M. Defender vs Cont. TrueContact Tour?

[lukejo]

Decision time.
Going to be purchasing TWO new sets of tires.

One for an Accord coupe, one for a Camry. We really put on the miles and have used Defenders (and their predecessors) for many years and have always been satisfied.

However, reading TireRacks's review/charts for these two, gives the edge to the Conti in almost every category.

But then I read user's reviews and they are all over the map.

One thing I've liked about the Defenders is that they keep most of their grip/handling until the end. Are the TrueContacts known to do the same? (They are both "warrantied" for 80k, but I know some tires really stop performing as you get into the second half of their life.

I'd like to hear if anyone has ran both of these tires and how you think they compare.
(Please leave price out of the equation...I know Conti's are cheaper, but when calculating per mile cost, it's insignificant enough that my primary concern is performance over the life of the tire.)
Thanks!

 

[Boomer]

I have had several sets of the Contis in the past years and always found them to be quiet, giving good wet and dry traction with excellent wear. I can't speak to the Defenders.

 

[Gebo]

From reviewing my past decisions over the last 30 years, I should have stayed with what I knew to be good. I estimate I would have been right over 90% of the time.

When I say "right" I am saying I would not have regretted the change. I have always, every time, 100% come back to Michelin tires.

 

[Nick1994]

10,500 miles on my Continental True Contacts on my Sonata since May, very happy with them. They're pretty quiet and smooth, the only thing they need a little improvement on is handling, but on a daily driver sedan, it really doesn't matter.

I'd put Defenders on the Accord and Conti's on the Camry and compare the two as you go.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted by Gebo
From reviewing my past decisions over the last 30 years, I should have stayed with what I knew to be good. I estimate I would have been right over 90% of the time.

When I say "right" I am saying I would not have regretted the change. I have always, every time, 100% come back to Michelin tires.



Likewise. We buy tons of Defenders in both LT and Load range E, they are really good tires even on 9000 pound service vans. I also bought Pilot Sport 4S's for my sig car, they are truly at the top of the heap IMO...

 

[Treadstone]

Have nothing but praise for the TrueContact Tours on my SantaFe. Dray, wet, snow......they are rock solid. They are quiet, and ride nice as well.

 

[paoester]

Might as well go for the better traction tire, the Continentals. Like just about all the Goodyears available for cars & SUVs too, sadly, the Mich Defender fails on wet traction. Tire Rack tests are the closest thing we have to real engineering tests to ferret out the weak spots in performance.

 

[NO2]

Both are very good tires. The True Contact Tour is better in the snow, but worse in the rain, and a bit cheaper. There is a Conti rebate going on now too. Otherwise they are essentially equivalent tires. The Conti life is about 5K miles longer. So I would just buy by price, or if snow traction is especially important. get the Conti's. Wait until the black friday sale for the best prices.

 

[paoester]

Originally Posted by NO2
Both are very good tires. The True Contact Tour is better in the snow, but worse in the rain, and a bit cheaper. .
Source of your information? Hopefully it's not Mable next door who hit a mailbox last week and blames it on the Conti's wet grip.

This is the kind of baseless statements we need to ignore when making intelligent decisions on products. Simply go with the best known infomation and ignore the anecdotal nonsense.

 

[NewEnglander]

Contis.

 

[krzyss]

Originally Posted by paoester
Originally Posted by NO2
Both are very good tires. The True Contact Tour is better in the snow, but worse in the rain, and a bit cheaper. .
Source of your information? Hopefully it's not Mable next door who hit a mailbox last week and blames it on the Conti's wet grip.

This is the kind of baseless statements we need to ignore when making intelligent decisions on products. Simply go with the best known infomation and ignore the anecdotal nonsense.


If you consider CR a source then its December issue clearly shows that Continental TrueContact Tour lacks in wet braking in All Season class (T&H speed rated tires).
Even more funny: CR rated General Altimax RT3 (T rated) higher than T rated TrueContact Tour. Strange but true.

Krzys

PS if you need all weather tire than maybe check Michelin CrossClimate +.

 

[lukejo]

I'll pick up that Consumer Reports issue this weekend....to go along with TireRack.

My local tire store can't get the TrueContact in speed H, just T for the Accord coupe. Not sure that really matters, as it won't be going over normal interstate driving speeds. Thoughts?

I could order H on TIreRack, but would rather not mess with that. Still a toss up right now between those and the Defenders. I'll enjoy reading the CR results.

 

[HowAboutThis]

Originally Posted by krzyss
Originally Posted by paoester
Originally Posted by NO2
Both are very good tires. The True Contact Tour is better in the snow, but worse in the rain, and a bit cheaper. .
Source of your information? Hopefully it's not Mable next door who hit a mailbox last week and blames it on the Conti's wet grip.

This is the kind of baseless statements we need to ignore when making intelligent decisions on products. Simply go with the best known infomation and ignore the anecdotal nonsense.


If you consider CR a source then its December issue clearly shows that Continental TrueContact Tour lacks in wet braking in All Season class (T&H speed rated tires).
Even more funny: CR rated General Altimax RT3 (T rated) higher than T rated TrueContact Tour. Strange but true.

Krzys

PS if you need all weather tire than maybe check Michelin CrossClimate +.



Yes, was going to say CR shows them pretty close with the Defender getting a slight edge, IIRC. My next set on the wife's Subaru will be all-weather, possibly the Michelin Cross Climate, in the next year or so. Better than changing every fall to winter tires for the mountain passes.

 

[HowAboutThis]

Originally Posted by lukejo
I'll pick up that Consumer Reports issue this weekend....to go along with TireRack.

My local tire store can't get the TrueContact in speed H, just T for the Accord coupe. Not sure that really matters, as it won't be going over normal interstate driving speeds. Thoughts?

I could order H on TIreRack, but would rather not mess with that. Still a toss up right now between those and the Defenders. I'll enjoy reading the CR results.


You might notice the lower speed tire gives "softer" handling. I went lower speed rating years ago on my Civic Si. It called for a really high speed rating, I went lower. But I definitely noticed they were softer. But they also had a higher mileage warranty. It was my commuter car so it made financial sense because I didn't need to waste money so I could take the 30mph cloverleaf at 60mph on my way to the grocery store.

 

[NO2]

CR, current issue.

 

[lukejo]

I have the CR.
How can TireRack and Consumer Reports have come to such different (opposite) conclusions?

BTW, I'm referring to TR's own, controlled tests (not user reviews).

TR puts the Conti TrueContact well-ahead of the Defender in WET...even discussing it in a short video.

CR puts the TrueContact BELOW the Defender, specifically in WET.

 

[krzyss]

CR wet test is braking only.
Then is hydroplaning.

TR has wet braking and wet handling.

Different cars and different tire sizes may give different results.

In CR testing it may also be a case of one tire being just above the threshold and the other just below.
They end up with different (next to each other classes/grades) but in real life difference may be minimal.

KrzyÅ›

 

[Propflux01]

IMHO, CR is no where the unbiased magazine it used to me on older times. I take what they say with a grain of salt.