New TR Test- Defender, ProContact, Ascend, GY

[The Critic]

TireRack just posted their testing of the newest passenger all-season tires on the market. As expected, the latest generation of tires is now heavily focused on providing both good fuel economy and long life. Unfortunately, we can see from the testing that wet traction is still a weak spot with tires that are of the LRR variety.

Here are the test results:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=161

Let’s discuss.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Ha, jinx! I just posted the same thing in a different thread, which I just deleted. My comments were short: all did favorably in dry conditions, but the Yokohama fell off a cliff in wet traction. The Michelin was also worse than the other two on wet pavement, but not as bad as the Yokohama. The Continental ProContact EcoPlus continues to be a class-leader in dry and wet road performance.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Out of the 4 tires tested, only the TripleTred is available in my size (235/45/17). I guess I'll be shopping a different performance category when it's time to buy new tires next year anyway...

 

[kkreit01]

Interesting and odd that they threw the TripleTred in there. Unless it has changed, it has always had a high rolling resistance. Too bad they couldn't post MPG results.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
Interesting and odd that they threw the TripleTred in there. Unless it has changed, it has always had a high rolling resistance. Too bad they couldn't post MPG results.

The TripleTred was recently redesigned.

 

[Darris]

Low rolling resistence? MPG's?

Don't you people realize this is wrong? We're talking about tires here! This is no place to look for MPG's. The job of the tire is to stick to the road and stop the car as soon and as straigh as possible, and control the car in emergency situations - even if such capabaility is only needed once in 10 or 20 years.

A couple of bucks saved per fill-up won't make up the long range insurance increases from kissing someone's rear bumper just once, let alone a loss of control that causes actual damage.

 

[bachman]

^^ ha ha yeah.

My folks have Prius and the tire size dictates a limited run of choices and almost all are rated as eco friendly for the Prius 'market'. Not much of a stretch IMO... kinda makes sense.
I'm sure some choices are better than others in ride, noise traction etc... but within reason, I don't think any are dangerous.
I think the EPA target for 2025 is around 54 mpg so we'll see a lot of changes coming down the pipline including that of tires.

 

[NateDN10]

Originally Posted By: Darris
Low rolling resistence? MPG's?

Don't you people realize this is wrong? We're talking about tires here! This is no place to look for MPG's. The job of the tire is to stick to the road and stop the car as soon and as straigh as possible, and control the car in emergency situations - even if such capabaility is only needed once in 10 or 20 years.

A couple of bucks saved per fill-up won't make up the long range insurance increases from kissing someone's rear bumper just once, let alone a loss of control that causes actual damage.

IMO, these tests show that LRR tires don't really give up that much performance. In any event, they're leagues better than the nearly-bald discount brand tires so many people roll on.

 

[rjundi]

I cannot stand poor wet traction in a tire. I want to be able to drive speed limit at least in heavy rain if traffic is light. Pass here for a few mpg lost.

And think if they start with less think about the useful tire life and wet traction falling off the cliff.

 

[daves87rs]

One tire in my size...


But, not a fan of losing wet traction....