Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 vs. Defender LTX M/S

[john_pifer]

Looking to get the new Defender LTX M/S2 P Metric (265/70-17) for my 2018 4Runner when my current tire (KO2) needs replaced. Hopefully they'll be more plentiful by then.

This is what we recently bought for my wife's 2021 4Runner. We both love them.

And I plan to return to using these on my Tacoma when I replace the current Yokohama G015 Geolandars ( I had 2 sets of the LTX M/S-2 and 1 set of the Defender LTX M/S prior to trying the Geolandar. The Geolandar is OK, but doesn't measure up to the Michelins).

 

[The Critic]

The Geolandar is OK, but doesn't measure up to the Michelins).

Can you expand on this? Your initial review of the Geolandar was very favorable.

 

[john_pifer]

Can you expand on this? Your initial review of the Geolandar was very favorable.

Treadwear, evenness of wear, and wet pavement traction (especially in cooler temps) and ride have been inferior to the Michelin.

Granted, it’s a less expensive tire.

 

[BLND1]

Treadwear, evenness of wear, and wet pavement traction (especially in cooler temps) and ride have been inferior to the Michelin.

Granted, it’s a less expensive tire.

I made the same switch Between the Michelin and Geolandar.

On road the Michelin is better (including snow).

Off road (poorly maintained USFS roads, some muddy oil patch, etc.) the Geolandars perform moderately better than the Michelin. They’ve held up quite well in muddy, snowy off pavement conditions and still perform very well on road.

 

[02SE]

Treadwear, evenness of wear, and wet pavement traction (especially in cooler temps) and ride have been inferior to the Michelin.

Granted, it’s a less expensive tire.

Sorry they didn't meet your expectations. I still have the E load range G015's on the 4Runner. They've been doing very well in last years very snowy winter, on 4wd trails, and in the wet. On pavement I would say the Michelins have the edge. I haven't run the P-rated G015's. I do know they start out at 13/32", vs the 18/32" the E load range starts at. Currently there's about $80 difference between P and E rated in the 265/70R17 size.

All tires are a compromise, it just depends what the priorities are for the tire.

 

[john_pifer]

Sorry they didn't meet your expectations. I still have the E load range G015's on the 4Runner. They've been doing very well in last years very snowy winter, on 4wd trails, and in the wet. On pavement I would say the Michelins have the edge. I haven't run the P-rated G015's. I do know they start out at 13/32", vs the 18/32" the E load range starts at. Currently there's about $80 difference between P and E rated in the 265/70R17 size.

All tires are a compromise, it just depends what the priorities are for the tire.

Right, my use has been 100% pavement.

It’s not unexpected.

Less than a year after I bought the tires, we moved, and my daily commute went from about 36 mi round trip, to around 92 miles round trip, almost all interstate @ 80 mph.

Which is the kind of use where the LTX shines.

 

[kkreit01]

We have the LTX M/S on our Jeep for about 20k miles. They are wearing well, ride nice, and are good in the snow. I will not buy them again because they tramline like crazy on grooved highways.

 

[z71bill]

I use to be the Michelin Man - I would buy a new vehicle and if it did not have Michelin tires I would go straight to Discount Tire and replace the OEM tires with Michelins. They will give you $50-$100 per tire trade in.

Always smooth ride, traction and good tread life.

That changed with my wife's RDX that came with Michelin Primacy MXM4P 235/60 R18. I got a nail in the sidewall on one at 6K so I bought one tire.

At 20K miles three tires worn out and the tire I replaced with only 14K miles on it was down to 5/32 (they start at 9/32)

These tires are rated for 55K miles -

Very disappointed. Strike one.

I decided to replace them all with my favorite tire, the Michelin Defender LTX M/S 70K warranty.

We traded the vehicle when it had 38K miles and the tires were down to 5/32 (start out 12/32) I had them rotated and the vehicle alignment was perfect. 7/32 in 18K miles.

I was disappointed again. Strike two.

In the meantime - The Michelin Defender LTX M/S I had on my Tahoe were 8 years old - they had 36K miles on them and the tread still looked great - I am sure they would have gone to 70K but they were all cracked - I didn't think it was safe to be driving on such old tires so I replaced them with the same tire. I was not unhappy - 8 years in the Texas sun is going to do some damage.

I now have 17K miles on them and they are down to 6/32 (started out at 12/32).

At the first rotation they had obviously worn faster than I expected - had a meeting with Discount Tire about it. They said there was nothing they could do -

Had my alignment checked - it was good.

I kept an eye on it and there is no doubt these tires are wearing much faster than the prior set. I will be lucky if I get to 25K - plus they are starting to crack - they are not that old. I may have to change them before I even get to 20K.

I was/am disappointed. Strike three!

Michelin is OUT.

My daughter needed tires on her Santa Fe - I went with Pirelli Scorpion All Season Plus 3 - she has about 7K on them and they still look new. The ride and handling on her SUV was also greatly improved over the Kumho Crugen KL33.

I still read good things about Michelin - I may give them another chance. But now I see the new Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 is only rated "B" in traction.

I am thinking they gave up some traction to increase the miles. While I understand this tradeoff I would rather not give up A rated traction. YMMV

​

 

[Bighorn2500]

I just depth gauged the 265/50R20 Michelin Defender LTX M/S on the wife’s Durango after a pressure check this morning. They have 72,427 miles on them and all have 8/32” left on them. They were install on 11/20/2021, so almost three years to the day. The might go 80k-90k possibly.

I reached out to a Michelin earlier this week in regards to the newer M/S2 model no longer having Traction: A rating but now Traction: B rating as I’ll be researching replacement tires soon. Their response was not what I was expecting I guess, but makes sense given most vehicles on the road have standard anti-lock brakes.

Case #04691547:​

​

Thanks for contacting the Michelin Consumer Care Team.​

​

Thank you for your question on the UTQG ratings for some of our tires.​

​

This question is an excellent one and highlights why regulation needs to be updated and/or eliminated as technology changes and improves. Traction grades indicate a locked tire’s braking ability in a straight line on a wet road surface. Traction ratings are established on government-maintained skid pads.​

​

The UTQG traction grade is a 40 year old locked-wheel wet braking test and is, in our estimation and in the estimation of the US Tire Manufacturers Association, a test method that is “outdated and inconsistent”. It is based on locked wheel braking and all modern vehicles have anti-lock brakes. A braking test based on anti-lock brakes measuring peak adherence rather than slide adherence is better suited for today’s vehicle. Michelin, BFGoodrich and Uniroyal have chosen to design tires based on anti-lock braking, not locked wheel braking. This can, at times, produce a lower locked wheel result, even though our testing and independent testing used for claims show many of our tires to have superior wet braking when compared to leading competitors.​

 

[John105]

I just depth gauged the 265/50R20 Michelin Defender LTX M/S on the wife’s Durango after a pressure check this morning. They have 72,427 miles on them and all have 8/32” left on them. They were install on 11/20/2021, so almost three years to the day. The might go 80k-90k possibly.

I reached out to a Michelin earlier this week in regards to the newer M/S2 model no longer having Traction: A rating but now Traction: B rating as I’ll be researching replacement tires soon. Their response was not what I was expecting I guess, but makes sense given most vehicles on the road have standard anti-lock brakes.

Case #04691547:​

​

Thanks for contacting the Michelin Consumer Care Team.​

​

Thank you for your question on the UTQG ratings for some of our tires.​

​

This question is an excellent one and highlights why regulation needs to be updated and/or eliminated as technology changes and improves. Traction grades indicate a locked tire’s braking ability in a straight line on a wet road surface. Traction ratings are established on government-maintained skid pads.​

​

The UTQG traction grade is a 40 year old locked-wheel wet braking test and is, in our estimation and in the estimation of the US Tire Manufacturers Association, a test method that is “outdated and inconsistent”. It is based on locked wheel braking and all modern vehicles have anti-lock brakes. A braking test based on anti-lock brakes measuring peak adherence rather than slide adherence is better suited for today’s vehicle. Michelin, BFGoodrich and Uniroyal have chosen to design tires based on anti-lock braking, not locked wheel braking. This can, at times, produce a lower locked wheel result, even though our testing and independent testing used for claims show many of our tires to have superior wet braking when compared to leading competitors.​

It's interesting that Michelin is for "regulation." To me, that's like Dyson or Blink offering outlandish warranties. They take these positions because they "know" their products can stand on their own two feet. The Premiers were a disaster, but what did they do? They increased the tread depth from 8.5 to 10. At least they could respond. Many other mfgs likely would turn a blind eye to complaints.

We all have known UTQG is like EPA estimates for fuel economy (EPA verfiied something like 15% of all mfgs that self report--they targeted imports like BMW, when the new BMW claimed 36 mpg highway, they said we doubt that, we're testing it, and it dropped by 3 mpg. Meanwhile GM will say 16/22 when in the real world 12, and it slides--so leveling the playing field would be good for us consumers). my .02

Given the response, would we want our tires to perform better on a car with ABS, or without? Of course, the former, since all cars have ABS. It's hard sometimes for people to understand trade offs, they want it all. If not, where the heck did all weather tires come from (my understanding is there still is a trade off).

 

[edyvw]

It's interesting that Michelin is for "regulation." To me, that's like Dyson or Blink offering outlandish warranties. They take these positions because they "know" their products can stand on their own two feet. The Premiers were a disaster, but what did they do? They increased the tread depth from 8.5 to 10. At least they could respond. Many other mfgs likely would turn a blind eye to complaints.

We all have known UTQG is like EPA estimates for fuel economy (EPA verfiied something like 15% of all mfgs that self report--they targeted imports like BMW, when the new BMW claimed 36 mpg highway, they said we doubt that, we're testing it, and it dropped by 3 mpg. Meanwhile GM will say 16/22 when in the real world 12, and it slides--so leveling the playing field would be good for us consumers). my .02

Given the response, would we want our tires to perform better on a car with ABS, or without? Of course, the former, since all cars have ABS. It's hard sometimes for people to understand trade offs, they want it all. If not, where the heck did all weather tires come from (my understanding is there still is a trade off).

I always find funny that my E90 is rated 25mpg on hwy, and I can pull 28mpg when pushing vehicle hard. 32mpg? Keeping it at 80mph without any problems.

 

[John105]

I always find funny that my E90 is rated 25mpg on hwy, and I can pull 28mpg when pushing vehicle hard. 32mpg? Keeping it at 80mph without any problems.

When my 335 was brand new, 33-34 all day long on highway. I think epa is 27, it’s lower for stick than auto.

How about my 2006 LS? 16/22. It does 15.x when my avg mph is 10 like it is commuting. But on highway? 28 mpg all day long. Not bad for a 19 yo 8 cyl.