I'm looking at either the Yokohama Avid TRZ or H4S for a 2005 Civic (195 60 15). I understand the H4S is a directional tire so no cross rotating. What confuses me about the TRZ is that the tread pattern has an outer and inner block... OK so far, but also appears to have a 'directional' pattern so that grooves (or swipes) on one side of the car will curve forward while the other side will curve back. ( I hope I'm explaining this clearly) Anyway, this would seem to have an effect on the tires behaviour depending on which side it is mounted... Can someone explain this? Or should I just get the H4S to avoid further consternation...? Thanks.
Could someone explain AVID TRZ tread pattern?
- Thread starter G.Frost
- Start date
- Status
Regardless of how you mount the tire on the vehicle, one side will always look "backwards". The tire you mentioned is asymetrical as is designed to "mount this side out".
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=AVID+TRZ
Cross rotating won't have any affect on performance.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=AVID+TRZ
Cross rotating won't have any affect on performance.
It doesn't say in the copy, but this looks just as Wantin150 said - an asymetrical, but non-directional tire. That means the tire should say "This side out", and hve no arrow on the sidewall.
Looking at the design itself, it doesn't look like the directionality would result in a major difference in water removal - hence the non-directional designation.
Looking at the design itself, it doesn't look like the directionality would result in a major difference in water removal - hence the non-directional designation.
G. Frost - check out the Sumitomo HTR H4 on Tire Rack. I went from my Avid H4S to these and have been happy - last time I checked they were still on sale for 60/15). Similar performance; hopefully longer treadlife due to being able to cross rotate.
Thanks for the replies. I am leaning toward the TRZ for the extra treadlife and (maybe) a bit better light snow traction. We get mostly rain(alot!) in winter here, so that's most important for my choice. I just thought it a bit strange they would design outer and inner tread blocks and then put some asymetric swipes that would face forward on one side of the car and backwards on the other. Apparently it is an appearance only issue and has little or no effect on hydroplane resistance....
Look at the Fuzion HRi for a tread that seems directional that is assymetrical.
On a side note, we have jumbo TRZs on our CRV and they are great in rain.
On a side note, we have jumbo TRZs on our CRV and they are great in rain.
How are the TRZ in the snow/ice?
I have been very happy with my TRZ's on my neon. I was impressed with their snow ability, granted we dont get snow here like detroit would.
for the price they are an amazing tire. i have 40000 miles on them and i believe i have another 40000 miles left on them. maybe 35000 if i get a little pedal heavy. but still i am going to get >70k miles out of these tires no matter what. and for a little more than $300 shipped/mounted/balanced i am ecstatic. i will definitely buy them again.
side note: i rotate every oil change, 5000 miles.
for the price they are an amazing tire. i have 40000 miles on them and i believe i have another 40000 miles left on them. maybe 35000 if i get a little pedal heavy. but still i am going to get >70k miles out of these tires no matter what. and for a little more than $300 shipped/mounted/balanced i am ecstatic. i will definitely buy them again.
side note: i rotate every oil change, 5000 miles.
I don't think they are great in snow, but only two all-seasons I ever owned were. Conti Extremes and Dunlop SPA2s. Still, TRZ is awesome. Good in snow is what I'll say.
If you look at the 1000x1000 image, you can clearly see the words "Side Facing OUTWARDS" on the sidewall of the tire.
Alot of tire manufacturers are getting away from the usual directional tread patterns and going with more asymetrical designs. Mostly for noise issues, but it also means they can produce one tire for any corner of the car vs. one for each side. Perfect example is the Michelin Pilot Sports. The PS1 had a very aggressive directional tread and a plethora of noise complaints. The new PS2s (have a set on my BMW) are a much better tire overall and I've experienced zero noise issues for the past 15K. Have TRZs on the minivan (Nissan Quest) and they are superb.
I'll jump on the TRZ bandwagon one more time to say that I feel comfortable installing this tire on vehicles which call for H speed rating. Normally I would follow the rating as closely as possible, with the exception of having a tire available that "feels" good and appears well-constructed. A good example would be Mom's 4cyl 1996 Passat or MiL's 1995 A6q. For someone like them, who just needs an alternative to store brand HR tires it's a hit. When not driven super-hard, the TRZ will work great with good wear and I'd MUCH prefer it to a cheap HR (either older model or generic branded), at about the same price point. TRZ is not cheap, but comes in smaller (cheaper) sizes.
Auto-Union, as you mentioned the 'T' vs. 'H' speed rating, the Civic does spec an H tire so that was another concern I had on the TRZ vs. H4S choice. These 2 tires are roughly the same price so that's a wash, & looking at the tirerack reviews I don't know if these 2 tires can be compared directly since they are in 2 different classes, so I wonder if in absolute terms the TRZ is actually superior to the H4S in wet or snow conditions. ( as the review ratings indicate)
I figure the extra deep and long life tread on the TRZ would win for hydroplane resistance in the long run.
Anyway, I'm primarily concerned with wet to heavy rain performance, I think either will be fine dry. As for the speed rating... 118 vs. 130 mph. I'm really not sure how much I'm compromising here. Not too much driving is above 85mph in this car.
I figure the extra deep and long life tread on the TRZ would win for hydroplane resistance in the long run.
Anyway, I'm primarily concerned with wet to heavy rain performance, I think either will be fine dry. As for the speed rating... 118 vs. 130 mph. I'm really not sure how much I'm compromising here. Not too much driving is above 85mph in this car.
Speed rating is a function of heat dissapation. There are people w/ more xpertise here than me, but as long as you keep the load rating adequate, there really is no problem. See? A slightly larger tire could carry a greater load, but have the same speed rating, vise-versa too. A Civic is a light car, and as long as you are not looking for super-crisp performance, the TRZ will work fine. It will likely ride better too.
Are you sticking with oem size or tweaking it? So, the TRZ is great in rain and with better wear, you will have more tread to play with over time. I would rate the H4S poor in snow. One of the few HR all-seasons I can say that about. For a better than TRZ in snow, try Conti Extreme. Excellent in rain too. Wear is way lower. IMo, the TRZ is a great match for a Civic. Some with like an A4, might be looking for more handling, which the H4S is one of the best at. I went with Kumhos ASX on my new Accord from previous experience and price, since I just got this new car. The only issue with them is wear.
Are you sticking with oem size or tweaking it? So, the TRZ is great in rain and with better wear, you will have more tread to play with over time. I would rate the H4S poor in snow. One of the few HR all-seasons I can say that about. For a better than TRZ in snow, try Conti Extreme. Excellent in rain too. Wear is way lower. IMo, the TRZ is a great match for a Civic. Some with like an A4, might be looking for more handling, which the H4S is one of the best at. I went with Kumhos ASX on my new Accord from previous experience and price, since I just got this new car. The only issue with them is wear.
Check out the Michelin Primacy MXV4. I priced the H4S but can get 4 Michelins out the door for only $17 more. No brainer decision for me. Plus the Primacy is a 60,000 mile tire versus 50,000 for the H4S.
- Status
Similar threads
