Same Tire Model, H-Rated vs. T-Rated.

[The Critic]

I am considering the Yokohama Avid Ascend tires for a vehicle.

For the 195/60-15 size, they are available in both a T-rated and H-rated configuration.

The H-Rated version has a 75k treadwear warranty, while the T-Rated version has a 85k warranty. Both tires are Grand Touring tires.

My understanding is that the H-rated version should have more reinforcement compared to the T-rated version. I would not think the compound is substantially different.

With that said, for the same brand/model tire, will/should the H-rated version always:

1) Handle better than the T-rated version? If so, why?
2) Will it always be a different compound? If so, why? I thought H-rated vs T-rated is simply an issue of reinforcement.

Thanks!

 

[Rand]

1) yes, to meet h-rating most have to have a cap ply

2)depends on manufacturer.. and exact tire.. but no real reason for it to be a tweaked/slightly different compound.

also it could simply be that the H-rated tires are used on heavier cars so they reduce the treadlife warranty.

Cant reverse interpret the treadlife warranty vs compound ..

 

[benjamming]

Treadwear warranties aren't worth anything. It's insulting to the numbering system to be used that way.

 

[Hollow]

What were the factory specs?

I try not to drop below what the factory tires were, as most factory tires are squishy feeling enough already.

That being said, I have Michelin Primacy MXV4 225/60/16H on my 2003 Outback and my folks have MXV4 225/55/17V on their 2006 Outback. Different size, rating, and vehicle so any comparison is not very accurate. However they are expecting 40k out of theirs based on wear at 25k miles and I'm expecting 60k out of mine at 20k miles.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
The H-Rated version has a 75k treadwear warranty, while the T-Rated version has a 85k warranty. Both tires are Grand Touring tires.


I suspect the H-rated version does have a different compound, evidenced by the shorter warranty (though still long for an H-rated tire). I also suspect the H-rated version will have a different (and lower) UTQG tread wear rating.

Given the same tire line, the H-rated version *should* handle better than the T-rated tire. Additional reinforcement, to my understanding, not only ensures good high-speed stability, but also lower-speed cornering and such. The different compound also contributes.

H-rated tires will typically have a different compound because they're intended for different market segments. Folks shopping T-rated tires are most typically looking for long-wearing tires. Folks shopping H-rated tires are most typically looking for a more sporty tire.

 

[Brons2]

My OEM tires were Kumho KH16 and H rated, 205/60R16.

The replacements are Primacy MXV4 H rated, same size. I don't like them, they ride much more stiffly than the Kumhos and get worse fuel economy. The sidewalls are visually much stiffer than the Kumhos, there is barely any give, and I'm running the same pressure.

I wish I would have dropped down to the T rated tires like the salesman at the tire store suggested. He suggested the Harmony (or Destiny, can't remember which) over the Primacy. I think he might have been right.

 

[The Critic]

I decided to go with the T-rated version.

Why? Because I decided to go back to the stock 175/65-15 size for optimal fuel economy, and T-rated version was the only one available.

Also, most family sedans are now coming with H and V rated tires, so I don't think it's strictly catered towards a performance car crowd anymore.

 

[SLCraig]

I'm sure they'll be fine.
If cars aren't driven hard or raced etc it hardly matters.
Treadlife is all most people are worried about and that is totally subjective to a lot of other variables.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

I suspect the H-rated version does have a different compound, evidenced by the shorter warranty (though still long for an H-rated tire). I also suspect the H-rated version will have a different (and lower) UTQG tread wear rating.


Ive not had trouble getting 75k out of H rated tires. Problem is, UV get them before the treads wear out.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Also, most family sedans are now coming with H and V rated tires, so I don't think it's strictly catered towards a performance car crowd anymore.

In general, because they're better built, H/V-rated tires are safer compared to T-rated ones.

 

[Hokiefyd]

H-rated tires, to my understanding, also have much lower rates of failure because of those additional cap plies. CapriRacer said something like this before, along with his opinion that H-rated tires should be the minimum offered because of the lower failure rate.

The H rating is almost becoming the new T rating, in terms of OEM fitment. Used to be that you only saw S- and T-rated tires on new sedans, but almost all new sedans are coming with H- and V-rated tires now. I think this does improve handling and safety, at the expense of longevity.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ive not had trouble getting 75k out of H rated tires. Problem is, UV get them before the treads wear out.


This is why I generally don't care for long-mileage tires anymore. I've always wanted to replace them (due to rubber hardening, weather checking, etc) before they're all the way worn. I felt like I was paying for longevity that I wasn't getting. I just don't drive enough I guess (or hard enough).

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Brons2
My OEM tires were Kumho KH16 and H rated, 205/60R16.

The replacements are Primacy MXV4 H rated, same size. I don't like them, they ride much more stiffly than the Kumhos and get worse fuel economy. The sidewalls are visually much stiffer than the Kumhos, there is barely any give, and I'm running the same pressure.

I wish I would have dropped down to the T rated tires like the salesman at the tire store suggested. He suggested the Harmony (or Destiny, can't remember which) over the Primacy. I think he might have been right.


What, the Primacy MXV4 H-rated tire rides even worse than their old Destiny and Harmony? I guess there is something to my impression that Michelin makes unnecessarily hard riding tires. I don't know maybe they're durable.

I always go with H-rated tires. I think they are firmer but also may have different compounding. Bottom line is they perform better and give a good enough ride usually, unless they're Michelins

.

A big +1 to what JHZR2 and Hokiefyd said about cracking and UV on tires, so the longerlife of the T-rated tires isn't realized over the H-rated anyway. I have some Michelins that have cracking on the inside even in hot, dry and Sunny Ohio

. These tires have never been driven close to their T-rated speed but they have lots of tread left. Maybe it's the smooth roads around here that contributed to the cracking

. Just reasons why I shy away from tread rating over 560 and T-rated tires.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Just for the purpose of beating a dead horse...

I would expect the Michelin Primacy MXV4 to out-handle the Kumho Solus KH16. Although Tire Rack hasn't done a heads-up comparison with the two, Consumer Reports has, and found exactly that. The Michelin exceeded the Kumho in five metrics, including handling, hydroplaning, ice traction, rolling resistance, and tread life. The Kumho exceeded the Michelin in ride comfort and noise.

Performance isn't free.

 

[mechanicx]

Absolutely Hokiefyd. I guess I would've liked to seen Michelin trade some tread wear life for a slightly softer, sticker compound and maybe finessed more compliance out of the tire and maintaned handling. I don't know if any other tire model accomplishes this or not but I'd suspect so. I just don't know which one lol. I was thinking the Altimax HP and a couple of other tires did so but not if you believe the reports.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
H-rated tires, to my understanding, also have much lower rates of failure because of those additional cap plies. CapriRacer said something like this before, along with his opinion that H-rated tires should be the minimum offered because of the lower failure rate.

Yep, CapRacer doesn't think anything should be lower than H-rated now. I respect his opinion, but I recently went to the T rated Avid Touring-S from the H rated Gen HP's, which is the OEM rating for the 01 Civic. Decision was based in part on an excellent experience with the then S rated Avid Touring after the H rated oem Firestones(lousy), got ~65k and was very satisfied. Went with the slightly wider 195/60-15 from oem 185/65 and have stayed with it.

I did stick with oem V rating MXV4 Primacy rather than the H rated Primacy on my 3.0L Accord. Satisfied with them too, even as the oem size is a somewhat low profile size.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Absolutely Hokiefyd. I guess I would've liked to seen Michelin trade some tread wear life for a slightly softer, sticker compound and maybe finessed more compliance out of the tire and maintaned handling. I don't know if any other tire model accomplishes this or not but I'd suspect so. I just don't know which one lol. I was thinking the Altimax HP and a couple of other tires did so but not if you believe the reports.


I hate buying tires. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love buying tires, but I hate buying tires. It sounds like you're as particular as I am in terms of what you want out of a tire. Most major tire manufacturers now allow you to return tires after 30 or 60 days if you're not happy, but still...it's a pretty long-term purchase that you really can't preview or test drive.

I actually test drove a 2012 CR-V because I thought I wanted to buy the OEM Continentals for my 2008 model. That's how sick I am. Ha ha.

 

[mechanicx]

Yeah that sounds like me too. Tires are important to how a car drives and handles and like you said tires are a relatively big and long term purchase, and i just want the best tire for me.

 

[Brons2]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Just for the purpose of beating a dead horse...

I would expect the Michelin Primacy MXV4 to out-handle the Kumho Solus KH16. Although Tire Rack hasn't done a heads-up comparison with the two, Consumer Reports has, and found exactly that. The Michelin exceeded the Kumho in five metrics, including handling, hydroplaning, ice traction, rolling resistance, and tread life. The Kumho exceeded the Michelin in ride comfort and noise.

Performance isn't free.

Handling?? I drive a Kia Rondo. It is the antithesis of handling. Ice traction? I live in Austin, Texas. If we get ice, I stay home. Rolling resistance? I got better mileage with the Kumhos. Tread life? I'm already getting signs of deterioration with the Michelins after 2 years; I don't have much hope of getting the rated 65,000 before the rubber starts rotting.

I could have gotten the Kumhos again for almost $200 less and I wish I would have.

OK, so the Michelins do have better wet performance and resistance to hydroplaning. That I will give you. But last year was one of the dryest on record here in Central Texas. So I didn't get a chance to use this functionality much.

So for next time, there must be a tire out there with good performance that doesn't ride like a rock. I think shorter treadlife is the ticket.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Brons2
Handling?? I drive a Kia Rondo. It is the antithesis of handling.


"Handling" doesn't only mean you can autocross better. It also means that avoidance manuevers can be made quicker and safer.

I didn't say the Michelin is the best tire for you; apparently it is not. My only point is softer-riding tires usually come with a compromise.