Michelin Primacy MXV4 H Rated vs. V Rated

[VK56VD]

I have a '99 Nissan Maxima SE with tire size 215/55-16 that I'd like to get four new tires before winter hits.

After doing much research and after selling my dedicated winter wheel/tire set from this vehicle, I need to buy a good all around tire that will do okay in the snow, wet, provide a long service life and offer a quite ride on the highway.

My research came down to Yokohama Avid V4S and Michelin Primacy MXV4 (available in both H and V rated). After doing further research and Michelin having a $70 rebate out there, I've concluded that the Michelin tires will do better in the winter than the Yokohama even though they are a bit more expensive.

I'm now comparing the Primacy MXV4 H rated against the V rated and see no difference in the specs. They even both offer a 60k mile tread life warranty.

So, what's the difference between the H rated and the V rated other than the top speed capability and price? Both have the same exact specs according to TireRack and same tread pattern. Does the V rated provide a more reinforced sidewall that will flex less in turns but maybe provide a harsher ride?

 

[tenderloin]

I would bet the V rated tires would ride a bit harder. The sidewalls should be stiffer on the V rated tire.

 

[SteveSRT8]

can't see why you need a v rated tire?

 

[HTSS_TR]

If you look at tire specs, all data are the same but weight, V rated is 1 lb heavier than H rated. For $20 less per tire, I would choose H rated tires.

 

[ryan2022]

I had the H rated version in the 205-55-16 size.

I didn't put many miles on them before selling the car, but was quite happy with the tires.

They're fairly expensive, but are great all around tires. They were excellent in the rain, and seemed fine in the small amount of snow I ran in them. They were also VERY quiet.

I had the chance to test these and the Michelin hydroedge back to back. IMO, the two tires dont compare. The Primacy's were actually better in the rain, and better reviews for wear, and were far more stable providing better dry handling.

To answer the original question, the H rated tires were great for me. The V rated rubber, will add some sidewall stiffness, but shouldn't change performance drastically.

I would go with the H rated, as its also cheaper.....UNLESS, you routinely go over 215 KPH.

 

[rszappa1]

On my 2007 Honda Accord they came with v rated tires. I installed the Primacy h rated on them and drove the saem curvy road at the same speed and there was no difference at all except it was a smoother ride....I would not go more that one letter difference on a speed rating...I like the ride much better now then before with no change in the cornering....

 

[qship1996]

The V rated tire will be constructed to a higher standard than the H rated,a better,stronger tire all around.

 

[rszappa1]

H rated by Michelin is still a high standard....Unless you drive at 130 mph plus for sustained driving no need for a v rated tire....

 

[VK56VD]

My logic behind getting a V over the H rated was due to sidewall stiffness. In cornering, I thought the effect would be noticeable with less lean through turns.

 

[rszappa1]

You are right but I actally like the slightly smoother ride with the same handling for the way that I drive.... Could not figure out why Honda would put a v rated tire on a Honda Accord sedan with a 4 anyway.....

 

[stang5]

alot of shops will not install tires with lower speed rating than what came with the car for liability reasons...

 

[VK56VD]

Originally Posted By: stang5
alot of shops will not install tires with lower speed rating than what came with the car for liability reasons...


I was actually going to go one speed rating up (from H to V).

 

[Quattro Pete]

Quote:
My logic behind getting a V over the H rated was due to sidewall stiffness. In cornering, I thought the effect would be noticeable with less lean through turns.



Theoretically, yes, but keep in mind that since your tire sidewall is still relatively high (215/55), the difference in stiffness between H and V may not be very noticeable.

I remember having V-rated Michelins on my Accord (not Primacy though buy Energy MXV4+) in size 205/65/15. Despite the V-rating, they were extremely soft/mushy with very poor steering response - partly why I hated them so much.

 

[Craig in Canada]

Originally Posted By: rszappa1
H rated by Michelin is still a high standard....Unless you drive at 130 mph plus for sustained driving no need for a v rated tire....


I don't drive over 300kph and I can tell the difference between an H rated, V rated and W/Z rated tire.... I also didn't have to drive over 160kph to feel unsafe on a Q rated tire. In fact, over 100-110kph on that Q-rated tire and it was downright squirrely - the steering input was more of a suggestion. (These were my first Michelin Alpin snows on my BMW)

Using the max sustained speed is not in itself the only reason to choose a speed rating. It would be foolish to conclude that's the only time it matters.

If the OP is not a "sporting" driver, or not exceptionally observant and picky about dynamics, I would go ahead and save the pound and $20 and get the H-rated. Particularly since these are all-seasons which he intends to use in snow. The V-rated compound will likely be somewhat harder and not stick to snow and ice as well. Similar sentiments were passed on to my by a tire dealer with respect to H and V-rated performance snow tires.

 

[rszappa1]

As I said on my 2007 Honda Accord there is no difference in the handling from the v to an h in the way that I drive and the ride is a little smoother....

 

[Hokiefyd]

To the original poster, your choice of the Michelin over the Yokohama is a good one. The Yokohama Avid H4/V4 tires have never been praised for their winter traction. In fact, winter traction with those tires is usually rated as poor or below average. Those Primacys should do well for you.

(And I agree with the others that the H-rated ones are the ones I'd get.)

 

[VK56VD]

So I took the plunge and bought the Michelin Primacy MXV4 in the V rated size.

The V rated came out to $60 more than the H rated for all four but knowing that the sidewall is a bit more reinforced makes me feel a bit better. Other than the 1 lb. difference due to the reinforced sidewall, both are identical and provide a 60k manufacturers warranty.

I bought these from DicountTireDirect and cannot say enough good things about them. I spoke with Bill who was able to beat the competition price out of the water. He quoted me $500 shipped for the H rated and $560 for the V rated. I will also fill out the rebate form for $70 and get an additional $70 back from Michelin. He was also kind enough to throw in valve stems for free.

At the end of the day, I'm getting these V rated tires for $490 with valve stems, shipped to my door. I'd say it's not bad for a Michelin V rated tire with a 60k mile warranty in tire size 215/55-16.

Thumbs up for DiscountTireDirect!

Now all I need is wheel locks for prying eyes and I'll be set.

 

[youdontwannaknow]

isn't there something about traction too ? especially wet and ice traction with higher rated tires ? if I was told correctly - a higher rated tire will have less wet and ice traction than its lower rated version. Its a side effect of altering the composition of the rubber to make the sidewall stiffer. you get handling you loose traction - atleast thats how I understand it. Someone please correct if this is wrong...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
isn't there something about traction too ? especially wet and ice traction with higher rated tires ? if I was told correctly - a higher rated tire will have less wet and ice traction than its lower rated version.

There may be something to it when it comes to traction in very low temps - sporty rubber hardens more as the temperatures drop. My W-rated Bridgestone all-seasons suck in the white stuff.

But it's definitely not true with regards to wet traction when the temps are well above freezing. In fact, most of the high speed rated tires I've owned (both summer and all-season) were excellent in the wet. The only notable exception was the V-rated OEM Michelin Energy MXV4+ - that tire sucked under pretty much all atmospheric conditions.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Spartuss
...
I bought these from DicountTireDirect.com and cannot say enough good things about them.
...


I bought 2 rear tires Hankook in size 255/40-17 for '04 Honda S2000. DicountTireDirect lists $228 for with free shipping, I found the same tire from onlinetires.com for $198.12 including shipping of $16.04 and tax of $16.18.

This onlinetires.com has a warehouse about 45 miles from my home and they will drop the $16.04 shipping for local pickup. Driving 90 miles round trip to save $16 is not very wise.

Since DicountTireDirect posts Found it Lower? Let us Know! on the page of each tire, I decided to let them know. Within 4-5 hours, they called and agreed to sell 2 tires for $185, which is only $3 more than local pickup at onlinetires.com or $13 less than the best price I could get online.

Thump up for DicountTireDirect !!!