Top Tire Brands - CR's Opinion

[3for3]

I see the article states that some newer models are currently being tested. Any idea when CR will be finished testing the new models and publish their results?

I'm interested in seeing how the new models (P7 Plus, Premier A/S, CS5, etc.) stack-up, ranking wise, against their predecessors tested last year.

 

[Oregoonian]

IMO....I don't believe Consumers Reports actually test ALL the different tires out there....only the more popular brands.

I tend to believe TireRacks opinions as well as the review by customers.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: Jimzz
My point is do not buy based on the brand, buy based on the tire itself.

Agreed!
Originally Posted By: Miller88
There are many BITOGers who recommend Michelin, blindly.

I value actual experience highly, even if it doesn't agree with my preferences. What I don't value is constant complaining about other BITOGers, especially when the frequency of those complaints seem to outnumber the supposed error, and nothing of value is added to the discussion.


Miller88 is right though, many people think Michelin is the greatest thing out there and will recommend it to anybody for anything. Sometimes they're awesome, sometimes not so much. I haven't had any luck with 3 sets of them.



I agree. Any tire thread on here that comes up the Michelin brands is always recommended. They are one of the most expensive and some have mixed results with them.

 

[krzyss]

CR publishes tire test results in their November issue.
They usually post results on the web for subscribers in late September.

The ranking is more about most consistent results in top spots than being the only one to buy.

Krzyś

 

[rainman49]

I'm glad some of you guys have had good luck with Kumhos. Personally, I have had two out-of-round Kumhos and my tire dealer shipped all his Kumhos back and said he'd never sell another one.

 

[HTSS_TR]

The Kumho 4X on my S2000 and E430 performs much better than Continental DWS on both wet and dry roads.

 

[CapriRacer]

Here's the problem as I see it:

Tires are a compromise. There is a 3 way triangle technology between traction, wear, and fuel economy. If you compare tires, you have to be aware of what you are trying to compare. Tires with great wear characteristics, don't have great traction, and great fuel economy - and I'll let you fill in the rest of that.

Handling and ride are opposing characteristics.

So taking HTSS_TR above, he is comparing a 420 AA A tire to a 520 A A tire - and saying there is a difference in wet and dry traction. Of course, there is. The traction and the wear ratings say that.

I'll bet CR is doing the same thing.

I find it interesting that they did NOT rate Bridgestone. Is it because they could not decide where to rank them? Or is it because they are based in New England, where [censored] is not as well marketed as in the western US?

Then they lumped 4 others together. They included Nokian, which is pretty much a niche player, but popular in NE because of its winter tires. They completely ignored the sub brands - Firestone, Dunlop, Goodrich, General, etc. - some of which have larger sales volumes than Nokian.

Personally, I think I detect a New England bias. European makers do well. Asian, not so much.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
They completely ignored the sub brands - Firestone, Dunlop, Goodrich, General, etc. - some of which have larger sales volumes than Nokian.


A quick parking lot survey shows General Altimax Arctics are by and away the most popular winter tire in Southern Maine.

Nokians are run by hipsters on their old RWD Volvos. Invariably equipped with Thule roof racks.

 

[krzyss]

CR tests included Bridgestone but none of their tires made it in top 5 for each category or recommended except Blizzak WS70 in winter tire category and that is oldest test, if my memory serves me well.

Michelin usually have at least one entry in top 5 or recomended. That does not mean that all their products are great.
Similar for Continental, Goodyear, Pirelli - progresively getting less and less recomended models in categories.
The 5th position has Hankook, Cooper, Nokian, Yokohama as they have 3-4 tires recomended in few classes.
Bridgestone seems to qualify for 6 and is not listed.

Krzys

PS Nokian makes decent winter and summer tires but they are usually expensive, especially winter tires. But their summers are getting good results from CR, ADAC and some German magazines and they are not priced that high. Look for Nokian zLine.
I have them in 205/50R17 on Volvo S40 and they are decent summer tires for less than competition (Bridgestone Potenza S-04, Continental Extreme Contact DW) or unavailable in OE size.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The Kumho 4X on my S2000 and E430 performs much better than Continental DWS on both wet and dry roads.


Really? I absolutely loved my DWSs. But, I also needed the snow traction(for the handful of snowfalls we get per year).

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Here's the problem as I see it:

Tires are a compromise. There is a 3 way triangle technology between traction, wear, and fuel economy. If you compare tires, you have to be aware of what you are trying to compare. Tires with great wear characteristics, don't have great traction, and great fuel economy - and I'll let you fill in the rest of that.



^^ This.. This. Then within each of those is what traction you're looking for. Rain? Snow? Nothing below 50*F?

Too many people think "my tires only lasted 30k miles" and because of it are a bad tire brand. No, You just chose the wrong tire from them. Each manufacturer makes at least one tire for your given needs. Too many people just don't care to even look into it. Which, blows my mind because how expensive tires are, even the cheap ones. Even 400 bucks on a set of cheap tires is still 400 bucks. People do more research/shopping for clothes that cost $50 or less than tires.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: ccap41
Too many people think "my tires only lasted 30k miles" and because of it are a bad tire brand. No, You just chose the wrong tire from them.

That happens. Also what happens is someone with an aligned but bad tiring wearing vehicle (extreme thrust angle, toe-in/out, etc.) wears out tires quickly and then blames the brand. There's a couple of those here on BITOG.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ccap41
Too many people think "my tires only lasted 30k miles" and because of it are a bad tire brand. No, You just chose the wrong tire from them.

That happens. Also what happens is someone with an aligned but bad tiring wearing vehicle (extreme thrust angle, toe-in/out, etc.) wears out tires quickly and then blames the brand. There's a couple of those here on BITOG.


Yup, most certainly. The shop I worked at I always got people blaming the tires when you can clearly see there was an alignment issue, or the vehicle itselt like you said. I noticed G6s did this. They always always tried to get them warrantied and would throw huge fits when we wouldn't, when it's their fault.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So taking HTSS_TR above, he is comparing a 420 AA A tire to a 520 A A tire - and saying there is a difference in wet and dry traction. Of course, there is. The traction and the wear ratings say that.

My response was to rainman49, he thinks that Kumho as a brand is good. My personal experience was different with his.

Both Kumho 4X and Continental DWS are ultra high performance all season tire, so it is fair to compare these two tires in performance/handling category.
Originally Posted By: ccap41
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The Kumho 4X on my S2000 and E430 performs much better than Continental DWS on both wet and dry roads.

Really? I absolutely loved my DWSs. But, I also needed the snow traction(for the handful of snowfalls we get per year).

That is my experience with both tires on my S2000 and E430.

With DWS on my E430 I could not drive above 75 MPH with medium rain on I15 to/from Vegas, the car was unable to track straight and I had to constantly adjust steering to keep it on the road at around 70 MPH. With 4X I could go 80-85 MPH with heavier rain on the same I15. Both tires had the same PSI and load.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
So taking HTSS_TR above, he is comparing a 420 AA A tire to a 520 A A tire - and saying there is a difference in wet and dry traction. Of course, there is. The traction and the wear ratings say that.

My response was to rainman49, he thinks that Kumho as a brand is good. My personal experience was different with his.

Both Kumho 4X and Continental DWS are ultra high performance all season tire, so it is fair to compare these two tires in performance/handling category.
Originally Posted By: ccap41
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The Kumho 4X on my S2000 and E430 performs much better than Continental DWS on both wet and dry roads.

Really? I absolutely loved my DWSs. But, I also needed the snow traction(for the handful of snowfalls we get per year).

That is my experience with both tires on my S2000 and E430.

With DWS on my E430 I could not drive above 75 MPH with medium rain on I15 to/from Vegas, the car was unable to track straight and I had to constantly adjust steering to keep it on the road at around 70 MPH. With 4X I could go 80-85 MPH with heavier rain on the same I15. Both tires had the same PSI and load.


Oh wow. Yeah, that would definitely sway my decision some. Was this even when they were new? I never had issues like this but I'm a pretty conservative driver to begin with.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: ccap41
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

My response was to rainman49, he thinks that Kumho as a brand is goodis not good. My personal experience was different with his.

Oh wow. Yeah, that would definitely sway my decision some. Was this even when they were new? I never had issues like this but I'm a pretty conservative driver to begin with.

My Error. It should be Kumho as a brand is not good.

Yes, both tires was fairly new with less than 4-6k miles at that time. After that experience I wouldn't have DWS on my cars even if it is free.