60k on Bridgestone Potenza's

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bought my G009s with 38,000 on the clock. Now at 70,500. The tires are still in great shape and seem to offer the same grip (or close to it) as when they were new. The only difference is that road noise has gone up. I remember the first thing I noticed when I first bought them was that they turned my car into a different car. Torque steer disappeared even when wet, and steering precision increased dramatically. I dunno if G009s are that good or the OEM Passat Michelins were that bad.
 
I'm hoping to get 20k out of the Goodyear F1 GS-D3s on the Focus. That is a fun, stuck to the road like glue, 20k though.
fruit.gif
 
Thanks I am considering the Bridgestone G009 or Michlein Exaltos. Cost is not an issue as I just want the best tire. Tirerack likes the Exaltos best.
 
Russell, you might consider the Kumho ASX. Gets pretty good reviews in the UHP class. The Pzero-Nero reviews a bit better, but is not available in your size.
 
60K on Turanza LS's is very impressive. I had a set of Turanza LS-V's on my old car and they were GONE by 45K miles. By GONE I mean the rear two had no visible tread remaining at all, and the front two were the same. There was a faint trace of where the tread pattern once was. It was summer time and I was poorer then, and only taking short trips, so I just kept driving on them until finally the belts started to come through on the front tires.

That said, they were *excellent* tires, until the bitter end. In their younger days, they were so sticky that driving in a downpour felt like driving on a clear summer day. I was very impressed that a tire that could handle so well had such a comfortable and smooth highway ride, as well. A very impressive tire, all around.

Unfortunately, I decided to replace them with Goodyear Assurance TripleTreds, which I have now deemed as The Worst Tire in the World. I have never been less satisfied with a tire, ever. The noise was horrible, the dry traction was horrible, the wet grip was non-existent, I can only imagine how bad they'd be in the snow, luckily I never got the chance to find out. I returned them to goodyear after 8,000 miles on a warranty claim, they kept losing their balance (god knows how) and despite unnecessarily replacing numerous suspension components and having them rebalanced, I could not get rid of the vibration. I gave the credit to my dad so he could buy new tires for his truck, and I put a set of used Eagle GA's on the car that were better than those stupid Assurance tires.

My new car has a set of Goodyear Eagle LS2's, which are OK; but I'll probably be replacing them with another set of Turanza's (I think they only make the Turanza Serenity or something in the size I need) when their time is up.
 
I've now got about 4500 miles on the Potenza G009 tires. I still have no complaints, except that my fuel economy is lower than with my previous set of "slicks". I expected it and am not surprised, plus I always get lousy fuel mileage in July and August.

We've had no rain, and probably won't get much until winter, so it will be awhile before I can comment on how they handle on a wet road.

The max inflation is 35 PSI, and I've been running them close to this number when hot, front and rear.
 
Quote:


Thanks I am considering the Bridgestone G009 or Michlein Exaltos. Cost is not an issue as I just want the best tire. Tirerack likes the Exaltos best.




Russell, my local Costco has Exalto all-seasons for about $120 per tire installed and balanced. You might want to check yours out.
 
Just bought 17 inch 8 inch wide bmw style 32 oe wheels to replace the 15 inch, 7 inch wide bmw oe style 5 wheels I now have. Going to look at 235x45x17 touring tires. No rush yet as the current Turanza LS-H tires are holding up well.
 
Quote:


60K on Turanza LS's is very impressive. I had a set of Turanza LS-V's on my old car and they were GONE by 45K miles. By GONE I mean the rear two had no visible tread remaining at all, and the front two were the same. There was a faint trace of where the tread pattern once was. It was summer time and I was poorer then, and only taking short trips, so I just kept driving on them until finally the belts started to come through on the front tires.

That said, they were *excellent* "


The V rated were only considered 40k mile tires, you did well!
The H and T rated were 60k if I remember right.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Iain,
Can you tell me more about noise?. It was my understanding the G009s were quiet. Thanks



Generally, they are quiet on most road surfaces with a barely perceptible whinge. Most times G009 tyre noise is unnoticeable. However, that whinge will increase intensity and become noticeable on certain road surfaces such as bridges and unusual types of paved road surfaces, for example.



I guess I agree with this. I don't notice any road noise at all, most of the time. But then I hit a stretch of badly worn concrete, like some lanes of I-5 in the southern part of Orange County CA, and the noise level jumps markedly.

Quote:


I remember the first thing I noticed when I first bought them was that they turned my car into a different car. Torque steer disappeared even when wet, and steering precision increased dramatically. I dunno if G009s are that good or the OEM Passat Michelins were that bad.



Yes, steering precision. I haven't touched the suspension in nearly two years, and in that time I've run Michelins and Goodyears, with good tread and no tread. These G009's have really made a huge difference in the handling, especially at high speeds.

I thought the new Potenzas were going to cost me a couple MPG. But fuel mileage for July 2007 was nearly the same as last July, and better than in the previous two July's -- about 38 mpg. YMMV.
 
Quote:


Quote:


The max inflation is 35 PSI, and I've been running them close to this number when hot, front and rear.



This is incorrect. The max inflation is 44 psi, and I've been running them at about 40 psi.




You were right both times.
wink.gif


The Bridgestone G009 is a standard load tire, which means that its load capacity increases with increasing inflation levels up to an inflation level of 35psi, but its load capacity does not increase with additional pressure above 35psi. The maximum inflation pressure of 44psi that you see on the sidewall is the pressure to which the tire may be inflated before it is in danger of exploding.
 
Quote:


......The maximum inflation pressure of 44psi that you see on the sidewall is the pressure to which the tire may be inflated before it is in danger of exploding......




Ordinarily, I'd let a comment like this pass, but since the folks that frequent this forum are fairly knowledgeable and always interested in the "the straight scoop"......

The bursting pressure of a passenger tire is well over 150 psi. The tire isn't designed around this - it is a natural consequence of designing a tire to function properly.

Using higher pressures does increase the likelihood of an impact related failure - and sometimes these impacts result in "rapid air loss" - an explosion, if you want to use inflammatory verbage.

But these types of failures can happen at lower pressures as well. The lower pressure merely provides more energy absorption before the failure occurs.

Those engineers in our midst would then conclude that it would be better to use lower pressures and compensate for the loss of load carrying capacity (and consequential heat generation) by using larger capacity tires. And this would be the approach many manufacturers of pickup trucks and SUV's are now taking.
 
I put over 70k on my old RE950s that I had on my '96 Camaro. (245/50/16)

I kept up with the tire pressure, rotations and balancing them. Granted, the 70k was almost all highway miles but there were a few track runs, burnouts and hard launches mixed in. They were great tires that handled every condition very well.

I liked them so much that I replaced them with their cousin tire, the RE960AS. So far so good with these though I hardly put on any miles since I have a Civic to drive daily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top