High Tech Misfit says...

I'm somewhat limited in the choice of tires I can buy
locally.  I haven't run across the Turanza yet, but have
found the Toyo Spectrum on sale (at Hesselbein) for $65
before tax, including mounting, balancing and even a brand
new air valve.  :-)  And they even throw in road hazard at
that price.

I didn't find anything on Toyo on Tirerack, but found a
number of Spectrum reviews on 1010tires, and was amazed at
the variation I found there.  Some said it worked great in
light snow, but others said it was terrible.  Some said it
handled well and was very quiet, while others said it
"wandered", didn't center well, or was the noisiest tire
they'd ever owned.  It's really hard to know what to
conclude from that.  The reviews were just all over the map,
from "great" to "awful".

The OE tires on my car are Michelin XGT-4's, which were
87S, 320AB.  Is there any way to know how the Spectrums
would compare with those with respect to ride, handling,
noise, and mileage?

Anyway do the Spectrums seem to work well for Accord owners?

Most of my driving is in and around NYC. I had a set of Toyo Spectrum's
on my 96 Civic coupe for 37K miles. I loved them, a very good
all-around tire. I now have Pirelli 400's and after 7500 miles, I think
they are as good as the Toyo's...but we have not gotten snow here, so
the jury is still out.

i disagree.

1. their selection is limited and has notable omissions like toyo.  to
me, that looks like the "pay to play" that may super markets exercise
with shelf space.
2. their ratings are afaict, /not/ based on customer feedback, although
they sure do seem to want you to believe that.

example 1: i bought a set of michelin hydro-edges a few years back.
impeccable ratings all across the board, including ride comfort.  but
ride comfort was /not/ a feature of their ride.  not in a civic anyway.
 in fact, they were so brain-jarringly rough, i had to change them out
again after less than 1000 miles because of passenger complaints.  [not
that i needed much persuasion they were so bad.]

example 2: in civic tires, dunlop sport sp2 a+ tires score "7.9" for
tire rack wet traction, yet have a utqg rating of "aa".  michelin pilot
exaltos have a tire rack rating of 9.0 wet, and utqg of only "a", which
is entirely inconsistent.  declaration: i am running these dunlops right
now and can vouch for exemplary traction in line with utqg.

example 3: my previous tires were continental ch95's.  they scored
"excellent" across the board with notable exception for tire wear.
after nearly 40k miles, mine still had 40-50% tread life remaining.
they're also rated 6.6 "excellent" for wet traction, but are frankly,
more likely to send you into the barrier in the wet than any other tire
i've ever driven.  fine when new, but abysmal when slightly worn.

example 4: the photos used are photoshopped.  this may sound trivial,
but the little rubber "hair" things that a lot of tires have are
studiously removed on tire rack pics.  that concerns me because one of
the ways you can tell between a silica rubber compound and a carbon
rubber compound is presence of the "hairs" - carbon generally has them,
silica generally doesn't.  personally, that has a significant impact on
my buying preferences, but tire rack's "evidence" is misleading in that
regard.

conclusion: tire rack's rating is based on some subjective system
they've come up with in-house.  it's a system that's wide open to "pay
for play", and based on my experience, one that's fully exploited by
tire manufacturers.