To those of you that have or had tires with a relatively low treadwear rating of say 140 to 240, what kind of mileage have you gotten out of them? 10K? 20K? 30K? What tires were they, what type of car, driving style and approx. miles/year?
I realize there are a lot of factors that affect this (YMMV), but I see some really nice high performance tires that I wouldn't mind getting but they have low treadwear ratings. If I spend $170+ per tire for these things (Bridgestone Expedia S-01), what's the likelihood that I'll be replacing them in a year with only 10-15K miles on them, completely worn to the cords?
I drive an Acura 3.2TL rather sedately, just about 50/50 highway/city, ~10-12K miles/year.
Thoughts?
TIA
Low treadwear rating tire mileage...
- Thread starter Blokey
- Start date
- Status
Given your "driving" style, why would you want a tire with UTOQ between 140-240?
Seems like the GY Triple or Comfort Tread would be more adaptive from your description. (80,000 mile warranty, H rating 740/700 UTOQ respectively)
Essentially looking on tire rack you have a large range of tires similar that I would get with a VW Jetta TDI.
I had a Corvette Z06 with a 220 UTOQ and starting out with 8/32 in, put on 56,000 miles with 3/32 in left (in other words, still had 11,000 miles left on the tread) and changed it to a tire with 280 UTOQ. I was far from sedate, but different metrics can have way different meanings to different people.
[ April 05, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]
quote:As long as you're not loaning the car out to any teenagers
Originally posted by Blokey: I drive an Acura 3.2TL rather sedately, just about 50/50 highway/city, ~10-12K miles/year. Thoughts? TIA
![[Burnout]](/forums/graemlins/burnout.gif)
, I'd say 2yrs would be a reasonable estimation for the S-01s.I'd reccomend the S-O3 over the S-O1 for your needs.
Yout TL takes a 225/45/17? There are many other tire choices that you could look at, but the S-O3 pole posistions are some very nice tires that last pretty long.
Thanks for the replies! I was looking at P215/50R17 (stock size) and unfortunately S-03s aren't available in that size.
I looked at the Kumho ECSTA711:
which has a similar tread pattern to the S-01s:
but they have a higher treadwear rating (320) and still earn AA traction and A temperature ratings like the S-01s; they're also about $100/tire cheaper because they're H rated instead of Z and they're not as big a name brand.
I guess I'm old school when it comes to these things; I'm sure Kumhos are good but I like the idea of getting the "name-brand" Bridgestones.
Choices, choices!!
which has a similar tread pattern to the S-01s:
but they have a higher treadwear rating (320) and still earn AA traction and A temperature ratings like the S-01s; they're also about $100/tire cheaper because they're H rated instead of Z and they're not as big a name brand.
I guess I'm old school when it comes to these things; I'm sure Kumhos are good but I like the idea of getting the "name-brand" Bridgestones.
Choices, choices!!- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Treadwear numbers differ between manufacturers and don't let you conclusively predict wear.
I've driven tires with a TW number of 140 for 12k miles, but I've also driven tires with 240 rating for less than that. Some tires are more prone to wear off prematurely at the edge, or others have higher tread depth at the edge. The TW number is merely an indicator of a tendency of the tire being made for tackiness or low wear. Personally, I'd never consider a tire with a TW number of above 300, and I stay away from tires with a TW of under 180. Low to mid-200s seem to offer the most sensible compromise between stickiness and low wear, but 20 points plus or minus don't really mean anything when comparing tire brands.
With Conti sport (205/55/16 W-rated, TW= 220) high performance summer tires I get about 15k miles out of them. That's about as much as I'll ever get out of any high performance tire with Quattro and traction control with everyday spirited driving.
you cannot really compare the kumho 711 to the S-O1.
the 711 are high perforamance summer
the S-O1 are ultra high perf summers, that are z rated; a much sticker compound as well as stiffer sidewalls than the H rated 711.
The S-O1 are way ahead of the kumho in my opinion.
The ecsta 712 from kumho might be comparable to the S-O1, but even then, the 712 aren't that great of a summer tire, my bro who's had the 712 on his auto-x honda says the Yokohama ES100 are better overall in grip.
edit: i forgot to say that since the stock size is 215/50/17, you could 'plus zero' to 225/45/17 with a very slight 1.9% reading error on the speedo. 225 would fit fine. 225 has more choices in tires too, since 225/45/17 is about the most common 17" tire size.
I put 32,000 miles on a set of Pirelli P600 M&S (280). This was a BMW 325i and similar driving mix as yours. There was still 4/32 inch left on them.
Tread wear ratings are conducted as a standerized government test where a tire is run loaded against a roller that has a specific roughness. So tire wear rating from manufacture to manufacture are compariable. The tires are rated ONLY in the forward direction and no effort is made to put a value on side slip as when turning. My driving style and the shell roads I drive on in Fl give my about 30,000 miles on a tire with a tread wear rating of about 300. When I lived in IL and drove on smooth roads my tire life went up about 30%.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Eddie, during the temperature test, the tire is run against a wheel pulley. The treadwear test is done on four vehicles that drive a total of several thousand miles on a specific road course, including public roads. Tread depth measurements for each vehicle are then averaged to get a number that compares to the standardized tire, which has a treadwear rating of 100.
moribundman: When did the government change from the loaded roller wear test to a vehicle driven test to evaluate tread wear or better yet how can we find the govenment test procedure you mention?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Google "standardized treadwear test" ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
Anyway, as I said, the treadwear number by itself gives only an indication whether or not a tire will wear better or worse than another tire. Results depend greatly on type of use and driving style.
Anyway, as I said, the treadwear number by itself gives only an indication whether or not a tire will wear better or worse than another tire. Results depend greatly on type of use and driving style.
quote:I have a set of Goodyear Eagle ZR50's (the old Gatorbacks) on the IROC-Z. Treadwear 220, Temperature-A, Traction-A. I don't drive like a manic. Mostly 50/50 city/highway. I don't drive this car much anymore. The original set of Eagles lasted +40k miles. The Goodyear dealer that replaced them was surprised that I got 40k miles out of them. He told me they usually last about 20k miles. The current set has just about hit the treadwear indicators and they also have +40k miles on them. I'm not going to pay $200/tire this next go around. I'm going with something cheaper. Perhaps BF Goodrich T/A's.
Originally posted by Blokey: To those of you that have or had tires with a relatively low treadwear rating of say 140 to 240, what kind of mileage have you gotten out of them? 10K? 20K? 30K? What tires were they, what type of car, driving style and approx. miles/year? I realize there are a lot of factors that affect this (YMMV), but I see some really nice high performance tires that I wouldn't mind getting but they have low treadwear ratings. If I spend $170+ per tire for these things (Bridgestone Expedia S-01), what's the likelihood that I'll be replacing them in a year with only 10-15K miles on them, completely worn to the cords? I drive an Acura 3.2TL rather sedately, just about 50/50 highway/city, ~10-12K miles/year. Thoughts? TIA
Eddie,
The government never used a wheel test. As a matter of fact, the government never conducted tests of its own (except in developing the standard). From the beginning of UTQG ratings, the standard test was a vehicle test run in Texas conducted by the tire manufacturer.
The wording of the standard is such that the treadwear rating of a given tire must only be TRACEABLE to the test. So in many cases the original test may have been conducted long, long ago on a completely different tire and through a dozen or more comparisons. This means that comparing treadwear ratings must be done with some degree of skepticism.
If you want to find out the specifics of the test(s), go to the NHTSA web site. It will take a bit of digging, but they are there.
Hope this helps.
Great replies! I'm starting to think that I could get good mileage out of a set of low treadwear rated tires. I was never expecting to get >60K miles out of a set of "soft compound" high performance summer tires so if I get 40K or more out of a set of Bridgestone S-01s, I'd be happy.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
quote:Keep in mind that stickier and more rigid (stiffer sidewalls) tires are a temptation. You'll be carving curves at higher speeds and tire wear will increase. At least that's why I gave up on the Z-rated Michelin Pilot Sport tires I used to use. I only got 8k miles out of those $220 (each) tires!
I'm starting to think that I could get good mileage out of a set of low treadwear rated tires.
![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif){kind=icon}
By the way, I'd stay away from tires with symmetrical tread design. They seem to have a tendancy to tramline. Asymmetrical designs are more forgiving.
I put on about 16K miles on a set of 225/45/17 S-03s (220 TWI) before I sold them and at that point they still had quite a bit of tread left - possibly good for another 10K miles. Some mixed spirited and leasurely driving, no track.
They're extremely stiff though, which is OK if your roads are smooth, but if not, get ready for some tramlining h*ll and a very rough ride.
General comment: I noticed from various user reviews that the heavier the car, the quicker it goes through tires. I've seen guys with A6/A8 eat up these S03s within 10K miles.
quote:That's pretty much what I have heard. The numbers are supposidly still useful to rank a manufacurers tires against other tires from the same manufacturer. They are a real crap shoot when comparing tires from different manufacturers.
Originally posted by CapriRacer: Eddie, The wording of the standard is such that the treadwear rating of a given tire must only be TRACEABLE to the test. So in many cases the original test may have been conducted long, long ago on a completely different tire and through a dozen or more comparisons. This means that comparing treadwear ratings must be done with some degree of skepticism.
quote:Exactly!
Originally posted by XS650: They are a real crap shoot when comparing tires from different manufacturers.
- Status
