As I said, stupid and pretentous, creating a real problem to avoid an imaginary one.
Going down one speed rating OK?
- Thread starter rationull
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: labman
As I said, stupid and pretentous, creating a real problem to avoid an imaginary one.
for those of us who occasionally put our cars to the limits in safe, controlled environments, speed ratings are important.
for the typically joe on the street, the load and traction ratings are significantly more important.
As I said, stupid and pretentous, creating a real problem to avoid an imaginary one.
for those of us who occasionally put our cars to the limits in safe, controlled environments, speed ratings are important.
for the typically joe on the street, the load and traction ratings are significantly more important.
My V rated Michelins work great in the rain...No problems at all....
Originally Posted By: fsskier
H and V rated tires are often very poor in rain, some are just plain dangerous.
I think this is too much of a generalization.
Quote:
Making H and V rated tires requires the use of low hysterisis rubber compounds that bend and distort very little - in order to remain cool at extremely high speeds. The downside of these hard compounds is inflexibility, and low traction when cold.
I may be wrong, but I believe this has more to do with the use of summer vs. all-season compounds, less to do with speed ratings. Even a T-rated tire will have poor traction in low temps if it is a summer tire.
On the other hand, there are V-rated winter tires out there, so once again, I don't think the speed rating has much to do with how the tire behaves in lower temps or in the wet.
Sure, there may be some H- or V-rated tires out there that are poor in the rain, but it's not because of the specific speed rating but because they are just [censored] tires in general.
H and V rated tires are often very poor in rain, some are just plain dangerous.
I think this is too much of a generalization.
Quote:
Making H and V rated tires requires the use of low hysterisis rubber compounds that bend and distort very little - in order to remain cool at extremely high speeds. The downside of these hard compounds is inflexibility, and low traction when cold.
I may be wrong, but I believe this has more to do with the use of summer vs. all-season compounds, less to do with speed ratings. Even a T-rated tire will have poor traction in low temps if it is a summer tire.
On the other hand, there are V-rated winter tires out there, so once again, I don't think the speed rating has much to do with how the tire behaves in lower temps or in the wet.
Sure, there may be some H- or V-rated tires out there that are poor in the rain, but it's not because of the specific speed rating but because they are just [censored] tires in general.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rszappa1
My V rated Michelins work great in the rain...No problems at all....
Ditto, [censored], mine are considered one of the better "all-season" tires for wet weather (aka no-season, though honestly, they are far from the best in the snow)
My V rated Michelins work great in the rain...No problems at all....
Ditto, [censored], mine are considered one of the better "all-season" tires for wet weather (aka no-season, though honestly, they are far from the best in the snow)
One of the things I really like about these types of discussions is that it brings out the myths people have. I hope everyone realizes that I am pointing these things out so we can all be better informed. I've learned a lot of things in these forums, and tires happens to be my area of expertise. Please don't take this personally:
Originally Posted By: fsskier
H and V rated tires are often very poor in rain, some are just plain dangerous.
.......
Sorry, just the opposite - compared to S and T rated tires, H and V rated tires have much better wet traction - all other things being equal.
Quote:
.........
Making H and V rated tires requires the use of low hysterisis rubber compounds that bend and distort very little - in order to remain cool at extremely high speeds.
.........
I just spent 15 minutes on the phone getting a short lesson on tread compounds:
Tread compounds that have low hysteresis have good rolling resistance. But you can't use hysteresis to characterize tread compounds that wear well against tread compounds that have good grip. They will have higher hysteresis than good RR compounds, but other than that, the correlation falls apart.
So if you had to characterize tread compounds on H and V rated tires, "low hysteresis" is not it.
Further, it is the construction that gives the tire its speed capability. H and higher speed rated tires have to have an overlay over the belt - commonly called a cap ply. The higher you go, the more overlay you need.
What the overlay does is reinforce the belt package. This resists the centrifugal forces, reducing the magnitude of the standing wave, and therefore not only reducing the running temperature but also reducing the stresses on the belt package.
Quote:
..........
The downside of these hard compounds is inflexibility, and low traction when cold. Witness the Indy cars flying off the track at low speeds when behind the pace car.
..........
That is caused by the tire not being heated enough. When they get up to operating temperature, they grip just fine, thank you!
Quote:
.......
Tire engineering articles often talk about this conflict, indeed Car and Driver writer Pat Bedard once noted that most people using V and H rated tires were increasing, not decreasing their risk.
.........
I think you've misinterpreted something Pat wrote. I'll bet that what Pat was trying to point out was that lower aspect ratio tires are more prone to hydroplaning - and that is true. It is also true that lower aspect ratio tires tend to have higher speed ratings.
One of the major problems in trying to sort this out is the "All other things being equal". There are so many permutations that it is hard to make generalizations from experience.
If we separate "wet traction" into 2 components - hydroplaning resistance and wet grip - you'll find that hydroplaning resistance to almost exclusively the tread pattern, while wet grip is a combination of tread pattern (mostly sipes) and tread compound.
As pointed out, there are compromises that have to be made and it is sometimes difficult to sort out what the compromise was unless you're the guy designing them.
OK, that's a first pass through. I'll let others comment before the next installment.
Originally Posted By: fsskier
H and V rated tires are often very poor in rain, some are just plain dangerous.
.......
Sorry, just the opposite - compared to S and T rated tires, H and V rated tires have much better wet traction - all other things being equal.
Quote:
.........
Making H and V rated tires requires the use of low hysterisis rubber compounds that bend and distort very little - in order to remain cool at extremely high speeds.
.........
I just spent 15 minutes on the phone getting a short lesson on tread compounds:
Tread compounds that have low hysteresis have good rolling resistance. But you can't use hysteresis to characterize tread compounds that wear well against tread compounds that have good grip. They will have higher hysteresis than good RR compounds, but other than that, the correlation falls apart.
So if you had to characterize tread compounds on H and V rated tires, "low hysteresis" is not it.
Further, it is the construction that gives the tire its speed capability. H and higher speed rated tires have to have an overlay over the belt - commonly called a cap ply. The higher you go, the more overlay you need.
What the overlay does is reinforce the belt package. This resists the centrifugal forces, reducing the magnitude of the standing wave, and therefore not only reducing the running temperature but also reducing the stresses on the belt package.
Quote:
..........
The downside of these hard compounds is inflexibility, and low traction when cold. Witness the Indy cars flying off the track at low speeds when behind the pace car.
..........
That is caused by the tire not being heated enough. When they get up to operating temperature, they grip just fine, thank you!
Quote:
.......
Tire engineering articles often talk about this conflict, indeed Car and Driver writer Pat Bedard once noted that most people using V and H rated tires were increasing, not decreasing their risk.
.........
I think you've misinterpreted something Pat wrote. I'll bet that what Pat was trying to point out was that lower aspect ratio tires are more prone to hydroplaning - and that is true. It is also true that lower aspect ratio tires tend to have higher speed ratings.
One of the major problems in trying to sort this out is the "All other things being equal". There are so many permutations that it is hard to make generalizations from experience.
If we separate "wet traction" into 2 components - hydroplaning resistance and wet grip - you'll find that hydroplaning resistance to almost exclusively the tread pattern, while wet grip is a combination of tread pattern (mostly sipes) and tread compound.
As pointed out, there are compromises that have to be made and it is sometimes difficult to sort out what the compromise was unless you're the guy designing them.
OK, that's a first pass through. I'll let others comment before the next installment.
CapriRacer, that's some very interesting information, thanks. And points duly noted about being "better off" with higher rated tires. I do understand that there's a tradeoff and I think the question I was really trying to ask was whether we'd ever see any benefit to V rated tires in this application. With the justification below, I still don't interpret any posts here as telling me that in my application, V ratings are necessary. Do you agree? (btw, I'm not trying to shut down the discussion by asking this specific a question, I'm enjoying all the info you're providing!)
Speed is not a problem for this car. It usually goes between 60 and 65 on the freeway, and in our ownership I doubt it's ever seen faster than 80 at a burst. All the tires I'm looking at are "A" for traction and treadwear.
As far as load goes, the situation is a little ironic for me. The 16 inch tires I got for my Civic (I think 4-500 lbs lighter than the Volvo) have load rating 91. It looks like I can only get these 15 inchers in 87 or 88. I'll definitely be getting 88s. I'd rather be generous with load than with speed.
As to the rain traction issue, I don't have much experience with tires, but when researching them I've found plenty of good rain and light snow reviews for various all-season H and V rated tires. As stated by multiple posters here it seems to be that there are good and bad tires in all (most?) speed ratings.
Speed is not a problem for this car. It usually goes between 60 and 65 on the freeway, and in our ownership I doubt it's ever seen faster than 80 at a burst. All the tires I'm looking at are "A" for traction and treadwear.
As far as load goes, the situation is a little ironic for me. The 16 inch tires I got for my Civic (I think 4-500 lbs lighter than the Volvo) have load rating 91. It looks like I can only get these 15 inchers in 87 or 88. I'll definitely be getting 88s. I'd rather be generous with load than with speed.
As to the rain traction issue, I don't have much experience with tires, but when researching them I've found plenty of good rain and light snow reviews for various all-season H and V rated tires. As stated by multiple posters here it seems to be that there are good and bad tires in all (most?) speed ratings.
I see no need to argue with you, the engineering articles (Rubber Age Journal, SAE Journal, etc are in conflict with your claims. It is VERY difficult to make a H or V rated tire perform well in cold rain.
Also, note that the H rated tires that I mentioned were new, lots of tread depth and still no cold wet traction. And only a 70 series, I agree that wider ones are worse yet.
In a wet skid pad test (Road and Track or Car and Driver I forget which) they noted that the H rated and above usually pulled good numbers after two or 3 laps skidding around the circle.
But the H rateds and above were much more susceptible to skidding and loss of control when driving normally and having sudden demands on them.
Since the question seemed to be "should he spend an extra $100 or so for V rated"...........
I have owned several sets of H rated tires - all performed poorly in the cold rain. Perhaps not everyone trys objective tests - every tire they pay extra for is always the best.
Tires are your expertise, but you had to call to learn what hysteresis is??
No, I did not misunderstand Pat Bedard, his concerns were exactly the same as mine.
One should note that there are tires with poor wet traction in every price range, perhaps Tire Racks consumer survey will help you avoid the real losers.
Also, note that the H rated tires that I mentioned were new, lots of tread depth and still no cold wet traction. And only a 70 series, I agree that wider ones are worse yet.
In a wet skid pad test (Road and Track or Car and Driver I forget which) they noted that the H rated and above usually pulled good numbers after two or 3 laps skidding around the circle.
But the H rateds and above were much more susceptible to skidding and loss of control when driving normally and having sudden demands on them.
Since the question seemed to be "should he spend an extra $100 or so for V rated"...........
I have owned several sets of H rated tires - all performed poorly in the cold rain. Perhaps not everyone trys objective tests - every tire they pay extra for is always the best.
Tires are your expertise, but you had to call to learn what hysteresis is??
No, I did not misunderstand Pat Bedard, his concerns were exactly the same as mine.
One should note that there are tires with poor wet traction in every price range, perhaps Tire Racks consumer survey will help you avoid the real losers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fsskier
I see no need to argue with you, the engineering articles (Rubber Age Journal, SAE Journal, etc are in conflict with your claims. It is VERY difficult to make a H or V rated tire perform well in cold rain.
...........
Sorry, but I've been a tire engineer for over 30 years. You will not find what you are looking for in Rubber Age and SAE Journal. You need to get a subscription to Tire Science and Technology or order copies of the individual SAE papers to get good comparisons.
Quote:
......
Also, note that the H rated tires that I mentioned were new, lots of tread depth and still no cold wet traction. And only a 70 series, I agree that wider ones are worse yet.
.........
I have no doubt you found those tires to have poor cold wet traction. But as you mentioned, there are good and bad tires in all speed ratings. I am merely pointing out that the speed rating is not the cause of that.
Quote:
.........
In a wet skid pad test (Road and Track or Car and Driver I forget which) they noted that the H rated and above usually pulled good numbers after two or 3 laps skidding around the circle.
But the H rateds and above were much more susceptible to skidding and loss of control when driving normally and having sudden demands on them.
Would you please point me to the article?
I've designed many tires and I can say without fear that what you have described is not true - at least in the sense that going down in speed rating is better.
Quote:
.......
Tires are your expertise, but you had to call to learn what hysteresis is??
......
Please read my post again. I called to find out if I could characterize tread compounds with good grip as HIGH hysteresis - and I found out I could not. I already knew that low hysteresis compounds give good rolling resistance, but the question was about the other parts of the 3 way triangle between RR, traction and wear.
Quote:
.........
No, I did not misunderstand Pat Bedard, his concerns were exactly the same as mine.
.......
Would you please let me know where I can read that article?
I see no need to argue with you, the engineering articles (Rubber Age Journal, SAE Journal, etc are in conflict with your claims. It is VERY difficult to make a H or V rated tire perform well in cold rain.
...........
Sorry, but I've been a tire engineer for over 30 years. You will not find what you are looking for in Rubber Age and SAE Journal. You need to get a subscription to Tire Science and Technology or order copies of the individual SAE papers to get good comparisons.
Quote:
......
Also, note that the H rated tires that I mentioned were new, lots of tread depth and still no cold wet traction. And only a 70 series, I agree that wider ones are worse yet.
.........
I have no doubt you found those tires to have poor cold wet traction. But as you mentioned, there are good and bad tires in all speed ratings. I am merely pointing out that the speed rating is not the cause of that.
Quote:
.........
In a wet skid pad test (Road and Track or Car and Driver I forget which) they noted that the H rated and above usually pulled good numbers after two or 3 laps skidding around the circle.
But the H rateds and above were much more susceptible to skidding and loss of control when driving normally and having sudden demands on them.
Would you please point me to the article?
I've designed many tires and I can say without fear that what you have described is not true - at least in the sense that going down in speed rating is better.
Quote:
.......
Tires are your expertise, but you had to call to learn what hysteresis is??
......
Please read my post again. I called to find out if I could characterize tread compounds with good grip as HIGH hysteresis - and I found out I could not. I already knew that low hysteresis compounds give good rolling resistance, but the question was about the other parts of the 3 way triangle between RR, traction and wear.
Quote:
.........
No, I did not misunderstand Pat Bedard, his concerns were exactly the same as mine.
.......
Would you please let me know where I can read that article?
Back to the OP: some turbo 850s can break 130mph, and there a V speed rating makes more sense. Why Volvo specified V speed ratings on the NA 850s, I'll never know. While they can cruise at triple digit speeds all day long, the NA engines just won't go THAT fast. An H should be fine. A lot of 850 owners happily run H rated tires. Load rating and inflation are just as important on an 850 if you're carrying a lot of passengers, and doubly so if you are dropping down a speed rating (or two). A V-rated tire will usually give you some extra margin for abusive environments, so don't dismiss it out of hand.
I got the same V-only spiel from Costco when I was looking for my '97 855. The "tire manager" has it wrong. It's actually a legal/insurance issue, as mounting a non-recommended tire fitment opens the liability door a bit wider if something goes wrong. Most tire shops are not this squeamish, though.
I also suggest a hard look at the General Altimax HP, which is made in all the 850 sizes, carries a V-speed rating, is still bargain priced, and is a terrific tire on this chassis. Unless you've tuned the suspension for something stickier, it's a perfect tire for this vehicle.
I got the same V-only spiel from Costco when I was looking for my '97 855. The "tire manager" has it wrong. It's actually a legal/insurance issue, as mounting a non-recommended tire fitment opens the liability door a bit wider if something goes wrong. Most tire shops are not this squeamish, though.
I also suggest a hard look at the General Altimax HP, which is made in all the 850 sizes, carries a V-speed rating, is still bargain priced, and is a terrific tire on this chassis. Unless you've tuned the suspension for something stickier, it's a perfect tire for this vehicle.
Originally Posted By: rationull
Speed is not a problem for this car. It usually goes between 60 and 65 on the freeway, and in our ownership I doubt it's ever seen faster than 80 at a burst. All the tires I'm looking at are "A" for traction and treadwear.
It's not the speed, it's the heat. Even an H rated tire, running 65 mph at 18-20 psi on an 850 full of people, can eventually become a problem. Any tire will blow out if you overheat it enough. A higher speed rating will give you some overload/underinflation margin, as they can generally put up with more heat.
The DOT gradings are fairly useless IMO. Look at the tread wear warranties, which are a better gauge of expected tread life.
Speed is not a problem for this car. It usually goes between 60 and 65 on the freeway, and in our ownership I doubt it's ever seen faster than 80 at a burst. All the tires I'm looking at are "A" for traction and treadwear.
It's not the speed, it's the heat. Even an H rated tire, running 65 mph at 18-20 psi on an 850 full of people, can eventually become a problem. Any tire will blow out if you overheat it enough. A higher speed rating will give you some overload/underinflation margin, as they can generally put up with more heat.
The DOT gradings are fairly useless IMO. Look at the tread wear warranties, which are a better gauge of expected tread life.
Originally Posted By: rationull
All the tires I'm looking at are "A" for traction and treadwear.
Treadwear is not measured in "A", "B", "C" symbols. Did you mean traction and temperature?
All the tires I'm looking at are "A" for traction and treadwear.
Treadwear is not measured in "A", "B", "C" symbols. Did you mean traction and temperature?
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Treadwear is not measured in "A", "B", "C" symbols. Did you mean traction and temperature?
Sorry, yes, I meant temperature instead of treadwear. I know not to pay too much attention to the treadwear number. I really just wanted to bring up that the tires all have decent traction ratings.
Treadwear is not measured in "A", "B", "C" symbols. Did you mean traction and temperature?
Sorry, yes, I meant temperature instead of treadwear. I know not to pay too much attention to the treadwear number. I really just wanted to bring up that the tires all have decent traction ratings.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
It's not the speed, it's the heat. Even an H rated tire, running 65 mph at 18-20 psi on an 850 full of people, can eventually become a problem. Any tire will blow out if you overheat it enough.
Ah, point taken. Extra margin is nice, but 18-20 PSI is so woefully low that I'm not too worried about it.
It's not the speed, it's the heat. Even an H rated tire, running 65 mph at 18-20 psi on an 850 full of people, can eventually become a problem. Any tire will blow out if you overheat it enough.
Ah, point taken. Extra margin is nice, but 18-20 PSI is so woefully low that I'm not too worried about it.
Originally Posted By: rationull
1) Given that the thought the car could/would go over 130 mph is absurd, would there be any downsides to getting H rated tires over V rated ones? I should mention the tires currently on the car (from the previous owner) are H rated.
2) The tech said they could give us H rated tires, but it would void the warranty. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that -- does anyone know if this is true?
This actually brings up an interesting problem that has arisen over the last couple of years.
Tire manufacturers have been selling automobile manufacturers higher speed rated tires at very reasonable prices knowing that there is a high probability that the owner will replace them with the same tires.
For example, I picked up a 2005 Hyundai Elantra and it come shod with Michelin H-rated tires good for 210 kpm / 130 mph! I don't believe the car will do it downhill with a 5 mile straight.
Needless to say I replaced them when required with T-rated tires.
Generally tire shops will replace your tires with any reasonable tire, although they may require that you sign a release.
And tire manufacturers will honor the warranty as long as the failure is not a result of excessive speed or the wrong load rating or under or overinflation.
1) Given that the thought the car could/would go over 130 mph is absurd, would there be any downsides to getting H rated tires over V rated ones? I should mention the tires currently on the car (from the previous owner) are H rated.
2) The tech said they could give us H rated tires, but it would void the warranty. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that -- does anyone know if this is true?
This actually brings up an interesting problem that has arisen over the last couple of years.
Tire manufacturers have been selling automobile manufacturers higher speed rated tires at very reasonable prices knowing that there is a high probability that the owner will replace them with the same tires.
For example, I picked up a 2005 Hyundai Elantra and it come shod with Michelin H-rated tires good for 210 kpm / 130 mph! I don't believe the car will do it downhill with a 5 mile straight.
Needless to say I replaced them when required with T-rated tires.
Generally tire shops will replace your tires with any reasonable tire, although they may require that you sign a release.
And tire manufacturers will honor the warranty as long as the failure is not a result of excessive speed or the wrong load rating or under or overinflation.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
I also suggest a hard look at the General Altimax HP, which is made in all the 850 sizes, carries a V-speed rating, is still bargain priced, and is a terrific tire on this chassis. Unless you've tuned the suspension for something stickier, it's a perfect tire for this vehicle.
I actually am considering those tires. I bought H rated Altimax HPs for my Civic and so far I really like them. While the Altimax tires are reasonably priced I'm trying to save a bit more on this purchase since it's my GF's money, not mine.
A place in town here recommended Fuzion HRi (H rated), which come out to around $15 per tire cheaper than Altimax or Goodyear Eagle GT V rated tires. She'll do whatever I suggest but I want to watch the spending. One factor is that there's about a 40% chance we'll sell the car pretty soon. That doesn't mean I'm willing to put [censored] tires on it (do unto others...), but it does mean that an extra $45 or $70 saved is valuable.
I also suggest a hard look at the General Altimax HP, which is made in all the 850 sizes, carries a V-speed rating, is still bargain priced, and is a terrific tire on this chassis. Unless you've tuned the suspension for something stickier, it's a perfect tire for this vehicle.
I actually am considering those tires. I bought H rated Altimax HPs for my Civic and so far I really like them. While the Altimax tires are reasonably priced I'm trying to save a bit more on this purchase since it's my GF's money, not mine.
A place in town here recommended Fuzion HRi (H rated), which come out to around $15 per tire cheaper than Altimax or Goodyear Eagle GT V rated tires. She'll do whatever I suggest but I want to watch the spending. One factor is that there's about a 40% chance we'll sell the car pretty soon. That doesn't mean I'm willing to put [censored] tires on it (do unto others...), but it does mean that an extra $45 or $70 saved is valuable.
Originally Posted By: rationull
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
I also suggest a hard look at the General Altimax HP, which is made in all the 850 sizes, carries a V-speed rating, is still bargain priced, and is a terrific tire on this chassis. Unless you've tuned the suspension for something stickier, it's a perfect tire for this vehicle.
I actually am considering those tires. I bought H rated Altimax HPs for my Civic and so far I really like them. While the Altimax tires are reasonably priced I'm trying to save a bit more on this purchase since it's my GF's money, not mine.
A place in town here recommended Fuzion HRi (H rated), which come out to around $15 per tire cheaper than Altimax or Goodyear Eagle GT V rated tires. She'll do whatever I suggest but I want to watch the spending. One factor is that there's about a 40% chance we'll sell the car pretty soon. That doesn't mean I'm willing to put [censored] tires on it (do unto others...), but it does mean that an extra $45 or $70 saved is valuable.
Have you looked at the Bridgestone Potenza G019 Grid? The prices on the Firestone website are pretty good.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
I also suggest a hard look at the General Altimax HP, which is made in all the 850 sizes, carries a V-speed rating, is still bargain priced, and is a terrific tire on this chassis. Unless you've tuned the suspension for something stickier, it's a perfect tire for this vehicle.
I actually am considering those tires. I bought H rated Altimax HPs for my Civic and so far I really like them. While the Altimax tires are reasonably priced I'm trying to save a bit more on this purchase since it's my GF's money, not mine.
A place in town here recommended Fuzion HRi (H rated), which come out to around $15 per tire cheaper than Altimax or Goodyear Eagle GT V rated tires. She'll do whatever I suggest but I want to watch the spending. One factor is that there's about a 40% chance we'll sell the car pretty soon. That doesn't mean I'm willing to put [censored] tires on it (do unto others...), but it does mean that an extra $45 or $70 saved is valuable.
Have you looked at the Bridgestone Potenza G019 Grid? The prices on the Firestone website are pretty good.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
For example, I picked up a 2005 Hyundai Elantra and it come shod with Michelin H-rated tires good for 210 kpm / 130 mph! I don't believe the car will do it downhill with a 5 mile straight.
I'm not so quick to dismiss H rated tires as I am V rated. My Civic came with H rated tires, and while 130 sounds excessive (and I'll likely never take the car about 90 or so, even at a burst), from what I've heard, it's drag limited at around 120. I wouldn't be surprised if your Elantra was similar given that they have fairly similar power and weight numbers IIRC.
My problem with the V rated tires for this Volvo is that a lower rating would completely cover the car's top speed (at least as far as I can tell).
For example, I picked up a 2005 Hyundai Elantra and it come shod with Michelin H-rated tires good for 210 kpm / 130 mph! I don't believe the car will do it downhill with a 5 mile straight.
I'm not so quick to dismiss H rated tires as I am V rated. My Civic came with H rated tires, and while 130 sounds excessive (and I'll likely never take the car about 90 or so, even at a burst), from what I've heard, it's drag limited at around 120. I wouldn't be surprised if your Elantra was similar given that they have fairly similar power and weight numbers IIRC.
My problem with the V rated tires for this Volvo is that a lower rating would completely cover the car's top speed (at least as far as I can tell).
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Have you looked at the Bridgestone Potenza G019 Grid? The prices on the Firestone website are pretty good.
I haven't quoted them at my local shops, but from TireRack's prices, for around the same price I can get 88V tires instead of those 87H ones. If we're going to spend that much then I might as well get the higher rating is the way I see it.
Have you looked at the Bridgestone Potenza G019 Grid? The prices on the Firestone website are pretty good.
I haven't quoted them at my local shops, but from TireRack's prices, for around the same price I can get 88V tires instead of those 87H ones. If we're going to spend that much then I might as well get the higher rating is the way I see it.
As I said before, these discussions are good to find the myths that people have. Here's one:
Originally Posted By: Rolf
This actually brings up an interesting problem that has arisen over the last couple of years.
Tire manufacturers have been selling automobile manufacturers higher speed rated tires at very reasonable prices knowing that there is a high probability that the owner will replace them with the same tires.
..........
It is the vehicle manufacturer who specifies the speed rating. In fact, every tire on every vehicle has to go through a qualification program to assure that the tire neets the specs published by the vehicle manufacturer - and one of those specs is the speed rating. The specs come first - before the first tire is even supplied for test. It takes about 2 years to go through the qualifcation program.
And while the vehicle manufacturer buys the tires at a good price, it is because 1,000's of tires are shipped to the same location on a steady basis, for a long period of time - sometimes 3 years straight. This is really quite efficient compared to what trying to sell tires to a thousand dealers is like.
But I can assure you that if the vehicle manufacturer could save a buck a tire by going with a lower speed rating, they would.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
This actually brings up an interesting problem that has arisen over the last couple of years.
Tire manufacturers have been selling automobile manufacturers higher speed rated tires at very reasonable prices knowing that there is a high probability that the owner will replace them with the same tires.
..........
It is the vehicle manufacturer who specifies the speed rating. In fact, every tire on every vehicle has to go through a qualification program to assure that the tire neets the specs published by the vehicle manufacturer - and one of those specs is the speed rating. The specs come first - before the first tire is even supplied for test. It takes about 2 years to go through the qualifcation program.
And while the vehicle manufacturer buys the tires at a good price, it is because 1,000's of tires are shipped to the same location on a steady basis, for a long period of time - sometimes 3 years straight. This is really quite efficient compared to what trying to sell tires to a thousand dealers is like.
But I can assure you that if the vehicle manufacturer could save a buck a tire by going with a lower speed rating, they would.
- Status
