Crossover tires vs. Passenger Tires

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Critic

The Critic

Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
31,971
Location
CA
A co-worker needs new tires for her 2008 CRV. The size for this application is 225/65R-17.

In this application, you can purchase both "crossover tires" and normal passenger-car touring tires.

For instance, I can get the Bridgestone Dueler H/L 422 Ecopia in this size, which is an eco-friendly tire that is tailored for the crossover segment and supposedly has crossover specific features. I can also get the Michelin Defender/Defender XT in this size, and this is a tire which is marketed towards passenger cars.

So, what are the differences between a crossover-specific tire and a passenger-car tire? What are the attributes that make a crossover tire better for crossover applications, and does it really matter for a 3500-lb crossover such as a CRV? Some people have mentioned that crossover specific tires have better on-center steering feel and better wear due to better design for the application.

Thanks.
 
The difference is usually the load range. Make sure replacement tires are the same load range, not just same size, as the OE...
 
^^^Exactly. Many people buy truck tires they do not need for a cute-ute.

You need the GVWR for the vehicle in order to make sure you get the right tire. Don't hesitate to look at the LTX series as some here have reported great handling and smooth riding from them in addition to ridiculously long life.
 
We have G/Y ACT's(Non-Touring) on our RX-300 which weighs more than the CR-V and they're OK. It's what we like for a Lexus.

How does your friend use the CR-V? Are you/co-worker in the snowy climate of CA? If so, then a more aggressive tire will be more appropriate. Otherwise, the Michelin Latitudes may be a nice choice as are the Defenders.

If the CR-V is just used for transportation, than any tire you mentioned will be fine. It's those drivers who really use their vehicle hard such as towing/hauling, snowy climates etc, that will want to get a tire more appropriate/more aggressive for their needs.

What does your friend need? Is her CR-V an AWD of just FWD? IDK if it really matters! In the size of 225-65-17, there really isn't a bad tire in that size, is there?

IMHO, and I am not being sarcastic here, Crossover Vehicles(CUV's, not SUV's) are just AWD cars with more ground clearance and a very good "foul weather vehicle". I know, I have one!
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
As you may know, I did a lot of looking at various tires in this size for my own 2008 CR-V. The bottom line is: I'm not sure what the difference is between passenger and crossover tires, except in the marketing. Load ranges are dependent on the size specification, and not really the tire market segment. Unless you mean literally "P-metric" tires as "passenger" tires. I think Critic is speaking of "passenger all-season" tires as a market segment, rather than the P-metric designation.

I had really narrowed my field of choices down to two tires: the Continental ProContact EcoPlus and the Michelin Latitude Tour. I also specifically ruled out a few tires, and the Bridgestone Dueler H/L 422 was one of them. The primary reason is wet traction, at least as compared with one of its peers, the Continental CrossContact LX20. Wet traction is extremely important to me, but someone living in California may not care a bit about it. I also didn't care too much for the CrossContact LX20 because of many reviews noting ride harshness. And although Consumer Reports didn't specifically test this particular Bridgestone, they did test this particular Continental, and their ratings correlate well with Tire Rack's notes about the tire, so I figure that Tire Rack's notes on the Bridgestone are probably accurate. And again, the wet traction is a no-go for me, but someone in a drier climate would have different priorities.

So anyway, I was this close to buying the Continental ProContact EcoPlus. It's a regular ol' passenger all-season tire. I don't think there was any reason I didn't buy the Continental, other than my wife likely reminded me of all the times I bought tires other than Michelins and later regretted it. So, I dutifully spent the extra 100 bucks for the Michelins, and so far they've been like every other Michelin I've owned. Probably aren't the absolute best performers in any one metric, but they score an 8 or 9 out of 10 in most all of them; they're just very well-rounded tires, pardon the pun. They stick well to dry and wet roads, cut through standing water very well, and are relatively quiet tires. They balance well, and really have no downsides. I recommend them without any caveats.

You've probably read my thoughts on the Defender before, but I'll say them again here. If your friend drives a lot, the Defenders are probably a good choice. Southern California also sees little rain and snow, so that's another thing in their favor. I've personally found that super long-wearing tires often begin to give up wet/snow traction as their compound hardens over those many years. Long-wearing tires just aren't for me, but I would say that if I drove 25,000 miles a year and think I'd go through the Defenders in just 3-4 years, I'd probably try them.

I'll also say that I think the CR-V is "over tire'd". And by that, I mean it takes a tire with a load rating of 102. Our other SUV, 1,000 pounds heavier, takes just a 103. And our old minivan, which weighs at least 500-600 pounds more than the CR-V took 98 load rated tires. So I do think there's plenty of extra capacity in the CR-V's 102 load rating. That said, I'd make sure to get 102 tires, whichever ones they are.
 
Allow me to echo what Hokiefyd said. There is basically no difference in load rating between Passenger Car tires and "Crossover tires". The tire size dictates the load rating (with a couple of interesting variations)

IMHO, the difference is mostly a marketing thing. There is such a wide range in properties that you can find exactly what you want in a tire without considering whether a tire is labeled as "suitable for Crossover vehicles."
 
I'm thinking that "crossover tires" are slightly more aggressive than the touring tires that you'd find for passenger cars because they tend to see a bit more snow / gravel roads?
 
Make sure it is the same load range and you can buy either CUV or passanger tires.

I have an equinox which is another CUV. I replaced my Cooper CS4s with Hankook H727 and I have to say they are the best tires I have ever had. Smooth, quiet and is listed for 100k. Reasonably priced too.
 
Do "crossovers" have to pay attention to load range? Even a set of passenger car tires is rated for more than most crossovers have for a rated GVWR.

A load range C tire would be way overkill for a crossover.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Do "crossovers" have to pay attention to load range? Even a set of passenger car tires is rated for more than most crossovers have for a rated GVWR.

A load range C tire would be way overkill for a crossover.


The CRV takes a E-metric tire size. 225/65-17 102T. The crossover tires and many passenger tires meet this spec with no problem.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
The CRV takes a E-metric tire size. 225/65-17 102T. The crossover tires and many passenger tires meet this spec with no problem.


In this case, even though the Load Index may be lower, this is just an artifact of the differing tire size standardizing schemes. For practical purposes, you can use ANY tire that is a 225/65R17.

- BUT -

The real issue is what your co-worker wants the tire to do. If she describes things like good ride, long wear - and not things like off-road capability, mud traction - then she wants a passenger car tire - and if she accuractely decribes what she wants and correctly chooses a tire with that decription, she will get something that will suit her - regardless of what the advertising copy says the tire is for.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Do "crossovers" have to pay attention to load range? Even a set of passenger car tires is rated for more than most crossovers have for a rated GVWR.


As a "defensive" consumer, everybody should.

Load ranges (C, D, E) are different than the load index (102, etc). As I understand it, only LT-sized tires (such as LT265/70R17) have a load range (typically C or E). But all tires have a load index. The load index signifies how many pounds that tire is rated to carry at the rated inflation pressure. For P-metric tires, that rated inflation pressure is 35 psi (for standard load tires). For Euro-metric tires, that rated inflation pressure is 36 psi (again, for standard load tires).

I said that every "defensive" consumer should pay attention to this because we live in a society where somebody out there will sue you over anything. Say you get into a vehicle wreck where you lost traction (perhaps slid into somebody). That other person gets a lawyer and they determine that you have tires with a load index of 100 on your CR-V, but the OEM tires had a load index of 102. They can say that you installed equipment with a rated capacity lower than the OEM intended and compromised the performance of your vehicle, thus contributing to the crash.

How likely is it that they would win such a case? It's probably not likely at all. But why open yourself up to any liability? That's my take on it anyway. Tire Rack does say that the difference in the load index between the Euro-metric and P-metric load index is not enough to consider, and as long as all four tires have the same load index, it's okay to install the P-metric tire where a Euro-metric once was (and the resulting slightly lower load index). I still personally wouldn't do it, for reasons listed above.
 
Tire load ratings resulted in a competitor of mine going out of business due to a lawsuit after an accident.

A sharp investigator noted his tires were not correctly rated and this was used against him in court. It's a very real problem in this area, as I see vehicles every day with poor tires...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Tire load ratings resulted in a competitor of mine going out of business due to a lawsuit after an accident.

A sharp investigator noted his tires were not correctly rated and this was used against him in court. It's a very real problem in this area, as I see vehicles every day with poor tires...


Thank you for that comment. I honestly wasn't sure load ratings would ever matter in the real world...I just mentioned it as more of an "in theory" kind of thing. But it's informative to know that it's actually happened before.

I guess the moral of the story is stick with the OEM specs.
 
What does the manual said? If a passenger tire meets all the spec required by the car's manual, it is good enough and you can choose a tire with other specification rather than whether it is a "Crossover" or "Passenger" tire.
 
There are passenger tires whose designation begins with P and Light Truck tires that begin with LT. LT tires have stiffer sidewalls and support a heavier load. I'm betting the CR-V came with P, passenger tires.

I agree with an earlier poster who said crossover tires are a marketing gimmick. Stick with "P" passenger tires and as long as you get the same load rating as the OEM tires and a speed rating of at least 112 mph it will be fine.
 
Originally Posted By: azjake
There are passenger tires whose designation begins with P and Light Truck tires that begin with LT. LT tires have stiffer sidewalls and support a heavier load. I'm betting the CR-V came with P, passenger tires.


The CR-V came with neither. You're talking about a P-metric tire, whose size starts with a P (such as P225/65R17). Not all passenger all-season tires are true P-metric tires. The CR-V came with Euro-metric tires, and there is no preceding P in the size (such as 225/65R17--without the P at the beginning).

This is where the load index differs. Euro-metric tires generally have slightly higher load indices than their respective P-metric sizes. That holds true here. The CR-V came with 225/65R17 tires, with a 102 load index. The P225/65R17 has a 100 load index.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Tire load ratings resulted in a competitor of mine going out of business due to a lawsuit after an accident.

A sharp investigator noted his tires were not correctly rated and this was used against him in court. It's a very real problem in this area, as I see vehicles every day with poor tires...


You've got to be careful here, because the details are important.

For example, if a tire shop were to sell a Load Range C in place of a Load Range E, then there would be a definite problem.

Or similiarly if a Standard Load (SL) were to be used in place of an Extra Load (XL), that would also be a definite problem.

But when it comes to Standard Load Passenger Car tires, P metric, Euro metric, and .... uh ..... Japanese metric, are so close, they can be used interchangeably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Egg_Head
Sentury Tire Recall: Mohave tire owners NB!
Replies
10
Views
2K
earlyre
F
Can this tire be patched and other tire questions?
2
Replies
25
Views
812
dumkid
R
New Tire Confusion
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Pew
D
Tire rotation for AWD?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Oro_O
S
2023 Tire Satisfaction Survey by JD Power
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
krzyss
Back
Top