JHZR2
Staff member
This is likely theory more than anything else, but here it goes.
My 82 MB 300cd needs new tires. This car has 195/70r14 tires, recirculating ball steering, etc. It is perfectly wonderful to execute hundreds of thousands of interstate highway miles with comfort, safety, ecomomy and fine performance... But a "performance" car it is not.
I'm looking at low rolling resistance tires for the replacements. The options are the Kumho Eco Solus and the Michelin Hydroedge LRR. The Kumho has the disadvantage that they are made in china or Korea. They have the advantage of being much cheaper than the US made michelins. But the thing to me is that the Kumho tires performed a good deal worse than the michelins in the tire rack tests.
However, the tire rack tests were performed on a recent BMW 3-series. That's a big difference from my car. My car doesn't have abs, traction control, etc., of course, let alone big differences in suspension and fire size, etc.
Some things are bound to be relevant across the board, I'd think. Wet braking comes to mind... But are the handling aspects relevant? To me, it is like putting a $10k camera intothe hands of a novice photographer, or a $10k guitar in the hands of someone learning. It's just not going to be used to the limits regardless due to natural inability.
Kind of the same as if I put the tires and wheels from my 135i onto my 300cd. But this is more relevantas I'm comparing size to size across two makes. On a vehicle not driven hard, without a most capable suspension design, does it make that much of a difference, or perhaps more correctly stated, will I feel a difference going with the better, more responsive, better stopping and handling tire on a low performance vehicle, just by virtue of the better tire's better design?
I appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks!
My 82 MB 300cd needs new tires. This car has 195/70r14 tires, recirculating ball steering, etc. It is perfectly wonderful to execute hundreds of thousands of interstate highway miles with comfort, safety, ecomomy and fine performance... But a "performance" car it is not.
I'm looking at low rolling resistance tires for the replacements. The options are the Kumho Eco Solus and the Michelin Hydroedge LRR. The Kumho has the disadvantage that they are made in china or Korea. They have the advantage of being much cheaper than the US made michelins. But the thing to me is that the Kumho tires performed a good deal worse than the michelins in the tire rack tests.
However, the tire rack tests were performed on a recent BMW 3-series. That's a big difference from my car. My car doesn't have abs, traction control, etc., of course, let alone big differences in suspension and fire size, etc.
Some things are bound to be relevant across the board, I'd think. Wet braking comes to mind... But are the handling aspects relevant? To me, it is like putting a $10k camera intothe hands of a novice photographer, or a $10k guitar in the hands of someone learning. It's just not going to be used to the limits regardless due to natural inability.
Kind of the same as if I put the tires and wheels from my 135i onto my 300cd. But this is more relevantas I'm comparing size to size across two makes. On a vehicle not driven hard, without a most capable suspension design, does it make that much of a difference, or perhaps more correctly stated, will I feel a difference going with the better, more responsive, better stopping and handling tire on a low performance vehicle, just by virtue of the better tire's better design?
I appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks!
