 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / November 2006tire recommendations
I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been outstanding, but the handling leaves something to be desired. For example, I've found myself slowing to 60 mph in strong, gusting crosswinds while other drivers, even in smaller cars, keep going 65-70. Fuel economy (rolling resistance, I guess) is the most important tire quality to me, but I'd be willing to sacrifice a little in that category for somewhat better handling. What's my best choice currently? Ron Personally, I think you are making a mistake considering rolling resistance your most important quality. Handling and stopping should be number one. Heat resistance probably next. You might want to check Consumer Reports at your local library for some ratings in the last year or 2. Michelin MXV4 plus are good but expensive. Also http://www.tirerack.com/tires/reviews/MenuServlet?search=surveyComments > I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord > V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ron I'll also have to say wet traction is important as well. Depending on where you live, look at the snow rating. As Art mentioned, Tirerack is an excelletn website. Go to their main page: http://www.tirerack.com/index.jsp and start by searching for all tires for your car. Then look at the charts to compare the surveys and reviews to decide which you like. The Michelin MXV4 are expensive but there are better and cheaper ones out there - at least for my '05 Accord. Mine came with the MXV4 as OEM and I am not impressed with them at all! I will definately but a different set. Michelins are expensive to begin with - but their Pilots are cheaper and better than the MXV4. I've also had good luck with Bridgestone Potenzas in the past. -Dave > Personally, I think you are making a mistake considering rolling > resistance your most important quality. Handling and stopping should be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Ron > I'll also have to say wet traction is important as well. Depending on where > you live, look at the snow rating. Nokian WR. The best tire made. > I'll also have to say wet traction is important as well. Depending on where > you live, look at the snow rating. As Art mentioned, Tirerack is an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are cheaper and better than the MXV4. I've also had good luck with > Bridgestone Potenzas in the past. I have MXV4s on my '03 Passat, and I'm not thrilled with them either. Not the best handling, and not great in snow/wet. I've been thinking about Pilots to replace them as well, or perhaps Pirelli P Zero Nero M+S. I too have had Potenzas in the past (on an '87 Stanza) and liked them very much. -- Mike Smith >> I'll also have to say wet traction is important as well. Depending on >> where you live, look at the snow rating. As Art mentioned, Tirerack is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Mike Smith The Tirerack survey is dismal when you compare it to the high cost. The Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S is rated the highest. Bridgestone Potenza RE92 is bad also. However, I had the Potenza RE950 on my old Prelude and they were great 3 season but snow traction had much to be desired. -Dave > The Tirerack survey is dismal when you compare it to the high cost. The > Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S is rated the highest. Bridgestone Potenza RE92 is > bad also. However, I had the Potenza RE950 on my old Prelude and they were > great 3 season but snow traction had much to be desired. Haven't owned a Honda-built vehicle since my '95 Integra GS-R was stolen then stripped, but..... I've only heard of rare praise for the RE92 in any size. Even the Firestone shop manager agreed with me that they're not really a high-performance tire. I recently purchased a set of Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S for my folks family sedan (won't say what it is, but the tires are 205/65-R15). I thought it was rather squishy, but it was probably the car. They haven't worn in yet, so their characteristics may change. Bridgestone's newest performance all-season is the RE960AS Pole Position. I just got a set in 205/55-16 for a certain AWD vehicle. They're a bit on the heavy side in all sizes, but they're smooth- riding, relatively quiet, and seem to handle well (so far). Reviews of this model seem to state that it's fine in the rain although it came out after last winter, so no reports on how it does in the snow. It does seem to be more aggressively siped than the RE950 - especially on the shoulder blocks. I think they built it for better traction in light snow. <http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+R E960AS+Pole+Position> For the people posting and reading responses, I think it has to be noted that often we're often talking about different sized tires (sometimes with different speed ratings) even if it's the same model. That seems to be lost a bit when people talk about the tires they've tried. There might even be slightly different tread or belt materials/design with different sizes. Tires definitely behave differently with different sizes, so the reviewer on Tirerack who just raved about how reponsive those low-profile 45-series tires were may not jibe with the person who complains about the 65-series tire with the same model name. I'm pretty sure that the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S that I found squishy on my parents' car is going to feel like I'm riding on rails in 235/45HR17 with a stiff suspension. I believe the stock size for the original poster's 2003 Accord is 205/60R16, where the options don't seem to include the higher performance all-seasons like the Pilot Exalto A/S or the RE960AS. I perused the Tirerack's offerings, and excluding the "touring tires" (the kind that the original poster found a bit squirmy in the wind) here are a few that look promising: Bridgestone Potenza G 009 Yokohama AVID H4S Pirelli P6 Four Seasons Fuzion (Bridgestone) HRi Dunlop SP Sport A2 Plus Sumitomo HTR+ I have a year to go yet, but unless something new shows up in the market, I've already decided, based on Consumer Reports and Tirerack comments/survey results: Yokohama Avid in the V-rating. Yoko has finally decided to make tires with decent wear/longevity characteristics. I've always liked them but they've generally only lasted 20,000-22,000 miles. This tire has good handling, noise, ride, stopping, snow/ice, wet performance. Clearly a winner, as is the "H" rated version. Yoko Avid TRZ is also available in Accord size, would be great for grandma so long as she doesn't exceed the "T" speed rating. Soft ride, not as much handling available, but overall very good performance. Bridgestone 009 would be a candidate in a pinch -- no where near the RE930's and RE950's performance, especially in the wet, but a decent tire. And 930/950's aren't available in Accord size. Unfortunately all these Bridgestones ride a bit rough, and start making lots (!) of noise as the tread wears down. Worse and worse, after the half-way point. Triple Tread -- well, this tire just seems to have inconsistent performance for many people. The Avid is almost universally admired, but the TT isn't. And, performance seems to go 'way down after the first 20,000 miles according to TireRack comments. Which is something Consumer Reports doesn't check for. (And they should: Shave those tires and retest, folks!) The new YK520 Yoyo at Discount Tire seems to be pretty good also. > The new YK520 Yoyo at Discount Tire seems to be pretty good also. I meant Yokohama, of course. This tire replaces the YK420, and is similarly a "designed just for Discount Tire" model. >> The new YK520 Yoyo at Discount Tire seems to be pretty good also. > > I meant Yokohama, of course. This tire replaces the YK420, and is > similarly a "designed just for Discount Tire" model. I was going to ask if Yokohama and Toyo merged into "Yoyo". :-) I will certainly keep the Avid H and V in mind when I look for good all-seasons for my Civic next spring. I have also considered the Falken Ziex 512 and a Kumho Ecsta tire (ASX, I think). All 3 appear to offer very good performance for a very good price. >Personally, I think you are making a mistake considering rolling resistance >your most important quality. Handling and stopping should be number one. >Heat resistance probably next. Rolling resistance and tread wear should properly be considered in determining how much a given model of tire actually costs, rather than part of the measure of quality (which would be based mainly on handling and braking in the conditions the tire will be used, and comfort aspects to a lesser extent). >You might want to check Consumer Reports at your local library for some >ratings in the last year or 2. Michelin MXV4 plus are good but expensive. >Also http://www.tirerack.com/tires/reviews/MenuServlet?search=surveyComments Tire Rack's survey results are useful. Consumer Reports' newest issue of November 2006 has a report on their tire tests that are likely to include tires of the type that the original poster is interested in. (Unfortunately, their rolling resistance and tread wear ratings do not have a key to determine what percentage difference there is between the different ratings, so it is still a guess as to whether the cheaper tire with higher rolling resistance really is still cheaper after the extra fuel use is taken into consideration.)  Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord >V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been >outstanding, but the handling leaves something to be desired. For >example, I've found myself slowing to 60 mph in strong, gusting >crosswinds while other drivers, even in smaller cars, keep going >65-70. The bottom of the line bridgestones on your accord were the cheapest crap honda (and/or the dealer) would get to keep you from driving on your rims. *anything* you buy will be a huge improvement. I wouldn't go for the "best" in any category as they'll be other tradeoffs that aren't worth it. Stay away from the cheapest junk possible and you'll do fine. > I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord > V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What's my best choice currently? I'd strongly recommend round ones. According to Consumer Reports (November 2005), Michelin "X" is top-rated for noise, rolling resistance, braking and cornering, but only fair in snow & ice, and tread life is average. They also are only available from shopping clubs (e.g., Sams Club or Costco). #1 overall is the Goodyear Assurance TripleTred, though its rolling resistance isn't quite as good. I bought a set of TripleTreads for my '04 Accord 4-banger. I hated the original Michelins - they had very little traction, I was glad to get rid of them. Honda should be ashamed for putting such trash on their cars. So far, the only downside I've noticed on the TT's (other than original cost) was that the handling wasn't quite as crisp as the original Michelins (it was the only thing I liked about the M's). The TT's have a slight delay when you make a turn. When I first got them it annoyed me, but either I've gotten used to the delay or it has gotten better; I don't notice it anymore. I haven't had a chance to try them on snow or ice yet. > According to Consumer Reports (November 2005), Michelin "X" is top-rated > for noise, rolling resistance, braking and cornering, but only fair in > snow & ice, and tread life is average. They also are only available from > shopping clubs (e.g., Sams Club or Costco). #1 overall is the Goodyear > Assurance TripleTred, though its rolling resistance isn't quite as good. ... > example, I've found myself slowing to 60 mph in strong, gusting > crosswinds while other drivers, even in smaller cars, keep going > 65-70. ... Both overinflation and underinflation can lead to cross wind sensitivity, but there are a lot of other factors. The size or weight of the car is not a particularly important factor. That said, small, light cars are often inexpensive and lacking in the thoughtful engineering that helps car stability. I would expect a V6 Accord to be very stable, even with original tires, unless there is something wrong mechanically. Dan (This account is not used for email.) >... >> example, I've found myself slowing to 60 mph in strong, gusting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >(This account is not used for email.) I've had the tires a little overinflated but only by about 2 psi over the Honda-recommended pressure which is still way under the maximum pressure per Bridgestone. Would you expect that slight departure from spec to cause cross-wind sensitivity? Ron Consumer Reports rated tires this month. > I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord > V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ron > Consumer Reports rated tires this month. Apparently it won't reach their website for a while; the most recent tire rating at consumerreports.org is November 2005. I have TripleTreds on my 2000 Accord and love the tires. I boosted pressure to 32 psi and was very pleased with the handling and responsiveness. I drive 100 miles per day commuting in all kinds of weather. I second the poster who said rolling resistance shouldn't be primary concern -- I want traction, but then, I live in Ohio... Full disclosure: I work for Goodyear. My comment is offered in the spirit of assistance. SDW Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though. > Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed > air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose > pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though. Well given that the atmosphere is about 76% nitrogen already I never saw the return in spending money for the other 24%. Your mileage may vary of course. >> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed >> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose >> pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though. > > Well given that the atmosphere is about 76% nitrogen already I never saw the > return in spending money for the other 24%. Your mileage may vary of course. It's what's in the other 24% that matters. It includes water vapor and carbon dioxide, whose pressures vary more with temperature than nitrogen, and also oxygen, which is more chemically reactive than nitrogen. Granted, these differences aren't enough to make me want to spend extra money to fill my tires, but the differences are there to some extent. -- Mike Smith >>> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed >>> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's what's in the other 24% that matters. Is this where I say "Duh!"? <It includes water vapor and > carbon dioxide, whose pressures vary more with temperature than nitrogen, > and also oxygen, which is more chemically reactive than nitrogen. Yes it does. That's why it's CALLED the other 24%. >Granted, these differences aren't enough to make me want to spend extra >money to fill my tires, but the differences are there to some extent. I think you just solidified my case. If somebody wants to go off the deep end and do something extravagant filling their tires there's always helium. It's inert, resists temperature changes well, and should make the car go faster because of its lift characteristics. Then again too small a car with too large tires my tend to float. But that could be kinda cool too... Again, YMMV. >>>> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed >>>> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Again, YMMV. no kidding. helium diffuses through rubber like you left the door open. fact is, unless you have a specific [aerospace type] need such as corrosion resistance, condensation resistance or fire resistance, an all-nitrogen tire inflation is utterly pointless. ---snippy--- > no kidding. helium diffuses through rubber like you left the door open. > fact is, unless you have a specific [aerospace type] need such as > corrosion resistance, condensation resistance or fire resistance, an > all-nitrogen tire inflation is utterly pointless. OTOH, if you happen to have a tank of it lying around for other uses, it won't hurt. Earle SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed >>>> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes it does. That's why it's CALLED the other 24%. I'll bet you got beat up a lot in school, didn't ya? Or did you only recently become a prick? -- Mike Smith >I have TripleTreds on my 2000 Accord and love the tires. I boosted >pressure to 32 psi and was very pleased with the handling and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >spirit of assistance. >SDW I live in central Ohio, too -- real close to the factory where my Accord was made. I drive in snow only occasionally. I was leaning toward the TripleTreds following receipt of my Consumer Reports last week, but I wanted to see what the experts here would say. After the responses in this thread, I'm thinking I'll probably purchase the TripleTreds, but I'm also intrigued by the Goodyear ComforTreds. Would you guess that the ComforTred, which is NOT promoted for handling, might still yield better handling that the OEM Turanza EL-41? Ron > TripleTreds, but I'm also intrigued by the Goodyear ComforTreds. Would > you guess that the ComforTred, which is NOT promoted for handling, > might still yield better handling that the OEM Turanza EL-41? I put ComforTreds on our 2004 Accord I4 EX to improve the highway ride and improve traction. Successful on both counts. The ComforTreds lack responsiveness but that isn't an issue for my daughter who is the primary driver. My other daughter prefers the feel of her Bridgestone G009s. To each their own. I have the Goodyear triple treads and I have been very pleased. I don't work for Goodyear. there are two versions of the TT ( I can't remember the names). you need to get the more expensive one. I don't think the lesser one was rated too highly. I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been outstanding, but the handling leaves something to be desired. For example, I've found myself slowing to 60 mph in strong, gusting crosswinds while other drivers, even in smaller cars, keep going 65-70. Fuel economy (rolling resistance, I guess) is the most important tire quality to me, but I'd be willing to sacrifice a little in that category for somewhat better handling. What's my best choice currently? Ron > I have the Goodyear triple treads and I have been very pleased. I don't > work for Goodyear. > > there are two versions of the TT ( I can't remember the names). you need to > get the more expensive one. I don't think the lesser one was rated too > highly. Was one of the names "Assurance"? I was quoted a price of $560 for four Goodyear Assurance TripleTred P205-65x15s (mounted, balanced, sales tax and disposal charge). I can't imagine paying more for a set of tires unless I was planning to race. I had a similar choice to make on my 2003 Accord 4 CYL. the OEM Michelins MXV s8 had very low rolling resistance. However, even when they were new had quite a bit of understeer. In rain they aquaplaned very easily. If you drove in winter on road that had more than the frost, well you better turn back and leave the car in the garage. I have spent some time researching for a replacement tire that would eliminate all the negative aspects that OEM tire had, keeping in mind that I did not want tosacrifice the fuel economy too much. A tire that I bought was Nokian i3. I currently have 20,000K on the new tires. The tires are slightly noisier. that's normal since the OEM Michelins were UTQG 440 and the i3s are 620. The aquaplaning has disappeared i.e. even in heavy rain I can still hit 140. The understeer in corners has disappeared. The fuel economy has reduced from 5.8L/100KM with original tires to about 6-6.1 l/100KM. They were actually worse when they were brand new. I had the originals on for 218,000KM. The Nokians have not shown any signs of wear yet. I believe they will last between 250,000 - 300,000K. Another tire that was #2 on my list was Toyo spectrum. The cost of nokians was $127 per tire, while the OEM Michelins were just over $180 per tire. A lot of tire shops now days will let you try the tire before you commit to buying it. Hope this info is of some use to you. Dan. > I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord > V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ron |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.