In order to accurately gauge whether a tire is "bad" or worse, it would be highly informative if the vehicle and tire size, plus driving style were noted. ANY tire can not live up to expectations if the use is not what it's specified or designed for. Plus, as noted, the same tire in a different size on a different vehicle might work out great for many.
When the GY Eagle GA came out, it was basically a Lexus-use tire. Then Chrysler used it on almost all of their LH cars. With decent care, they'd last over 50K miles, but many posts at TireRack called them "#@$%! handling" and such, but of all of the LH cars I rented back then, they were a good as anybody else's tires (even better than some). On the replacement market, they were expensive and even had some sizes that were higher-speed rated for Bentleys. In later years, Chrysler went to the Eagle LS as a Eagle GA replacement (with some other lesser tires on the more base model LH cars), and then to some Michelins after that. Now, they are using Continentials (parent company of General, now). The Charger R/T HEMI I rented last year had the Contis on them. Not much acceleration traction, all things considered, but it made things sound nice when they were lightly slipping and the exhaust note added to the "happy sounds".
Also, due to the stiff body structures of modern vehicles, UNIBODY construction, tire noises can find their way into the passenger compartment. One tire on one car will be different from a different size version of the same tire on another car. I rented a last-gen Camry 4cyl that had Goodyear Integritys on it. It rode and drove "like a Camry", but when I drove one with Bridgestones on it, it was a different driving car (better). GM is using Integritys on several of their mid-size cars as OEM -- BUT all GM tires are built to GM specs and not specifically what the tire company sells to other customers, hence the GM "TPC" number on the GM sidewalls. These GM TPC tires can be sourced from many GM dealers via their factory tire program, at prices pretty close to what the "normal" tires would sell for.
Reading the ratings at TireRack.com, it's easy to see that most of their customers rate the OEM-spec tires mid-level or lower. That doesn't mean they are "junk" by any means, but it does mean that a more high performance customer could not have their "needs" met with them, but they'll be credible in their performance . . . IF treated decently and maintained with factory-spec inflation pressure (or a little higher in some cases).
Also be cognizant that WalMart sells tires that are specific to their outlets ONLY. The Viva2 could be one of those as some of the Michelins are also. That means that ONLY WalMart can adjust them or do warranty issues with them. Other similar stores have similar special tires from major manufacturers too.
As for the "clones" or whatever (i.e., GY and Kelly), I have a friend that always considered the older Kelly SuperCharger tires to be the same as the GY Eagle GT tires. He reasoned that as they were owned by the same people, the tires were "the same", but the GYs cost more. That was his orientation until he traded for a set of take-off Eagle GTs . . . and then he came to realize that the GYs had a more sophisticated and "worked better" rubber compound than the Kellys. As a result, the Eagle GT became his now "spec tire" for all of his hot rods and street cars.
Admittedly, you don't have to buy a "name brand" tire to get a good one. OEM-spec tires can be a good tire for many people, but not for others--considering snow traction or not. Still, with all of the variables in vehicle/tire interactions (ride quality, tread noise, road noise transmission, handling in the wet and in snow), one tire might work great in one application and be highly compromised in a different size on a different vehicle. Sometimes, it's a "crapshoot" as to what might be better than OEM, but networking and shopping around can yield a better tire choice or better tire VALUE. The key is to match the tire to the vehicle it will be installed on and the use of the vehicle. A "general use" tire for a passenger car would do well, but if that same tire was on a vehicle that was supposed (either as a sporty model or sporty in the driver's mind) to have some sort of performance orientation, it'll not be well-received. On many of the tire manufacturer websites, they usually have some sort of rating system as to the design attributes of their tires.
As a shadetree method of detemining tread compound softness, lower treadwear ratings can be a little indicative of that, whereas a Michelin with a high treadwear rating would not grab the corners as tightly as a BFG Comp T/A, for example. Case in point . . . the 2004 Grand Prix GTP came OEM with Michelin "Sport" radials, but the Comp G option brought BFG Comp T/As on it. Driving the CompG car with the BFGs was like going around corners "on rails", but the GPs I've rented (with the Michelins) left something to be desired in the cornering department. The Michelins were on there so the tires would last past the 36month lease periods, which the BFGs would not. So, dealers were told to not put a CompG car out for a lease, or they'd need to put tires on it OR the customer would be complaining about the cost of "those tires".
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
