Help me decide which new tires

[SteveSRT8]

You know, if you really believe it, then it's true. For you.

And while I despise CR, their tire testing seems relatively unbiased.

I run a fleet of extremely heavy trucks, and NOTHING performs like the Michelins. They seem expensive and then last nearly twice as long as anything else. All the while improving the vans as though you bought new suspension parts, not just tires. We use them on our personal cars and trucks as well, and they simply outperform other tires in every application.

It's very unusual to get long wear and good traction together in the same tire. But they do seem expensive at first.

 

[bepperb]

I always found it funny that people would dislike CR... I mean, a guy sets up a test with five lightbulbs and publishes which burned out first. And people who like the other bulbs get all hot and bothered by it. But then, after having it for two years, it becomes pretty obvious that the criteria for what they consider the "best" is often different than mine. Maybe I want the lowest priced, or the whitest, or one that changes output the least over it's lifetime. Maybe the one lasts the longest isn't the most important criteria for me.

And it's like this for all their tests. The results are always one dimensional, best to worst, which for some products is ridiculous. They honestly rank beer (and wine) best to worst, which is insane. And for tires, where every single one is a compromise between life, traction and rolling resistance... well obviously different people have different desires. And maybe they can create a ranking system where a tire that performs well in all three but not best in one wins. But in many, and this topic, that tire isn't going to be the best for the application.

I think it's impossible to find comparisons of a tires "smoothness" because every manufacturer is biased to say theirs are smooth, every consumer (bitog poster) has limited experince, and every application is different anyway. All you can do is find tires that have a design geared towards, and a reputation for smoothness, and in that regard it would be hard not to find the Michelins desireable.

 

[rszappa1]

I replaced the factory Michelin MXV$ tires on my 2007 Honda Accord and they were Vrated with H rated Michelin Primacy and they are smooth as silk with no difference in feel or handling....by the way I got over 83,000 on the OEM Michelins...and the primacy has a higher wear rating...

 

[Bebop367]

Now Consumer Reports makes more for me to think about….????.....I noticed that CR’s test were done with my 215/60-16 size in the tires that I am considering. That may be helpful.

I noticed the H rated General Altimax HP (tires that I have now) ride comfort was rated Good vs. V rated General Altimax HP had ride comfort Very Good. Weird that V ride better that H to me. But my H’s don’t ride real great.

I now am thinking:
Michelin Primacy MXV4, H-Rated
Kumho Solus KH16, H-Rated (because of the excellent CR ride comfort rating)
Bridgestone Turanza Serenity, V-Rated (because I had good luck with Briggs)
Bridgestone RE 92, V-Rated (Know what I had, BUT High $ for old tech tires)
Now Consumer Reports makes more for me to think about….????.....I notice that CR’s test were done with my 215/60-16 size in the tires that I am considering. That may be helpful.

I notice the H rated General Altimax HP (tires that I have now) ride comfort was rated Good vs. V rated General Altimax HP had ride comfort Very Good. Weird. But my H’s don’t ride real great.

I now am thinking:
Michelin Primacy MXV4, H-Rated
Kumho Solus KH16, H-Rated (because of the excellent CR ride comfort rating)
Bridgestone Turanza Serenity, V-Rated (because I had good luck with Briggs)
Bridgestone RE 92, V-Rated (Know what I had, BUT High $ for old tech tires)

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
I always found it funny that people would dislike CR...


That's because they once rated Falken Ziex 512 the #1, and any one who knows better knows that it is absolute junk.

Quote:

I now am thinking:
Michelin Primacy MXV4, H-Rated
Kumho Solus KH16, H-Rated (because of the excellent CR ride comfort rating)
Bridgestone Turanza Serenity, V-Rated (because I had good luck with Briggs)
Bridgestone RE 92, V-Rated (Know what I had, BUT High $ for old tech tires)


RE92 is as famous of being junk as the Goodyear Integrity. Check any tire review site and you will know what it is about.

Heard good things about the Primacy MXV4, suppose to be much better than the Energy MXV4 (which is also a near junk tire).

 

[rszappa1]

Some junk tire I got over 83,000 on them v rated and never had to rebalance them....

 

[Bebop367]

The only reason I mentioned the 92's is that is what I had previously and felt no vibration thru seat even at very high speed. Maybe my back wasn’t as bad then… ….I agree fully with you that they are junk. They would scare you in the rain big time. The only good thing was High Speed (straight line) and easy on my back for some unknown reason.

Maybe a better question is what about the 92's that may be a reason I had the no vibration? Maybe my back is just worse……….

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: rszappa1
Some junk tire I got over 83,000 on them v rated and never had to rebalance them....


I really liked the Energy MXV4+ tires on my Cadillac STS. It all depends on the size, since there are so many OEM fitments for that tire. It was a PERFECT tire for that Cadillac. They had so much grip, you could just stand on the gas and the car went like stink. They also wore very nice. Absolutely no complaints from those tires.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
That's because they once rated Falken Ziex 512 the #1, and any one who knows better knows that it is absolute junk.


Junk compared to what? Today's tires? Probably so. When did CR rated them #1? It must have been a while, because I've been looking at their tire data for years, and I don't recall those being rated "#1". They were a recommended pick during the last round, but weren't #1.

Most folks who have those tires on the CR boards tend to like them. The only real negative is the poor tread life, which was even pointed out in CR's ratings.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
That's because they once rated Falken Ziex 512 the #1, and any one who knows better knows that it is absolute junk.

Not really. The H-rated ones are kind of substandard, but they're good for the price and certainly better than the cheap junk I've been seeing on people's cars lately.

The V-rated ones are much better, apparently. Still not as good as a Michelin or Bridgestone but darn good for the price.

In my experience, Falken makes the most sensible compromises in their cheap tires. Most cheap tires are cheap because they are severely deficient in at least one category; Falkens, at least the ones that I've seen, have been decent all-around.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Jason Adcock
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
That's because they once rated Falken Ziex 512 the #1, and any one who knows better knows that it is absolute junk.


Junk compared to what? Today's tires? Probably so. When did CR rated them #1? It must have been a while, because I've been looking at their tire data for years, and I don't recall those being rated "#1". They were a recommended pick during the last round, but weren't #1.

Most folks who have those tires on the CR boards tend to like them. The only real negative is the poor tread life, which was even pointed out in CR's ratings.


They rated it higher than Bridgestone Potenza RE950 (or is it RE960AS, rated almost number 2 in all season high performance H/V rated tire by almost any tire out there, other than probably Michelin Pilot Exactlo PS2) and the Dunlop SPA2 (which I have, and much better grip and stability compare to the Ziex 512).

Also Ziex512 has a lot of sidewall bulging issues that spell quality problems.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: rszappa1
Some junk tire I got over 83,000 on them v rated and never had to rebalance them....


How do they stop in the rain? I heard steel wheel with no tire, or using urethane as tire will last 200k miles, as long as you don't try to go above 30mph.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
They rated it higher than Bridgestone Potenza RE950 (or is it RE960AS, rated almost number 2 in all season high performance H/V rated tire by almost any tire out there, other than probably Michelin Pilot Exactlo PS2) and the Dunlop SPA2 (which I have, and much better grip and stability compare to the Ziex 512).

Also Ziex512 has a lot of sidewall bulging issues that spell quality problems.

Did CR take price into account? Comparing those Falkens to the RE960AS on their own is hilarious, but if price was a factor I can sort of understand.

 

[Hokiefyd]

What month/year were these CR results published?

I wouldn't argue that you got different results than they did. They test a particular size of tire on a particular car. Any deviation from that can bring varying results. They even used to say (not sure if they still do) that although you can generally predict a tire's performance in any given size based on the performance data on one size, nothing is guaranteed.

In short, your mileage will always vary, no matter how thorough a testing regime is or isn't.

 

[bepperb]

"you can generally predict a tire's performance in any given size based on the performance data on one size"

I bet that was more true five years ago. These days, with large wheel diameters and low profiles, the "same tires" are made from 175/70-13 all the way to 265-40-20. Still, does CR test 215/60? A decade ago, the idea of even a 18 inch tire on a Camry would have brought people to the floor laughing. Nowdays I bet that's a dealer option most places.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
Still, does CR test 215/60?


This test was done with 215/60R16 tires I do believe. I know the last test (in 2005) was done with 205/65R15 tires.

 

[Rand]

I have the kumho kh-16's as oem on my new car
they are extremely smooth and good in rain.
noise is low on most road surfaces.

That being said the new car has low profile (compared to my previous vehicles) so I do get some bumps from the poor ohio roads.

my size is 215/45r17 ,I'm more used to tires like 265/75R16 or 195/65r15.

Overall I'd say these are the best oem tires I've had. Much better than the goodyear RT/s or goodyear RSA I had on previous new vehicles.

I dont think they will be very good in the snow due to the tread being more designed for comfort and low noise.

I dont really care though as I just ordered 4 15" steel wheels and 4 195/65r15 Continental Extremewintercontact from tirerack.com

there was some bad info being posted here about V rated being better constructed that H rated.. that's simply not true.

Also as you go higher ratings you generally have less treadwear but there are exceptions to this.

 

[Bebop367]

I noticed that the Michelin Primacy MXV4 215/60-16 H speed has a UTOG rating of 500 A A, listed as Green X and warranty of 60K miles. All other sizes have UTOG rating of 620 A A, no mention of Green X and same 60k warranty.

Why would on the one tire size be UTOG 500 and all other sizes be 620?

 

[benjamming]

Treadwear ratings are closer to atmoshperic extractions than reality & are certainly not comparable from mfg to mfg. Tire mileage warranties are worthless.

 

[fdcg27]

I put a set of Primacy MXV4 195/65-15 tires on my '99 Accord about a month ago.
Quiet, good ride, fine in the rain. We'll find out how they do in the snow in a couple of months.
I would recommend them without hesitation.
I have always had good results from Michelin tires.