Why not cheaper tires?

[tomcat27]

what separates high from low? technology, materials, longevity. as far as putting good tires on a Cavalier... I once had a 1989 cav and put BBS wheels with 15" Michelins on it. compared to the original 13" high profile tires, that care handled great!

maybe its just dumb luck, but I and a couple of friends and family members have gotten 2X the life out of Michelins. not sure why. does that mean I always get michelins? nope - altho I did recently pony up for some on my intrepid. my toyota got Kumho's.

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: surfstar
I run the cheapest, decent tires I can get. Was Yokos for a while, now Hankook, Kumho, General, or the like.
Go for H or higher rated and you'll get a well-constructed tire with almost any brand.


You get what you pay for from tyres in stopping distance terms. There is about a 15% in dry distance between a typical quality tyre and the cheapest import, BUT it's about a 25% difference in the wet. The real bad ones are makes no one seems to of heard of before and to confuse things some companies changes names every year.
Every tyres size is different in terms of the best make and type, but this set of German ADAC results might give you an idea:

BRAKING DISTANCE TESTS

Continental, Goodyear, Nokian, Dunlop, Pirelli and Michelin makes good tyres, but the rest are a real mixed bunch in performance terms.



Different compounds, maybe?


True, that is one reason winter tyres are better as the compounds are softer. Be careful of Longlife or green fuel economy tyres (Even Michellin make them) as they might last longer or give slightly better mpg figures, BUT they are made of hard compounds and often have poor performance in wet conditions due to their tread pattern.

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: tomcat27
what separates high from low? technology, materials, longevity. as far as putting good tires on a Cavalier... I once had a 1989 cav and put BBS wheels with 15" Michelins on it. compared to the original 13" high profile tires, that care handled great!

maybe its just dumb luck, but I and a couple of friends and family members have gotten 2X the life out of Michelins. not sure why. does that mean I always get michelins? nope - altho I did recently pony up for some on my intrepid. my toyota got Kumho's.


Michellin have a very good reputation for hard compound summer tyres that last a long time. Their dry braking distances are good, but their wet distance figures are only average in general.
Continental are about the best make on average but Nokian are catching up real fast, although there is not much price difference between them.

 

[bigjl]

I buy according to available budget.

But this led me to buying Nankang NS2 tyres many years ago and they were a very good tyre. Lasted well, have excellent grip wet of dry, a real eye opener.

I do avoid Chinese brands like Ling Long etc.

From my experience Korean tyres are a lot better than Chinese.

When I had to put a tyre in the Pathfinder due to uneven wear, was like it since I bought be vehicle, I put on a Roadstone tyre which has proved rather decent.

I liked the looked of the General Grabber AT but they were £25 more each.

But I suspect I shall be replacing all four later this year with a set of Grabbers and putting the Roadstone into spare wheel duty.

Kumho, Hankook , Toyo all make decent tyres, albeit I have only experienced a small selection of their tyres.

One interesting fact regarding Hankook.

Since the Met Police in London has started buying Hyundai I30 as patrol cars and come with Hankook tyres I have seen they are now putting Hankooks on other vehicles in the fleet.

They used to use Good Year, then the Sprinters had Michelin, poor quality tyres do not feature in Police buying patterns so a vote of confidence I think.

 

[PandaBear]

It really depends. Sometimes you can get good cheap tires that handle great for your car, sometimes you cannot.

In 14" the weight and hp of the cars (i.e. a 70hp Escort and 100hp Corolla) are likely not that demanding of the tires, and many cheap tires will do good enough and you can't tell the differences (if 195 14" is good enough for a Camry V6, 175 14" is way overkill for an Escort). A $120 Michelin may not be better than a $80 Bridgestone or a $60 Falken other than taking some trade off (i.e. more durable but less traction).

In 18" 40 profile tires, I'd sure as heck not buy the cheapest just for safety reason alone.

 

[eljefino]

I like to imagine that a cheap tire today will work as well as a near top shelf one from 20 years ago. I get "good used": the price difference makes it a no-brainer for me. (However, my source has ratcheted the price up from $5 to $10 to $20 now and has started stacking them neatly on shelves instead of leaving them outside in a pile.) My cars, like OPs, take "obsolete" 14-15 inch tires. I LOL when I see someone on craigslist wanting cheap 18" tires for some obscene SUV. Gotta pay to play.

If I were to buy new, I'd get mid-low tier online from a name brand. Probably Kumho/Hankook with good UTQ specs. The tire stores here have generic-o tires for $5 less than they sell the name brands and both are overpriced.

 

[VicVinegar]

I don't know. I've experienced bad tires and it is not fun. I'm sure there are probably fine choices that could save you a few bucks, but last time I bought tires I decided to play it safe and spent the extra for Michelin. This is my second set of the Harmony/Defender and they are performing like the first. No regrets for me. The Pirelli P4 tires I had in between weren't bad, but weren't as good as the Michelin.

Tire Rack does help though, now that you can read reviews. It can reveal interesting trends. For example when I read reviews for the Goodyear Assurance I saw that people with lighter cars like my Civic tended to rate the tires lower than someone with a heavier car. It is nice that Tire Rack lets you break it down like that.

 

[SteveSRT8]

I normally NEVER buy cheap tires. Since we buy multiple sets of 4 every year we quickly learned what works well on our fleet trucks and never looked back.

But on the Chrysler I have experimented a bit. One notable surprise was the Hankook Ventus V12's on it now. My sixth set! Extremely good tire for a surprising price.

My car comes stock with 245/45/20's so sizing is an issue with many brands. I'm pretty sure my next set will be Michelins.

 

[sciphi]

I had some horrible experiences with truly cheap tires growing up. On our cars I'm sticking to well-known or well-reviewed tires to avoid the out of balance and poor sealing no-name tires I grew up with. Those tires were horrible to do highway speeds on, and needed air every week. We got exactly what we paid for.

 

[kam327]

It can't be a coincidence that Michelin, Goodyear and Continental more often than not tend to be at the top of the rankings on Consumer Reports and in the tirerack.com surveys. Second tier brands like Maxxus and Nexen are more likely dead last.

I try to be consistent and look for the best value, whether it's tires or oil. I like synthetic blend because it offers better protection than straight dino but doesn't cost much more. Similarly, when shopping for tires I look for one that gets good reviews but is reasonably priced (I therefore never buy Michelin). In the case of my Explorer, which will probably need tires this year, the Firestone Destination LE2 is top rated on tirerack.com but is the 3rd least expensive tire available for it. That's a no brainer!

 

[Pop_Rivit]

The Michelin Harmony tires we put on the Subaru when we bought it now have around 80,000 miles on them and still had 5/32 tread left when I checked them this fall. They'll easily make 100,000 miles before they need to be replaced late next year. Their performance on the Subaru has been outstanding. I check the air pressure on a monthly (or so) basis, but they've never been rotated, and all are wearing evenly.

They were not double the cost of the cheap tires, but they've more than doubled the life of the cheap tires. Given the quality and longevity they were well worth the extra up-front costs.

I also have Michelin LTX's on my pickup. Not because of the quality, but because of the price. With the rebate the on-line price was only marginally higher than the "budget" brands available locally. Their performance has been ideal for my purposes, and I have no doubts they'll be the last set of tires I ever purchase for the pickup.

I put Hankook h727 tires on the Elantra because they were the right price point combined with the quality and performance characteristics that I wanted. I don't know (and don't care) if they're considered a "budget" tire; they've lived up to every expectation that I had, and I have no doubt they'll come close to the 100,000 mile treadwear expectation. The on-line price was much less than I could have found them locally, plus I didn't pay sales tax. The up-front cost was similar to the cheapest "in house brands" available locally.

I little bit of research goes a long way in determining which tire is best for your needs-it's far more important than blanket statements about specific brands or specific prices. Every brand has some standouts, and every brand has some stinkers. Finding what works for you, your application, your driving style/climate and your budget are far more important than choosing a tire based on price alone.

 

[ledslinger]

My tire buying philosophy during the last 40 years is simple and hasn't let me down: Top the line Michelins. I have strayed once and bought the Yoko Avid Touring S that are on my Concorde. They were 1/2 the price of Michelins and it was a good gamble, I like them.

The problem with cheap tires is they are a gamble, could pay off, may not. If you ever get tires that don't perform, are loud, dangerous, or wear quickly, the gamble isn't worth it. Tires last a long time and good ones are enjoyed every mile. The price difference gets spread over many miles and years. Sometimes you buy the best because that's what you want.

I considered going cheap on my 2003 Silverado I don't drive much, 25K miles in 10 years. I put Michelin X Radial LT2 on it and love them and will for 10 years. I think they are safer than lesser, cheaper tires, and that has some value to me.

When you weigh longevity with performance and safety, the most expensive tires could be the best value.

I decide which Michelins I want and compare to a cheaper tire and how willing I am to make a gamble. Usually I forego the gamble.

 

[badtlc]

I figure out what specs I want my tires to have, first. Tread life is usually the first thing I try to iron out based on how much longer I think i'll have the car. The one rating I don't care about is speed. Once I got my treadlife, temp, and traction ratings picked out, I find the cheapest tire I can that meets my needs.

 

[bigjl]

In the UK Maxxis are a very new name to market but have a very good reputation in the off roading market.

Nexen is firmly lower tier but has big ideas.

They now have their own budget range, Roadstone!

Can't say I have any issues with the Roadstone tyres.

But then the Pathy is no performance car!

I would have loved to put on Michelin or similar, but it is an urban monkey that thing and half the price is half the price!

 

[CapriRacer]

I see this as all about risk.

Low cost tires work well in a lot of cases - which is why they survive as a species. But there can be problems and there would be more problems with less expensive tires.

Plus less expensive tires have a less "robust" warranty - both from what is actually covered and what MIGHT be covered outside the warranty. Not to mention finding a dealer who will do the warranty for some of these odd brands.

And lastly: Tire failures: While these are rare events, less expensive tires tend to fail more often. This is more a reflection of WHO the manufacturer is rather than its actually cost to manufacture.

And it's this area where I think the greatest danger is. Tire failures can result in fatalities - and since less expensive tires fail more often, the consumer is more at risk - and he probably doesn't know it.

Even if the failure only results in disabling the car (until the tire is changed), it is still an unforseen hassle.

 

[Tempest]

I have driven a Ford Ranger for many years. Not exactly a performance vehicle, and the quality of tires really matters and is noticeable. The stock tires were junk, and when they went, I was short on cash and put cheaper Coopers on it. They were not fun at all in the rain.

After that I put more expensive tires on it and the difference is incredible. Ride, noise, and especially wet traction. I don't cheap out on tires any longer.

Having said that, Yokohama YK580's just went on a Jeep Liberty that I service and they awesome tires. Not exactly discount tires, but cheaper than other models, and made in USA to boot! I'll probably put these on the Ranger when next it needs tires.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
I figure out what specs I want my tires to have, first. Tread life is usually the first thing I try to iron out based on how much longer I think i'll have the car. The one rating I don't care about is speed. Once I got my treadlife, temp, and traction ratings picked out, I find the cheapest tire I can that meets my needs.


I do that but I'm vain too and look at the tread pattern. If it's too "fashion forward" or goofy looking that's a downer. I don't think a tire manufacturer that puts looks first is going to put R&D into everything else that's important. I like a "normal" symmetric tread pattern, not something slashed in weird circles by Zorro.

 

[rjundi]

It seems like a no brainer on my 07 MDX. The OEM size and nice tires called Latitude HP cost $300/tire. Continental seems to have a promising offering for $225/installed. Both seemed to be rated similar. is a Michelin really worth $300 more/set?

 

[OilFool]

I go thru a set of five tires in a year or two. Depending on wear rating.
I have been fitted with cheaper alternatives, and braking suffered along with handling.

My logic:
Never skimp on brakes or tires.
It CAN wind up costing a lot more than you can ever dream to save on tires/brakes in your lifetime.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
I see this as all about risk.

Low cost tires work well in a lot of cases - which is why they survive as a species. But there can be problems and there would be more problems with less expensive tires.

Plus less expensive tires have a less "robust" warranty - both from what is actually covered and what MIGHT be covered outside the warranty. Not to mention finding a dealer who will do the warranty for some of these odd brands.

And lastly: Tire failures: While these are rare events, less expensive tires tend to fail more often. This is more a reflection of WHO the manufacturer is rather than its actually cost to manufacture.

And it's this area where I think the greatest danger is. Tire failures can result in fatalities - and since less expensive tires fail more often, the consumer is more at risk - and he probably doesn't know it.

Even if the failure only results in disabling the car (until the tire is changed), it is still an unforseen hassle.



One very good point in the price trade off....