Consumer Reports includes Chinese tires...

Status
Not open for further replies.
This seems to mirror what many of us say here:

Quote:
Aside from the performance lows, if value is a high priority, consider that the Pegasus cost about half as much as a top-scoring tire, the Michelin LTX M/S2. But keep in mind that the Michelin will last almost three times longer. Factor in the cost of buying two additional sets of tires, plus mounting and balancing, and you could save hundreds of dollars, not to mention get a better all-weather performing tire, if you choose the Michelin.
 
Michelin lost me when they cancelled the Cross Terrains. They were quiet, performed well and lasted 88K miles. The replacement Latitudes had a 65K warranty vs the 80K warranty and cost more and were noisy with the windows down. I went through 2 tires that could not be balanced and one that had a tread separation. Also they were wearing fast enough that they would have never made it to even 65K miles. I replaced them with Firestone Destinations rather than continue with the Michelins even though Discount Tire was good about warranty service. I'm very happy with the Firestone Destinations.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Anyone has access to the full test? Wondering what they had to say about the Nokian Hakka R2...


I do. The Hakkapeliitta R2 finished 3rd in their performance winter testing, behind the #1 Nokian WR G3 and the #2 Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4. The R2 was also the most expensive according to the price CR paid, at $250 each, compared with $245 and $240 for the WR G3 and the PA4 respectively.

The R2 was the only tire of the seven tested to achieve a full red circle (Excellent) in Snow Traction, Ice Braking, and Rolling Resistance. However, it was also the only tire of the seven tested to get a full black circle (Poor) in Dry Braking and Wet Braking. It was also worse than the #1 and #2 in Hydroplaning, Handling, and Noise. It appears to be a tire that is heavily biased towards actual winter traction, with heavy compromises on dry and wet roads.

The #1 WR G3's worst score was an open circle (Good), and its best score was a half red (Very Good), so it doesn't absolutely excel in one area and doesn't do miserable in another.

Classic case, here, of what do you want your winter tire to do?
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Anyone has access to the full test? Wondering what they had to say about the Nokian Hakka R2...


I do. The Hakkapeliitta R2 finished 3rd in their performance winter testing, behind the #1 Nokian WR G3 and the #2 Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4.

Thanks, although that's somewhat of a strange comparison as these tires are in different categories. PA4 and WRG3 are more in a performance winter category, whereas the R2 is in a more heavy-duty winter category, I'd say.

The link showed these three tires:

Michelin X-Ice XI2
Continental ExtremeWinterContact
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 SUV


So I thought the comparison test was between these three. Was it not?
 
I'd like to see the data behind the circles. If the measured differences are small, then I don't really care which is the best or worst.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

The link showed these three tires:

Michelin X-Ice XI2
Continental ExtremeWinterContact
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 SUV


So I thought the comparison test was between these three. Was it not?


Sorry, Pete. You asked about the R2, not the R2 SUV, and you don't have an SUV in your signature, so I figured you were asking about the passenger car winter tires.

Of the three posted, the Michelin excelled in Snow Traction, Ice Braking, and Rolling Resistance (Excellent). Good or Very Good scores in all other metrics except for Wet Braking (Fair). The Continental received an Excellent in Snow Traction, and Goods and Very Goods in everything else except for Wet Braking (Fair). The Nokian's one Excellent score was in Hydroplaning, and its worst score was a Good, so it looks like a well balanced tire, so to speak.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I'd like to see the data behind the circles. If the measured differences are small, then I don't really care which is the best or worst.


This is a constant criticism of CR on their Tire forum. I don't like to speak for someone else, but I can summarize their past responses. They do the bubbles for at least two reasons. One, there is often little-to-no data on subjective measures (such as Ride Comfort), and certainly on other items they test, such as how balanced a string trimmer feels. They use the bubbles for consistency across both the tire testing and their other product testing. Secondly, they don't want readers to see absolute numbers and assume that applies to any size of tire tested. The bubbles keep some degree of relative comparison valid while still allowing for variances in product performance for different tire sizes and on different vehicles, etc.

A lot of suggestions have been made to CR on how they could do this differently. The five bubbles don't allow for much granularity, nor do they even give an idea of what the difference between best-to-worst is. If they said the best score was 60-0 in 121 feet and the worst score was 174 feet, then that's probably significant. If the worst score was 129 feet, then that's probably not significant. Some have proposed using letter grades as they do in school, and assign certain relative values based on that set of scoring. So 121-125 feet might be 'A', 126-130 feet might be 'B', etc.

CR has not yet, to my knowledge, indicated that they will change how they present the data.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I'd like to see the data behind the circles. If the measured differences are small, then I don't really care which is the best or worst.


Agreed.

And with thanks to hokiefyd for that explanation.

But I also like to sift the numbers, and then decide for myself. CR's scoring system was designed for 2nd graders...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
But I also like to sift the numbers, and then decide for myself. CR's scoring system was designed for 2nd graders...


I don't know if I'd say that it was designed for 2nd graders, but it's certainly designed to appeal to a base of readers who are probably NOT technically-minded. In fact, that sort of describes their readership by definition; most technically-astute people will find other, and more data-rich, resources. I think like an engineer and an artist would have a terrible time trying to make heads or tails out of a table of numbers I might give him or her. Just as I don't understand the world of art one bit.

I recognize that it's got to be a challenge to devise a scoring system that is applicable to nearly every type of product out there, demonstrates the relative ranking among the different products tested, and can be easily comprehended by those not familiar with insider jargon. Interestingly, the type of scoring visuals that CR uses, called "Harvey Balls", isn't used only by them. In fact, it was invented by a man named Harvey Poppel who worked for Booz Allen in the '70s. Today, they're used by a variety of organizations and agencies to give a quick visual representation of data. You can also summon these symbols up in popular productivity software such as Excel and PowerPoint.

Another criticism I have with CR's data is the total score of a product is a weighted average of the individual metric scores. CR, being who they are, weight safety-related factors higher than others, so Wet Braking, for example, gets a higher weight in the score than does Ride Quality. Fine...but they don't tell me what the weighting system is. And I may not agree with it. Many years ago, I took a complete tire testing results table and assigned a value to all of the Harvey Balls. An Excellent got a 5 and a Poor got a 1. So I made a numerical matrix of the tires tested and I could then apply my own weighting to the table to see the tire that would best suit my preferences. Or I could apply no weighting and see what the straight average was. The tire that my spreadsheet would recommend was sometimes very different than their "top pick" based on what weights I gave each performance metric.

So...I think in numbers and certainly want more data from them. I also understand why they don't present it numerically, even if I don't agree with it. Yet another suggestion commonly made to CR is to make the empirical data available to someone if they want to see it. Their response went back to them not wanting a reader to assume a certain level of performance based on a number rather than a relative ranking.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

The link showed these three tires:

Michelin X-Ice XI2
Continental ExtremeWinterContact
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 SUV


So I thought the comparison test was between these three. Was it not?


Sorry, Pete. You asked about the R2, not the R2 SUV, and you don't have an SUV in your signature, so I figured you were asking about the passenger car winter tires.

Of the three posted, the Michelin excelled in Snow Traction, Ice Braking, and Rolling Resistance (Excellent). Good or Very Good scores in all other metrics except for Wet Braking (Fair). The Continental received an Excellent in Snow Traction, and Goods and Very Goods in everything else except for Wet Braking (Fair). The Nokian's one Excellent score was in Hydroplaning, and its worst score was a Good, so it looks like a well balanced tire, so to speak.

Thanks a lot!

My bad for not being clear earlier. Wife is getting an SUV soon and will need winter tires in size 235/60/18. In that size, what's available is Hakka R2 SUV, X-Ice Xi2, and Blizzak DM-V1. We spend a ton of time in western Michigan now that gets plenty of snow (over 100 inches last winter), so snow traction is very important.

Interestingly, the Blizzak is rated higher than the Michelin on TireRack.
 
As much as I agree with them that the Chinese branded tires are no bargain if you keep your car long. I'd not take CR's recommendation seriously.

I still remember the Falken Ziex 512 that they recommend as #1, and the number of people that has problem with them going out of round and the lack of any traction.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
But I also like to sift the numbers, and then decide for myself. CR's scoring system was designed for 2nd graders...


That's why I like Tire Rack, and try to buy something from them now and again even if slightly more $$.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
But I also like to sift the numbers, and then decide for myself. CR's scoring system was designed for 2nd graders...


That's why I like Tire Rack, and try to buy something from them now and again even if slightly more $$.


Agreed, as their business model is so expansive and helpful. Tons of info, reviews, even great guys on the phone.

They're so good you feel guilty buying somewhere else...
 
CR has a pretty high demographic readership.
These are educated people, not the kind who take one factor and insist that it makes any given product superior, unless that one factor is the one that they're looking for.
The readership should be sophisticated enough to understand the concept of compromise in product design and performance.
Question.
Are the ratings CR presents always relative?
For example, if CR did a tire test of "Fifteen Really Awful Tires You Should Recommend To Your Favorite Boss or In-Law", would the best of the worst earn nicely filled in circles?
Without numerical data, a bad tire could look pretty good and would be on a relative basis.
 
I must have been stuck with the worst set of Michelin tires made... in the history of the company.

Either that, or my pickup goes out and does burnouts all by itself when I'm at work.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
I must have been stuck with the worst set of Michelin tires made... in the history of the company.

Either that, or my pickup goes out and does burnouts all by itself when I'm at work.


I think they were Chinese clones of genuine Michelins
grin.gif
I think you are the only guy on this site to ever get a bad set of LTX's, LOL
 
Add me to that list...had one on a wrecker just fly apart with no warning!

Dude I work with got to throw a set away with good tread because they literally rotted off the rims...Michelin accused him of using Armor-All and refused to lift a finger.

Just one reason I will run 4 different Chinese tires before I will give a cent to Michelin!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top