watching buyers of expensive replacement tires go into shock

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Never paid more than $400-500(after rebate(s)) for a set of 235/45-17 for my 2000 E430.

What were you getting? I have same dimension and I paid in Costco Bridgestone Blizzak LM-60 $960, and two years ago Michelin PSS $780. I know PSS went down for that dimension after rebate to $122 before tax.
Now, I could find much cheaper tires, but there is no way I would put that on my car.

I had various mid-priced Continental DWS, Falken FK-452, Kumho 4X and others. I bought all my tires when it was down around 2/32" or a little less before raining season started, with rebates from A/T and manufacture.

Since the car eats tires quickly and it is my wife car, ultra high performance summer tires with low tread life isn't needed.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: thr_wedge
I pulled up my receipt, it was $700 OTD.

Yokohama Yk580, 225/60R16. Installed, tpms, road hazard (worth it around me), disposal, tax, was $700 OTD. Tires themselves were $120 per.

Bought Yokohama YK580 235/70-16 for my friend few months ago, had the lower price on DTD and local A/T price matched it. With rebates the OTD was around $425.

I did the homework before go to local A/T to get the tire I like, that way I have the tire I like at the lowest possible price and the services of local A/T store.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Considering how little I drive, the cost of tires isn't all that critical for me. Plus, the 235/45/17 size that I use on the 5er is fairly common these days - huge selection of tires. The prices can vary greatly though, depending on what you want/need out of a tire. Looking at TR website right now, you can get a tire in this size for as little as $72 each to as much as $300 each. My last set of Bridgestone RE970s was about $800 OTD, IIRC. Which reminds me, I think it's time to take my winters off and put these back on... hopefully winter is done.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Never paid more than $400-500(after rebate(s)) for a set of 235/45-17 for my 2000 E430.

What were you getting? I have same dimension and I paid in Costco Bridgestone Blizzak LM-60 $960, and two years ago Michelin PSS $780. I know PSS went down for that dimension after rebate to $122 before tax.
Now, I could find much cheaper tires, but there is no way I would put that on my car.

I had various mid-priced Continental DWS, Falken FK-452, Kumho 4X and others. I bought all my tires when it was down around 2/32" or a little less before raining season started, with rebates from A/T and manufacture.

Since the car eats tires quickly and it is my wife car, ultra high performance summer tires with low tread life isn't needed.


I have Conti DWS on my wife's Tig. Very good tire. Kumho and similar brands I would not touch any more even with remote control.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Tires have a huge profit margin. As such good deals can be had, but only if you're willing to research and shop around. If you procrastinate until you have a blowout and rush to buy, don't expect to "save money" on any great tire deal.

I just picked up 4 new Continental PureContact tires from DTD for $300, DELIVERED, sat on them for a week, called around and got them mounted/balanced w/ new valve stems locally for $59, and installed them myself with my trusty torque wrench. That's 4 new top rated tires for $359. Since I was running Winter tires on a second set of wheels I could take my time and then jump on a good deal.

When I changed to a longer commute a few years ago, I went with a Corolla LE (Lame Edition) with its 15" wheels. I turned down a "good deal" on a Corolla Sport because it has 16" wheels and $150 more per year in car insurance, because of some badges and an air dam/spoiler! I knew I'd be buying new tires every 2 years and didn't feel like paying the size multiplier.

When the dealer saw my credit application he said "I can sell you any car on this lot, why do you want a Corolla?" Because I have other things to save for and spend money on, that's why.

People get what they deserve. I work with hourly laborers who drive Infiniti's and Escalades and share an apartment. Besides replacement tires, their auto insurance is astronomical. That's their choice. I drive a Corolla and live in a house with garage, and have enough left over to save for my kid's college. That's my choice.

For a certain class, it is more important to be seen in a German impressomobile than to get a kid through college with no loans. I'd rather be in a well set up Camry than an impressowagon with cheap whitewalls which shout "I'm a phony and a cheapskate".

 

[JetStar]

Do you suppose these people that squawk about replacement tire costs keep their tires properly inflated and rotated?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: double vanos
As far as cars with run flat tires ( think BMW) many times the owners ditch the RF tires and just put non RF tires on the car for much less money. They also discover increased ride comfort.
And there is a small industry that sells compact spare kits for these cars so the owners feel like it's 1995 again.
My '13 Mazdaspeed 3 came equipped with tires costing $242 that are absolute junk. Tires costing 60% of that rate higher on tire rack dot com, and you can believe I'll be buying non OEM come tire time. I'll actually be going cheaper = better ....


The cheapest discount-brand tires couldn't have been worse than the OE Assurances that my Magnum came with! They did two things well: wear like iron and have low rolling resistance...that's it! Grip was fair, wet performance was unimpressive, snow performance was nil, and noise levels were unbelievable. (They were as loud as the Winterforce snows I ran.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Stewart Fan
In the early '90s I was just out of high school. I sold tires at a Sears auto center. About once a month someone would pull up in their high end car...Porsche,Corvette,etc.

Even though I worked on commission and 4 tires on one of those cars was a nice addition to my check,I'd give the sale to someone else.

Without fail, Mr. $50,000 sports car guy would throw a hissy fit when given the quote for a set of tires. They'd really get wound up when they discovered we didn't carry anything for their car in stock,and had to wait 10 days to get a set.


Considering what I have been told by some Sears tire guys, I might throw a fit, too. (I recall being quoted nearly $2000 for a set of 225/60R18 snows.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
I was on a Mustang GT forum where there was much complaining about tire shops refusing to sell/mount tires with a lowers speed rating. I'm sure that S rated Chinese off-brand Ditchfinders will work just as well as the OEM tires...


Which is idiotic. I wonder what they would do if someone brought a car in that calls for a speed rating that is no longer made in the required size, not available from anywhere at any price.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
I have Conti DWS on my wife's Tig. Very good tire. Kumho and similar brands I would not touch any more even with remote control.

Currently I have Kumho 4X on E430, it replaced DWS 2-3 years ago.

With Kumho 4X I can drive 80-85 MPH on hwy with fairly heavy rain even when tread was down to 4/32".

The Continental DWS I had before Kumho 4X could not get above 70-75 MPH on hwy with moderately rain.

If I have only 2 choices: Continental DWS or Kumho 4X, I would pick Kumho 4X even if it is twice the price of Continental DWS.

I bought DWS 5-6 years ago because of consumer rating and test result from Tirerack, the dry performance/handling was good for the first 5-10k miles, but the wet performance/handling was worse compares with all other low end brands.

If DWS is working well on your vehicle by all mean keep it and enjoy.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
More conspicuous consumption. Those that have more money than sense.


Thing is, even rather pedestrian vehicles and SUVs have pretty aggressive and low profile rubber that is quite expensive. The trend to 17+" wheels on even econoboxes doesnt do any favors.

Im all for good handling and bigger brakes, but these arent necessarily guaranteed. I think that 215/55R-16 is about as optimal a size as any, can support fairly large cars, and would be a good approach for commonality.

Unfortunately what we seem to see is more of a divergence in sizing, rather than an approach to commonality.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The trend of sticking massive wheels on family sedans is silly. Why does a Camry need anything more than a 16in wheel?

Big low profile tires cost a lot of money regardless of what they are mounted on.


17s aren't big anymore...plus there are many options in 17"

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
More conspicuous consumption. Those that have more money than sense.


Thing is, even rather pedestrian vehicles and SUVs have pretty aggressive and low profile rubber that is quite expensive. The trend to 17+" wheels on even econoboxes doesnt do any favors.

Im all for good handling and bigger brakes, but these arent necessarily guaranteed. I think that 215/55R-16 is about as optimal a size as any, can support fairly large cars, and would be a good approach for commonality.

Unfortunately what we seem to see is more of a divergence in sizing, rather than an approach to commonality.

I think 205/55R16 may be the most common tire size available now. However, the types of cars that used to come with this size now go 17" or bigger. I've seen everything from BMWs to WRXs that came with that 16" tire size. I had a friend who had a BMW 3-series. When it came time to replace the tires, he decided to go to a dealer to get the OEM tires (Bridgestone touring - H rated). Probably paid $200 each plus installation. When I replaced my WRX tires (same size) I got Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 3 for about $130 each, minus Michelin's $70 discount for 4. However, he wasn't the comparison shopper nor a car geek. There are those who just pay because they figure it's what the car came with.

I do remember when there were fun to drive cars available with small tires where they actually designed for good handling without huge tires or wheels. The Acura Integra Type R actually went with the same 195/55R15 tire size as the GS-R. The original NSX came with 15" in the front and 16" in the rear.

Even so, there's a lack of the highest performance tires like the Pilot Super Sport coming in anything 16". I also found something about the most common OE tire sizes from 2012. Definitely more 17" sizes these days, although they're actually not low profile - more 55 to 70 series.

http://www.moderntiredealer.com/files/stats/2014-facts-sans-ads.pdf

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: y_p_w


I do remember when there were fun to drive cars available with small tires where they actually designed for good handling without huge tires or wheels.


I test drove a BMW Bavaria nearly-full-size sedan on 175R14s. Drove fine. And 40 years old.

 

[MCompact]

On my Club Sport track rat the OEM fitment was 225/50-16 but I downsized to 205/55-16 after I talked to a few people who were racing them. The 205/55-16 tire has more than adequate grip for what is a relatively light and low horsepower car, and it is lighter and narrower- so it tends to have less rolling resistance.

 

[ironman_gq]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The trend of sticking massive wheels on family sedans is silly. Why does a Camry need anything more than a 16in wheel?

Big low profile tires cost a lot of money regardless of what they are mounted on.


17s aren't big anymore...plus there are many options in 17"


My truck came with 17's for the tire size I was running it ended up being cheaper to buy 18" wheels and the same height tire as it is a Ford standard size instead of them being an oddball size on the 17's.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I have Conti DWS on my wife's Tig. Very good tire. Kumho and similar brands I would not touch any more even with remote control.

Currently I have Kumho 4X on E430, it replaced DWS 2-3 years ago.

With Kumho 4X I can drive 80-85 MPH on hwy with fairly heavy rain even when tread was down to 4/32".

The Continental DWS I had before Kumho 4X could not get above 70-75 MPH on hwy with moderately rain.

If I have only 2 choices: Continental DWS or Kumho 4X, I would pick Kumho 4X even if it is twice the price of Continental DWS.

I bought DWS 5-6 years ago because of consumer rating and test result from Tirerack, the dry performance/handling was good for the first 5-10k miles, but the wet performance/handling was worse compares with all other low end brands.

If DWS is working well on your vehicle by all mean keep it and enjoy.

I agree 100% with you when it comes to hydroplaning.
However, I had a feeling that I am driving RWD with my CC in wet, that is how they hold the road. God forbid I had to make sudden stop, ABS would burn out.
At 12K 3 of them lost balance without possibility of further balancing. Sold it to guy in DT in San Diego (he probably sold in Mexico) and got Michelin Pilot Super Sport.
In Costco Michelin PSS goes for $122 in that dimension after rebate. When it comes to performance you cannot get better. They do last 25K at best, but you get one really sticky tire.

 

[JustinH]

Years ago my mom bought a used Lincoln Navigator.

The first time the car needed tires, she traded it in.

I think it had 17 or 18 inch wheels at the time.

The pig also required premium fuel, 5.4L DOHC V8.

As for me, I buy regular cars that take regular tires. I research the house brands of tires, and buy them if it makes sense.

Costco and Discount Tire are usually not the best prices.

 

[exranger06]

My Bronco came from the factory with P265-75R-15s on it. That's apparently a pretty uncommon size, at least if I were to stick with P-metric tires. LT 31-10.5-15s are the same diameter, but they're more expensive, rougher riding, worse gas mileage LT tires. I wanted to upgrade my rims to something that looked better and didn't have corrosion, so I decided to go from a 15" stock size rim to a 16". That allowed me to get P265-70R-16 tires. They're the same diameter as the stock P265-75R-15s, they're still P metric tires, and I have vastly more tire options to choose from. I bought a set of Cooper Discoverer AT3s in P265-70R-16, and a set of American Outlaw Patrol rims from Discount Tire Direct. They shipped them already mounted and balanced, with new lug nuts, for only $960.

 

[zzyzzx]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The trend of sticking massive wheels on family sedans is silly. Why does a Camry need anything more than a 16in wheel?

Big low profile tires cost a lot of money regardless of what they are mounted on.


Really only needs 14" wheels.