AAA worn tire tests: Premium vs Budget survey

Status
Not open for further replies.
I buy cheap tires it usually takes me 5 years to wear out 40 - 45,000 mile tires. I don't have any problems and it is a waste of money for me to spend more.
 
^^^ I thought it looked familiar, commented in that thread. My biggest take away, a good reference to the fall off in stopping distance as the tires approach 4-5/32 tread depth. Waiting till 2/32 wear bars a stretch imo. The newer quarter test vs the older penny test.
 
I liked this test.

I only wish that there were more brands/models of tires being tested that I would be considering in my particular size...which happens to be the size that the AAA tested on the Camry in this test. And I certainly hope to see more tests like this with those different brands/models so we as consumers will have more data to use for our next purchases...or the next purchases after that once more data becomes available.

Another factor that I was thinking about is:

The AAA wore/shave down the tires to 4/32nds for the worn tire test. However, this doesn't tell us how quickly that the actual tire will take to get to that tread depth as each set of tires will get there at their own different mileage.

And we all know that the MFGs rated mileage is different than what most of us will actually get. We'll have to search other sites & customer reviews for this particular information.

I've had tires that I have completely loved from the beginning to the end of their life. And I've had tires that I loved at first but, hated by 10K-15K miles. And others still that took longer before I started to dislike them for one reason or another.

Yeah, this was a good test!

smile.gif
 
Last edited:
The Michelin Premier tires even with the tread worn down to 4/32" had a stopping distance that was between 39 and 80 feet shorter than any of the other tires, cheap or expensive. 80 feet. That is enough to not get you killed in an accident.
 
Thanks, Zolton. I hadn't seen this report. Interesting how the inclusion of Goodyear tires in the higher priced category may have skewed the results. Would be interesting to work the data without the Goodyears being included with the Michelin and Pirelli tires.
It was very interesting that the actual drivers of the test vehicles could not readily discern differences among the tires. They all felt the same. Or at least that is how I heard it explained.

Now, I won't feel SO bad when I pay more for my MIchelin tires.
 
Originally Posted by Char Baby

Another factor that I was thinking about is:

The AAA wore/shave down the tires to 4/32nds for the worn tire test. However, this doesn't tell us how quickly that the actual tire will take to get to that tread depth as each set of tires will get there at their own different mileage.

Unfortunately, shaving tires to test doesn't reflect the real life aging of a tire. Different temperature extremes and heat cycling have a dramatic effect on the tire.

Racers know that heat cycling the tires once will dramatically increase their life, at the expense of ultimate traction. Back when I was solo racing the BFG R1 had specific instructions to heat cycle for longer life.

Tire Rack offers shaving of tires for racers and for full-time AWD systems.
 
I recall us talking about this, but I recall actual charts showing the differences. And that brand new cheapo tires stopped shorter than Michelin's with 4/32's in the rain. Would need to go find the thread though to make sure. But I was left with the impression that I wanted to avoid both cheapo tires and Michelin's as I still needed to take off by 4/32's or I'd have live with reduced traction in the wet.
 
Originally Posted by Sayjac
My biggest take away, a good reference to the fall off in stopping distance as the tires approach 4-5/32 tread depth. Waiting till 2/32 wear bar is a stretch, IMP.


That's good info to know!

I also like to make sure they're off before they get to the wear bar.
 
Originally Posted by wdn
The Michelin Premier tires even with the tread worn down to 4/32" had a stopping distance that was between 39 and 80 feet shorter than any of the other tires, cheap or expensive. 80 feet. That is enough to not get you killed in an accident.


Or not kill a pedestrian!



I also liked this test, one question that is unanswered, is: How many miles will it take a certain tire to get to 4/32"? If an inexpensive tire, for example, takes 35,000 miles to be worn, and an expensive tire takes 60,000 miles to wear the same amount, then the inexpensive tire is actually MORE expensive over time.
 
Originally Posted by LotI
Originally Posted by Char Baby

Another factor that I was thinking about is:

The AAA wore/shave down the tires to 4/32nds for the worn tire test. However, this doesn't tell us how quickly that the actual tire will take to get to that tread depth as each set of tires will get there at their own different mileage.

Unfortunately, shaving tires to test doesn't reflect the real life aging of a tire. Different temperature extremes and heat cycling have a dramatic effect on the tire.

Racers know that heat cycling the tires once will dramatically increase their life, at the expense of ultimate traction. Back when I was solo racing the BFG R1 had specific instructions to heat cycle for longer life.

Tire Rack offers shaving of tires for racers and for full-time AWD systems.


Totally agree... After a season or two, tires are totally different vs. a week after they were installed and broken-in. A whole year later and they're even "more different" (yes, I know, bad grammar -intentionally).

Having received my honorary Ph.D from the school of hard knocks, I learned not to use tires once they're past their prime. In another thread here, I described a 70 MPH collision with a concrete curb that could have cost me and my BIL our lives. The tire that blew had a bald strip that I ignored all summer. What can I say... 17 years old and stupid. Again, 20 years later, I was driving in light rain on the expressway on evenly worn (but right down to the legal limit) tires and got a sudden scare. You know the story... Young guy, 3 kids, wife staying at home for a few years to raise the kids -and we never had 2 dimes to rub together. Yes, I let those tires get down to the barely legal limit and in the blink of an eye, the car is doing circles down the highway at 60 MPH. What can I say.... 37 years old and still stupid.

Finally, in the last 25 years since the last stupid move, I know enough to buy 50,000 mile tires and ditch them at 40,000 miles. Also, after countless sets of tires, I learned you won't know if the set you buy will be any good until after they're paid for.
 
The best post from the earlier thread...

Krzys posted:

Quote
Personally, I wonder how rigged the test results were.

The only unusual thing there that I noticed is that they shaved all tires to 4/32 regardless of how much thread they start with.

The Premier starts with 8/32 and is designed specifically to keeps sipes until late stages of wear.

The others start more generously at 10/32 or more and the sipes are erased earlier than 4/32.

Maybe they should have checked against a Continental with DWS markings and shave it borderline to making the W (wet) marking disappear. As that is the clear indication from the manufacturer on what the thread depth should be in order to guarantee the wet performance.

Or maybe they should have shaved 4/32 FROM all tires (instead of shaving TO 4/32).

You can easily notice the differences from the pics.
 
Right, I agree that shaving tires DOES NOT duplicate real world driving where it may take 3-4 yrs in order to get tires down to 4/32nds.

Also, the test drivers couldn't discern the differences in NVH during their test driving. However there is data not heard by human ears that shows the differences and E/E mentioned that he wouldn't discuss it however, we could read the test data for Vibrations, Ride & Quiet

And also, does shorter stopping distances(new or worn) mean higher rolling resistance resulting in possibly lower fuel economy? Also not discussed in the video.

So many factors to consider but a good test just the same.
 
Last edited:
As noted, the title of tenderloin's linked thread is really what I think these tests show most, ie., wear vs stopping distance. Imo, survey/sample size not large enough to reach the conclusion the vid title shows. And as mentioned, the Goodyear specific tire inclusion in "premium" category very much skews the results imo. I'm thinking GY makes another tire or tires that put in the premium category, would have performed significantly better.
 
Goodyear Eagle Sport All-Season (94V) was chosen by random selection just like the Pirelli and the Michelin. You can't get fairer than that it is random chance. Randomly picked for the Ford F-150 include:
Bridgestone Dueler H/L Alenza Plus (113T), Goodyear Wrangler Fortitude HT (115T) and Michelin Defender LTX M/S (115T)

Again, by random chance. Goodyear got into the category by being a high priced tire, which they are. Not only that but Goodyear had two chances, in the car and the truck category. They got picked twice to compete.

In both the car and truck category the Michelins won, hands down. Goodyear Wrangler had by far the worst stopping distance and did the worst on the skidplate. And the Goodyear Eagles were just plain terrible. Not only did the Michelin Premier best them — by a wide margin — but two of the three low-priced tire also beat the Goodyear Eagles.

Nothing is skewing anything, all tires were randomly chosen.
 
I had the Kumho 4x II and thought it handled great, but was slippery and wore down fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
AAA's Premium vs. Regular Gas Tests
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Patman
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
B
  • Locked
Oil Filter Reports
Replies
2
Views
6K
Patman
B
  • Locked
Snake Oils
Replies
6
Views
7K
ABN_CBT_ENGR
B
  • Locked
SNAKE OIL ADDITIVES
Replies
7
Views
8K
ShooterSS
Back
Top