'11 Acura MDX - OE Michelin or Bridgestone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gofast182

Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
2,151
Location
Tinton Falls NJ
The tires on my MDX are probably around 25-30% tread left at 33k miles. I'm still several months away from replacing them but as the time draws closer I continue to wonder whether replacing the OE Michelin Latitude tires is worth the significant cost premium? The Michelins have been very good for us so cost is the only reason I'd consider another tire. Based on personal feelings/experience the only other brand I will consider for this particular vehicle is Bridgestone.

Vehicle usage: ~12k miles per year. My wife drives it most days except on weekends or trips then I drive. Her driving style is what I would call normal while I like to accelerate harder, carve corners with it and let the awesome SH-AWD do its thing. It only sees road use (other than the occasional grass parking lot) and it does snow duty if/when it snows.

My choices are below, thanks in advance.

Michelin Latitude Tour HP, $1,156
Bridgestone Dueler H/L 422 Ecopia, $728
Bridgestone Dueler H/L Alenza, $752
 
Have you checked out TR and similar reviews?

I'm not one to fear LRR tires, so the ecopia is interesting.

I've had good luck with Bridgestone, but haven't bought any since they moved manufacture to Mexico from JP/US.
 
Your middle choice Ecopia were slated for my similar 2007 MDX. That is a great price, are they installed?

Due to excessive winter and my need to occasionally do 1'+ drifts in our mountain house driveway across an open field I went for a winter biased all-season called the Nokian WR G2 SUV for $900 installed with alignment check.

I did like the Michelin's too.

Another choice but brand new was Dueler H/P Sport AS. It seems more a candidate for MDX type CUV than the Eco tire.
 
I have a set of the Bridgestone Dueler H/L Alenza's on my 2010 Silverado and I'm really happy with them. I don't have snow in So Cal, but they are quiet, smooth riding and do well in the rain. Other friends of mine have them on their trucks and are happy with them also.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Have you checked out TR and similar reviews?

I'm not one to fear LRR tires, so the ecopia is interesting.

I've had good luck with Bridgestone, but haven't bought any since they moved manufacture to Mexico from JP/US.

They all get good reviews on TR but I'm just not sure if they're "less good" than the Michelins that cost a lot more.

I run Bridgestone on my S2000 and all of those are still made in Japan.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Your middle choice Ecopia were slated for my similar 2007 MDX. That is a great price, are they installed?

Due to excessive winter and my need to occasionally do 1'+ drifts in our mountain house driveway across an open field I went for a winter biased all-season called the Nokian WR G2 SUV for $900 installed with alignment check.

I did like the Michelin's too.

Another choice but brand new was Dueler H/P Sport AS. It seems more a candidate for MDX type CUV than the Eco tire.

I saw the Sport AS tires, too and they sound interesting but there aren't any reviews yet and since the price is so low I wasn't sure whether it was missing some of the technology that makes other Bridgestone models good.

(that's TR's price for tires alone)
 
I'd skip the Ecopia line of tires. They consistently get knocked for poor traction, especially in wet/snow. In my opinion, a tire's main purpose in life is to grip the road; this is not where I'd knowingly buy a tire with such a traction compromise.

It sounds like you'd likely get more life out of the Bridgestones, if the Michelins are 75% gone already after 33k miles. Given the prices you quoted, it'd be hard for me to not like the Bridgestones.

I assume you have P255/55R18?

Don't overlook the Continental CrossContact LX20. In addition to the Bridgestone Dueler H/L Alenza, this Continental is a worthy competitor. In fact, I'd probably prefer it to the Bridgestone, being a much newer tire design than the older Alenza.
 
Thanks, Jason. That's good perspective and something I specifically wondered about Ecopia. Yes the size is P255/55R18. I will never buy Continental again after the experience we had with two of them being defective on our old '10 CR-V.

Edit: when you put it that way, the tires are not 75% gone, I may have been a little aggressive in my estimation of wear! Also tread on the Alenza looks pretty aggressive, much more than the current Michelins. I wonder if that would affect fuel economy? That's one area where the MDX isn't strong so going backward in that area wouldn't be ideal.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have with the Alenzas, and this seems to be the case with every size, is they're HEAVY. The Ecopia is 33 pounds per tire. The Latitude is 33 pounds per tire. The Alenza is 38 pounds per tire, which is 20% heavier than either of your other choices. That's significant; in theory, it would negatively impact your fuel economy (more rotating mass). In practice, you might not be able to measure it, but it certainly won't help. Where that added weight also won't help is in ride and handling.

In terms of tread pattern, I don't think the Alenzas are all that aggressive. In fact, their marketing says, "The symmetric tread pattern of the Dueler H/L Alenza has been ride and noise tuned to enhance comfort."

Another good choice is the Pirelli Scorpion Verde, if your tire dealer sells Pirelli.
 
By the way, here's a link to a Tire Rack test featuring both the Bridgestone Dueler H/L 422 Ecopia and the Pirelli Scorpion Verde.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=160

The Bridgestone performed worst of the three in almost every performance category (though, interestingly, it gave very good snow traction). The Bridgestone excels in ride comfort and on-road manners, and the Pirelli excels in performance and road feedback. The Goodyear (which is also a solid choice) slotted somewhere in the middle.

Here's a test in which the Bridgestone Dueler H/L Alenza just wasn't super competitive:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=114

The General Grabber HTS out-paced it in most performance measures.

And in this test (which is your tire size):

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=137

The Michelin and Pirelli both scored well against the Kumho.
 
Two tire places had issues at one point with the Continental CrossContact LX20. They both said great tire if you can get one that is can be balanced but a hassle for customer and them but would order them. Both places had the Hunter equipment too and were conti dealers. Lots of returns for them.

Maybe manufacturing figured it out as they said this was initial production run.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Why is the Michelin so much more expensive? Does it have a very long warranty or something?


Nope....Michelin is always pretty expensive and I think in a larger tire it just gets a lot worst. I will state the Michelin I had I got nearly 45k of life out of them and potentially more if winter were not a concern.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Why is the Michelin so much more expensive?


Because they (the tires) usually do everything pretty dadgum well. They're usually not the "best" in every area (traction, economy, whatever), but I've found that they're tires with very few compromises that I don't like. And I think it takes a lot of R&D money to get there.

In other words, a Michelin might be 80% (of 100%) in 5 different measures. A different tire might be 90% in one measure, 95% in a different measure, and 40% in the other three measures. Michelins tend to perform well in a variety of conditions, they tend to not experience a lot of customer comebacks (like the Continentals apparently might from the note above), tend to maintain their behavior throughout the life of the tire rather than having traction fall off halfway through, and they also tend to strike a good balance of comfort and performance. Again, they're often not "the king" in any one area, but they don't usually have glaring deficiencies either...except for the price.

We're getting ready to (likely) put a set of the Latitude Tours on our MDX this spring. Fortunately, ours are P235/65R17s, cost $160 each, and I can be out the door for about 700 bucks. Which, actually, is fairly cost-competitive with other brands in that size. I do find that the price delta with Michelin tires does seem to grow with larger and lower profile applications.
 
+1. I have also noticed very little fall-off in performance as Michelin tread wears down. I have also read that the Michelin
belts are higher tensilel strength steel belt material than other tires. Maybe that is the reason? Ed
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: dparm
Why is the Michelin so much more expensive?


Because they (the tires) usually do everything pretty dadgum well. They're usually not the "best" in every area (traction, economy, whatever), but I've found that they're tires with very few compromises that I don't like. And I think it takes a lot of R&D money to get there.
...
We're getting ready to (likely) put a set of the Latitude Tours on our MDX this spring. Fortunately, ours are P235/65R17s, cost $160 each, and I can be out the door for about 700 bucks. Which, actually, is fairly cost-competitive with other brands in that size. I do find that the price delta with Michelin tires does seem to grow with larger and lower profile applications.

I absolutely agree with that. The current Michelins on the MDX and even the ones on my TSX do everything well despite not being a standout in one area.
If not for the cost consideration, this thread wouldn't even exist (I shed a tear when I saw what MLTs will cost on your MDX compared to mine). That said, the point you just made above does make me lean back toward the Michelins.
 
The other fortunate part for us is that the P235/65R17 fitment is brand new for Michelin in the Latitude Tour. It only came out last year, so it's not an OEM tire for *something* out there, and the rubber compound and tread design is how Michelin wants it to be (more or less), and not designed to adhere to certain performance objectives set by a third party.

What is fortunate for you is that you've already test-driven these tires; you've had them for tens of thousands of miles, so you know exactly how they will behave and exactly what they'll do in any given situation. If you like how they perform, there's certainly value in buying a known quantity.
 
One other thing I should add is I had the wheels off of the car a few weeks ago and noticed some slight dry rot on the inside sidewalls. I usually keep tire dressing on the outside which may be why it doesn't show up there. Not sure if it's an issue or not.
 
I had OE Latitude Tour (non-HP) on my Jeep, and someone would have to pay me to run them again. I hated them. They were down to 5/32nds after 23K. They were horrible in the smallest of snow. I replaced them this Fall, and couldn't be happier. Seriously, I would run Falkens before them -- even if the Latitudes were cheaper. Out of your list, I'd pick the last choice, or keep looking.

When you say 25-30%, what is the actual tread depth? Percentages mean nothing. You can't run a tire down to 0/32nds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Bridgestone Ecopia H/L 422 Plus versus Alenza AS Ultra
Replies
16
Views
7K
meep
C
Top All-Season Tires? Michelin or Comparable?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Sequoiasoon
D
Tire rotation for AWD?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Oro_O
R
New Tire Confusion
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Pew
O
Winter Tires or All Weather Tires
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
7K
oilmaven
Back
Top