By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I heard it was every 5 years... and no I don't work for Firestone. :surprise:
Wet weather braking tests show budget tires don’t pay
200 days of rain a year on average in the UK. That sounds worse than Seattle. We get ~230 sunny days annually here in Boise, so maybe I can buy cheap?
Steve, visiting host
I think what Steve posted would be applicable in the US as well.
Well, sort of. Tires are rated for traction and temperature. The issue with traction is the rating is only based on wet braking . Oh, and the tire makers do the test themselves and "self-report" the results. Just like treadwear.
..."Traction Grades
UTQG Traction Grades are based on the tire's straight line wet coefficient of traction as the tire skids across the specified test surfaces. The UTQG traction test does not evaluate dry braking, dry cornering, wet cornering, or high speed hydro planing resistance.
The Traction Grade is determined by installing properly inflated test tires on the instrumented axle of a "skid trailer." The skid trailer is pulled behind a truck at a constant 40 mph over wet asphalt and wet concrete test surfaces. Its brakes are momentarily locked and the axle sensors measure the tire's coefficient of friction (braking g forces) as it slides. Since this test evaluates a sliding tire at a constant 40 mph, it places more emphasis on the tire's tread compound and less emphasis on its tread design.
In 1997, the UTQG Traction Grades were revised to provide a new category of AA for the highest performing tires in addition to the earlier A, B and C grades. Previously the A grade had been the highest available and was awarded to tires that offered wet coefficients of traction above 0.47 g on asphalt and 0.35 g on concrete. Today the grades and their traction coefficients are as follows:
Traction
Grades Asphalt
g force Concrete
g force
AA Above 0.54 0.41
A Above 0.47 0.35
B Above 0.38 0.26
C Less Than 0.38 0.26
Unfortunately the immediate value of this change to tire buyers will be limited. Use of the AA grade will first be seen on new tires that are introduced after the standard was enacted and will then appear later on tires that have had the required wet traction all along, but were introduced when the single A was the highest available grade."....
link title
In light of the above and referenced information but especially:
..."The UTQG traction test does not evaluate dry braking, dry cornering, wet cornering, or high speed hydro planing resistance.
It would appear that one of the services/added value a place like www.tirerack.com offers is the real world testing after the app 1/2 G min standards for AA ratings. So indeed the standards are there, albeit INCREDIBLY LOW. :lemon: Besides I would swag every car geek had/has a fantasy of testing whatever tires he/she wanted to the hearts content and usually on someone elses nickel. A lot of folks test tires on their own nickels
Upshot: Indeed you are not saying just because one pays more (to incredibly more) for a set of tires that premium is a guarantee of the best WW traction?.
Testing of course not only disproves that ( upshot) notion , but actually indicates more variance.
"(you are-my sic) your over thinking this"...
Hardy!?
In this case, there is no minimum level of traction performance required in the US. There is, however, a rating system - and the lowest rating is open ended downwards - meaning a tire could have a coefficient of friction of Zero and still be legal to sell in the US. I'm sure such a tire would not sell well, not to mention all the lawsuits that would be generated.
Nevertheless, the issue highlighted by Steve's post applies to the US as well!
I think it is routinely seen on "brand new" oem tires. To use two as an example, but Indeed this might be an almost universal oem practice., Honda Civic and VW Jetta TDI come with oem tires (rated on www.tirerack.com) that were consistently at the LOWER rungs of the ratings system, aka 23/24 (thank heavens for # 24,) which is now rated 19/21, and 17/29. In both cases you can get radically better rated tires (same category, even across categories) at actually CHEAPER prices than the very low rated oem tires !!!
On the other hand, I got 74,300 miles and 113,000 miles from the oem tires. Can I get that from the now better after market selections? If I did my research and, and ,and, and..... time will tell !
Interesting that some of the top rated "after markets" tires are actually cheaper (by -3 to -5 per tire) !!!
And some of these tires could easily be defined as "budget" tires....... Until someone defines "budget tires" (i.e. brand names) , I don't see how this article applies to the US market.
Indeed some would say the "Asian" tires are the budget tires, but in fact Michelin has maintained rubber plantations in VIETNAM since before Vietnam kicked France out !!!! (aka LONG time ago . If so, using the logic, they are GROSSLY overpriced for what you really get. Again that can also depend on how it is measured, but I use cost per mile driven.
I did do a search on Linglong tires. I did find a dealer in nebraska that sells them. Found some reviews on Wanli and Nankang tires. They seem to be either truck or performance tires.
In my opinion, these tires excel in these areas:
Wet weather.
Cold, wet weather.
Moderate snow (I'm sure a more aggressive "snow" tire would beat it).
I run them all year around. They are absolutely terrific in wet weather, as were the WR's before them. They okay in warm weather. Again, a dedicated tire would beat them.
But taken in the context of an "all-weather" tire, I don't think anything would beat them. The compromises that Nokian made on this tire just fit too well with the way I run them in the weather that I face, on the roads I drive. They're just very impressive to me. They are what all-season tires should have always been.
To my knowledge, it is the only "snowflake-in-mountain" tire that comes with a wear warranty. In my experience, they'll last as long as a Michelin all-season tire like the MXV-4 that Michelin had.
And look for a local dealer - I was very much surprised how well I did buying locally compared to buying online and then paying separately for a mount/balance.
I doubt that I'll buy any other tire for my car in the future.
But, recent quote for 205/55-16 (times 4), was about $660 on the car (+ tax).
Not cheap!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But, recent quote for 205/55-16 (times 4), was about $660 on the car (+ tax).
Not cheap!
These are the sizes I need and I agree, they're not cheap. For that reason, I've decided against them. I may buy a separate set of winter tires as well as these have been rated 1 snow flake recently (barely achieving a severe winter rating).
Thanks much,
Randy
2004Ford Explorer Limited with 17" Chrome/Alloy Wheels
However it is commonly known that some tires/rim/lug nuts after tire work/change/rotation, etc DO work loose their lug nuts. I have seen in some owners manuals to check for this after the initial work has been done. So jumping over the liability issue the real question to ask the tire shop is what is the best time/miles after the initial work is done for them to RE check it?
For me this is serious enough to have bought the applicable torque wrenches AND sockets and extensions and just recently an impact gun for "gorilla applied" and speedy removal.
I'm getting 4 new tires for my 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan and I'm trying to decide what to get. Currently it has Yokohama Aegis LS4 which I paid $65 per tire (plus installation). I've gotten over 50,000 miles out of them which is perfectly satisfactory to me. I chose them because Consumer Reports tested them and liked them. Now I'm looking to replace them and the prices of the tires I'm looking at are much higher. The Yokohama AVID TRZ is $109 and the Hankook H725 is $100. I've never paid that much for tires in my entire life (no pun).
I asked my tire guy about the #1 rated Goodyear Assurance TripleTred and he told me I should avoid those because they are unidirectional. I asked him if I should also avoid the AVID TRZ since it is an asymmetrical tire and he said that was different from unidirectional and not a problem. It just needs to be mounted correctly.
I'd like to know why "unidirectional" is different from "asymmetrical" since they both need to be mounted a certain way. I don't see what the difference is!
You can scan tire rack.com for probably the more technical article, but here is one source.
link title
However all things are not equal, and a lot of it depends on the tire design, the tread design and the materials used to make the tire. The 205/55R16 Bridgestone RE940AS Pole Position seems to be more susceptible to this then the Bridgestone RE92 OEM tires we had previously in the exact same size.
I looked up the specs on the Bridgestone RE92 tires in size 205/55/16. I couldn't find any info on the RE940AS.
http://www.bridgestonetire.com/tireselector/SizeSpecs_BS_EN.aspx?Product_ID=8
Apparently they make two different versions of that tire in that size - a V-rated version and an H-rated version. The V-rated version (for the Lexus IS300) has a wider tread width of 6.8" vs. the H-rated version's 6.2" which is shown as OE on the Subaru Legacy.
The tires I'm considering, the Hankook H725 with a tread width of 6.3" and the Yokohama Avid TRZ with a tread width of 6.9" have a difference in tread width of 0.6". I don't know that I really should be all that concerned about that small of a difference. There are probably more important factors in the tread design to consider. Like the fact that the Avid TRZ is an asymmetrical design, for example.
But the current tires on my car, the Yokohama Aegis LS4, have a 6.9" tread width (same as the Avid TRZ) and just look a little bit wide on the 6.5" wide stock rims visually. So I like the idea of getting something a little narrower. And my 2002 Grand Caravan has always had a tendency to drift a little bit when going straight on the highway, so if the narrower tire might help to curtail that then I'm all for that.
But, unfortunately, there probably is no way to know for sure without actually trying something.
Sorry, early morning type-o, RE960 A/S
the H-rated version's 6.2" which is shown as OE on the Subaru Legacy.
That's what we are dealing with here
But the current tires on my car, the Yokohama Aegis LS4, have a 6.9" tread width (same as the Avid TRZ) and just look a little bit wide on the 6.5" wide stock rims visually. So I like the idea of getting something a little narrower. And my 2002 Grand Caravan has always had a tendency to drift a little bit when going straight on the highway, so if the narrower tire might help to curtail that then I'm all for that.
As long as the tire is approved for use on a given rim, I wouldn't worry about the tire width relative to others. A narrower tire *may* provide better MPG and rain driving at the expense of dry traction and braking of the wider tire.
Have you looked at other culprits? Worn suspension components and improper alignment can produce the same results at a much faster rate.
Ah, OK.
Have you looked at other culprits? Worn suspension components and improper alignment can produce the same results at a much faster rate.
The car was like this from brand new. An initial re-alignment by the dealer helped but never fully cured it. (My previous car, a 1989 Caravan, never had this problem.) And the tires are wearing perfectly evenly so I don't want to touch the alignment now.
I'm tempted to try the Hankooks just to see if the slightly narrower tread width design helps any.
Assymetrical tires have outside and inside but they can rotate in either direction.
Directional tires must rotate in one direction (except backing up ;-) but they can be mounted on either side.
Tires that are assymetrical and directional (yes, there are such animals) have right and left flavours.
So assymetrical tires might be rotated left to right and rear to front; directional tires can be rotated front to rear.
Krzys
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yeah... I live with this with the summer tires on my car - front/rear diff sizes, and Michelin's PS2s mean that there is no tire rotation for me!
On an asymmetrical tire, you can rotate left to right and right to left . This was done on a (example: GY Eagle F1 Supercar)
On a directional tire, you have to dismount and remount to be able to rotate left to right and right to left. (example: Toyo T1R)
It said that the store recommended putting snow tires on the rear wheels if you were buying only two tires. The applied to FWD cars as well as RWD.
Now, putting two snows on the rear of a RWD vehicle is a no-brainer but why would you put two snows on the rear wheels of a FWD car? That makes no sense to me. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1. 4 snows (all around) is the best.
2. So if you are only getting two, putting them on the rears makes sense for you have to deal with the (loose) steering. .ie. more careful.
3. fronts break aways are easier to correct and you feel it faster than the rears.
For some reason, your post made me recalled this vehicle which was a HOOT in the deep snow!!!
MB4 Coleman
link title
link title
Most tire stores now insist that you mount 4 snow tires. It's not only safer, but they get to sell more tires.
I wouldn't do it on a RWD car, either... but, I can see being able to control it, somewhat..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I had been used to using a pair of "cable" chains, as most times you only NEEDED it at altitude in the mountains (6,500 ft) and only if they TOLD you to chain up.
Since I was going to now "live in" 24/7 snow, I decided to get so called a set (1 axle=2 tires) of dedicated "snow tires." They made this thing run like the proverbial tank- all good. Except they were a real pain when you wanted to increase the speed as the whine would drive you crazy. The next winter I didn't even put them on and did just fine. This was in upstate NY if folks know the scenario. This was before the Global Warming bru ha ha. At the time we were waiting for the Global ICE AGE.
I RE read my post and yours, I would recommend to all, but the most skilled, don't try what worked real well for me (4 normal tires) ... at home !!
I guess it has been a long time since I've used anything but all-season tires. It never crossed my mind about how many dedicated winter tires you would use. In fact the last car I had snow tires for was a 1982 RWD Oldsmobile which I drove with snows just on the back. None of my FWD cars ever needed snows.
And I, like a few of you have driven in upstate NY all my life. Ahh, the memories of my youth, driving on bald snow tires because it was so much easier to light them up that the tread was gone long before the snow fell.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Rather than get a set of 17" winter tires to swap on my wheels twice per year, I downsized to 16" on steelies (the base model wheel/tire size for my car). The extra set of wheels allows me to swap them myself in my garage using a jack and jackstands, saves me from $30-$60 every time I swap the tires, as well as less wear-and-tear on my 17" rims. After 2-3 seasons, the wheels pay for themselves, and the tires are usually much less expensive.
After my first winter with true winter tires, I'll NEVER (and I can't stress that enough!
I use a dedicated set of 16" alloys for winter, with snows on them, swap them myself, get to hand torque the lugs, inspect my brakes etc etc, and use those darn expensive (but pretty) low profile, all aluminum jacks I bought a few years ago LOL
I drive a RWD vehicle, and this setup is the best for me.