New Tire Rack Tests

[Hokiefyd]

Tire Rack published two recent tire tests today, one of standard touring passenger all season tires, and one of grand touring passenger all season tires.

In the standard touring segment, a surprise: a relatively good performance from Firestone! It delivered decent comfort and decent handling, both in the dry and in the wet. It looks like the General Altimax RT out-did it in most areas, but the margin was slight. Good on Firestone for coming through with a competitive tire. It's been a while! Another surprise was the relatively poor wet performance from the new BFGoodrich Premier Touring, and the Yokohama Avid Touring-S.

Link: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=139

In the grand touring segment, the new Michelin Primacy MXM4 (not the MXV4) appears to be the clear winner. The Michelin, and the Continental ContiProContact to a lesser extent, showed tenacious grip in the wet. The Michelin also delivered the best ride and noise comfort.

Link: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=138

 

[kkreit01]

Thanks for the info. I'm surprised of the Conti in the Grand Touring segment. This is an old tire, and many use it OEM. They must have improved it, because it came in last in the previous 2 tests -- unless the other tires are THAT bad?

 

[Colt]

As you know Hokie,I like the Michelin Primacy MXM4's.

 

[pbm]

I have a set of Yokohama Avid Touring-S tires on my Buick and I think the wet traction is great. Apparently many others do also since they gave them an 8.2 (EXCELLENT) on the Tirerack Survey.

 

[Hokiefyd]

@Colt: I thought you had the MXV4s?

@pbm: Maybe the Yokohama tire's wet traction is good as it stands by itself, but other tires are even better. That General Altimax RT seems to consistently carry itself well.

 

[HTSS_TR]

In the Real World Road Ride Ratings (Higher number is better) the Yokohama Avid Touring-S is the winner, specially in the categories Ride and Noise Comfort. What it sucks is in the Wet Performance on test track.

When you buy a tire with speed rating of S and T, you should not drive aggressively on wet road. According to the test, I would choose either Avid Touring-S or Altimax RT. I bought Avid Touring-S for my LS400 about 2 months ago because of low price and made in USA.

 

[Y_K]

They do not carry Toyo, and without the toyos all these 'comparisons' are incomplete. Besides, there are tires that fit heavier vehicles surprisingly better than the rest of the fleet. Yoko Avids (Envigor, 520) are better than the so called grand touring Michelines in hydroplanning, wet traction, ride comfort and noise on CrownVics and Town Cars. The very best in treadwear on those are Pirelli P4, ride comfort and noise champions are Toyo Versado in my experience. Yokos are the best bang for the buck, but my clients don't pay me to cut corners on ride comfort..
Then, be very careful with speed rating, the same tire by the name can be a very different between H/T and V rated specimen. Toyo Tourevo LS is like that.

 

[JHZR2]

+1. Wish Toyo was in the mix - I've always been a fan.

 

[Colt]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
@Colt: I thought you had the MXV4s?

@pbm: Maybe the Yokohama tire's wet traction is good as it stands by itself, but other tires are even better. That General Altimax RT seems to consistently carry itself well.


My bad.I do have Primacy MXV4's.

I still love 'em.
The Primacy MXM4 does not come in my 215/60R16 size.

 

[subiedriver]

The Yokohama Envigor is the best offering for a performance all season tire.

 

[FZ1]

I'm running the Comfort Tread Tourings right now. I also noticed that the mpg was better than with the Michelins.

 

[HWEaton]

dave87rs? you reading this? Altimax RT...

 

[cbear]

I've got about 50K miles on Goodyear Assurance Triple Treads on my Cavalier. They are just rated as an all season tire. I think they are a great tire, and I can get through this next winter with them. From the tire rack review, the complaints about noise and wear seem to be on larger vehicles. My MPG is drop about 1-2, but it was worth it. Not a performance tire, the side wall is too compliant. It has grip, but the sidewall will need to set if you are taking a corner hard. They improved my highway comfort as well.

 

[FZ1]

Haven't run the Triple Treads. My 02 Accord V6 has a stiff suspension,so I prefer a soft riding tire. Actually,I prefer the softer ride of the Assurance Comfort Treads to these CT Tourings. I also lost about 1.5 mpg when I went from the oem Michelins to the Comfort Treads.....but,when I went from the Michelins to the CT Tourings,I noticed my mileage increased about 1 mpg above the Michelins. The softer the ride:the less mpg. You gotta pay your money and take your choice. I'll go back to the ACT's when I wear these out at about 40k.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
The softer the ride:the less mpg. You gotta pay your money and take your choice. I'll go back to the ACT's when I wear these out at about 40k.

Not necessarily. There are many factors that can determine a tire's fuel efficiency.

The comfortred Touring tires were a replacement for the comfortred.

 

[FZ1]

Wondered,since GY doesn't show the ACT on their web site, anymore. It will be 5 years before I need to replace these,so I see what GY has at that time.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: FZ1
The softer the ride:the less mpg. You gotta pay your money and take your choice. I'll go back to the ACT's when I wear these out at about 40k.

Not necessarily. There are many factors that can determine a tire's fuel efficiency......


Allow me to state this categorically:

A tire's ride properties has nothing to do with it's rolling resistance - all other things being equal.

Ride and handling (meaning speed of response) are diametrically opposed. Also, treadwear, traction, and RR are in conflict. But as generalities go, those are about it.

 

[FZ1]

Well,Capri. Who am I gonna believe? You,or my lying eyes? Lol. My limited experience seems to indicate that a softer ride,generally,= more rolling resistance= less mpg. That's one reason I recommend DT. Bring a new set of tires back within 30 days and get a different set tires,for if you don't like the first set of tires.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
Thanks for the info. I'm surprised of the Conti in the Grand Touring segment. This is an old tire, and many use it OEM. They must have improved it, because it came in last in the previous 2 tests -- unless the other tires are THAT bad?


I think the other tires in these tests are that bad. Wet traction is not good on any of the tires tested. It ranges from poor (Michelin, .74g) to terrible (.63g, BFG and Yokohama). Dry traction was fine, averaging .91g between the two tests. Average wet grip was only .68g. Wet stopping distances are, on average, 34% longer than those of high performance all-season tires tested previously, where average grip was .94g dry and .87g wet.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=119

But they're cheaper, right? Not by much. In some cases they're more expensive. In a 205/55R16, the cost from TireRack is:

High Performance:
Continental DWS $96
Michelin Pilot Sport A/S $134
BFG g-Force SS A/S $96

Touring:
Continental CPC $104
Michelin MXM4 $127
BFG Premier Touring $85

None of the touring tread designs are optimized for snow traction or water/slush channeling. If I had to choose one to run year-round it would easily be the Continental DWS, and I'd choose any of the high performance tires for year round use over the others. I don't have any experience with the others, but I can say that my Y-rated Pilot Sport A/S tires are smooth and quiet and have excellent treadlife. After 20k miles, treadwear is negligible and what little there is can be almost entirely attributed to frequent hard cornering and wheel-spin on hard launches. They simply do not hydroplane and they're functional in snow.

So what's the benefit of the touring tires? Tire noise? There is no significant difference in the subjective TireRack ratings. Ride comfort? Maybe, but softer sidewalls should affect dry performance more than wet, and they do okay in the dry, so it's not the source of compromise. Rolling resistance? Maybe. Only the MXM4 claims any benefits in that department though. Treadlife? The high performance tires have treadlife ratings ranging from 400 to 540, while the others fall between 400 and 740. I haven't personally seen any advantage to treadwear ratings over 400. After that, they barely wear except when subjected to abuse and/or alignment issues.

It seems a lot of performance is sacrificed for a little extra treadwear and maybe a little less rolling resistance.

 

[rpn453]

I was checking out some other tire tests and it seems the one I provided must have been done on a perfect day. The high performance all-seasons stop from 50 mph in about 100 feet and pull about .80g on a wet skidpad in other tests. So I'll give the MXM4 a little more credit and call it 'decent' in wet.

Still, the average wet braking distance is about 25% longer with these touring tires, and many had large drops in traction going from dry to wet conditions. I don't think a tire should lose almost a third of its traction just because of a little rain.