Compare these two--Cooper & Continental

[paulri]

I am going to be getting new tires for my Sienna (probably this week). I've boiled it down to two--Cooper CS5Grand Touring and Continental Contact Touring A/S. The Continentals are $118 more (for the set of 4); both are 80K warranty tires. Both have rebates available at AmericasTire. FWIW, I'm going to get an alignment as soon as I get the tires put on.

I'm wondering if one of these sets would be likely to last 10-20K longer than the other. I have heard good things on this board about Continentals, but I don't know how they would compare to the Coopers. I am only interested in the life of the tread, not in any other factors. Because I have not been able to detect any difference in these cars, whenever I've bought a new set of tires (in terms of how quiet or smooth the ride is), my only concern is tread life (and price, of course).

I'm thinking it would be unrealistic for me to expect significantly more tread life with the Continentals, enough to justify paying $30 more per tire. What say you?

 

[SirTanon]

Cooper. Great brand, excellent tires, and the CS5 line is very highly regarded on here. The cheaper price is just the icing on the cake.

I have a set of Cooper Zeon RS3-A tires on my car, and they've been excellent. I've already surpassed the rated treadwear rating(40,000 miles), and still have around 5-6/32 all the way around. Traction has been excellent, too.

 

[Audios]

Cooper is owned by Continental, so apples to apples, Id imagine the Conti would be a better overall tire. Plus the road hazard is nice from them, Cooper offers nothing unless its a defect. I would personally go with the Contis, but either choice here is a good one.

 

[motts]

Cooper tire is its own company. General is owned by Contents.

 

[KalapanaBlack]

Continental is a higher overall quality level, and offers road hazard for the first year or 2/32" of wear. If you're talking about ContiProContacts, they are a rather antiquated design that doesn't necessarily do anything great, except for ride very quietly. They very commonly wear out at half their stated mileage. I think one could do much better for less money, from Cooper, Continental, General, or a number of other brands. The Kumho TA11 would be a great fit for this on a tight budget. Quiet, good handling and traction, above average ride quality, and decent longevity, especially for the price.

 

[Imp4]

I have CS-5 ultra touring on a v-6 Camry, installed just before last winter. Approx 10k miles on them now.

Very happy with the purchase. Good in the snow, quiet at high speed. I have not had to execute a real world panic stop yet so no comment there.

Rebates generally available if you time it right.
Would buy again.

 

[paulri]

Just ordered the Coopers, have them put on tomorrow.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[RyanY]

Originally Posted by paulri
Just ordered the Coopers, have them put on tomorrow.

Thanks for the comments.

I think that is a good choice! I had Continental ProContacts on my Ody (OEM) and was not impressed with treadwear. Otherwise they were good. I like the Cooper CS5s on my Cad and will consider them for the Ody next year when the crappy Yokos bite the dust.

Please let us know how you like the CS5s on the Sienna.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted by paulri
I am going to be getting new tires for my Sienna (probably this week). I've boiled it down to two--Cooper CS5Grand Touring and Continental Contact Touring A/S.


I cannot find this tire "Continental Contact Touring A/S".
http://www.continentaltire.com/tire...22&vehicle_id=69472&plus_size=-1
Maybe 4x4 Contact? Anyway it sounds like you are comparing a Grand Touring class tire with a Standard Touring (tire rack terms) class tire. In that case, the Grand Touring almost always wins.

 

[KalapanaBlack]

Originally Posted by HangFire
Originally Posted by paulri
I am going to be getting new tires for my Sienna (probably this week). I've boiled it down to two--Cooper CS5Grand Touring and Continental Contact Touring A/S.


I cannot find this tire "Continental Contact Touring A/S".
http://www.continentaltire.com/tire...22&vehicle_id=69472&plus_size=-1
Maybe 4x4 Contact? Anyway it sounds like you are comparing a Grand Touring class tire with a Standard Touring (tire rack terms) class tire. In that case, the Grand Touring almost always wins.


I'm not sure it's even made in that size, but there was a TouringContact A/S made for much of the early 2000s. It was OE on early '00s Devilles and Sevilles w/ 16" wheels, '00-07 Taurus/Sable, '06-10 Mitsubishi Galant, and randomly came back in the 215/55-16 size on recent Focus. It was the predecessor to the ContiPro. A rather antiquated design.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

I think you're referring to the Contact Touring A/S Plus which is an America's Tire exclusive and AFAIK are all T-rated. I think you made the right choice with the Coopers.

 

[paulri]

Well thanks for all the comments. But after all that, I went in today (to the same store that I went into yesterday, when I was told I needed new tires), and a different guy went out and told me they were fine. The front were 4/32, the rear were 6/32, so he just had me rotate them, and I'll postpone my purchase for several thousand miles.

What really makes me suspicious is that I asked the guy today, if at least they were wearing uneven, and he shook his head and said no. The guy who actually rotated them said they were fine. This is the first time I've had this type of experience with Americas Tire (of being told two different things by two different employees).

 

[wag123]

I put Cooper CS5 Grand Tourings on my Sienna after having gone through several sets of Michelins, I am happy with them so far. Regardless of what tire you purchase, they will not get to their warranty mileage on a Sienna. The Sienna is notoriously hard on tires. A word of advice, run them at 40 to 42 PSI and rotate them regularly if you want to get reasonable wear. The Sienna's 35 PSI recommendation is FAR too low for the weight the tires carry and the front tires wear 3x faster than the rears.

 

[paulri]

You aren't the first person to say that. I have been rather disappointed that I can't seem to go beyond 50% of the warrantied mileage, whether the tire is a 40K, 60K or now, an 80K tire.

(1) What tires do you remember putting on your Sienna? I was thinking that perhaps the reason why I didn't go 40K on my 80K Goodyear Assurance was because that was a bad tire. Now, from what you are saying, I really can't expect much more than that on anyone else's tire either.

(2) Would you recommend 40-42 PSI only for the front, or on all four? The 35 is cold recommendation; I normally get it pumped up to 37-38.

Originally Posted by wag123
I put Cooper CS5 Grand Tourings on my Sienna after having gone through several sets of Michelins, I am happy with them so far. Regardless of what tire you purchase, they will not get to their warranty mileage on a Sienna. The Sienna is notoriously hard on tires. A word of advice, run them at 40 to 42 PSI and rotate them regularly if you want to get reasonable wear. The Sienna's 35 PSI recommendation is FAR too low for the weight the tires carry and the front tires wear 3x faster than the rears.

 

[wag123]

I had Michelins on it up until now. The last set I had were Primacys. On the Primacys I increased the size from P215/65R16 to P235/60R16 (same diameter with 1" wider tread, I stuck with this size on the Coopers). I got 50k miles out of them with the tire pressure set to 42 PSI. I replaced them at approx. 4/32" because the rubber got hard and became dangerous in the rain because of poor traction (they might have gone 60k miles if I waited until 2/32").
After wearing out the OEM Michelins that came on the Sienna at only 25k miles, close examination of the worn tires indicated that the 35 PSI Toyota recommendation was obviously not high enough. I ran 40 psi for several years and watched my tire wear closely. Based on long term tire wear, I discovered that 40 psi still wasn't enough, so I went with 42 psi. NOW I'm getting even tread wear all the way across.
The old Sienna forum had a very long (over 30 page) thread discussing tire pressures vs tire wear. The consensus opinion at the time was that 42 psi was the optimum tire pressure to achieve even/maximum tire wear on a FWD Sienna, assuming that the tires are rotated frequently because the rear tires will likely wear a little more in the center because of the rear's lower weight. Some members were advocating split tire pressures because of this and recommended 42 psi in the front and 38 psi in the rear on FWD Siennas. FYI, some members were advocating 44 psi all the way around on the AWDs because of the additional weight (tire pressures should always be kept the same all around on AWDs). BTW, safety, emergency handling, and emergency braking considerations were discussed at length in this forum thread with a few members actually doing dynamic testing at various tire pressures, they were saying that handling/traction/braking actually improved at the higher pressures.

 

[paulri]

Wag123, was that 42 PSI cold or hot?

When you did go just to 40, but found it unsatisfactory--was that because there was no improvement in tire wear, or just not enough from your perspective.

Not trying to pester you, but I've never heard anyone advocate doing this before, and I've suffered enough tires (I think all of them) getting only 50% of the warranty life, that I"m thinking of trying this.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by paulri
Wag123, was that 42 PSI cold or hot?

When you did go just to 40, but found it unsatisfactory--was that because there was no improvement in tire wear, or just not enough from your perspective.

Not trying to pester you, but I've never heard anyone advocate doing this before, and I've suffered enough tires (I think all of them) getting only 50% of the warranty life, that I"m thinking of trying this.


I'm running 40 PSI in my Corolla and both MPG and tire wear increased.

 

[paulri]

Just to be clear, the life of your tires grew shorter, when you ran the PSI up to 40?

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson

I'm running 40 PSI in my Corolla and both MPG and tire wear increased.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by paulri
Just to be clear, the life of your tires grew shorter, when you ran the PSI up to 40?

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson

I'm running 40 PSI in my Corolla and both MPG and tire wear increased.



LOL and when was the last time you were at my house comparing the ware on my tires and trespassing?

 

[wag123]

Originally Posted by paulri
Wag123, was that 42 PSI cold or hot?

When you did go just to 40, but found it unsatisfactory--was that because there was no improvement in tire wear, or just not enough from your perspective.

Not trying to pester you, but I've never heard anyone advocate doing this before, and I've suffered enough tires (I think all of them) getting only 50% of the warranty life, that I"m thinking of trying this.

Tire pressures are always quoted, checked, and adjusted when the tires are cold.
I went from 35 PSI to 40 PSI on my second set of tires. Tire life went from 25k miles to approx 43k miles, but I was still seeing a small amount of higher inner and outer tread wear on the front tires, indicating under-inflation.
I went from 40 PSI to 42 PSI on the Primacys. They lasted over 50K miles, tread wear was nice and even across the front tires, but I replaced them due to rubber deterioration before they wore-out. The Michelin Primacys came with a 60k mile warranty, I suspect that they would have lasted 60k miles if I kept them on the van until the tread was worn-out.
I think JJ meant that his MPG and tire wear improved, so did mine.