Help a confused guy please.

[John Hilmer]

I'm not sure if I've studied properly or not. I've been lurking here for a while and I'm not getting any closer to an answer for what I need.

I drive an ECHO on a 75 mile round trip to work over the costal mountains between Santa Cruz and San Jose, Ca. The car is light and has a high profile for it's weight. In our winter we get slight to heavy rains and winds. The current Potenzas I assume are factory as they have 45K on them, and they are getting down to 4/32. They aren't comfortable in the wet with wind.

Tire Rack stuff and searches here are not convincing; too many opinions and not enough meat.

Does anyone have a bit of help for me searching for the best wet weather tire for this light car in wet conditions?

I drive conservatively if that might help.

Best Regards,

John

 

[Quattro Pete]

What tire size do you have on there currently? Is it the OEM 175/65/14? In that size, tire selection isn't all that great. If the OE Potenza RE92 sucked (and I know it does because my current company car has them), then I'd probably give the Yoko Avid 4 a try. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to get my company to get a new set of tires and that will most likely be it.

Another thing you can consider is stepping up to
195/50/15. Wider tires and shorter sidewall should improve highway speed stability, but it may negatively affect your mpg, and would require you to buy a new set of rims of course. However, tire selection in that size is much better. For good wet traction, I'd look at Goodyear F1 GS-D3 or Dunlop SP9000, but the tradeoff is - you're not going to get anywhere near 45K miles out of them.

 

[Razl]

On tirerack, besides the customers' comments, you can look at the staff's "tests". These are suppose to be more objective. Another idea is to look how the tire ranks overall among its peers (in the same category).

For example, here's link a for Standard Touring

..and another link for standard all-season tires

Look for high scores under wet traction and hydroplanning resistance

 

[Master ACiD]

if 175/65-14 is indeed youre tyre size then edgeracing.com has falken ziex 512's for $35 each with very reasonable shipping. it may be difficult to find a better overall deal than that, even after shipping and mounting is factored in.

 

[jmacmaster]

I think that you have to read the Tirerack tire owners' comments with certain things in mind. I read them a lot. I don't even read comments from people who haven't driven at least 3-5,000 miles on the tire. I look especially for commenters who live in the kind of climate I do and drive on the types of road surface that I do. As to a particular factor (tire wear, noise, traction on a given type of surface, such as snow) I go by how many (or how few) people praise or complain. For example, if about 90% or more of those commenting on traction in snow are positive and only about 10% are negative, I feel that its safe to say that the traction is good, but as the breakdown gets closer to 50-50 I feel less comfortable. And I read ALL the reviews, even if there are 300 or more reviews, except, as I said, those by people who haven't driven far on the tire.

 

[tuong]

re 750 potenza. I have them on my car right now. I feel they are grip really well on in the rain. I also have tried the good years gsd3, but I think they may be alittle more expensive. I do not recommend cheap tires like falkeins or kuhmos. No offense to the person recommending them, I have really high standard for tires, If I could, I would only drive bridgestone s03 all day. Best grip in the wet and dry I ever known. But I think these tires are perfect, becuase u drive 17, and that road is pretty nuts at time. that is my two cents. oh and print out the price online and bring it to a tire store and they shoudl match it. I would recommend firestone becuae they have lifetime alignment which you should get, but I neve been there because my friend works at wheel works. hope this all helps

 

[SWS]

Consider BF Goodrich Traction T/A

 

[John K]

I wouldn't go for a wider tire for wet performance. In my experience you are more likely to experience hydroplaning with a wider tire..... IMO

 

[Tosh]

Wait until the beginning of the next wet season to get your new tires. Stay with OEM size or maybe go up one width (to 185?) only to give you better selection.

 

[tuong]

tosh the only problem with your suggestion is that he may not have another beggining of a wet season. We are still going to be wet until June dude. This is Hwy 17. I know you know cause your from the Bay right?
I crash my car because my tires are bad, I just want to let people know tires are pretty **** important, they are the only thing that connect the car to the ground you drive on.
Good riding all

 

[Colt]

GoodYear Triple Treds.
I have a set on the wife's '05 Corolla.
Great wet traction tire plus great wear number and handling.

 

[wantin150]

You can 0+ size to a 185-60-14 and still keep your MPG and speedo correct. This also opens up more choices in a tire. You are really only gaining 10mm in width with the diameter staying approx the same which is the important thing. The "lower" profile will help handling a little too. Wider is better for dry but not for wet or snow. AA traction ratings are the best but there are NO standard ratings for cornering traction. Wet braking tests are straight line only. As of now, one of the best wet weather performing tires in a passenger all season is the Triple Tread, according to consumer reports. They are expensive but have a tread life stated to be 70k+. Whatever you get, make sure the Traction rating is at least an "A". Some OEM tires are "B" which I think cheats the consumer. You may be hard pressed to find a "AA" rating in a tire that size. Tire Rack has a lot of good information if you can read through some of the bull and mis-applications. Visit Consumer Reports as well and check out their recommendations. They do real world tests (kind of anyway) on their track. Hope this helps.

 

[John Hilmer]

Thank you all so much, I have a better handle on how to search and learn because of your inputs here. The triple tread and Yoko TRZ's now look good to me but they both require going to 185/60/14 and this is another concern. I have yet to study the Bridgestone s03's and the Yoko Avid 4's.

My current question is about going to the 185's and what this means in terms of hydro-plane and fuel economy, both are important for my needs.

10 mm / 175 mm = 5.7% increase in width X 2 = 11.4%. The times 2 is because there are two tires that offer resistance in terms of wind and rolling resistance. Am I thinking correctly that this will be what I can expect in terms of wind and rolling resistance that the increased size might be expected to produce?

I'm still trying to understand and make a good decision as the new "shoes" will be on there for a long time, and safety is very important.

I put Yoko tourings on the previous Tacoma and they were flat dangerous in the wet, just plain greasey and caused a minor fender-bender due to a deer in the road.

I really want the best wet traction that I can get, even at the expense of tire life and fuel economy if I have to make a sacrafice.

Thanks again to all of you, the replies are very welcome.

John

 

[Quattro Pete]

You can scratch S03s off your list because, despite being really good in the wet, they don't come in sizes as small as yours.

As far as your rolling resistance calculations, if you want to do it for two tires, then you take the width of two tires before and after, so 175x2 vs. 185x2, so the overall increase is still only 5.7%, and honestly, I doubt the drop in mpg will be big enough that you'll notice it.
The actual rubber compound which varies from one tire model to another may have a bigger effect on rolling resistance than the 5.7% increase in width.

Generally, the higher the treadwear index, the lower the rolling resistance, but also the poorer the grip/traction, so you have decide what's more important to you.

To improve stability, you may also try lowering your tire pressure a bit. Of course, that again may negatively affect your mpg (there are always tradeoffs), and never go below the PSI recommended by your car manufacturer.

 

[CapriRacer]

Quattro Pete said:

"......the higher the treadwear index, the lower the rolling resistance......"

I think you've got that backwards. The higher the treadwear rating, the higher the rolling resistance (the lower the fuel economy).

 

[Quattro Pete]

How so? I thought that the higher the treadwear index means the longer it wears (generally speaking of course). And it wears longer because it's got very low rolling resistance hence it doesn't "scrape off" as quickly. Is this not correct?

Are you saying that a tire with treadwear index of 160 will have lower rolling resistance and better fuel economy than a tire with a treadwear index of 400?

 

[John Hilmer]

CapriRacer, thanks for your input, I'm learning, slowly though it seems.

My quandry now is how this applies to my situation with a very light car. I would seem that for my particular needs of great wet traction I should stay with the 175/65/14 size rather than the 185/60/14. The problem is to me still the "Fuzzy" information available regarding the tires available in this size and conflicting "Opinions" regarding those offerings.

I'm beginning to see that different tires on assorted cars of differing weights produce very different user perspectives.

I was at one point thinking that the Yoko TRZ's might be good but I would have to go wider to the 185's and now that is out.

As I look at it now I'm thinking that the ComfortTread's or T4's might be the best choice in a 175/65/14.

Can anyone help me with the light car/tire choice issue. I'm to the point where I don't care about the milage expectancy of the tire or fuel economy, I just want a tire that is going to give me the best wet traction in this 1700 pound puddle jumper for safety issues.

You folks have been great, and I'm getting closer, thanks so much.

John

 

[Mr Nice]

I put BF Goodrich Traction T/A on a Honda Civic and I must say these tires are way under rated for the price.

These tires are excellent for grip, wear, road noise and cost. You can get them in the correct size for the Echo.

Just my 2 cents

 

[CapriRacer]

Quattro Pete said:

"....Are you saying that a tire with treadwear index of 160 will have lower rolling resistance and better fuel economy than a tire with a treadwear index of 400?..."

Not necessarily, but the opposite is certainly not true!

As a general rule, the trade off is: traction vs tread wear vs rolling resistance.

So if a tire has a high tread wear rating, it probably has either poor rolling resistance or poor traction (or a combination of both!)

The above general rule would also mean that tires with good grip either sacrifice RR or tread wear (and usually it's both)


Hope this helps

 

[John Hilmer]

I would have to go up to 185's to get the Goodrich T/A's so that won't work for me.

I've boiled it down to either the Bridgestone Turanza LS-T at $65.00 or the Michlen Harmony for $72.00. Figures doesn't it, the two best wet traction tires are among the most expensive.

The Turanza's are rated 700 AB and the Harmony's are 740 AB. What is that telling me?

Any opinions about which might produce the better fuel economy?

A possible third choice is the Yoko Ageis LS4 at $46.00 and 440 AB. It weighs 2 pounds less than the first two selections.

I like the performance of the goodyear triple tread but again I would have to go up to 185's and that seems wrong.

My first priority is wet traction and second is fuel economy if I can choose two attributes I prize.

I would really appreciate help again on this issue. John