My 2002 Nissan Altima 2.5 has 205/65R16 size tires. I'm most interested in good traction for pretty normal driving (almost never gun it in except for passing and merging) in mostly dry conditions (occasional rain, no snow), comfort, noise, and long life. To give you an idea of what my driving experience is like with this car, I'm actually pretty happy with the EL42s (a tire with a terrible reputation) except for 2 things: I live on a hill and in the rain the front tires will occasionally slip a little after starting from a stop when I'm going up. The tires have maybe 4/32" on them. The other issue is how fast the tires get worn down for a "touring" tire.
On TireRack, they have a couple tires I'm interested in:
Yokohama Avid TRZ $67
Kumho Solus KH16 $59
The Yokos got slightly better reviews, but not by much. They also have a much higher UTQG rating (700!!) at only a few dollars more. Does anybody have any experience with this tire? Thanks.
On a side note, I can get the Falken Ziex ZE512 tire for about this price (in 215/60 size). It's classified as a "performance" all season tire and has a more aggressive tread pattern, but I hear it wears faster than a lot of other all season tires. If I drove the Altima harder, I'd definitely get this tire, but I'm a pretty mild driver with this car. I'd also expect skinnier tires to get better MPG.
Time to replace the OEM Turanza EL42s in my Nissan
- Thread starter DaveInLA
- Start date
- Status
A related question. So the front tires on my car are worn down to maybe 4/32" (or slightly less) but the rear tires seem to be pretty good still (not even worth measuring, very good tread). The EL42s have a bad rap, but they do their job for me for the most part.
With this in mind, when I get new tires (whatever they may be), should I only get the fronts or all 4? I figure it's too late to rotate them now... ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif)
I'd get all 4 tires, as the new ones may be quite different than the old; besides tires need to be replaced at 2/32 or sooner. My experience with the Ziex ZE 512 is that it's a great tire and will wear OK if you keep it well inflated. But you still may not get the mileage you expect.
I'm not sure about the Kumhos & Yokes; I'm running Yoko AVID H4S myself.
I've had Yoko TRZs on my Civic for a few months now, and I love them. They seem to be unstoppable in snow (for an all-season tire), they're nice and quiet on the road, they're cheap, and they've got that excellent UTQG number! Sidewalls aren't as stiff as my old Potenza RE950s, but the smooth ride sure has been nice with all the highway miles I've been doing lately. Don't hesitate - get the Yokos.
quote:The Yoko TRZs sound great, but I'm still not thrilled about getting 4 new tires. The Yokos are in the same class as the EL42s (standard touring), and the tires I have in the rear right now still have GREAT tred. I'm thinking 8/32" (at minimum 6/32"), so ideally for my wallet, I'd keep them. The way I see it, those are still at about 75%, so if I get new tires for the front only, the fronts (at 100%) will wear out about the same time the rears do! Is this thinking flawed?
I'd get all 4 tires, as the new ones may be quite different than the old; besides tires need to be replaced at 2/32 or sooner.
I am currently running Goodyear Eagle GT-HR's. Decent so far, we'll see how they fare in a couple thousand miles.
One of the most important things to me (b/c it's a semi-summer tire) is the siping/water evacuation ability. Noise and comfort share the #1 spot, but you can't be comfortable if feel like you are doing to die in the rain.
Dave, I'm a rookie but would like to say that mixing brands front to rear sounds dangerous.
Perhaps it would make sone sence to rotate the existing tires for a few more miles and take the time to study the current offering a bit more.
I've been going through the eval process and have learned some. The UTQG rating is manufactuerer stated and can't be trusted.
From my search at the tire rack and comsumer reports the Bridgstone Turanza LS-T and the Michelin Harmony have both showed well for wet traction and fuel economy which were my priorities. The Harmony showed a favorable rolling resistance according to CR, so I'm leaning that way.
I'm not sure but believe that the Michelin Harmony is a cross to the Michelin X, and a few others depending on the retailer.
I hope this isn't just further confusion. John
quote:Yes, it is! 1) FWD cars wear tires out 2 1/2 times faster in the front than in the rear. So you'll wear the new tires out in the front and only wear 40% off in the rear. 2) Vehicles will cause tires to wear in a pattern pecular to the corner the tire is located. Usually these patterns end up causing irregular wear, which you'll experience as noise and / or vibration. Rotating tires is the way to prevent any particular pattern from forming and this prevents the tire from becoming so bad you'd want to remove it before it is worn out. 3) The safest thing to have is 4 new tires on your vehicle. The next safest is 4 of the same kind. 2 and 2 is not the safest position and the conventional wisdom is to put the new tires on the rear for hydroplaning resistance. Hope this helps.
Originally posted by DaveInLA: [QUOTE]....Is this thinking flawed?
ROTATE!!!
Present front tires will still have most of their 4/32 when present rears are worn down on front after rotation. Give you time to save your money and buy 4 of whatever when time to replace does come.
IMO either rotate what you got and run them till you must purchase 4, or buy 4 and KEEP them rotated so that you don't end up in this same predicament again.
Bob
What alreadygone and CapriRacer said: Just rotate your current tires front to back. Adjust pressures accordingly, and you'll wear down all four at the same time.
Oops, I see it's too late and you've already 'wasted' your money on new tires. Oh well, maybe someone else can learn from you not rotating them.
Dave, I've just purchased new tires for our two daily drives after a great deal of study and fretting, but my needs are different because I want great wet weather traction.
One of the tires that I discarded due to my wet weather needs looked really good and that was the Yoko Ageis LS4. In my size it was 2 pounds lighter than what I bought and that will have a deffinate fuel economy advantage.
The TRZ's you mentioned were on my list for great wet weather traction, but they weren't available in my size.
One tire that I would say that I would avoid is the Yoko Avid Touring. I put a set on my Tacoma and found them to be dangerous in wet weather, very poor traction. You can probably get by with summer tires because of your low number of rainy days, so my search didn't include those. You might want to search the tire rack for that type of tire and compare ratings for them.
Having said the above, vehical weight makes a big difference in how tires perform in my estimation, so your experiance may be somewhat different than mine.
I would heed what CapriRacer offered, he is a proffesional in this area and I think what he offers can be taken to the bank.
Best Regards,
BFGoodrich Traction T/A.. they are cheap and are avalible in the 215/60. My dad had them installed to replace the Falkens and they are worlds better than the Falkens..
I am thinking about replacing the Continentals on my 2004 Altima 2.5S when I reach 50,000 miles. Presently have 45,000 miles on the car. I have been rotating the tires regularly so they are equal in wear. There is not much choice in the P205/65TR16 oem size. In my area I can get BF Goodrich Traction TA's and Cooper Lifeliner Touring SLE's in the oem size. That's about it. Can I go up to P215/60HR16 tires without any clearance issues? I was thinking about Bridgestone Potenza G009's.
- Status
Similar threads
