I have an 05 RAV4 2wd base model with Toyo brand 215-70/16 skins and would like to go with the factory oversize 235-60/16 and retain my stock steel wheels. The normal wheel for this RAV with the 235-60 is an alloy wheel which is 1" wider than the steel ones I have now. Anyone have any ideas if I would have problems doing this? The height of both tires is very close according to the charts, so the speedo won't be affected. Thanks much!
AAhh i need help. i have 35'-12.50-r15 tires. They rub then they are flexed out and i think they are way too big. I understand that 35 is the heigth from ground to top of tire. r15 is the width of the rim. What is 12.50? 225/75 15 tires. How much smaller are these tires than the ones i have? if i baught these tires, will they fit on the rims i have now. http://phoenix.craigslist.org/pts/445584983.html
35X12.50R15LT means 35" diameter, 12.5" wide and 15" rim diameter.
Compared to a 225/75R15 = 15" rim diameter, 225 mm wide(8.9" wide), and 28.3" in diameter.
What vehicle are we talking about?
BTW you should find the vehicle placard that lists the original tire size and the proper pressure for that size. Placards are usually located on a doorpost or in the glovebox.
Perhaps Capricer could chime in on this data set. I had app 5 sets Bridgestones Michelins, it really didn't matter, I got app 50,000 miles per set in the 235/75/15 size (87 TLC oem size) I had life time balancing and rotation and alignment and were all checked at 5,000 mile rotation cycles
When I got the 31-10.50-15 size, it started to last more like 90,000 miles.
While I have almost no experience with Michelin tires, I've had many sets of Goodyear's, and I currently have Kumho tires on two of my vehicles.
I obviously haven't had every type of tire made by Goodyear, but I've had quite a few of them over the years and I haven't liked any of them. They all ranged anywhere from marginal to absolutely horrible. One thing they've all had in common regardless of what type of tire, or what vehicle they were on, each set had at least one tire that at one time or another developed a "thumping" sound. When this happened, the only way to get rid of it was to replace the tire. Because of all the disappointing tires I've had from Goodyear, I've stopped buying their tires.
My current sets of Kumhos (I have the 795 A/S Tourings) have roughly 10K on one set, and about 35K on the other. Both sets still have most of their tread left, and they're every bit as good handling, quiet, and smooth riding now as they were when new. Kumho has a new tire that replaced the 795's, I think they're called Solus or something like that. Instead of a 70K tire like the 795's, the Solus is an 85K tire and is still very reasonably priced. I don't think you can't find a better value in any tire considering the high level of performance you get for such a low price.
Hi, I've a 2003 T&C that has 83000 plus miles on it and I plan on keeping it for another few years. I currently am running BF Goodrich Momentums on it and need new tires. I believe Michelin and Goodyear Triple tread tires are nice but wonder if there are tires out there that are equally as good as far as ride and wear and handling, that might be more economical. I live in Nebraska so I drive in a variety of weather conditions. Are there any particular recommendations? I'm new to this forum so I apologize if I'm not in the right place for this question. thanks
Since you want a head to head comparison you might want to go to a web site like Tirerack for your particular size and model. The problem now a days is in the time it takes to get longitudinal data, things have changed or have been superceded and the new data may or may not indicate switching to the so called "new model" is/is not in order.
Thanks bottgers for you very good and detail response. Your recommendation seems to represent the majority of the recommedations I have received thus far. Thanks again.
actually about 10k and they still look great wear wise although i would caution you to expect about 1mpg LESS FE. Don't know if this is becuase of the increased rubber on the road or possibly a higher rolling resistance. In all other aspects - the Versado seem to be what it is promoted to be - a luxury sedan tire.
Q: Where do the new run-flat tires fit into the picture?
A: People hate 'em. They're very expensive. Availability is very difficult for a lot of people to find.
And there's premature wear. Honda had a big problem with 11,000-mile tires.
And most people who bought the vehicle were not told by the salesman they had run-flat tires. They just want to sell the car and get you out. And people will come in here and say, "What do you mean 'run-flat tires?' I just want to buy two tires for the car that are comfortable" and we have to say, "Well, you can't do that."
Q: What are low-profile tires (which have less rubber between the edge of the rim and the road) doing to the market?
A: Well, they're increasing costs. They're not giving the mileage that your mother's Buick used to give. They're harder rubber so it's creating more problems in winter. A little bit of sticker shock, higher replacement costs, harsher ride. . . . You can run like a go-kart, but they're more susceptible to damage from potholes. We've seen a lot of impact-to-sidewall breaks in these tires.
Q: What happens with the new big rims? Twenty- , 21-, 27-inch rims?
A: They're more susceptible to bending, which can bend the wheel, ruin the tire. We straighten a lot of these wheels.
I drive an '07 Honda Accord Coupe V6 EX-L and my two front Michelin tires were worn to the bone at 13k miles.
Most people who buy rims don't care how they ride, its more of a bling thing. They may complain later but the with the bucks spent not much you can do at that point.
Replacing the Geolanders on 2003.. Any recommendations ?? bridgestone potenza g0009 and Yokohama Avid H4S have good review on tirerack.. Any one know anything about the Dunlop SP7000?
My Mazda 3 normally has 205/50R17 tires, I recently bought some 16" spare rims to use with winter tires (I checked and they do fit). The Viking Snowtech is rated highly but I can only find it in a 215/55R16, would this diffence in section width be okay?
I have received some conflicting information and was wondering if anyone can answer this question: I am considering buying a Toyota Sienna AWD and was wondering if I can replace the RFTs with regular tires on the same wheels. Or, are the wheels unique to RFTs and I have to also purchase new wheels? Thanks.
bottgers......you and others have spoken so well about the Kumhos. However, when I asked a Discount Tire employee about them, he said the Michelinn MXV are far more superior than the Kumhos. He said comparing the Michelins to the Kumhos is like comparing a Hyndayi (misspelled) to a Lexus. Why do you think so many people are so pleased with their Kumhos and yet, Discount Tire employees do not recommend them over Michelins?
mz6greyhost, I had not thought of that. I was just assumimg that since Discount Tire sells several brands of tires, they would not be biased about a particular brand. But, considering the price of the Michelins compared to the Kumhos, I guess it makes sense business wise to recommend the higher priced tire. You know, this world would be a much better place to live if more businesses placed honesty over money......in the long run, the business would make more money for being more honest.
>I guess it makes sense business wise to recommend the higher priced tire.
I am guessing that the Michelin has a lower profit dollars per tire than the other tire. I've noticed through the decades tire salesmen often try to switch me to another brand and that's usually because of more profit for the store or a spiff which makes money for them.
I know the last purchase it was pretty clear that the salesman (manager) didn't want to match price from another store on Michelins because it lowered his profit to even less per tire.
>You know, this world would be a much better place to live if more businesses placed honesty over money
Have you even been car shopping? Did you find honest workers through the whole process?
Take it from someone that was cursed with a set of Michelin Pilot MXMH4s on my Mazda 6. Terrible tires, both in dry and wet traction. They squeal in protest even in slow corners. Snow traction doesn't exist, at all. I live in the upstate NY snow belt, and I've driven plenty of other all-season tires that perform better with little tread compared to the Michelins with full tread. They lasted only 28K miles for me, and at $200 PER TIRE to replace them? I don't think so.
I've been told the high price is due to them selling them as OEM tires at a lower price to auto manufacturers, and unfortunately, most drivers won't do any research and will make the mistake of replacing them with the same model, paying the high price.
Yes I think all one has to do is the math to decide what tires are better for ones application or experiences or driving style set. To me that is (fractions of a) cent/s per mile driven.
WWW.TireRack.com really performance a high level of service to do the tests, keep the statistics and let the chips fall where they may. They of course have their own opinions, which you may or may not follow/use in ones quest to get the "RIGHT" tire.
So for example, if one only gets less than 30k miles from a 200 dollar Michelin tire and gets 30k miles from a 85 dollar Kumho K16 Solus, AND (Tirerack) test/s indicate/s VERY similar performance characteristics: it is an absolute no brainer to opt for the cheaper ( Kumho's) tires.
With my OEM experiences, I could just as easily take a completely opposite action, for EXACTLY the same tire comparison set!
and in that order of preference and performance. GY LSH's were only rated #3 because only THREE oem offerings (WAY DISTANT #3 here if you know what I mean). Most users vilified them.
I had heard of drivers getting 95,000 miles plus on OEM Michelin MXV4. On the GY LS-H's most report not even seeing 50,000 miles ! Again one can almost clearly see why most vilify the GY LS-H's.
To make a long story short, I am @ 100,000 miles on the GY LS-H and the tire depth gauge indicates a min of another rotation 10,000 mile intervals for 110,000 miles !! Actually I think 120,000 miles is do able. I digress but truthfully I am just anxious to try the tires I had bought at 50,000 miles, thinking the GY LS-H's would have been long since toast.
So if I can get 100,000 miles on "ultra crappola" per a majority of users, oem tires (360 UTOQ), I can surely get 100,000 plus on the Michelin MXV4 (400 UTOQ). Michelin has a newer Primacy MXV4 (620 UTOQ) and now sports a 60,000 miles warranty. While I think I can probably get 50,000 miles on a Kumho K16 Solus, If I can't get more, this instantly costs MORE, a min of 60 , cost of tire change and balancing. Indeed given the experiences I'd be remiss if I did not consider GY LS-H's in the replacement tire mix. Tire information and selection is even more buyer beware than ever before!
A nail got into the sidewall yesterday on the rear tire of my Civic LX. Unfortunately, the RS-A couldn't be patched and didn't think it wise to have two different treads on the rear axle, so bought two of these Fusion tires this morning. Tread looks somewhat meaty and turns out it's a Bridgestone made tire. Had their Turanza's on my last car and loved 'em. The fronts still have tread left, so opted to keep them. Was bummed because the car just hit 11k this morning and was hoping to get at least 20k miles on this oem set. Did spring for the road hazard protection as there are numerous nails & small debris on our South Florida roads and we pick up stuff from time to time. Wife had the same problem last week but Sears patched it free under the hazard protection policy. Sometimes cheap insurance is a good thing and it does pay for itself in the long run. Love the newer low profile tires on these newer cars but hate the increased price when they need replacement!
Sorry to hear of your tire misfortune! Your post triggered in me the thought that still buying th 5th (full sized) tires, even as the a number of oem cheaps out to provide the so called "spare" tire still makes good sense. It also makes sense to put the 5 th (full sized) tire in the recommended rotation interval. In effect, buying and deploying the "5th" tire would have forstalled having to buy 2 (total of 6 in your example) . More impotantly and directly models do also have their structural quirks and do not always wear dead even. So even if one tire is worn you can still use the other 4. (if they are still good of course). Thus you "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak, or not triggering another opportunity to have to buy 2 tires when having a 5th would have taken care of both situations.
Yes it is. The other "objective" factors, if they are similar/equal to a more/less expensive tire and vice versa can make a tire of either ilk, a better value. So for example, in the case of the GY LS-H's, right now the cents per mile driven number to beat is .00309 cents (85 per*4=340.00/110,000 miles).
What can beat it?
A tire that has the equal to or better wet handling,,l braking, etc , that lasts say 50,000 miles and costs 40 per tire (40 per*4=160.00/50,000=.0032 cents ) You can see how this changes due to different prices and mileages.
So for example, a Kumho K16 Solus costs 53 dollars*4 and has a 60,000 mile warranty. So if you compare the tests, what do you think? The math indicates 53*4=212/60,000= .00353 cents. To get .00309, you need to get 68,608 miles. Since I do not have a good enough data base to SWAG, I really dont know if that vendor/model will do 40,50,60, or 70k miles or more for that matter. So if it gets 68k-70k I luck out. If I get less, I spend app 60k dollars more to change and balance the next set of tires in addition to the cost of ...new tires, unless it is included in the price.
Well, it probably depends on what you are putting the tires on, and what your desired outcomes are. I've described certain tires as "Sticky as all heck, but they don't last long", and been perfectly satisfied with them. If traits like noise, or "stick" or hydroplaning resistance matter, then you tend to get a more balanced view, IMHO. At the very least, I try to answer a question with a question - so, when asked "What would you suggest?", I ask "What's important to you?"
I am glad you agree!! In effect, that is what I have said. Indeed I have said (for example) that treadlife is important to me. Will it be to you? Maybe yes/no, more likely are differently weighed priorities.
Michelin has 2 interesting comparisons. Primacy MXV4 and the Exalto A/S. The Primacy's are slightly more expensive ($15., 14% more) The UTOQ is 620/40 respectively (35%). Warranty is 60,000/45,000 miles.(25%)
So when you go to the objective tests, while there are individual differences, they are indeed slight overall, but if the ones that are better are more important, then the bottom line is: its your nickel. For my .02 cents, the better differences are outweighed by the probablility of a 620 utoq going more mileage, thus giving a lower cost per mile driven. So in my case if a 400 utoq will give 125,000 miles, what are the chances of 35% more? I don't know, but I am on target to get 125,000 miles on a 360 utoq. This tire had NO mileage warranty.
Any comments...positive or negative? Replaced the rear RS-A's with the Fusion HRi's the other day due to nail damage. Price wise they were in my acceptable range but can't find much information about them except that they are a Bridgestone product. Feel free to chime in here if anyone has any knowledge about them. Since only the rears are wearing these shoes now, it's hard to tell how good the grip really is but they seem much better than the Goodyears they replaced. Never liked the grip on dry pavement with the Goodyears to begin with, car seemed to loose grip very easily around certain roads on my daily commute. Would've liked to have the same treads on both axles, but the fronts still have plenty of tread left after 11k miles and just couldn't see throwing $ away since I was really bummed about the bad tire not being patchable. Really wanted to have waited till about 20k to replace all four with Michelin Exaltos.
the fusion is a firestone product. for the price not a bad tire. it is used by some speedways for their drift cars in the driving experince division. i have a car that came with Z rated tires and they too were goodyear's and i was a little disappointed with with in any condition other than dry pavement. though i did opt to replace them with the stand alone goodyear brand called fierce. this is a much better tire than the original goodyear and is priced about the same as the fusion.
I'm looking at getting a Mazda CX-9. One model has 245/60R18 with H speed rating the other has 245/50/20 with V speed rating. Both tires are the same width and work out to the same diameter, so the contact patch should be the same, but will the slight difference in the rubber between the V and H speed rating make any difference in the snow and ice traction?
I live in Denver and will be traveling to/from the ski areas, so a slight difference in the traction can make the difference between staying on the road, or enjoying a roadside ditch.
The 20" will have 1" less of sidewall height.. Stiffer ride, less sidewall flex.. Better dry road handling, but less resistance to pothole damage, etc..
I doubt you'll notice any issues with road-holding... As you noted, the contact patch should be virtually identical.
The biggest issue will be price.. I'd guess that a 20" tire is between 1.5 to twice the price of an 18" tire. You are paying for the bling..
Perhaps they have changed since I purchased and used "V" rated tires, but my experience was they are useless in snow. But both tires that come with the vehicle are probably poor in snow, again, at least that has been my experience.
As stated above, the 20" tires will be MUCH more expensive, and the only advantage they will give you is the bling factor (and personally I think the large wheels look silly). On a CX-9 the perceived handling improvement with the 20" will do nothing. It's a two metric tonne vehicle and there is nothing "Sporty" about that! In fact, I'll bet if you test drive both versions on a roughish road (and what road these days isn't), you will prefer the smaller wheels. It will steer better, ride smoother, and will be quieter.
The question here seems to be moot - Just took a look at a couple of sites including the Tirerack, and I show only three H rated all season tire in that size, I'd bet that the 20 inch V rated all seasons were just as limited. Looking at the Denver area, I'd expect more real snowfall.
Personally, I'd suggest going with the 18" inchers for your summer tires, for all the reasons already mentioned, and get a set of 16" steelies, or lower cost alloys, with dedicated snows for winter work.
..." but my experience was they are useless in snow. But both tires that come with the vehicle are probably poor in snow,"...
The very things that give the H and V rated tires ferocious dry grip has the "polar" (pun intended) opposite effect in snow.
Those has been my experiences as well. In a vehicle with tires: 265/40/17 fronts., 295/ 35/18 rears, I once was in the Rocky Mountains, Pagosa Springs, CO (altitude 7050 ft) when a snow storm (annual snowfall in the area, 100-500 inches per year) started in the the late afternoon and blanketed the roads overnight (3/4 in). Overnight the temps dipped to 20 degrees. It was touch and go for a while, in that if it had really kept adding inches of snow fall, it would have been prudent to park it and retrieve it in the spring. So yes I "nursed" it down out of the curvy mountain roads. Can I do it? Did I do it? Yes, Yes! Would I recommend someone else doing it? NO !!!!!!!
For that vehicle, due to a series of factors, there are no recommended "snow" tires/rims, and/or chain, cable/chain combinations
So if yours has a snow tire/rim combo recommendation, I would highly recommend that!! (Porsche, for example has a snow tire/rim combo recommendation ) The issue of course is 500-1500 extra for the recommended 4 position combo! Indeed do NOT drive the car (in snow and ice) if you decide NOT to do that kind of combo.
I once watched a Honda with soup ed up (presumably summer) tires do a 360 degree spin (coming down out of the mountains) as he was head on coming at me !!! Luckily the 2 direction(4 lanes each way), mountain freeway was separated by a concrete barrier and yards of EARTH. Evidently it was experiencing problems way before as folks where following that vehicle FAR behind what they would usually be following!!!
I have been puzzled by the real reasons of different sizes specifications of tires and wheels. In the last 10 years the size of tires has been increase from 15 inches to 20”. Is this tendency an emotional selling point or it has real implications on the ride of a vehicle. What I have learnt is that OEM tires can be changed by other ones provided that after some calculations the new replacement is below 3.0% deviation. Assuming that my car comes with 255/55R18 tires what will be the effect if I change them 235/60R18. The deviation is just 0.21%. My question is: Will the change improve the off-road capability of my car? I assume, the answer could be ‘yes’ because it will be more rubber in the vertical direction to absorb bumps and potholes. Could someone elaborate more in this subject?
Assuming that my car comes with 255/55R18 tires what will be the effect if I change them 235/60R18. The deviation is just 0.21%. My question is: Will the change improve the off-road capability of my car? I assume, the answer could be ‘yes’ because it will be more rubber in the vertical direction to absorb bumps and potholes. Could someone elaborate more in this subject?
This change is not going to do much... as a matter of fact, you are REDUCING sidewall height - going from 153 mm (55% of 255) to 141 mm (60% of 235). If you are looking to increase sidewallheight you would drop to a 17 inch wheel, while going to a 75 series tire (Just as an example, I did not do the math to be precise)
I don't know what you drive, nor do I know what you mean by "off road"... generally, when I went bogging, I wanted a wider "floatier" tire, when I went rocking I wanted a narrower, multi-ply "flexier" sidewall.
I have a 4WD and I did my homework based in some physical principles of rubber grip, center groove design and water channelling off the rubber I bought the Yokohama Geolandar AT-S G012. This tire has excellent off-road capability all terrain and the set of 4 tires has even eliminated the light tendency of the car to move out of course when the steering wheel is left alone for few seconds. I have driven the car under torrential raining (e.g. 80 miles per hour), climb hills, snow tracks, mud trail and highways. I have never felt so safety. It is a good feeling.
I refer to off-road to tracks/trails (no asphalt) with plenty of pot holes, gravel, mud, 1’ snow, ice, 2’ fording depth, 25-degree climbing moderate hills, skewed (moderate inclination 20-degree) tracks, sanding/dusting trails, stones (not rocks), and so on. The fact that the width of the tire is reduced by changed from 255 to 235 will help the ‘off-road’ fun, without affecting the highway ride, I think. You are right about the sidewall.
Again 55% of 255 = 140.25 and not 153 as you stated. 60% of 235 = 141. So I gain 1 mm. With this change I will feel the bumps less by using the 235 than the 255.
I am on my third set of MXV they are the best I have ever had. Track well, quiet, good wet/dry performance. All round very good. I particularly like their long mileage and ability to stand up to very rough driving conditions. While driving in Newfoundland a couple of years ago I broke rear springs without doing damage to the tire or wheel. The road to Tilting on Fogo island while "paved" is better suited to Caterpillars than Toyotas. My only regret is that Michelin no longer makes MXV in the size I need.
What about wheels? If you reduce your tire width by 10mm (about 0.4 inches), then they may be too narrow for your current wheels. The wheel width may be acceptable, but still not ideal for the narrrower tire.
Comments
the factory oversize 235-60/16 and retain my
stock steel wheels. The normal wheel for this
RAV with the 235-60 is an alloy wheel which is 1" wider than the steel ones I have now. Anyone
have any ideas if I would have problems doing this? The height of both tires is very close
according to the charts, so the speedo won't be
affected. Thanks much!
i have 35'-12.50-r15 tires. They rub then they are flexed out and i think they are way too big. I understand that 35 is the heigth from ground to top of tire. r15 is the width of the rim. What is 12.50?
225/75 15 tires. How much smaller are these tires than the ones i have?
if i baught these tires, will they fit on the rims i have now. http://phoenix.craigslist.org/pts/445584983.html
35X12.50R15LT means 35" diameter, 12.5" wide and 15" rim diameter.
Compared to a 225/75R15 = 15" rim diameter, 225 mm wide(8.9" wide), and 28.3" in diameter.
What vehicle are we talking about?
BTW you should find the vehicle placard that lists the original tire size and the proper pressure for that size. Placards are usually located on a doorpost or in the glovebox.
When I got the 31-10.50-15 size, it started to last more like 90,000 miles.
I obviously haven't had every type of tire made by Goodyear, but I've had quite a few of them over the years and I haven't liked any of them. They all ranged anywhere from marginal to absolutely horrible. One thing they've all had in common regardless of what type of tire, or what vehicle they were on, each set had at least one tire that at one time or another developed a "thumping" sound. When this happened, the only way to get rid of it was to replace the tire. Because of all the disappointing tires I've had from Goodyear, I've stopped buying their tires.
My current sets of Kumhos (I have the 795 A/S Tourings) have roughly 10K on one set, and about 35K on the other. Both sets still have most of their tread left, and they're every bit as good handling, quiet, and smooth riding now as they were when new. Kumho has a new tire that replaced the 795's, I think they're called Solus or something like that. Instead of a 70K tire like the 795's, the Solus is an 85K tire and is still very reasonably priced. I don't think you can't find a better value in any tire considering the high level of performance you get for such a low price.
thanks
link to Globe article
Q: Where do the new run-flat tires fit into the picture?
A: People hate 'em. They're very expensive. Availability is very difficult for a lot of people to find.
And there's premature wear. Honda had a big problem with 11,000-mile tires.
And most people who bought the vehicle were not told by the salesman they had run-flat tires. They just want to sell the car and get you out. And people will come in here and say, "What do you mean 'run-flat tires?' I just want to buy two tires for the car that are comfortable" and we have to say, "Well, you can't do that."
Q: What are low-profile tires (which have less rubber between the edge of the rim and the road) doing to the market?
A: Well, they're increasing costs. They're not giving the mileage that your mother's Buick used to give. They're harder rubber so it's creating more problems in winter. A little bit of sticker shock, higher replacement costs, harsher ride. . . . You can run like a go-kart, but they're more susceptible to damage from potholes. We've seen a lot of impact-to-sidewall breaks in these tires.
Q: What happens with the new big rims? Twenty- , 21-, 27-inch rims?
A: They're more susceptible to bending, which can bend the wheel, ruin the tire. We straighten a lot of these wheels.
I drive an '07 Honda Accord Coupe V6 EX-L and my two front Michelin tires were worn to the bone at 13k miles.
Any recommendations ?? bridgestone potenza g0009 and Yokohama Avid H4S have good review on tirerack..
Any one know anything about the Dunlop SP7000?
There are plenty of other non-biased sources to research, including actual road and track tests in Tirerack.com.
I am guessing that the Michelin has a lower profit dollars per tire than the other tire. I've noticed through the decades tire salesmen often try to switch me to another brand and that's usually because of more profit for the store or a spiff which makes money for them.
I know the last purchase it was pretty clear that the salesman (manager) didn't want to match price from another store on Michelins because it lowered his profit to even less per tire.
>You know, this world would be a much better place to live if more businesses placed honesty over money
Have you even been car shopping? Did you find honest workers through the whole process?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Take it from someone that was cursed with a set of Michelin Pilot MXMH4s on my Mazda 6. Terrible tires, both in dry and wet traction. They squeal in protest even in slow corners. Snow traction doesn't exist, at all. I live in the upstate NY snow belt, and I've driven plenty of other all-season tires that perform better with little tread compared to the Michelins with full tread. They lasted only 28K miles for me, and at $200 PER TIRE to replace them? I don't think so.
I've been told the high price is due to them selling them as OEM tires at a lower price to auto manufacturers, and unfortunately, most drivers won't do any research and will make the mistake of replacing them with the same model, paying the high price.
WWW.TireRack.com really performance a high level of service to do the tests, keep the statistics and let the chips fall where they may. They of course have their own opinions, which you may or may not follow/use in ones quest to get the "RIGHT" tire.
So for example, if one only gets less than 30k miles from a 200 dollar Michelin tire and gets 30k miles from a 85 dollar Kumho K16 Solus, AND (Tirerack) test/s indicate/s VERY similar performance characteristics: it is an absolute no brainer to opt for the cheaper ( Kumho's) tires.
With my OEM experiences, I could just as easily take a completely opposite action, for EXACTLY the same tire comparison set!
On my VW Jetta TDI, there were three oem tires:
1. Michelin (MXV4)
2.Continentals (ContiContactPro)
3. GY( LS-H's)
and in that order of preference and performance. GY LSH's were only rated #3 because only THREE oem offerings (WAY DISTANT #3 here if you know what I mean). Most users vilified them.
I had heard of drivers getting 95,000 miles plus on OEM Michelin MXV4. On the GY LS-H's most report not even seeing 50,000 miles ! Again one can almost clearly see why most vilify the GY LS-H's.
To make a long story short, I am @ 100,000 miles on the GY LS-H and the tire depth gauge indicates a min of another rotation 10,000 mile intervals for 110,000 miles !! Actually I think 120,000 miles is do able. I digress but truthfully I am just anxious to try the tires I had bought at 50,000 miles, thinking the GY LS-H's would have been long since toast.
So if I can get 100,000 miles on "ultra crappola" per a majority of users, oem tires (360 UTOQ), I can surely get 100,000 plus on the Michelin MXV4 (400 UTOQ). Michelin has a newer Primacy MXV4 (620 UTOQ) and now sports a 60,000 miles warranty. While I think I can probably get 50,000 miles on a Kumho K16 Solus, If I can't get more, this instantly costs MORE, a min of 60 , cost of tire change and balancing. Indeed given the experiences I'd be remiss if I did not consider GY LS-H's in the replacement tire mix. Tire information and selection is even more buyer beware than ever before!
.
Did spring for the road hazard protection as there are numerous nails & small debris on our South Florida roads and we pick up stuff from time to time. Wife had the same problem last week but Sears patched it free under the hazard protection policy. Sometimes cheap insurance is a good thing and it does pay for itself in the long run.
Love the newer low profile tires on these newer cars but hate the increased price when they need replacement!
The Sandman
What can beat it?
A tire that has the equal to or better wet handling,,l braking, etc , that lasts say 50,000 miles and costs 40 per tire (40 per*4=160.00/50,000=.0032 cents ) You can see how this changes due to different prices and mileages.
So for example, a Kumho K16 Solus costs 53 dollars*4 and has a 60,000 mile warranty. So if you compare the tests, what do you think? The math indicates 53*4=212/60,000= .00353 cents. To get .00309, you need to get 68,608 miles. Since I do not have a good enough data base to SWAG, I really dont know if that vendor/model will do 40,50,60, or 70k miles or more for that matter. So if it gets 68k-70k I luck out. If I get less, I spend app 60k dollars more to change and balance the next set of tires in addition to the cost of ...new tires, unless it is included in the price.
Michelin has 2 interesting comparisons. Primacy MXV4 and the Exalto A/S. The Primacy's are slightly more expensive ($15., 14% more) The UTOQ is 620/40 respectively (35%). Warranty is 60,000/45,000 miles.(25%)
So when you go to the objective tests, while there are individual differences, they are indeed slight overall, but if the ones that are better are more important, then the bottom line is: its your nickel. For my .02 cents, the better differences are outweighed by the probablility of a 620 utoq going more mileage, thus giving a lower cost per mile driven. So in my case if a 400 utoq will give 125,000 miles, what are the chances of 35% more? I don't know, but I am on target to get 125,000 miles on a 360 utoq. This tire had NO mileage warranty.
Since only the rears are wearing these shoes now, it's hard to tell how good the grip really is but they seem much better than the Goodyears they replaced. Never liked the grip on dry pavement with the Goodyears to begin with, car seemed to loose grip very easily around certain roads on my daily commute. Would've liked to have the same treads on both axles, but the fronts still have plenty of tread left after 11k miles and just couldn't see throwing $ away since I was really bummed about the bad tire not being patchable.
Really wanted to have waited till about 20k to replace all four with Michelin Exaltos.
The Sandman
I live in Denver and will be traveling to/from the ski areas, so a slight difference in the traction can make the difference between staying on the road, or enjoying a roadside ditch.
I doubt you'll notice any issues with road-holding... As you noted, the contact patch should be virtually identical.
The biggest issue will be price.. I'd guess that a 20" tire is between 1.5 to twice the price of an 18" tire. You are paying for the bling..
I'd stick with 18s..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
As stated above, the 20" tires will be MUCH more expensive, and the only advantage they will give you is the bling factor (and personally I think the large wheels look silly). On a CX-9 the perceived handling improvement with the 20" will do nothing. It's a two metric tonne vehicle and there is nothing "Sporty" about that! In fact, I'll bet if you test drive both versions on a roughish road (and what road these days isn't), you will prefer the smaller wheels. It will steer better, ride smoother, and will be quieter.
Personally, I'd suggest going with the 18" inchers for your summer tires, for all the reasons already mentioned, and get a set of 16" steelies, or lower cost alloys, with dedicated snows for winter work.
The very things that give the H and V rated tires ferocious dry grip has the "polar" (pun intended) opposite effect in snow.
Those has been my experiences as well. In a vehicle with tires: 265/40/17 fronts., 295/ 35/18 rears, I once was in the Rocky Mountains, Pagosa Springs, CO (altitude 7050 ft) when a snow storm (annual snowfall in the area, 100-500 inches per year) started in the the late afternoon and blanketed the roads overnight (3/4 in). Overnight the temps dipped to 20 degrees. It was touch and go for a while, in that if it had really kept adding inches of snow fall, it would have been prudent to park it and retrieve it in the spring. So yes I "nursed" it down out of the curvy mountain roads. Can I do it? Did I do it? Yes, Yes! Would I recommend someone else doing it? NO !!!!!!!
For that vehicle, due to a series of factors, there are no recommended "snow" tires/rims, and/or chain, cable/chain combinations
So if yours has a snow tire/rim combo recommendation, I would highly recommend that!! (Porsche, for example has a snow tire/rim combo recommendation ) The issue of course is 500-1500 extra for the recommended 4 position combo! Indeed do NOT drive the car (in snow and ice) if you decide NOT to do that kind of combo.
I once watched a Honda with soup ed up (presumably summer) tires do a 360 degree spin (coming down out of the mountains) as he was head on coming at me !!! Luckily the 2 direction(4 lanes each way), mountain freeway was separated by a concrete barrier and yards of EARTH. Evidently it was experiencing problems way before as folks where following that vehicle FAR behind what they would usually be following!!!
This change is not going to do much... as a matter of fact, you are REDUCING sidewall height - going from 153 mm (55% of 255) to 141 mm (60% of 235). If you are looking to increase sidewallheight you would drop to a 17 inch wheel, while going to a 75 series tire (Just as an example, I did not do the math to be precise)
I don't know what you drive, nor do I know what you mean by "off road"... generally, when I went bogging, I wanted a wider "floatier" tire, when I went rocking I wanted a narrower, multi-ply "flexier" sidewall.
55% of 255 = 140.25 and not 153 as you stated. 60% of 235 = 141. So I gain 1 mm. With this change I will feel the bumps less by using the 235 than the 255.
However grab a ruler - 1 mm will mean nothing to your ride quality.
The road to Tilting on Fogo island while "paved" is better suited to Caterpillars than Toyotas. My only regret is that Michelin no longer makes MXV in the size I need.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator