Originally Posted By: 97tbird
But what I am wondering is, are they $300 better than the Gmax? I didn't want to get the top or the bottom tire in the pack, but go with something mid-range or upper middle range; although the Gmax has a bottom range price, I have read on several car forums that they perform like a much higher priced tire - i guess that's why I was drwan to them. From the TR tests that I posted, (NOT the consumer survey, but the TESTS with the bar graphs) looks like they beat some of the other tires that were priced higher than them.
Any thoughts on THAT angle?
Are the Michelins worth $300 more than the Generals? My answer is probably, though I couldn't say for sure. I'm sure the Generals' performance when new is very good. How that changes with age is anyone's guess. It's probably reasonable to assume that a less expensive tire won't hold its performance as well over time as a more expensive tire will. Also, your inability to properly rotate those Generals because they're directional may also eat into that $300 savings in the form of tires you have to replace sooner than you'd like due to roughness or noise.
I avoid directional tires at pretty much all costs. In this case, it would cost me at least $120 to avoid it (for the Kumhos). So the price for the Kumhos would be my baseline. I'd then ask myself if the Michelins are worth $180 more than the Kumhos, and I have to believe the answer is "yes".
And the last thing I'll say before I shut up...yes, Mazda did 6 owners no favors here fitting W-rated 19" wheels from the factory. Tire replacement costs factor into TCO. At best, you don't have very many good tires from which to choose in this size. At worst, they're more expensive than tires for a family sedan really should be. This, coming from the guy who thinks the small-by-comparison 17" wheels on his CR-V are too large...
But what I am wondering is, are they $300 better than the Gmax? I didn't want to get the top or the bottom tire in the pack, but go with something mid-range or upper middle range; although the Gmax has a bottom range price, I have read on several car forums that they perform like a much higher priced tire - i guess that's why I was drwan to them. From the TR tests that I posted, (NOT the consumer survey, but the TESTS with the bar graphs) looks like they beat some of the other tires that were priced higher than them.
Any thoughts on THAT angle?
Are the Michelins worth $300 more than the Generals? My answer is probably, though I couldn't say for sure. I'm sure the Generals' performance when new is very good. How that changes with age is anyone's guess. It's probably reasonable to assume that a less expensive tire won't hold its performance as well over time as a more expensive tire will. Also, your inability to properly rotate those Generals because they're directional may also eat into that $300 savings in the form of tires you have to replace sooner than you'd like due to roughness or noise.
I avoid directional tires at pretty much all costs. In this case, it would cost me at least $120 to avoid it (for the Kumhos). So the price for the Kumhos would be my baseline. I'd then ask myself if the Michelins are worth $180 more than the Kumhos, and I have to believe the answer is "yes".
And the last thing I'll say before I shut up...yes, Mazda did 6 owners no favors here fitting W-rated 19" wheels from the factory. Tire replacement costs factor into TCO. At best, you don't have very many good tires from which to choose in this size. At worst, they're more expensive than tires for a family sedan really should be. This, coming from the guy who thinks the small-by-comparison 17" wheels on his CR-V are too large...
