K87ZZ4

The latest issue of Consumer Reports tested a dozen Ultra High-Performance (UHP) tires (6 all-weather, 6 summer). They all tested pretty good and within a few points of each other (meaning they essentially performed the same), with the exception of the Michelin Pilot Super Sport, which scored 90, while the others were at 80-82 pts.

It seems like UHP tires are becoming a commodity, where price becomes the most significant difference. That is, why spend $200/tire on Michelin Pilots when you can get Sumitomo's for $100/tire? (other than this being the first I've heard of Sumitomo).

Of course, they tested a 225/40R18. I imagine the 255/50R16 on the earlier C4's are getting mighty hard to find with few choices. Is anyone running a different size (but still in a 16 inch) in order to have more tire choices?

Joe C

nothing against CR results, but when buying tires, whether it's on my corvettes, or my pickup, i always reference the tireracks survey results. i feel it gives me, an across the board, average, "real world", results from consumers who have put thousands of miles those tires.

Jim Rogers

I've been looking at that CR article as well, and agree with your analysis. Unless you're driving competitively, I question whether there are any real, noticeable differences between any of those tires. BTW I wonder why they tested no Firestone tires?

I believe the B.F. Goodrich g-Force Sport is the only (non-competition) 255 50r16 tire made, and they've been on back order for awhile-- no sign of when they will become available again.

I hesitate to buy that size because I'm planning on doing some travel in my 'vette and I fear getting a bad blowout that ruins the tire and not being able to get a replacement. I've twice had blowouts at highway speed that ruined the tire (and was able to easily get it replaced). That's two incidences over 25 years, but it was a PITA (even despite the fact that I easily found replacements) so I do still worry about it.

I will likely go with the 245 50r16 size-- much more available, only about 3/8" narrower, and 0.2" smaller radius (i.e., less than 1 mph difference on the speedo).

I think a g-Force Sport in the 245 size might be good (at least for me)-- cheap, rated pretty good for performance by CR, and relatively easy to get (a large tire store might even have it in stock, convenient if you're stuck away from home).

I have a different view on that.

In my opinion, with a few exceptions (like some electronics), I think CR does a pretty good job. With something like tires, they do objective testing that should give reliable results. Same with TireRack-- they do objective testing/comparison that I think are well done and useful.

However, in my opinion, while consumer opinion can be very valuable for some things, I don't trust it at all for something like tires. Way too subjective, and people are extremely suggestible.

Have you ever seen tests where they have people test a variety of things (like, say, wine)? Whenever you tell people one of the samples is either expensive or well-rated by experts, the testers virtually always rate those samples as best. Even when all of the samples were, in fact, exactly the same! Even most professional wine tasters rate expensive wine as better, but, in fact, will often rate inexpensive wines higher if the cost is not revealed before the tasting!

We see the same thing all the time with engine tech. How many times do see this scenario; people do some mod, claim it totally transformed the car into a horsepower machine, others make the mod based on the hype and claim the same effects.

Then objective testing is done (say on a dyno), it's found that the mod actually makes no measurable difference, there is denial from all those that adopted that mod, but eventually that mod dies out (and sometimes becomes the object of ridicule-- how could anyone have been so stupid as to think that would have made a difference!).

So this is a common phenomenon, well-know and studied, and tire performance is highly susceptible to the same problem. So I'm wary of a bunch of people (who have invested their money in a particular model) telling me how great that model is-- I put more stock in the objective testing (either by CR or TR, which seem to come up with similar results).

No offense meant, Joe C, just my alternative take on it.

1963SS

Car and driver did a tire test recently and they came up with some surprising results also. They compared Summer tires against the Michelin PS2's. Test is here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests

Joe C

no offense taken - if i have the latest results from CR, i do take that into consideration. if you look at CR recommendations and compare them to the tirerack, you'll see that they are not too far apart. my point, when 400 or 500 people put tens of millions of miles on a certain tire, well that has to mean something. i haven't seen the article, but i have to ask how many miles did CR put on any of those tested tires, and how many sets of that particular tire did they test -maybe one? i'm wary of a test that only puts a couple thousand miles on one set of tires , compare a handful of tires, and i'm supposed to take that as gospel - ??? BTW, not all people on the tire rack say how great their particular tires preform for their vested interest - some of them absolutely trash a particular tire. for me, the tireracks survey results give me a lot of useful information.

Jim Rogers

Yeah-- the fact that both groups get pretty close to the same results increases my confidence that they are using valid testing methods.

I see what you mean, and in some cases I definitely agree. One of my most valuable resources for evaluating potential purchases is the Amazon.com feedback pages.

For example, last summer I was considering the purchase of a 12v microwave for vacation travel/camping. The Amazon feedback pages were not very positive, and I trust them because there is nothing particularly subtle or nuanced about microwave performance-- people know if the thing is heating their coffee or popping their popcorn or not.

However, things like tire performance, wine taste, engine hp, etc., are really hard to reliably sort out by feel. Very easy to be fooled, so I tend not to trust that info. Here I'm talking about cornering, noise, grip, etc.

[Note, however, that CR did *not* use instrumented testing for noise or ride quality, which makes those results weaker. However, the testers did test all the tires back-to-back on the same car on the same route, so their objective opinions probably do have some validity.]

However, if a tire had, say, a reputation for sidewall failure, I'd definitely look at user experience to verify it-- people know if their sidewall failed prematurely and without cause, and if many are reporting it there is probably something to it!

That's true-- I probably overstated that a bit.

Yeah, I do use that as a check on the testing results-- if user opinion says a highly rated tire is not good, I pay attention. If they confirm that a highly rated one is good, I'm suspicious that they being suggested.

But, hey, we all evaluate things differently. Just wanted to throw in my counter point to yours for comparison's sake. Thanks for the exchange!

JackDidley

Sumitomos and Pilot Sports are not in the same league. The Pilot Sports will last 3 times as long as the Sumis.

RedLS1GTO

I have had a good number of the tires tested on some car at some point and there are none of them that have the dry performance, wet performance, amazing ride, and tread life of the PS2.

I have never used the Dunlop Direzza which finished 1st, but I have a good friend with the Hankooks (finished second) on his Z06, and I had the Ecsta (finished 3rd) on mine for almost a year. Neither is even in the same league as the PS2. I wouldn't put a set of the Ecstas back on my car if you gave them to me for free (which was why I did in the first place). They might have had more grip when new, which is what the article tested, but they lasted half as long, sucked in the rain, and were so noisy that it was actually annoying.


The top 3 tires from the test:

Yea, that's the tire I want on my car.

So basically, they felt like crap.

So they are slower, louder, and ride worse... got it.


Not to mention, I would be willing to bet that the PS2 will out last all of them. I know that on my car specifically, I can get almost TWICE the life from a set of PS2s that I can from the Kuhmo, and the Hankooks on my friend's car don't seem to be any better than the Kuhmo.


There is a reason that Porsche and McLaren use Michelin tires on every one of their top cars and Ferrari uses either Bridgestone or Pirelli. IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER.

Wathen1955

I bought 2 new Kuhmo's for the rear, and I noticed a big difference between this new tire and the old BF Goodrich I had on there when I bought the car used back in 2009. They are noisier and don't seem to stick well like the old tires, and they seem to "float" on the road. I thought that maybe they need to be driven for a few hundred miles, but nothing has changed. I'm probably going to replace them in spring time next year with something else. I only bought them because it was somewhat of an emergency. I was driving to work and had one of my old tires go flat. Pulled into the nearest tire shop and they had those so I thought what the hell they can't be that bad.

FLY FIS

I'm in the same prediciment with tires. I have a 96 Coupe and have the 17". I still have the Run-Flat EMT tires on the car and am really torn as to what tire to get as the rears are ready to be replaced. I think I want to get away from the original tires, but think I'd like to stay with run-flats. I really don't like the idea of replacing the rears and have them not match the fronts in tread and all the other features. I want to stay with a performance tire and would like something that is quieter and might give me better mileage than I get with the Good Year EMT's. I have 43k on the car and have replaced them all once already. I drive the car only in the summer. It is stored all winter from October to May. Any thoughts??

93Rubie

I have a set of P275/40/17 Kumho Escta SPT's on all fours that replaced some older Goodyear GS-D3's. I have nothing but good stuff to say about them. They are sticky in auto-x and at the drag strip no complaints. Still fairly new so I cannot tell yet how they will wear. Street manners are great. I try to avoid rain so I cannot say anything about that.

FYI, I purchased these based on C/R older tire report in their yearly Buyer's Guide book. The Kumho's where one of the better tires all around and at a good price. Comparable to more $$$ ones and not quite as good but close and much cheaper. Also tirerack.com had really good reviews on the tire so I got them. NO regrets. Expect that I might try their Escta XS's next time they are even stickier!!

If the money allows go Michelin they are the best tire in my opinion if you have the coin. Stay away from the Sumo's I have never heard good things about them. Same with Nexen's

beadist

I've had a set of Michelin Pilot Sport Plus tires for 2 years. Gets quite hot here and we get a lot of heavy rain also. The tires are just wonderful. Low noise, sticky, cornering is great.

So I already liked the tires when I went on a 1600 mile 2 day trip in July 2010. The second day was a 17 hour day from hell, mainly torrential rain.
By the time I'd made my destination, I'd made a vow to never have any other tires but Pilot Sports on my vette. I still feel that way after the second 3500 mile trip on the same tires in July 2011.

They rock and I'm sure they saved my life that day.

kimmer

I use the Kumho XS for my autox tires and still am not sure what I think about them. They are great in the sweepers and slalom but tend to under steer on a tight apex. Think I will go with something different next season.

Joe C

since my 96 is a daily driver, and i drive it in all kinds of weather (except heavy snow), i went with michelin pilot sport A/S plus. not perfect in any one category, but very good across the board. two categories that are somewhat important to me are wet traction and hydroplaning resistance -



here's a screen shot of the tirerack's survey. you can take it FWIW, but 649 people and 5.5 million miles has to mean something...

cv67

When did Hankook, Kumho Sumitomo etc become the higher end performance tires? not even worth comparing really.
They have their place and function;expecting them to perform the same as a $300+ tire is crazy

RedLS1GTO

People for some reason always feel the need to justify their purchases on the internet. In this case, they seem to do it by trying to convince not only themselves, but others, that the cheap brands are just as good.

...and apparently the magazines have no problem feeding into this.

Jim Rogers

Looking at the CR testing, the $99 Sumitomo HTR A/S PO1 actually tested better than the $200 Michelin Pilot Sport A/S plus.

The testing was done on a closed circuit, in an avoidance maneuver test, and a skid pad under dry, wet, and snow-packed conditions. Ice performance was measured on a skating rink.

Yet look at the tire rack survey results for that tire-- users rate the Sumitomo significantly *worse* than the Michelin.

Combine those survey results with cuisineartvette's comment (following yours) that it's "crazy" to expect an inexpensive tire to compete with an expensive one and I think my original point is made perfectly.

Joe C

all i can say is, if anybody thinks the $99 sumitotos are such great tires, by all means, put them on your car - to each his own - i really don't care... BTW, i don't drive on closed circuit roads, skid pads, or ice skating rinks -

my point - don't take CR results as gospel. the guys that did the testing, most likely were testing vacuum sweepers and toasters last week! while i might consider CR's results, personally i hold more stock in real world opinions...

Jim Rogers

Same here-- just fun to share our views and hope that others (lurkers) will benefit from us discussing our different ways of looking at things. I'm definitely not criticizing your Michelins (they are excellent tires) or trying to change your mind.

You probably don't drive with a decibel meter in your car either-- you probably just use your ears to determine how noisy a tire is. Does that make decibel meters invalid for measuring/testing road noise from different tires? Both methods will work to one degree or another, but which method would you find the most reliable?

As I said before, I don't. Especially for some electronic items.


Not true and a common false criticism when people don't like the results. CR has (and always has had) expert testing staff in a dedicated testing facility:

"Consumer Reports operates the largest and most sophisticated independent automobile testing center devoted to the consumer interest anywhere in the world. Situated on 327 acres in rural Connecticut, the Consumer Reports Auto Test Center is home to more than 20 staff members, including automotive engineers, technicians, and support staff. Consumer Reports buys, anonymously, all the cars it tests, about 80 per year, and drives each for thousands of miles.

Formal testing is done at the track and on surrounding public roads. The evaluation regimen consists of more than 50 individual tests. Some are objective, instrumented track tests using state-of-the-art electronic gear that yield empirical findings. Some are subjective evaluations-jury tests done by the experienced engineering staff."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...troduction.htm

As you said, to each his own...

Nice talking to you.

Maximum respect,

--Jim

Jim Rogers

A common strategy in marketing is to signal quality through high prices. But the reality is that there is a great deal of elasticity in the relationship between price and quality.

So that marketing strategy depends on some percentage of people not understanding the concept of elasticity and assuming that high prices necessarily imply quality/performance.

Thus it becomes possible to sell a low quality item at a high price to that segment of the population, and that's exactly what those marketing people are being paid to make happen. That same segment will reject low priced items that happen to have high quality, again to the great pleasure of the marketing department of the company selling the high price/low quality item.

It would appear to be highly advantageous for buyers to understand price/quality elasticity and signaling, but, despite the wealth of information resources available in the modern era, there still appear to be plenty that fail to understand and assume that it is "crazy" to think a low quality item might be priced high in order to deceive them into paying more for less. Thus skilled marketing people continue to be highly paid and sought after.

Some magazines are trying to use objective testing methods to see through the marketing tricks and let you know when there is a low-priced/high quality item available.

You can either believe that data, or the marketing department's price-setting strategies to determine the quality of an item.

As was said above, to each his own...