Help a confused guy please.

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:
Originally posted by John Hilmer:
....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?......
Click to expand...
Opinions? Yup, they are both not going to give good fuel economy.

The basic equation is: Fuel Economy vs Tread Wear vs Traction (usually wet)

So a 700AB (a great treadwear number, a good wet traction rating, and a mediocre speed capability) will probably not be good for fuel economy.


quote:
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.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the better choice, it's just that the fuel economy is unknown, and there might be some other reason why the treadwear rating is lower! But the weight is a good clue that fuel economy would be better.

But there are tires with AA wet traction ratings, so why not those?
 
Hum, John, the next post by outrun indicates he has lost milage with his new tires. This may be an extreme case, but it seems it does make a difference

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000393

I had a set of Yoko Ageis Tourings on my Tacoma. Great mileage but flat dangerous in wet weather.

I really want to get this figured out because I'll live with my choice for a long while.

The Bridgstone and Harmony that I picked above were selected because of the supposedly superior wet traction that they showed in the reviews at the tire rack. The yokos as a third selection were not quite as good in the wet, but acceptable. The CapriRacer hinted that I've missed other better choices.

Now I'm back to lost as to how to search out my best choices. John
 
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree. I buy tires based almost exclusively on the DOT ratings and price. I always go for AA traction and A heat ratings. I care about the wear number but thats secondary to me as I am pretty easy on tires, as it seems you are also.

Tire Rack has all the numbers and ratings on the website for all the tires they sell. I have found Kumho has good numbers and a great price.

When I actually go to buy, I go to a chain that has a "we will beat any advertised price" policy. I get the Tire Rack price off the net and go to the chain and say "allright, beat this price" and they do it. You will have to pay mounting and balancing, of course, and they will try to get you for shipping also (which you would have to pay to Car Rack in any event). If you can get the tires for the TR price, right away, without the hassle of getting them shipped, finding someone to mount etc., I would do that.
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Hilmer:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, stay with the OEM aspect ratio of 65. In your case, I wouldn't go down in aspect ratio, as the tire width may be too wide trying to keep the diameter the same. Have other owners of your car reported success with this?
Also, if your car is getting blown around, then you need to slow down. Don't count on a tire to prevent that.
 
Tosh, I agree totally and will stay with the 175/65's.

I've "come to grips" with the high profile/wind thing and have no troubles with that now though at first it was a surprize.

Looking at the reviews at the tire rack and at the consumer report evaluations it is looking like the Michelin Harmony is getting very good wet traction and according to CR low rolling resistance which seems to contradict what UTQG markings indicate and what CapriRacer hinted at. If they do provide the above I'll be a happy camper.

Of course nobody in town has my size. ARGH! I think that I'm going with the Michelin. John
 
CapriRacer, thank for the reply and hint.

I'm getting frustrated with the Tire Rack and trying to sort out what is best for my needs.

Is there any other sources that I can search that might present a picture that is more clear regarding the various tires and their performance? Perhaps a source that shows the AA wet traction and fuel economy ratings.

I feel like I'm going backwards with the search and trying to learn. John
 
In my opinion you can forget about fuel ecomomy. I just don't think you will be able to measure a difference. I've never seen a change in fuel ecomomy when buying tires. My $.02 worth..
 
I talked with the local Big "O" shop about the Michelin Harmony and we compared the tire rack cost to their offer. It would be $30.00 cheaper through the rack but for that difference I ordered from the local and will get a few benefits including being able to have them take responsibility if I happen to get a bummer in the set and a couple of other benefits to boot.

After I get these on the puddle jumper I'll decide if I want to do the same for the wifey's Camry and I'll report back here.

I want to say thanks to all who posted replies and offered thoughts and advice, it is much appreciated. John
 
BF Traction TA does come in 175/65-14

I know this for a fact cause they put this size on my wifes Civic.....instead of the correct 185/65-14
 
I don't agree with CapriRacer. A tire with a long lasting treadwear rating can give better gas milege, because the tread compound is very hard and this rolls more easily.

The downside to this is poor dry traction.

I have experienced these things, most pointedly with MXV4's which returned great mileage and treadware but poor traction.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brons2:
I don't agree with CapriRacer. A tire with a long lasting treadwear rating can give better gas milege, because the tread compound is very hard and this rolls more easily.

The downside to this is poor dry traction.

I have experienced these things, most pointedly with MXV4's which returned great mileage and treadware but poor traction.
Click to expand...
Actually, Brons2, you've agreed with me.

The basic equation is tread wear vs traction vs rolling resistance.
 
CapriRacer,

"The basic equation is tread wear vs traction vs rolling resistance."

My trouble with this is simple. I don't understand this relationship and I assume that you think that I should.

This doesn't seem to be intuitive to me like Ohms law where I=E/R. The three factors are locked in this equation, in your proposed relationship I suspect that there many more factors that affect the results.

I trust that you have this nailed, but I'm not understanding it from your abreviated equation, it just isn't registering for me.

Would you be open to a more explicative dissertation to edify me and others that aren't quite "Getting It"?

Intuitively I can see that there is merit in what you propose, I just can't quite understand it.

OK, my rant; You know, why don't you spill the beans so I can understand what you would like me to know?

Off the box, but still I hope that you'll open up a bit for those of us that are still confused and wondering.

Best Regards,

John
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Hilmer:
CapriRacer,
......

My trouble with this is simple. I don't understand this relationship and I assume that you think that I should.

.....

John
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I thought this was obvious, but your post and the one above make it plain that it isn't!

Let me put it like this:

Treadwear, rolling resistance, and traction are linked in such a way that if you improve one of the three, the other 2 have to be sacrificed.

If a tire is great at tread wear (say 700 treadwear rating) and great at wet traction (say a traction rating of AA), then its rolling resistance has to be poor

OR: If a tire is good at rolling resistance, and traction, then its treadwear is going to be poor (say lower than 300)

So it's a trade off. The tire can't be good in all three areas - may be 2 out of 3, or maybe great in one area (say traction).

John, In your case, you're looking for RR and wet traction. Be skeptical when a tire is rated for good tread wear and traction, and the claim is good RR - just doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately, there isn't an industry standard test for RR and no government mandated reporting requirement (which would mean a standardized test.) The only help I can offer is that weight is related to RR (lower weight = better RR).

Which is why I suggested the Michelins and Bridgestones with tread wear in the 700's (and AB ratings) probably were not what you were looking for, and that the Yokos with the lower tread wear (440AB and 2 pounds less weight) probably are.

If I were in your shoes, I would make a list of every tire I was interested in, eliminate anything with a B or C rating in traction, eliminate anything over a 600 tread wear rating, and if you can find the weight of the tire, use that as a guide for RR.
 
fer chrissakes..on an Echo??, sheesh, just go to wal-mart and have em put on 5 new tires-period. end ofpage, end of cahpter, end of story! Much better traction, great mileage. wal-mart has tire experts that buy wholesale to the corporation. they do the thinking for you so just shut-up and drive will ya?
 
CapriRacer,

Thanks, I have it now and appreciate your taking the time to help me out on the understanding, it is most appreciated.

The new "shoes" get installed tomorrow morning on the ECHO. I'll go to school on this change and then decide about the wifey's Camry.

jerryjg,

Thanks for your helpful and edifying contribution.

John
 
CapriRacer,

I certainly will. Isn't that what this forum is about?

Because of your expert guidance I feel obligated to do so even if I managed to get it wrong. There is still much to learn from my experiance I think.

In prperation for the advent of the "Emperor's New Shoes" I have also begun a test a few days ago.

I've been measuring the current cabin noise levels in various sections of my commute.

Beginning Monday I'll measure this with the new skins at a given pressure and then at subsequent different inflation pressures. My little ECHO transmits road noise through the suspension and body quite well.

I've been recording cabin noise levels between 83 and 95 dB for the last few days.

Eventually I intend to use an inferometer to optimize the tire pressures at all corners, but that will be a ways out and well after the wear-in time.

With all of the time and care that you have invested in helping me I can well understand your interest. Failing a health problem and the creek risin' I'll post my findings.

A question here about protocall, should I post it to this thread that I seem to have hi-jacked, or start a new thread?

I can only add more thanks.

John
 
Nobody has mentioned the importance of ambient temperatures when choosing tires. Summer tires are the best performers on dry and wet roads above 50 degrees F. All season tires make sense only if road and temperature conditions change all the time. Winter tires should be used in cold, wet, icy and snowy conditions. I have no idea why 99% of California residents drive around with A/S tires. I use only summer tires. If I were to drive in the Sierra in the winter, I'd get winter tires.
 
Moribundman, I see your view and we live in the same area, but I commute highway 17 and the tires saty on the car for two or three years. So in the winter rains the all-season's are prefered by me for safety reasons. I arranged my work schedual so that I avoid the worst commute times for the same reason. I'm on my way to work at 3:45 AM and hit the road home at 2:30 PM. That road in and of itself is not dangerous, but the goofballs that think it is a race course make it very dangerous. Excellent wet traction is very important to me. That's why I run the all season's.

CapriRacer, I've purchased the Michelin Harmony's. Of course I have very few miles on them yet so all that I can tell so far is that I have new quiet tires on the little puddle jumper.

I also decided to put the Michelin "X" tires on the wifey's '96 Camry, so off to Costco I went this morning. The son-of-a-guns wouldn't install them saying that they weren't rated high enough. Ok, fine, plan "B", off to Goodyear and purchased the Triple Tred's. In the process of getting them installed I found a leak that I new existed but couldn't pin-point. The CV boots are finally seaping a bit, so I'll run it into the brother-in-law's transmission shop and replace the the CV joints and boots.

John
 
quote:
Originally posted by CapriRacer:

quote:
Originally posted by John Hilmer:
CapriRacer,

....The new "shoes" get installed tomorrow morning on the ECHO...

John
Click to expand...
For heaveans sake, let us know what happens. I'm just dying to know!!
Click to expand...
Well, I just rotated the tires and measured the tread depth on both the Echo and the wifes Camry. The Echo has 7K on the tires and the Camry only 3200 miles since installed.

The fronts show 8.5/32 at the outer edges and 9/32 in the center. I've been running them at 40PSI front and 38 PSI in the rears. The rears on the Echo show the outer edges about 9/32, lower than the center at 10/32. I am guessing that the twisty mountain driving on the commute is the predominant cause of the wear pattern.

So far I'm quite pleased with these tires. On average I have recorded a 2 dB drop in cabin noise level with the new shoes. The wet traction is vastly superior to the old potenza's and hydro-plaining tendancy is much reduced. There was no change in fuel economy, and I log every tank. As far as dry traction it feels like I could roll the thing before they would slide.
fruit.gif


The Camry now rides on the Goodyear Triple treads.

Not much change in ride quality or cabin noise from the old Michelin's, but the wet traction is notably better. The fronts & rears are wearing evenly from edge to edge at 9.5/32 down from 11/32. This seems excessive for the short intervel of 3200 miles. Perhaps we won't get as long of a life out of these. I've been running 40PSI front and 38 PSI in the rears. No change in fuel economy here either.
smile.gif


I promised Capri Racer that I would report back. I wasn't sure if it considered improper to bring this thread back up or not, apologies if I guessed wrong. John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
New Tire Confusion
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Pew
D
Best Winter tire for FWD with a bit too much power....
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Ws6
C
Top All-Season Tires? Michelin or Comparable?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Sequoiasoon
B
Uncle Cooper knows nothing about tires
Replies
6
Views
2K
benjy
Skippy722
Yokohama Geolandar G015
Replies
12
Views
1K
02SE
Back
Top