Consumer Reports Premier A/S vs Primacy MXV4 Test

Messages
24,237
Location
CA
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/...wears/index.htm Cliff Notes: - Premier A/S mostly lives up to its claims on maintaining wet traction as the tire wears - Dry Traction on the Premier A/S is a bit deficient compared to the Primacy MXV4, but not by a ton. - Handling, ride, noise and winter weather performance is about equal to the Primacy MXV4 - According to their testing, treadwear is "exceptional" - so I interpret this to mean equal or better than the Primacy MXV4 In addition, TireRack did their own testing of the Premier A/S with the PureContact, Serenity Plus and P7 Plus. TireRack's test results pretty much match Consumer Reports' conclusions. Based on what I am seeing so far, I am not seeing any reason to "fear" the Premier A/S and its shorter starting tread depth. It appears that this tire delivers on the performance promises and the treadwear is appearing is to be a non-issue so far.
 
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
It is a shame that it doesn't quite match the Primacy for dry grip, but I'm not sure any tire on the road can boast that its wet braking distance is the same (or even shorter) than its dry braking distance, or that it truly doesn't lose any performance as it wears. The graph in the article is impressive. The only thing that I would say CR's testing misses is the aging component to wear. Tires don't lose 40% of their tread depth in a single saving session. They lose them over years of hot-and-cold cycles, potholes, sitting for days on end, flying down the interstate, etc. Any hardening of the compound due to these stresses is not replicated here.
 
Messages
7,256
Location
USA
I am considering these tires for my wifes 2005 Legacy GT wagon(215/45/17) with 170k miles. I have a quote locally for $620 installed. Just wondering if its too expensive of a potentially last tire. The current yokohama avid envigor are great for her except they have garbage in terms of winter traction(way below average).
 
Messages
18,208
Location
NH
I was burned by my last set of MXV4's. The UTQG rating for my size was much lower than the other sizes. So I'm a little peeved with Michelin at the moment. I'd be tempted by these tires, but since I've never gotten close to manufacturer ratings for tire life I'm going to skip. I'm not going to go to a tire shop every 5k for a rotation so that I have proof of rotation, even if it was free for them to rotate.
 
Messages
2,284
Location
WNY
I have a set of MXV4 94H on my Accord. 500 treadwear - I have about 15k on them now and they're about between half to 3/4 done. Not really impressed with the tread-life. Kinda ticked IMO. Honestly though they have been a very comfortable, quiet and well gripping (dry and wet) tire. I don't run A/S tires in the snow so have no opinion on that. Don't think I'll go with the Premier next time around. I can't justify the high price of the Michelin anymore. The Conti PureContact w/EcoPlus Technology looks like a good contender.
 
Messages
7,256
Location
USA
I still wonder if people have problems with vehicles or driving style when they eat tires? Or maybe lessor handling that scrubs up tires much faster as the tires get the brunt not the suspension. With Honda Civic's and Subaru WRX, Legacy and Acura MDX all decent handlers we seem to get the listed life of tires if not more. UTQG is meaningless IMHO. The OEM Bridgestone RE92a's on our Subaru's was around 200 yet we both managed close to 50k on the tires. They were awful in winter but otherwise quiet decent riding tires.
 
Messages
3,404
Location
Chicago
Originally Posted By: redhat
The Conti PureContact w/EcoPlus Technology looks like a good contender.
I have them on my accord. They have 20k on them, and at last rotation the the fronts checked 8/32 and the rears 9/32.
 
Messages
1,311
Location
the South
My Primacy MXV4 have the 60K treadwear warranty, which I think correlates to a 620 UTQG rating. I have 54K on them, and roughly 7/32 of wear all around. They get rotated every 10K. Based on wear so far, I'd expect another 40K from them to get down to the wearbars, but I'll be swapping them out due to age and dryrot concerns first. That being said, I doubt the Premier will replace them. The cost per mile of tires is negligible but you still need the upfront money to afford them. Michelin is out of my price range currently, probably going with Altimax RT43.
 
Messages
3,558
Location
SE Pa
Originally Posted By: The Critic
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/...wears/index.htm Cliff Notes: - Premier A/S mostly lives up to its claims on maintaining wet traction as the tire wears - Dry Traction on the Premier A/S is a bit deficient compared to the Primacy MXV4, but not by a ton. - Handling, ride, noise and winter weather performance is about equal to the Primacy MXV4 - According to their testing, treadwear is "exceptional" - so I interpret this to mean equal or better than the Primacy MXV4 . . .
That's not quite what CU had to say. To paraphrase the test report: 1. Dry braking stops are just average among performance all-season tires, and six feet longer than the MXV4. 2. Worn (shaved to 5/32 in this instance), the dry stop difference grows to nearly 10 feet v. the MXV4. That's getting closer to a full car length longer. That's significant for an all-season tire. Most tires operate in the dry most of the time. It's a decided step back from the MXV4 in that significant performance aspect -- stopping the vehicle. It sounds like Michelin went with a slightly harder wearing compound, for less tread, is willing to give up a little grip to get it, and is counting on its innovative new groove molding technology to cover the difference. And again, CU never determines how many miles it takes to get to 5/32. Are we talking 14,000 or 40,000 miles? That's the BIG, and as yet unanswered question about this tire. Is it terrific for 65,000+ miles, or is it worn to dangerous depths before then? No offense to CU, as they have always been so right about everything in the past, but I will wait this tire out a little longer before anointing it. Hopefully, it is everything Michelin wants it to be.
 
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
Originally Posted By: supton
I was burned by my last set of MXV4's. The UTQG rating for my size was much lower than the other sizes. So I'm a little peeved with Michelin at the moment.
It sounds like you downgraded your Camry's tires to the P215/60R16 94H tires, which are an OEM tire for the Nissan Altima Hybrid. They have a treadwear rating of 500. If you stuck with the OEM speed rating of V, you would ironically have had a tire with a longer tread wear rating (620).
 
Messages
753
Location
MA
I have almost 70k on my Primacy MXV4's (205/60-16), and even wear on all 4 at 6/32. I have been very happy with the tire. That said, in about 15k I'll be swapping them out for the Continental PureContact Eco's. It does not look like the Premier's are worth the premium, at a third more than the Continentals.
 
Messages
3,612
Location
Parts Unknown
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The only thing that I would say CR's testing misses is the aging component to wear. Tires don't lose 40% of their tread depth in a single saving session. They lose them over years of hot-and-cold cycles, potholes, sitting for days on end, flying down the interstate, etc. Any hardening of the compound due to these stresses is not replicated here.
It would be harder for CR, TR, etc... to do an accelerated life test to take those things into account. Shaving tires is the closest thing they can do on limited resources. It would be easier for a major tire company to have that type of specialized equipment(s).
 
Messages
375
Location
Pennsylvania
Both CR and Tire Rack used 215/60-16 tires in their Michelin Premier A/S tests. Neither of these tests say that the Michelins are a rough riding tire... well I have a set on a Subaru Impreza H rated 205/55-16 that ride like they are over inflated by 20 lbs. The Subi used to glide over bumps when it had the original Bridgestones or Dunlop winter tires now it crashs into them. With these new Michelins I'm starting to hate driving it. My inflation is the recommended 33f 32r and the side wall feels soft but the tread and belts or something give this tire a suspension jarring ride over any road imperfections. On a smooth highway they ride nice and quiet and track very good. On a road that has been patched or has tar snakes they feel like they don't absorb any of the bumps. I've had many sets of Michelins over the years, several MXV4, Pilot Exaltos, and these are the first ones I am disappointed with. Unfortunately I have 2000 miles on these tires and I'm past the time period of returning them. Why didn't I get a set of the Continental Pure Contacts like I have on my other car? Just wanted to try something different I guess.
 
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
It would be harder for CR, TR, etc... to do an accelerated life test to take those things into account. Shaving tires is the closest thing they can do on limited resources.
I agree. My point was only that I'm not sure that CR's "worn" testing results are truly representative of how the tire will perform after it's aged for 40,000 miles, in addition to simply being worn down by 40,000 miles. Not a slam on CR necessarily...just an observation.
 
Messages
11,849
Location
PA
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The only thing that I would say CR's testing misses is the aging component to wear. Tires don't lose 40% of their tread depth in a single saving session. They lose them over years of hot-and-cold cycles, potholes, sitting for days on end, flying down the interstate, etc. Any hardening of the compound due to these stresses is not replicated here.
Indeed. This is one thing that makes tire shopping very, very difficult -- especially given that so many tires are so good when new and so bad when old... Yes, a genuine simulation of tire aging would be difficult-to-impossible for an outfit like CR. That makes it 100% fair that they don't do it. We're still left with a big hole in what we can know about the products.
 
Messages
11,849
Location
PA
Regarding the sacrifice of dry grip for wet grip: In my experience, the ability to stop and turn on wet roads is FAR more important than the ability to do the same on dry roads. Everything is worse in the wet -- not just all-out grip, but also the predictability and smoothness of breakaway. Plus, there is a flip side to what Volvohead pointed out about the dominance of dry driving conditions: people have less experience, less skill, and worse sensibilities when driving in wet conditions. They often drive closer to their limits and their cars' limits. Any extra margin in the wet will be a good one. It's far from ideal to sacrifice dry grip for wet grip, but that sacrifice is still far better than the opposite.
 
Messages
3,558
Location
SE Pa
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Stunningly accurate, and true on all counts. Why anyone would NOT want good wet grip is beyond me, but I don't live in Arizona either...
Everyone wants good wet grip and stopping performance. Which is why my wife's latest set of tires are Conti PureContact Ecoplus, which excel in that area, and are very strong performers everywhere else. And much cheaper than the new Premier. I think we can all agree that the Premier is an excellent tire new, and with 3.5/32 shaved off. No doubt it is not perfect, and some compromises were made, as with every tire. Imagine how much better it would be with a full 11/32 to live on. But until someone presents a report on the mileage in the field it takes to wear down 3.5/32 off the Premier, the ultimate value of this tire remains uncertain. Shaving never answers that. Until then, others can pay the very stiff price of this tire and report back to us.
 
Messages
19,686
Location
Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
But until someone presents a report on the mileage in the field it takes to wear down 3.5/32 off the Premier, the ultimate value of this tire remains uncertain. Shaving never answers that. Until then, others can pay the very stiff price of this tire and report back to us.
I am never an early adopter. The market will quickly determine the value here. But anyone who imagines Michelin to be lacking in technology is probably mistaken. My PSS's came with a 30k mile warranty. I have never had any tire last over 19k miles on my car. Either they lose a whole lot of money or they know what they are doing....
 
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Imagine how much better it would be with a full 11/32 to live on.
I'm sure it's not that simple. If Michelin could add 30% more tread depth and sell it with an 830 treadwear rating and a 78,000 mile warranty, with no significant trade-offs, then I'm sure they'd have done it.
 
Top