.
This doesn't seem to follow the premise as the weight actually increased but the cost went down per pound.
So let's start with the weight increase. As a tire goes lower in aspect ratio, in order to keep the same load capacity (and interestingly essentially the same diameter), the section width increases. This means that the belts are wider, the tread is wider, and there is more ply material - all increasing the weight.
So if we take the change from P215/70R15 to P225/60R16, the only decrease in weight would come from the rim diameter change, and that's only ply and sidewall material - both fairly inexpensive materials - the width increase adds quite a bit of material and therefore weight.
So let's take a P235/65R17 103S. (same speed rating, larger load capacity) Goodyear has one of those for $75 and it weighs 30# - That's $2.50 per pound.
However, a Pacifica requires an H speed rating and that's $135, 29 pounds or $4.60 per pound, but an H speed rated tire is going to have nylon on top of the belt. Not only is this more material, but it also requires more sophisticated (and more expensive) manufacturing equipment.
I think the better arguement is that vehicles are coming with higher speed ratings - and the lower aspect ratios are being driven by the increase in brake size (not 100%, but directionally). Certainly the vehicle manufacturers have noticed the gradual increase in freeway speeds and are reacting to that fact. May be an even better arguement is that the general public's driving habits are the real reason for higher tire prices.
All your points are well taken and I appreciate the debate...first and foremost, I believe that all 4 tires should be replaced at the same time, which eliminates the debate...good tires on ALL 4 WHEELS is paramount to me...
But, if I understood correctly, and I may have missed it entirely, I thought the query was about where to put 2 tires if one cannot afford all 4 new tires...I would place 2 new tires on driving wheels (meaning the wheels of propulsion, where the drive shafts are attached) and not the rolling wheels...
Please do not follow up with the question, "where would you place the 2 new tires on a vehicle with AWD, like the Audi A6???"...too much to ponder... :shades:
ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW TIRES ON THIS CAR I HAVE 70,000 MILES ON MY CAR AND HAVE GONE THUR 4 SET OF TIRES V RATED . CAN I GO TO A T RATED TIRE LIKE A MICHELIN HYDRO EDGE OR SOME OTHER T RATED TIRE . I'VE HAD TOYO 14K 2 SETS OF DUNLOP A2 AND FALKEN ZIEX ZE 512. I WOULD LIKE A LONGER LASTING TIRE I NEVER DRIVE OVER 85 MPH
This is a very well written and researched reply. The only objection that I have is that certainly in this area (Eastern WA)I have observed greater differences in tire prices than you have listed. For example at Costco: Michelin X-Ice $90 for 205/70/R15 Michelin X-Ice $100 for 205/65/R16 Michelin X-Ice $110 for 225/60/R16 Each price includes $10 mounting etc charge so the real price is $80 vs $90 vs. $100. The 60 series tire costs 25% more than the 70 series tire. However, assuming similar weights to the ones you listed, the 60 series tire is probably 25% heavier than the 70 series tire so the cost for materials is equivalent. I agree with you that the higher speed rated tires cost more, but believe that we don't need these high speed rated tires. Around here and in Kansas the State Patrol are all over speeders. I would have a hard time justifying doing 80 mph. I also agree about brake size, but don't really think there is a need to go over 16" wheels except for serious sports cars. It is the cost of progress I guess.
M 81 mph 130 km/h N 87 mph 140km/h Temporary Spare Tires P 93 mph 150 km/h Q 99 mph 160 km/h Studless & Studdable Winter Tires R 106 mph 170 km/h H.D. Light Truck Tires S 112 mph 180 km/h Family Sedans & Vans T 118 mph 190 km/h Family Sedans & Vans U 124 mph 200 km/h H 130 mph 210 km/h Sport Sedans & Coupes V 149 mph 240 km/h Sport Sedans, Coupes & Sports Cars
If you really do not drive over 85 mph, you do not need a V rated tire. If you sell the car, let the new owner know. I personally love Michelins. They are exceptional tire which last a very long time. What about the Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus 215/60HR16 Blackwall Serv. Desc: 95H Price Each: $118 This is an H rated tire at $118. You won't get the same mileage as the hydroedge, but I bet that it would be a good compromise. Good luck
My car has the pirelle cinturato P3000 M&S tires. These tires are very good in the winter when I first bought it. However, it is not a dedicated snow tires. It doens't have the snow flake symbol. It is very good for wet, dry or light snow condition. It doesn't do well in ice or heavy snow. I have the tires on my accord 1993 4dr EX-R. The tires resist aquaplaning well. It makes noise on washboard pavement. It is relatively quiet on smooth road. My car lacks sound insulation of many modern cars. I don't know about the noise level on other cars.
There's more to a tire's speed rating than the speed you drive.
Speed ratings are determined by a laboratory test. That rating is applicable to the real for only certain conditions. The actual speed capability of a tire is reduced when 1) the tire is used with less inflation pressure than the maximum, 2) road conditions are less than smooth 3) the tire ages, 4) the tire is damaged in some way, etc.
Recenet events have challenged the vehicle manufacturers to come up with way to improve the safety of vehicle and their tires. One of the ways to do this is to specifiy less of a tire's capability. So larger tires (less of the tire's load capability) and higher speed ratings (less of the speed capability) are now the norm.
Be aware of this when you chose to use something less capable.
Comments
You noted above on Feb 15, 2005 that this was a fairly new tire. Now that its more than 8 months later what is your take?
I'm looking to replace the horrible oem Goodyear RS-A on my '06 Infiniti M35 (245/45 18) with either the Pirelli P Zero Nero M&S of the Avon Tech M550. I must confess I'm more comfortable with the Pirelli name; however that is an unfairly biased thought due to name recognition only. The Avon's are higher rated and a better price. Thanks for your input.
BTW: your tirerack website has an error on the rating comparison chart (the P Zeros are on there twice).
The only thing I would say is tire size selection is tricky at best. Once you deviate from the stock sizes and get the more "odd ball" sizes, the prices tend to go wildly up and the availability tends to be spotty. So even with an experts help, (like CapriRacer) you might want to cross check common sizes and across brands. Tire technology and brands change so often, you just never know when the brand you passed up one year will be THE tire and brand to get in the next year.
Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo's are a prime example. I have app 100,000- 110,000 miles on 2 past sets of Bridgestone Desert Duelers. One set had an aggressive tread and quite literally almost drove me to drinking.
As a nexus to tire pressure, these are 44 psi max sidewall tires. I happened to run 35/32 psi. F/R for on road applications. My usual tread life has been between 50,000 for an earlier model 1987 TLC with app 250,000 miles: to 95,000 miles over 4 Toyota Landcruisers with the 275-70-16 size. Time will tell how the AT Revo's hold out.
I suppose I'm concerned that the 265/65/17 tire may be too wide for the factory 17x7 wheels that came on her Truck. I'd hate to go to a 245/70/17, as wider tire would fil the wheel wells nicely.
Thanks again!
"If a consumer has a concern about grip, he said, they should look a tire that matches their needs, rather than trying to alter the treads on the tire they selected."
To Sipe Or Not To Sipe (KOMO News)
Who sipes in here?
Steve, Host
Would this formula also hold true on other high performance all weather radials?
Should this improve or traction, handling and life of the tire?
I had always "heard" that higher tire pressure would in fact degrade traction.
For example, on a placarded car 30 PSI F/R, I have run (44 psi max sidewall pressure) Goodyear Eagles F1 Supercars between 38/36 F/R and have gotten 56,000 miles with 1/32 of useful wear left. Being as how they started with 8/32 in; the wear per 1/32 worked out to be 11,200 miles per . So realistically, I could have gotten 67,200.??!!!! Since I use them for longer distance, at speed, on the road touring, I elected to go to a tire with more wet potential, being unable to control weather and road conditions. I have operated in conditons (same trip) from 104 degrees ambient to 20 degrees) with rain of 4 in in 6 hours in the Mojave DESERT!!?? And rain all the way from Las Vegas NV to Grand Canyon, AZ!! ??? The snow showers were in the Colorado Rockies and at altitude! Actually this was not awe inspiring with maximum dry performance tires in the rain and in the snow storms I have sometimes found myself driving.
So now I run Toyo T1S's and it literally sticks like glue in the rain. Thank heaven no driving yet in snow showers! The wear per 1/32 in my application is trending app 14,000 per 1/32 in. Again between 38/36 psi F/R. My sense is I give up some dry performance, but the wet performance seems literally head and shoulders better.
So if I were drag racing or doing a lot of track time, the obvious arbitrator would be ET's or course time. So with those applications, tread wear life and wet performance with take a far back seat or are N/A.
Let me know what PSIs work in the applications you find yourself in.
You experience may vary, but get the total price on the wheel and check for lifetime balancing and rotation being included or not.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm looking for advice. I have a 2003 E500. Continental Conti Touring 245/45 R17 95H CH95 came on the car. They seam to be fine, (good wet/dry traction and low noise) but are worn out in 35,000 miles. The manufacturer rates them for 60,000 miles. I only got about half that.
So, should I just put on new set of Conti Touring or does someone have a better recommendation?
Thanks
Who sipes in here?
On the SUV, I both sipe and stud. On the VW that sees commuting miles, I just sipe. On icy roads, soft winter tires with lots of siping are a miracle technology.
I use Nokians in the winter. I'm not sure I'd want some tire dealer cutting siping into some other tire.
Ok, this one falls under new stuff I learned on Edmunds today. :-)
I see the race car drivers burning rubber but I always thought that was more to warm up the tire than to shave it down to get to the higher traction compounds.
Steve, Host
So a real life example; Goodyear Eagle F1 SC's. These come 8/32 in vs a more normal 10/32 in. The dry performace grip is absolutely ferocious between 2/32in (legally bald) and 5/32 in. If it is raining: DONT!
Steve, Host
Well anyway I have a pretty simple question, I’m getting new tires for a Honda Odyssey and am trying to choose between Michelin and Bridgestone. I have heard on another board that Bridgestone is better. The Michelins cost more and have a lower mileage rating.
So unless anyone knows something to the contrary I guess I will go with the Bridgestone’s. Also feel free to recommend a different brand al together. Thanks!
I'm getting them from "Tires Plus"..
Will try to post the modles when I can look them up.
Fits Acura Legend and Honda Accords Balanced and Ready to mount!
To be more specific, I just bought a used car - the front tires have like 6/32 and the rear have 8/32 left but the front ones are not evenly worn - possible alignment issue. So if I replace the 2 tires my plan would be to put the new tires on the front figuring they would eventually wear down to the rear ones, they I would begin rotating. According to the Tire rack article, I would have to put the new tires in the rear and move the worn ones up front. But then I would think I would never rotate them.
bretfraz, "Tires, tires, tires" #3184, 21 Oct 2003 4:20 pm
Interesting post on putting two snow tires on a car (don't!):
connortirerack, "Ask Connor at The Tire Rack" #574, 17 Dec 2004 5:14 pm
Steve, Host
From an engineering perspective, there are a few operating conditions where putting new tires on the rear is NOT the best thing to do, BUT since most tire dealers 1) don't know what those operating conditions are, 2) don't know if the vehicle is going to operate at least 50% of the time in those conditions, 3) those operating conditions are not common, and 4) people need to have a general rule to follow, the best answer is (in the absence of any kind of qualifier) new tires should be placed on the rear axle.
OBVIOUSLY, the safest thing is to have all 4 tires the same and the way to do that is to rotate regularly. If you don't rotate reguarly and find yourself with mismatched tires, you've got 2 choices - replace a pair, or be safer and replace all 4. BTW, this thread was started by someone who BOUGHT a car and the tires where mismatched, so it wasn't his fault, but the answer still comes down to cost vs safety.
hope this helps.
Kind of similar to the cost of repairing levies, don't you think! Or proper airline security checks.
The cost of changing the tires early was probably $150-$200. The cost of sliding into someone would be upwards of $1000. Probably way upwards!
I live in snow country. i have tires with lowest tread on front to keep wearing them out. I occasionally rotated backs to front to smooth them out and then rotated them to the back again after 2-3000 miles. This is timed so I can have the best tires on the front during snow season and on the back most of the other months.
Then I'll replace the two fronts that are partially worn out next winter. That will give me a good tread set for digging through snow for front and the better of the used tires on the rear. This is my technique with Symmetry tires on newer car.
The older car I did this and put on two new Harmony Michelins for last winter and then put them on rear and just replaced the two worn, smoother, but still with good tread depth tires with two more new Harmonys.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My experience has been the rubber type is just as effective as the tread pattern/depth. The soft rubber you find on "winter tires" is much more effective than the harder rubber of "all season tires" or "summer tires". The worst of all in winter use are "high performance summer tires". They are ball bearings when cold!
I agree that you probably need more than 2/32" variation to have a problem - unless one of the tires is on its wear blocks...but don't forget that tires need about 4-6/32" for good water evacuation. Long before tires are "unsafe" for dry roads, they are getting marginal on wet roads!
The point about hydroplaning is well taken. I had Brigestones on a Subaru that used to plane when they had 3/32" left before the "wear bars". I got rid of them ASAP! Front wheels that spin up then grab at highway speeds was too much excitement for me!
I do not understand why a 60 series or lower tire cost so much more than an equivalent diameter 70 series tire, especially considering that the 70 series tire probably contains more construction material.
I first became aware of this phenomenon in 1999 when I purchased a new Dodge Intrepid with 225/60/R16 tires. The Intrepids that year also came with 15" wheels and tires, probably 215/70/R15. The 16" replacement tires for my car were almost twice as much as equivalent 15" tires. I know everyone will say that the 60 series tires are higher performance tires yada yada yada, but do they cost more to make. Does it cost more to make a 60 series tire vs. the equivalent diameter 70 series tire?
My wife has a new Pacifica with 235/65/R17 tires which run about $180 to replace. A 235/75/R15 tire is almost the exact width and diameter as the 235/65/R17 tire, will give a smoother ride, can be purchased for well under half the price and they contain more rubber and steel. So as more and more cars move to lower profile tires we are doomed to pay more and more for less tire and get a harsher ride in the bargain.
It does not seem like much of a bargain to me!
Any comments?
If tire popularity is driven by auto manufacturers, then it is driven in part by auto buyers... since we choose to buy the car that looks a certain way, drives a certain way, etc. In addition, I'd have to ask what's in it for the auto guys, since the tire companies are owned and operated by different people.
I believe that higher performing, lower profile tires are more expensive for reasons that include marketing, but also include greater engineering, more technical development etc. I do not believe that the amount of rubber, steel etc. has a linear relationship with price... look at the relative weight of different tires. Looks like you are paying for the engineering necessary to make the lighter tire weigh less.
Just my opinion.
The tires weigh less because there is less tire. On none of the cars that I have purchased recently have I had a choice of tire size. Auto manufacturers have gone to "performance" tires as a cheap way to make their cars handle better. Cheap that is until you have to replace the tires. I just feel that the move to lower profile tires has little benefit to the consumer at a great cost. Not that long ago you could get a set of tires for $200. Now odds are that it is twice that or much more and are you really that far ahead?
First, it's hard to do apples to apples comparisons as the vehicle manufacturers have been moving towards higher speed ratings while they've been going to lower aspect ratios. Not only do you get better handling (which is safer for the public), but also using less of a tire's capability (or any product for that matter) is also safer for the public.
The vehicles have also been going larger in rim diameters - and in a lot of ways the use of bigger brakes has been driving this (also more safety for the public)
But to try to validate the issue on lower aspect ratio tires costing more I went to TireRack and looked up some prices on Goodyear's. Here's what I found:
P205/75R15 97S $69 22 pounds $3.14 per pound
P215/70R15 97S $69 23 pounds $3.00 per pound
P225/60R16 97T $73 27 pounds $2.70 per pound
All of these tires have the same load capacity and could be used in exactly the same application.
This doesn't seem to follow the premise as the weight actually increased but the cost went down per pound.
So let's start with the weight increase. As a tire goes lower in aspect ratio, in order to keep the same load capacity (and interestingly essentially the same diameter), the section width increases. This means that the belts are wider, the tread is wider, and there is more ply material - all increasing the weight.
So if we take the change from P215/70R15 to P225/60R16, the only decrease in weight would come from the rim diameter change, and that's only ply and sidewall material - both fairly inexpensive materials - the width increase adds quite a bit of material and therefore weight.
So let's take a P235/65R17 103S. (same speed rating, larger load capacity) Goodyear has one of those for $75 and it weighs 30# - That's $2.50 per pound.
However, a Pacifica requires an H speed rating and that's $135, 29 pounds or $4.60 per pound, but an H speed rated tire is going to have nylon on top of the belt. Not only is this more material, but it also requires more sophisticated (and more expensive) manufacturing equipment.
I think the better arguement is that vehicles are coming with higher speed ratings - and the lower aspect ratios are being driven by the increase in brake size (not 100%, but directionally). Certainly the vehicle manufacturers have noticed the gradual increase in freeway speeds and are reacting to that fact. May be an even better arguement is that the general public's driving habits are the real reason for higher tire prices.
But, if I understood correctly, and I may have missed it entirely, I thought the query was about where to put 2 tires if one cannot afford all 4 new tires...I would place 2 new tires on driving wheels (meaning the wheels of propulsion, where the drive shafts are attached) and not the rolling wheels...
Please do not follow up with the question, "where would you place the 2 new tires on a vehicle with AWD, like the Audi A6???"...too much to ponder...
Seriously, if I got two new tires for my FWD minivan, I'd put them on the rear, at least for the first 7,500 miles. Then I'd rotate them to the front.
Steve, Host
The only objection that I have is that certainly in this area (Eastern WA)I have observed greater differences in tire prices than you have listed.
For example at Costco:
Michelin X-Ice $90 for 205/70/R15
Michelin X-Ice $100 for 205/65/R16
Michelin X-Ice $110 for 225/60/R16
Each price includes $10 mounting etc charge so the real price is $80 vs $90 vs. $100. The 60 series tire costs 25% more than the 70 series tire.
However, assuming similar weights to the ones you listed, the 60 series tire is probably 25% heavier than the 70 series tire so the cost for materials is equivalent.
I agree with you that the higher speed rated tires cost more, but believe that we don't need these high speed rated tires. Around here and in Kansas the State Patrol are all over speeders. I would have a hard time justifying doing 80 mph. I also agree about brake size, but don't really think there is a need to go over 16" wheels except for serious sports cars.
It is the cost of progress I guess.
This is a listing of maximum speeds with tire ratings.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=35
M 81 mph 130 km/h
N 87 mph 140km/h Temporary Spare Tires
P 93 mph 150 km/h
Q 99 mph 160 km/h Studless & Studdable Winter Tires
R 106 mph 170 km/h H.D. Light Truck Tires
S 112 mph 180 km/h Family Sedans & Vans
T 118 mph 190 km/h Family Sedans & Vans
U 124 mph 200 km/h
H 130 mph 210 km/h Sport Sedans & Coupes
V 149 mph 240 km/h Sport Sedans, Coupes & Sports Cars
If you really do not drive over 85 mph, you do not need a V rated tire. If you sell the car, let the new owner know.
I personally love Michelins. They are exceptional tire which last a very long time.
What about the Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus
215/60HR16 Blackwall Serv. Desc: 95H Price Each: $118
This is an H rated tire at $118. You won't get the same mileage as the hydroedge, but I bet that it would be a good compromise. Good luck
Speed ratings are determined by a laboratory test. That rating is applicable to the real for only certain conditions. The actual speed capability of a tire is reduced when 1) the tire is used with less inflation pressure than the maximum, 2) road conditions are less than smooth 3) the tire ages, 4) the tire is damaged in some way, etc.
Recenet events have challenged the vehicle manufacturers to come up with way to improve the safety of vehicle and their tires. One of the ways to do this is to specifiy less of a tire's capability. So larger tires (less of the tire's load capability) and higher speed ratings (less of the speed capability) are now the norm.
Be aware of this when you chose to use something less capable.