LTX MS2 or AT3 or DestAT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
I hope Bob understands that none of the tires under consideration are any good on ice. That requires a real winter tire. There is no such thing as an all-season tire when ice is on the road.

I'd never get a different tire size for the shop's convenience. The shop can order the tires and I can wait to get the size I feel is best.



The Destination LE's do a great job on ice. Have used them on the last 3 vehicles I had before this one( 2 4WD trucks and an AWD SUV - not offered in the size I need for current vehicle or I would use them again
mad.gif
)and they have been excellent on ice. Even slipepry ice and snow covered boat ramps late in the year during waterfowl season.
 
Tire performance is very relative, especially without instrumented comparative testing. CR does a little bit of that, and all-season tires' performance in winter conditions is always improving, but performance on ice is always inferior to true winter tires.

The #1-rated Michelin LTX M/S2 did "Good" on ice, which is the middle of the 5 circles. Most of the all-season tires did "Good". The #18-rated Firestone Destination LE did "Fair" on ice, which is 2/5 circles. Many of the all-season tires did "Poor" on ice. I wouldn't call any of these tires great on ice.

Conversely, when you look over at winter light truck tires, tested by CR at the same time as the other ones, in the same size, and on the same vehicle (so the ratings are comparable), the best winter tires blow the all-season ones out of the water (or slush as it were). All of them posted "Excellent" snow performance and most of them posted "Very Good" or "Excellent" ice performance.

The performance of any one given tire might be "pretty good" to the butt dyno as it were. But when tested objectively against other tires, less expensive ones often fall short in some key areas.
 
If ice is a primary concern, and an all season tire is still the desired option, I'd still go with the LTX M/S 2. They have a almost universal review as being an excellent tire for the type, and I hear more positive things about this tire in climates with snow and ice than most.

There is a recommendation for the Firestone Destination LE above. My experience with that tire is less positive, and more reviews are bearing out that the snow and ice traction is not as good as other choices. I have a set on my '97 Explorer, with about 30,000 miles and they are down to 5/32 of tread. Not good for a 60,000 mile tire. Both previous tires got over 60,000 in the same style driving. They are also the reason I now run dedicated snow tires in the winter. They are no longer installed on our fleet vehicles either due to the poor winter performance.
 
I think the Firestone Destination LE was a decent tire when it was introduced years ago. But it's definitely been left behind by other competitors. Unfortunately, Firestone's track record of tire updates has not been real positive...some of their new tires have been real stinkers.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
some of their new tires have been real stinkers.


Do you have specifics? ...because a lot of Firestone's recent passenger car tires are some of the better-rated models in Tire Rack's surveys.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
some of their new tires have been real stinkers.


Do you have specifics? ...because a lot of Firestone's recent passenger car tires are some of the better-rated models in Tire Rack's surveys.


Their FR710 was pretty new in 2009 when Consumer Reports tested it, and it scored dead last in their testing. It does rank 8 out of 24 in Tire Rack's survey of passenger all-season tires, which I will grant is better than Firestone usually places with Tire Rack users. And actually, their new Precision Touring appears to be decent...Tire Rack's test is here. But that seems to be where the good news ends.

Tire Rack just tested Firestone's new Precision Sport, and it placed 4th out of 4 tires tested. Here is the link. In short, it performed okay on dry pavement and worst of the 4 on wet pavement. It also scored 4th of 4 in ride and noise.

Tire Rack recently tested Firestone's new Firehawk Wide Oval AS, and it too placed 4th out of 4 tires tested, and by far. Here is that link. Wet performance was pretty bad, at least relative to the other 3 tires tested.

Tire Rack also recently tested Firestone's new Firehawk Wide Oval Indy 500, and it too placed 4th out of 4 tires tested (there's a trend here). Here is that test report. This tire was more competitive with its peers than the other 2 Firestone tires linked above, but wet performance was still lacking.

Regarding survey reviews, I go back to a comment I made earlier. Any given tire experienced by a driver may seem to be "pretty good", and by certain standards, it might be. But when tested against other tires in an objective and instrumented test, the true qualities come out.
 
I debated which new tires for my 2003 2500 HD for a while. I'm mostly a Bridgestone/Firestone guy. The other day I came home to watch 2 tires on one side go flat. I must of run over something on that side. I had to similar leaks but no nail or anything. These were the 'Steeltex' with about 74,000 miles on them.

I got my frozen on spare freed up & put a winter tire on the other hub to get me to work & went to the tirerack website.

I didn't match my spare(out of production) cuz a friend wants to buy it. I ordered 4 245/75/16 Michelin LTX A/T tires for $167 each. It's about $95 shipping to WI, then I get a $70 rebate. I decided on the same size as OEM to match my spare & I also rotate 2 winter tires on for winter driving.

I was close to the Firestone 'Transforce' but wanted to try the Michelins most rave about. They come today & I will have them on within a few days.
 
I'm wondering what are the advantages of a M/S rating if I never drive in mud or snow?

When I bought my truck, there were M/S rated tires on it and I thought.. well, that's a bit optimistic here in Florida, where all I see is sand.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Regarding survey reviews, I go back to a comment I made earlier. Any given tire experienced by a driver may seem to be "pretty good", and by certain standards, it might be. But when tested against other tires in an objective and instrumented test, the true qualities come out.


I will take a real hands on review of a product by someone who has actually used it over computer stats and machine tests any day of the week. Want to know what a car will really get for MPG? Do you go by that regimented fuel economy testing or do you seek out owners of the same vehicle who drive like you do to see what they really get?

I have used the Destination LE's on 3 different vehicles and they performed without exception to the highest degree. If what we actually experience with a product is no longer a valid basis for our opinions and those opinions will be dismissed and discredited because they aren't formed based of some independant testing procedure what is the point of forums and reviews and such?
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I think the Firestone Destination LE was a decent tire when it was introduced years ago. But it's definitely been left behind by other competitors. Unfortunately, Firestone's track record of tire updates has not been real positive...some of their new tires have been real stinkers.


I disagree with you 100% that the LE has been passed by and left behind. The tire still performs great, lasts a LONG time, and is still affordable when compared to other tires in the AS light truck/suv class. Why should Firestone mess with a good thing? Change is not always good.
 
NHHEMI, I will answer both of your points in one post, and I think both points you made are good ones.

Your first point was asking what good are forums and user reviews if they'll be discredited without objective feedback. User reviews are excellent tools in a toolbox and give important feedback on things that short-term objective reviews cannot. Things like how long the tire lasts, do they constantly come out of balance, how the company was for warranty returns, etc. I think user reviews carry as much weight as professional instrumented testing does with subjective matters like ride and noise. Tire Rack and CR evaluate ride and noise comfort, but the reality is, different people have different sensitivities to that sort of thing and a broad based survey of users is invaluable here.

To your second point, I do agree with you that the Destination LE is a good tire, and that it's affordable when compared to other tires in its class. You asked why Firestone should change anything; if Firestone is going after the value- or price-based consumer (and it is), then it's doing the right thing, and I don't say that with a negative connotation. Although the Destination LE is a good tire, and although it is affordable, it is objectively out-performed by other brands. User surveys on Tire Rack place it 9th out of 57 tires in its class. It's a good tire; not the absolute best you can buy, but good! Does it perform as well as the Michelin LTX M/S or M/S2? Both objective tests and subjective user reviews say it doesn't. But it costs less also. Everyone will draw their cost/value line differently, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 
I just replaced a set of punctured LTX MS with Dest LE's. I've had good luck with LE's in the past. The LTXs were 2/3 thru their life but would have still been a usable tire, but this was an AWD application and the puncture was at the tread edge into the sidewall.

The first set of LE's had 2 bad tires, right off the rack. they wouldn't balance out properly and they said they had tread "walk" where the tread would shift side-to-side along the carcass. 2 out of 4 tires. They replaced all 4 at no cost and the replacements are spot-on.

I found the LEs to be slightly softer, less road rumble, and the wife says they steer easier. They do make a little more tread whine than the michelins. And I paid much less. At the moment, their wet traction, compared to the warn LTXs, is better. But that's also to be attributed to newer, more supple, rubber.

The LE's were not my first choice (actually wanted REVO 2's, which have been outstanding on my 2wd jeep) but they were not in local stock and we needed the car for a trip. Still, she's happy, so I'm happy.

Mike
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
NHHEMI, I will answer both of your points in one post, and I think both points you made are good ones.

Your first point was asking what good are forums and user reviews if they'll be discredited without objective feedback. User reviews are excellent tools in a toolbox and give important feedback on things that short-term objective reviews cannot. Things like how long the tire lasts, do they constantly come out of balance, how the company was for warranty returns, etc. I think user reviews carry as much weight as professional instrumented testing does with subjective matters like ride and noise. Tire Rack and CR evaluate ride and noise comfort, but the reality is, different people have different sensitivities to that sort of thing and a broad based survey of users is invaluable here.

To your second point, I do agree with you that the Destination LE is a good tire, and that it's affordable when compared to other tires in its class. You asked why Firestone should change anything; if Firestone is going after the value- or price-based consumer (and it is), then it's doing the right thing, and I don't say that with a negative connotation. Although the Destination LE is a good tire, and although it is affordable, it is objectively out-performed by other brands. User surveys on Tire Rack place it 9th out of 57 tires in its class. It's a good tire; not the absolute best you can buy, but good! Does it perform as well as the Michelin LTX M/S or M/S2? Both objective tests and subjective user reviews say it doesn't. But it costs less also. Everyone will draw their cost/value line differently, and there's nothing wrong with that.


Fair enough. I think overall we are on the same page with a few difference. However here are a couple closing comments and then let's just agree to disagree from here on in on any other difference of opinion ok...

1 - I have had 2 vehicles( 03 and 04 Dodge Ram 1500 4WD's ) with the Michelin LTX M+S and 3 with the Destination LE's( 07 Chevy Silverado 1500 4WD, 08 Dodge Ram 1500 4WD, and 2008 Chevy Equinox AWD ). I have had both and driven them both on multiple vehicles and seen 1st hand how they perform. If I needed a light truck/suv class all season tire and it was offered in my size the LE would be my 1st choice NO QUESTION.

The LE's IMO were every bit as good as the M+S's in the bad weather and they actually wore better. The LE's are a fraction of the cost of the M+S's as well. I won't say the LE's are a better tire than the original M+S's but they sure don't take a back seat to them. I have not had any of the M+S2's but with what they cost and what I know about the LE's I wouldn't try them. I don't believe I would see enough improvement to warrant $50+ more p/tire.

2 - In regards to your comments about where the LE ranks on Tirerack. 9th out of 57 tires. You have to take into account the total miles of revues and take some of the standings witha grain of salt as they are new tires that have not been out long enough to have long term reviews and a lot of users.

A prime example is the General Grabber HTS. It is now 4th. It debuted as #1 but has fallen off as the reviews come in and they are out there being used longer term. Not saying it is a bad tire and not worthy of #4 just that it has relatively low review miles( and thus fewer overall reviews )compared to some of the others in the top 10. 8 million+ is a lot but it isn't 20 million+ or 70 million +.

It has falllen significantly since it came out. The biggest reason it has fallen is they don't last a super long time compared to the competition. Peole I know who have bought them love them overall but they only get 40K out of them and that hurts them. I bet when they hit 20 million + reviews they are at the lower end of the top 10 if not out of it.

The LE's for example were like 6th on the list with like 10 million miles of reviews give or take I believe when I 1st bought them. I discounted a couple of the ones above them at the time as they were so new they barely had any reviews so the LE's were really, to me like 3rd or 4th. The #1 at that time isn't even there anymore at all. IMO Tirerack should implement a minimum review amount before a tire may be ranked. It is misleading the way it is now.

The LE's have stayed right around that same spot as have the LTX M+S's. Time tested and proven tires who drop down in rankings really only because some new(er) tires come out that have not got the same amount of reviews to drop them down. Look at the current #1. I know the M+S2 is a good tire but with so few reviews I don't believe it really is a long term indicator( yet )like the traditional M+S reviews are.

What means more, really be honest now, a 3rd place ranking with 70 million review miles or a 1st place ranking with just 2 million review miles? The Yoko's for example at #7 barely have any reviews at all with just 340K worth, and the Yoko's at #10 only have 800K worth, so should I believe the one at #7 really is a better tire than the LE sitting 2 spots lower with 21 million+ miles worth of reviews?

Is that clear? Does it make sense? I do value and use the reviews at TR a lot. I am not discrediting them. Very useful feature. Rather I am trying to say you need to take into account how long a tire has been out before placing too much stock in the review rankings if they are all glowing and positive. Yes, it means the tire performs well at 1st but how will it do after it gets 20K, 30K, 40K, etc... on them and a lot of people have used them for a long time? It is like declaring a politician the winner on election day an hour into counting, before all the votes are in, so to speak.

I think if everyone says a new tire sucks right off it probably does. It sure won't get better with miles. Many tires have come out high but once the miles added up they dropped like a stone. I don't expect the M+S2 to drop like a stone but it will drop.

So the fact the LE's are currently 9th at Tirerack to me is a point of praise not one of detraction as you make it out to be. They have stayed consistantly in the lower to middle area of the top 10( when I have tracked them anyway ). For what they cost vs some of the tires above them that perform marginally better( if at all )that makes them a great tire.

The current top 10 list( with review miles )so people get some perspective...

1 - Michelin LTX M+S2( 2,617,160 )
2 - Goodyear Fortera TripleTred( 15,249,247 )
3 - Michelin LTX M+S( 79,619,228 )
4 - General Grabber HTS( 8,364,177 )
5 - Michelin Cross Terrain SUV( 59,656,837 )
6 - Yokohama Geolandar H/T-S G051( 25,500,858 )
7 - Yokohama Geolandar H/T G95A( 340,000 )
8 - Kumho Road Venture APT KL51( 5,149,781 )
9 - Firestone Destination LE( 21,708,125 )
10 - Yokohama Geolandar H/T G034( 840,143 )
 
#3 says a lot about why #1 is where it is. Doesn't appear that anyone else is even close in total miles, except another Michelin.

On our fleet trucks the old LTX MS and AS outlasted the competitors sometimes 3 to 1. Not a slight difference. So we had no problem when we could get MS2's even cheaper. Easy decision.

Plus one of the unique characteristics of these tires on our trucks is their performance does not seem to degrade much with wear. Very different from some of their competition.

Each tire buyer has to decide on their own what they want. Kind of cool that we have so many choices!
 
Just to clarify: I didn't point out that the Destination LE was 9th out of 57 as a negative thing. I said that as a positive! That's, what, in the top 15th percentile? Any score in the top 15th percentile, whether it's an SAT grade, IQ test, or a tire ranking, is something worthy of mention.
 
I'd go for the AT3

I had the firestone a/t's based on reviews....hated them, they were terrible past the first winter...replaced them with cheap, Big O a/t knock-off tire that's providing better traction...go figure.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Plus one of the unique characteristics of these tires on our trucks is their performance does not seem to degrade much with wear. Very different from some of their competition.


Agreed, the LTX M/S is the best tire I have ever owned, getting 135,000 miles and 8 years out of a set. I now have the LTX M/S2s and they appear to be every bit the equal of the LTX M/S with one exception, they are far better in the wet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Replace tires or wait?
Replies
18
Views
2K
dumkid
F
Yokohama IceGuard ig 53
Replies
3
Views
879
Jimmy_Russells
john_pifer
New Tire Day! Off: Defender LTX M/S-2. On: Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015
2 3
Replies
41
Views
13K
john_pifer
A
Nokian Outpost APT All-Weather (Summer Off-Road) Review
Replies
5
Views
6K
edyvw
john_pifer
Photos of the Set of Michelin Defender LTX M/S-2 I Just Removed
2 3
Replies
41
Views
8K
FordSVTGuy
Back
Top