Nokian I3

[Finklejag]

Do any of you know anything about this tire?

My girlfriend bought some Falken 512's last May. She has about 12K on the tires. They are already down to 6/32. I'm the one who recommended them.

I feel really bad that these tires won't last more then 15,000. I did research on them before we went to the tire shop to buy them. There were a few negative reviews, but most of them were good. They were even recommended by Consumer reports, if that means anything.

She drives a 04 Saturn Ion. So it's not some front wheel drive torque monster. They were rotated at 5K, 10K, and I just did them at 12K, when I saw the treadwear on the fronts.

I will now add Falken to my do not buy list. The makes that are on it are Continental and Pirelli. These two brands came on some of my cars that I bought. I also purchased these two aftermarket. They use too soft of rubber.

So i'm looking for a tire that handles well in the rain, and will last for about 40,000 miles. I haven't read much on the I3's. If Nokian WR's last for 40K, and they are a true 4 season tire. I don't see the I3's having a problem lasting that many miles or more.

I don't know how much America's will give her when they pro-rate the tires. The 512's have a 40,000 warranty.

The other two tires I have been reading up on are the

Yokohama YK520. It looks like the YK520 is available exclusively through Discount Tire/America’s Tire only.

Kumho ASX

 

[MGregoir]

Nokian tires are beasts, I love them. I don't have much to go on for treadwear with them, they seem to be rated fairly high, and they will be a touch on the noisy side due to the tread pattern.

When they call them all-weather instead of all-season, they are not kidding.

 

[ChiTDI]

Yeah I've got about 25+k on my I3s and they've done well. Quiet, great in the rain, comfortable. They are a touring tire though, not designed for high performance cornering etc. I don't know if they're good at that or not, I avoid those situations just like ice and snow. They were great cross country cruising at high speed at high temp though. Nokian doesn't have the greatest history of wearing long like some Michelins, so I rotate often and maintain the alignment accuracy. Should get 50k., although they say 60k. That might be for the T-rated I3s, I know the mileage expectancy is different for the H rated ones.

 

[ChiTDI]

Add great performance in light snow,slush, and "wintry mix" at high speed crossing the Vail Pass in Colorado. Been there and just done that.

 

[Finklejag]

Thanks for the info. I priced out some 205/55/16's for $420 out the door at a local tire company that stocks Nokian's.

 

[glennc]

I'm baffled at the popularity of the Falken 512s. They are completely mediocre tires that do not last. Hopefully your experience will help keep somebody else from buying them. I didn't even think their traction was any better than average, and their handling feel was below average.

I have a set of Nokian Hak IIs that are nearing 30k miles, that is from a full snow tire that sees a lot of exuberant mountain driving. They are now completely shot as snow tires and I'm simply using up the last of their tread before swapping out, but 30k on snows is pretty good in my opinion.

I wonder if Nokian is as good at summer/AS tires as they are at snows. Stands to reason they would be good at making snow tires, after all. I have been so happy with the Haks I'm inclined to give them a shot if they make something that would fit my needs and unusual size (195/65-14).

 

[ChiTDI]

Buddy of mine has gone through two sets of Nokian WRs on a Jetta and averaged 50k on both sets. He said they were great in the rain, snow and ice. I went with the I3s because I have dedicated snow tires.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I'm looking at a set. Nokian calls them summer tyres, but they are all-seasons???

 

[Finklejag]

They are all seasons. This model is made in China though, if you care about that.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: Finklejag

I will now add Falken to my do not buy list. The makes that are on it are Continental and Pirelli. .



I would have to disagree with this . OEM tires are manufactured to the car makers specs.

obiviously you can vote with your wallet but I've found OEM tires in general to be bad not all tires from same manufacturer.

for example continential DWS is a top tier tire for a decent price, As are the continential extremewinter contact winter tires.

but I would never buy any of their oem tires from a few years ago.

hankook makes alot of really bad oem tires but they also have some good models.

I would concentrate more on a specific tire and less on a manufacturer.

my 2 cents.

I have owned both models of continential and if I used your reasoning I would never buy a goodyear (had bad wrangler rt/s)
or kumho (kr16 mediore to bad winter traction) or firestone etc.

I've had mediocre yokohama ig20's (middle of the pack snow traction esp for a winter tire)

and good yokohama (s-drive's)


also you say your current tires with 6/32 will only make it to 15k miles

but they made it 12k miles in 4/32 (that tire starts at 10/32 right?)

so if you replace at legally worn out 2/32 you should be around the 25k mile mark.

(2/32 is what they use for treadlife warranty)

 

[Finklejag]

Did you notice I started this thread 3 years ago? Those Falkens were toast at 15,000 miles, tire treadwear isn't linear. We bought some Goodyear Eagle GT's at that time. We got Falkens prorated at DT. We ended up only paying $180.00 out of pocket for the set.

I mentioned that I owned aftermarket Continental and Pirelli tires also. The Continental tires today are light years ahead of their tires years ago.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Every brand has good and bad tires.

Turanza RE92, EL42? Absolute garbage.

Turanza Revo, Serenity....awesome.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: Rand
....I would have to disagree with this . OEM tires are manufactured to the car makers specs.

Obviously you can vote with your wallet but I've found OEM tires in general to be bad not all tires from same manufacturer...............


Let me add an anecdote to emphasize this.

As many of you are aware, I work for a major tire manufacturer. I'm not going to mention names in this story because some of my managers are uncomfortable with all the posting I do - and I really like my job!

Some years back, we supplied a tire to a very popular vehicle - and that tire was the most popular fitment. Needless to say, it had the lowest possible rolling resistance.

Very quickly, we discovered that the tire would chip and chunk under certain conditions - and while the combination was rare and the returns were small, we felt we needed to improve this situation. So we brought this to the attention of the vehicle manufacturer - pointing out that we could easily fix this if they would back off on the rolling resistance specs just a little.

We were told that if that were to happen, the fuel economy number printed on the EPA label on the car would change downward by 1 mpg and that was unacceptable. Besides, the OEM didn't have any money for a new tire program, and given that the numbers were pretty small, they were not going to make a change. (I should point out that because the problem was related to the compromise involved with rolling resistance, we were not adjusting these tires. The OEM was picking up the cost as part of their warranty!)

Several years go by, and every time we had the opportunity, we pointed out the problem and pointed out that we wanted to make a change - and finally they told us to shut up about it because they were tired of hearing about it!

Another year goes by, and one of their major fleet customers discovers the problem and refuses to buy vehicles from them unless they agree to pay for the replacement tires - many thousands of $$!! The OEM insisted that we develop a program to do that, independent of their dealership organization and their warranty program - and, of course, we should pay for this.

We resisted - and insisted that any "program" had to include a new tire qualification to fix this problem. Very reluctantly, they agreed. However, the new tire qualification program was tacked onto another program that they were doing, and its introduction was repeatedly delayed.

In the final analysis, it was delayed 9 months - and because the normal dealers found out about the replacement program, they decided to replace hundreds of tires un-necessarily and charge it to the OEM's warranty program.

Today, the "new" tire is performing well, but there was nearly 4 years where the "old" tire was out there garnering negative feedback.

So if you wonder why the tires on new vehicles are so bad, - and why these problems aren't fixed - well .......

 

[Astro14]

What a great bit of insight into the OEM thinking...

Interesting thread...I've got Continental Extreme DWS on the t5 and love 'em. Nokian WR G2 on the XC and the MB and love 'em. Continentals on the Corolla and they are good tires...finally, BFG All Terrain TAs on the truck and they are just great.

Tires are a critically important part of a car's performance (including economy, ride and handling) and safety.

Part of the reason folks should shop around and compare is to match the tire to their driving conditions...the OEMs are targeting a broad market...you can tailor your selection to your needs and get a much better fit.

Cheers,

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: Finklejag
Did you notice I started this thread 3 years ago?


no but I did notice you replied to it the before I did on the same day.

post necros.. yey

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: Finklejag
............My girlfriend bought some Falken 512's last May. She has about 12K on the tires. They are already down to 6/32. I'm the one who recommended them.

I feel really bad that these tires won't last more then 15,000. I did research on them before we went to the tire shop to buy them. There were a few negative reviews, but most of them were good. They were even recommended by Consumer reports, if that means anything..........


CR rated them "poor" for tread life.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Falken 912s are very nice tires, the 512s are awful.