Which Conti?

[fdcg27]

I've narrowed down my tire search for the Forester to two Continentals.
I'd like to hear from those who've had these tires.
I'm looking at either the PureContact w/ eco+tech or the ExtremeContact DWS.
Price is not a factor, since they are really close in price.
The DWS is a W rated tire, while the Pure is V rated.
I am convinced of the value of at least an H rating.
Either will be fine should I transplant an STI mill into the Forester
Which would you recommend and why?

 

[Rand]

do you want touring tires or performance tires?

 

[HerrStig]

The eco runs at pretty high slip angles (not high performance) but works very well in bad weather and wears well. Quiet, and decent ride too.
Consumer Reports just tested a bunch of tire products including the Eco.

 

[SubLGT]

What are your performance priorities?

 

[dparm]

The DWS is a very popular and well-rated all-season performance tire. The other is touring-oriented.

 

[fdcg27]

I want tires that will ride at least okay, are decent in the winter and are reasonably quiet.

 

[fdcg27]

Decent snow and ice performance along with decent ride and quiet operation.
The speed ratings of these tires indicate quality design and construction as well.
Tread life is not that important as long as the tire can at least approach 50K.

 

[The motor guy]

contenental tires suck. My dad had a set that lasted 20,000 miles. He drives like an old [censored].

 

[barlowc]

Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
contenental tires suck. My dad had a set that lasted 20,000 miles. He drives like an old [censored].

To the contrary, I have OE Continental ContiProContact tires on my Nissan, currently with 55K miles on them, and they'll easily last another 10K-15K. So you can't make such a broad generalization based on your dad's.

 

[SubLGT]

I doubt the DWS can get anywhere close to 50,000 miles of tread wear. Get the PureContact.

 

[barlowc]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Get the PureContact.

The PureContact was recently rated #2 by Consumer Reports in the Performance All-Season (H speed rating) category, just behind the Michelin Primacy MXV4.

Now, I would take that with a grain of salt considering the PureContact has only been available for about a month and therefore has limited "real world" data available.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
contenental tires suck. My dad had a set that lasted 20,000 miles. He drives like an old [censored].



Right, because we should judge an entire brand based on one owner's experience....of a particular model we don't know, on a car we don't know, of unknown history.

 

[Donald]

Hard to do a search latter on when you say Conti in the title!!

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
I doubt the DWS can get anywhere close to 50,000 miles of tread wear. Get the PureContact.


I've got over 30,000 on the set of 4 DWS mounted on my T5 Volvo (2345/45R17), still have 7 - 8/32" of tread, just measured them on the last rotation...they're a bit more noisy now than when new, but I am very, very happy with their life and performance in all aspects, braking, cornering, wet weather....

I do corner the car hard, I am not easy on it...nor on the tires...

The DWS have been great tires for me. I have the Conti Pro-contact on the Corolla, but they're a different product than what you're looking for...they're great on a commuter car that only needs T-rated tires...they have lasted nearly 50K and will be replaced soon...likely with another set of Contis...

 

[sciphi]

I like the DWS's on the Fit. They have gotten a bit noisy as they've gotten mileage on them. Beside that, they're grippy in wet/dry and ride well. We should get about 40-50k miles on them.

 

[fdcg27]

I did decide on the Pure over the DWS.
I usually end up kicking myself for not buying Michelins, but it will be interesting to try another brand of middle premium rubber.
I will say that the Geolander G95 OEMs have held up well, and have not required rebalancing since they were mounted in Japan and slapped on the car.
They would actually cost more than either the Pure or the MXV4, however, and I don't think they're that great.
I suspect that the Contis will be better in ride and handling, with decent snow and ice performance.
We shall see.

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I did decide on the Pure over the DWS.
I usually end up kicking myself for not buying Michelins, ..........


What is the price difference between the PureContact and the MXV4? I would guess around $150 for a set of 4?

 

[fdcg27]

Only about $72.00 more a set for the H rated tire, or $180.00 more for a set of the V rated MXV4s, so price is not a deciding factor. The difference in price is nothing over the 50-60K life of a set of tires.
I have Primacy MXV4s on the newer Accord.
They were great in their first winter, which was a bad one, and worse thereafter.
I wanted to try something different.
We'll see whether I end up pleased or kicking myself.
Worst case scenario, the Pures will get dumped early, lesson learned.

 

[rjundi]

Good choice.

The DWS are so over rated. We have a set on my wife's 2005 Legacy GT wagon now with 40k+. They are adequate to decent tires first 30k but not great. They are nothing special in the winter either. The performance aspect is not there.

 

[Volvohead]

We buy a lot of UHP and GT A/S tires - four sets in the past 18 months. We have a new set of DWS on a car right now. We also have a newish set of 970AS tires, and a couple sets of Michelin MXVs that are still under two years old. Sort of our own personal test group at the moment.

The DWS' emphasis is not precise steering response or cornering feel, but adverse condition traction (however, ours will never see snow due to the vehicle), braking grip and NVH. It is a cut above a top GT like the Michelin MXV for steering and cornering and stopping bite, but there is no way it will last as long as the Michelin, and it is not as comfortable or quiet (even allowing for profile differences). And it is nowhere near the 970 if a full-bore UHP tire is what you're after - it is vague feeling in comparison (even at a lower profile). That is not necessarily bad, but it is the trade-off for the better NVH.

The best way to describe the DWS is a GT++/UHP- tire. A little of both, but on balance more tilted to the UHP side.

But not overrated, and not overpriced, if you know what you are buying. Good for someone who doesn't mind a 30k mile tire and wants a little more fun than the usual GT.