Tire decisions for 17" wheels

[Stu_Rock]

This is important:
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: pwrusr
What's amazing to me is the contis are W or Z rated if I recall correctly. You'd think they'd have a even better resistence to flat spotting and such.
IIRC, it's the nylon cords in high-speed rated tires that are often responsible for the flat-spotting effect. If you park them while they're hot and pliable, they take a set as they cool and need to be warmed up again to regain their flexibility and go back to being round.
If this car is used primarily on short, low-speed commutes, don't go higher than H-rated, or else you'll be living with a lot of flatspotting. I learned this the hard way.

If most trips include a few miles at high speed, go for the V-/W-/Z-rated tires if you want.

 

[sciphi]

We have Conti DWS's on the Fit for 3-season tires this past summer. I've never noticed any flat-spotting. Proves that YMMV.

Michelin Primacy MXM4's are on my short list of tires for replacements on the Cruze when the OEM Goodyears bite it. IIRC, the Primacy MXM4's are slightly "sportier" than the MXV4's.

 

[cpayne5]

I've got the Kumho 4Xs on my TSX (215 50 17, also). They have been a great value, so far. I put them on the car around the middle of September and have put about 10k on them since. Good ride when cruising (been to FL and back) and great handling in the wet and dry when pushed. The only thing left to put them through is snow. I'd buy them again.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Cpayne5, can you measure the remaining tread depth to estimate how long it will last ? If full tread is 10/32" and after 10k miles the tread is 8/32" then the tire life should be 40k miles, because you need to replace it when the tread is down to 2/32".

TIA

 

[cp3]

How about a Hankook? I'd add the Ventus V2 & V4 to that list. Can't speak to the winter abilities of the V2 but the V4 was decent for an all season. Still no match for two dedicated sets.

 

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Cpayne5, can you measure the remaining tread depth to estimate how long it will last ? If full tread is 10/32" and after 10k miles the tread is 8/32" then the tire life should be 40k miles, because you need to replace it when the tread is down to 2/32".

TIA


Sure, if I remember.

As luck would have it, it snowed today. Not much, but a few white roads on my way home. Wet, slushy snow. The tires were fine. They didn't seem any better or worse than any other tires I've had on this car (the OEM Michelins and some Eagle GTs). Still happy with them.

 

[pwrusr]

Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Have you looked at the Yokohama YK580? It's a Discount Tire Direct exclusive and carries a 60k mile warranty.

No I haven't. Those look pretty good, however they don't seem to have the performance kinda edge I'm looking for. It also hurts that they aren't widely available. So reviews are spread very thin, and I really hate to buy things like tires blind.

Originally Posted By: Stu_Rock
This is important:
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: pwrusr
What's amazing to me is the contis are W or Z rated if I recall correctly. You'd think they'd have a even better resistence to flat spotting and such.
IIRC, it's the nylon cords in high-speed rated tires that are often responsible for the flat-spotting effect. If you park them while they're hot and pliable, they take a set as they cool and need to be warmed up again to regain their flexibility and go back to being round.
If this car is used primarily on short, low-speed commutes, don't go higher than H-rated, or else you'll be living with a lot of flatspotting. I learned this the hard way.

If most trips include a few miles at high speed, go for the V-/W-/Z-rated tires if you want.

Good to know. I'm currently travelling on I-95 ~20miles each way going anywhere between 65-80mph depending on traffic. So I think that V or better rated tires will indeed be best. Thanks for the conformation

Originally Posted By: sciphi
We have Conti DWS's on the Fit for 3-season tires this past summer. I've never noticed any flat-spotting. Proves that YMMV.

Michelin Primacy MXM4's are on my short list of tires for replacements on the Cruze when the OEM Goodyears bite it. IIRC, the Primacy MXM4's are slightly "sportier" than the MXV4's.

Indeed, YMMV is what I seem to be getting from what I've read so far on the DWS. Though alot of heavier cars like the accord seem to be more prone o flat-spotting with these tires. BTW how's the mileage (MPG) compared to the OE tires?
I kinda thought that from the tread and info I've gathered about them that the MXM4's were a bit sportier.

 

[pwrusr]

Originally Posted By: cpayne5
I've got the Kumho 4Xs on my TSX (215 50 17, also). They have been a great value, so far. I put them on the car around the middle of September and have put about 10k on them since. Good ride when cruising (been to FL and back) and great handling in the wet and dry when pushed. The only thing left to put them through is snow. I'd buy them again.

Great to see another good review on these tires!
How's the 4x been as far as MPG goes compared to OE tires?

Originally Posted By: cp3
How about a Hankook? I'd add the Ventus V2 & V4 to that list. Can't speak to the winter abilities of the V2 but the V4 was decent for an all season. Still no match for two dedicated sets.

Seems only the V12 an V4's are available for my car's tire size.
That said, after going over the review on tire rack I don't think they will be a good fit for my wants/needs.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/videoDisplay.jsp?ttid=151

While they were the most comfy tires of the test they lagged behind the others in the test in categories that matter most to me. FWIW, all the tires in the test were pretty much tied in MPG.

Originally Posted By: cpayne5
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Cpayne5, can you measure the remaining tread depth to estimate how long it will last ? If full tread is 10/32" and after 10k miles the tread is 8/32" then the tire life should be 40k miles, because you need to replace it when the tread is down to 2/32".

TIA


Sure, if I remember.

As luck would have it, it snowed today. Not much, but a few white roads on my way home. Wet, slushy snow. The tires were fine. They didn't seem any better or worse than any other tires I've had on this car (the OEM Michelins and some Eagle GTs). Still happy with them.

Good, that seems to be exactly what kind of snow they were made to track though. Just don't try a blizzard in them
I'm glad to hear they are doing well for you

 

[cp3]

Well, after a quick cruise through the test and another one that had the Kumho ASX which I have on my car (the Hankooks are on the wife's G6) I guess I agree with what they are saying. I would have expected the V4 to fair a little better in wet tests as I am more than happy with the wet performance. Far and away better than the Conti Touring Contacts that came on it and the ASXs.

Just remember, your already in a "Ultra High Performance" catagory, if your driving style is pretty average and occasionaly spirited as you commented, the top echelon of this catagory may be a bit hard core. The worst tire in this catagory is still probably much more tire than most people need. I would tend to say the same about my driving style and have been more than happy with the V4, enough to say that is very likely what is going on the G5 this year. I was concidering the V12 but I don't think the improvent in the at the limit performance is worth the loss in treadwear and likely comfort everyday for the occasional romp through the twisties, I don't push that close to the limits.

 

[asiancivicmaniac]

I think for the most part, performance and gas mileage are mutually exclusive. A higher performance tire means there will be more grip and therefore more friction (rolling resistance). I think you have to prioritize which one you're after to pick the tire you want.

And as the above poster said, it's unlikely your car will reach the threshold of the high performance tires out there.

 

[pwrusr]

Originally Posted By: cp3
Well, after a quick cruise through the test and another one that had the Kumho ASX which I have on my car (the Hankooks are on the wife's G6) I guess I agree with what they are saying. I would have expected the V4 to fair a little better in wet tests as I am more than happy with the wet performance. Far and away better than the Conti Touring Contacts that came on it and the ASXs.

Just remember, your already in a "Ultra High Performance" catagory, if your driving style is pretty average and occasionaly spirited as you commented, the top echelon of this catagory may be a bit hard core. The worst tire in this catagory is still probably much more tire than most people need. I would tend to say the same about my driving style and have been more than happy with the V4, enough to say that is very likely what is going on the G5 this year. I was concidering the V12 but I don't think the improvent in the at the limit performance is worth the loss in treadwear and likely comfort everyday for the occasional romp through the twisties, I don't push that close to the limits.

Great points you have there cp3

When you put it like that it's like I'm trying to compare different brands of vanilla ice cream. Yes, some will be better then others, but for the most part they are very similar tasting.


Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
I think for the most part, performance and gas mileage are mutually exclusive. A higher performance tire means there will be more grip and therefore more friction (rolling resistance). I think you have to prioritize which one you're after to pick the tire you want.

And as the above poster said, it's unlikely your car will reach the threshold of the high performance tires out there.

I very rarely tap the upper threshold of my current tires (yokohama H4S) however when I do it's nice to know it's as high as it is. Since they aren't made anymore (replaced by the envigers) I want to try something new. If it's possible to find a good balance between mileage and performance that's basically what I'm going for.

 

[cp3]

So maybe Tire Rack is the Baskin Robbins of tires?

Just my thoughts and experience, hope it helps.

I guess another thing to concider is the H4S looks like it was classed as "High Performance" tire by Tire Rack. So you are already a step up as well as on a larger rim which will also have an effect on handling and feel. Also ride comfort will likely take a big hit, huge difference in the 17" summers and 16" winters on my cars. It may not be a major priority now but a dramatic change may make it one.

 

[pwrusr]

Well I suppose when you put it like that LOL!

Great points cp3, you guys are certainly helping me narrow my choices down

Again while I do care about comfort, I'd sacrifice some for better handling and gas mileage.

 

[pwrusr]

Finally made the decision to go with a set of tires...
I got the Michelin Primacy MXV4 215/50 17 V.

Got a bit of highway and back roads driving in. They are a little nosier then the Yokohama H4S that I had on the 16's. But that was to be expected because these mxv4's are a one two punch of V rated and plus sized tires. They have a 55k mile warranty according to the paperwork that came with them. We'll see how well they'll last with time.

Playing the ultimate balancing act of MPG, treadlife, road feel, wet, dry & light snow seems these tires forte.

I'll try to update in a few weeks with a MPG update...

 

[pwrusr]

Small update guys...
Missed the fine print on the tires. I actually got MXM4's, NOT the MXV4 like I thought I did. *oops*

Anyway, I got 32mpg on the last tank. that included a couple "OH NO! I'm really late for work" runs.
If I made a valiant effort I think I could hit 33-35mpg. 36-38mpg is doable on a long highway trip I'm sure.