Honda Fit Tire Options

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Critic, any updates from your friend?

I picked up the tires from America's Tire Co on Monday. The tires will be installed onto the Fit next Monday.

These Yokohama tires appear to have very soft sidewalls compared to the new unmounted Michelin H-rated tires I've touched. I wonder if it is because a T-rated tires (which these Yokohamas are) lack the full cap ply reinforcement.
 
The new tires are on. The old Exalto A/S actually had 4/32 left, but were nearing 40k. On the way to the tire shop, I noticed how slick they were compared to my 1/3 worn Primacy MXV4s, but these tires were probably a bit under inflated.

Although the new Yokohama Avid Ascends are clearly touring tires, they do deliver a ride that is on the firmer side. Turn-in and Steering feedback is on the numb-er side though, but probably not out of line for a touring tire. Handling is impressive for a T-rated tire, IMO, as it is responsive and had plenty of grip.

On the highway the car is a bit more twitchy due to these being the proper 175/65-15 and not the previous 195/60-15. Since I have never driven a Fit with the original 175 tires, I have nothing to compare to here. I am not sure if all Fits with 175 tires are squirrely on the highway, or if it's a tire issue.

Fuel economy is definitely quite impressive though. I am not sure how they compare with the Ecopia EP422s or ProContact EcoPlus, but these have to be pretty close, if not equal to the leaders in this area. Perhaps it is also the effect of a skinny, smaller sized tire, but I have never seen tires roll this well before, especially with only 34 psi.

On the 20 mile trip from the tire shop to my work, I averaged 36.7 over 20 miles of mostly city driving with a number of hills. Remember, the EPA ratings for this car were 28/35. At the end of the day, before returning the car to my friend, I put in a total of 85 miles and averaged almost 35- and half of those miles were hilly city miles. I do not that this car ever saw mileage in this range with the 195/65/15 Exaltos; it was often a struggle to get 35 on the highway.

I also had a thrust-angle alignment done at the dealer for $89. Normally $99. This is on the higher side for a thrust-angle alignment, but it is the going rate for a dealer. The dealer did a great job, though only a very minor adjustment was needed. The minor toe adjustments straightened the steering wheel a bit and noticeably improved straight-line stability.

Overall these Ascends are good tires for a commuter car. Personally I would only install these on cars where you need an acceptable, lower-cost tire and excellent handling is not a priority. I paid $368 installed for all 4 tires after a $100 discount, which works out to $67/tire + install.

Currently America's Tire has them listed for $109/tire on their site, which is already higher than the $92/tire pre-discount price last month. At that price I may be less inclined to by them though, as that is Michelin price territory.
 
Any updates in this tire after a few months of use? I am looking at picking up a set this month. Thanks!
 
Friend said improved fuel economy, no other comments. I guess they work decent enough.

If you need an ultra-long lasting tire, and are willing to give up some fuel economy, the Michelin Defender or Defender XT is now available in 195/60-15.
 
Thanks. I am looking for an H rated 16" on a van I may purchase soon that needs tires. These are at the top of the list at the moment.
 
Originally Posted By: milehighhyundai
Thanks. I am looking for an H rated 16" on a van I may purchase soon that needs tires. These are at the top of the list at the moment.


If you are not super price sensitive, or even if you are, you are almost always better off spending the extra dough for Michelins.

These Avid Ascends have gone up in price now to Michelin territory, and I would never pay Michelin price for a Yokohama.
 
How does your friend like the Avid Ascends? After reading a little more about them, I'd be tempted to give them a shot when the OEM tires on the Cruze wear out.
 
Originally Posted By: sciphi
How does your friend like the Avid Ascends? After reading a little more about them, I'd be tempted to give them a shot when the OEM tires on the Cruze wear out.

Occasional tram lining that is worse than the previous set of the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S she had previously.

The other friend whom I recommended these two, just had two installed onto the rear axle of his 2006 Prius last week and now says they float all over the road. The other two tires on this car are the Cooper CS4 Touring.

It seems like the tram lining and poor handling issue is a serious hit/miss with any tire that promises to be relatively fuel-efficient. Granted, the issue is not that bad IMO, but is bad for anyone who is used to a relatively grippy, non-LRR touring tire.

So nay...
mad.gif
 
How important is handling, fuel economy?

If you don't mind fuel economy being low I'd pick the H rated ones over the T rated ones, and usually 195/60 profile tires will have better handling than 175/65, by a lot.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
How important is handling, fuel economy?

If you don't mind fuel economy being low I'd pick the H rated ones over the T rated ones, and usually 195/60 profile tires will have better handling than 175/65, by a lot.


I think as the market continues to evolve, what we are going to see is the touring tire market evolve into 3 categories:

a) super LRR, better than OEM fuel efficiency with passable traction and iffy handling.
b) somewhat LRR, OEM level fuel efficiency with decent traction and passable handling.
c) not LRR, worse than OEM fuel efficiency, but great handing and traction.
 
I just put a set on my new to me '11 Grand Caravan. Leaving on a two week cross country trip tomorrow. I'll report when I get back!

So far, in the first 500 miles, they are very quiet, corner well (no squeal) and track beautifully. Mine are H rated- so that may play into its good handling. These things really roll well too! So far, I like them more than the Primacy MXV4 T rated tires on my previous van.

More real life experience coming soon... I would not rule them out as an option yet!
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: sciphi
How does your friend like the Avid Ascends? After reading a little more about them, I'd be tempted to give them a shot when the OEM tires on the Cruze wear out.

Occasional tram lining that is worse than the previous set of the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S she had previously.

The other friend whom I recommended these two, just had two installed onto the rear axle of his 2006 Prius last week and now says they float all over the road. The other two tires on this car are the Cooper CS4 Touring.

It seems like the tram lining and poor handling issue is a serious hit/miss with any tire that promises to be relatively fuel-efficient. Granted, the issue is not that bad IMO, but is bad for anyone who is used to a relatively grippy, non-LRR touring tire.

So nay...
mad.gif



part of the problem there is the very skinny tire size (thats thinner than the base hyundai accent)
and mismatched tires can make groove wander worse also.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
I think as the market continues to evolve, what we are going to see is the touring tire market evolve into 3 categories:

a) super LRR, better than OEM fuel efficiency with passable traction and iffy handling.
b) somewhat LRR, OEM level fuel efficiency with decent traction and passable handling.
c) not LRR, worse than OEM fuel efficiency, but great handing and traction.


Sure within the same size. But for different size, 50-60 are usually in the H-V rated type of tire where 65-70 are in the T rated type. They will be designed differently and even the LRR tires are different between these profile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top