pewter99

Title says it all...considering the Yokohamas but see that the Michelins have a better tread wear and I don't wanna buy tires every freakin year so let me know what ya think and any experiences you have had.. :seeya

Busted Knuckle

As fine a tire made in Run Flat for the C5. We have two C5's with the Michelins on both. The noise factor is worth the price of the tires. JMHO :D :cheers: :steering:

bandit_99

I have Mich. runflats on the rears...I've got 5K miles of spirited driving and they still look almost new.

I went back and forth between the Michelins and Yokahamas because I wanted to stick with runflats. I decided on the Pilot Sports because the tread wear on the Yokahamas is not supposed to last nearly as long. Not sure if that's true- I still hear great things about both tires.

:cheers:

Untouchable00

Well, you are correct and incorrect in a way. I have the MIchelin Pilot Zero Pressure RFs and I LOVE THEM!!!! They have a great tread and the best, in my opinion, in the RF category. However, I have heard from many Mich owners that the treads wear down very quickly, compared to, say non run-flats.

But, if I were you, don't light them up and you will be very happy with the Michelins. They are a different world than the GYs. And whenI say diferent world I mean, 50000% better. Quieter, more grip, softer, better looking, better tread. Just smoother and very quiet.

stevenll

I've got Michelin's on the rear and am very happy with them. Much better than the GY's.

WildKarrde

I've only had them on since Saturday, but my initial impressions are very, very good. They are so smooth and quiet I am still not used to it. Major difference in those areas. I had the same concerns as you, and I expect the ZPs to last a long time. I studied the tire issue for a long time before finally deciding on these. You will not be sorry.

:cheers:

pewter99

Thanks all :seeya

Ken's Electron Blue

Question for any of the above peoples replies. I have heard the Goodyears are noisy as they wear down and get real load when they age and have very little tread left.

Would not any new brand of tire be quieter than you were used to with the old worn tires you replaced?.
How many of you have the M's with considerable mileage on them and are they still quiet?

I only have 8, 000 miles on my original factory Goodyears and have not had any noise yet, but from what everbody says I eventually will. At what mileage does the noise become real evident?

Mitch C

I have only 15K miles on my OEM Goodyear run flats and they are noisey.

pewter99

I stretched 22k out of my RunCraps before I got the Stones....don't get me wrong the Stones are great but I expected them to last longer...they have a treadwear of 348 compared to 180 for the Yokohamas and don't recall what the GY's were but the Michelins have a 400 rating so hopefully they will live longer than the Stones....from talking to tire guys and Damon at Tire rack I have come to determine that 2 sets of rears to one set of fronts is common..FWIW I got about the same mileage from the Stones as the GY's on the rear, my fronts look brand new :crazy: :seeya

baldie

I just put the Michelin's on and what a difference in noise and ride!!!!!!!!

Sixguns

I just installed mine on the rear today, cant wait to get the fronts on. The road noise is not an issue any longer, the ride is smoother, The drunk bumps no longer feel like boulders. The look very good too! In Washington State the performance they offer in the wet will be a real plus as well.

MagRed2002

Let me know if I am oversimplifying things here:

With some acknowlegement that tread design is a significant factor to a point: Isn't there a direct correlation between treadwear and performance? That is: If a tire (be it RF or not, but I am indeed am interested in RFs) has a "softer" rubber compund that exhibits the best driving performance, wont it logically wear out faster?

My point - Can we really expect true treadwear ratings of 400 or better and still get desired C5 performance? We can't realistically ask for superlative performace and at the same time hope that the tires last 40K.

GM, as always, is forced to walk the tightrope of consumer convienence, reliablility and performance. Like all of you, I hate the GY runflats - But GM could likely not have done any better and satisfied all of the requirements of the true performance consumer as well as the litigious whimps that mandate a 100 mile drive on a flat.

Run flat or not, don't we all have to make a decision - Long life or performance? We can't have both!

Or can we?: I am interested in any responses.

Face

Just a heads up, each manufacturer measures treadware differently. You can't compare treadware ratings from brand to brand.
I've had Yoko runflats for 12K miles and they still look relatively new. I should be able to get at least 20-25K out of these tires.

Bandit1

Michelins.............there is no substitute. Just find the best price you can and get em. You won't regret it.
:thumbs:

Sixguns

MagRed2002, As with all things, everyone has to make their own way thru the maze. Tires, Cars and Performance in general are all about compromise and therefore frustration.

My GY runflats were just replaced with over 40,000 miles. Is that good? I think so, but what did I give up? Some will say performance. In my case the GY tires gave more performance than I require, the tires exceed my limits.

You can have both performance and long life so long as your limits are within the tires capability. Thats were we all have to gauge our requirements. I think todays tires and Our Corvette do a great job at compromise with very little frustration. Driving style more than anything else will dictate tire life.




[Modified by Sixguns, 10:38 PM 4/19/2003]

My2Dogs

....changed from GY's with 8,000 miles to the Michelin Pzero and and would never use anything else now. First hundred miles I thought tires were low on pressure since the ride was so much smoother...and quieter. As far as cornering ability I will have to relearn ability of tires. With the GY's I could feel when they were to break loose in cornering but these have a much different feel and stick like glue. Can't make rear slide on slower turns like the GY's or maybe just have not pushed it hard enough.
Biggest change was when wife rode in car and could automatically feel the difference.

MH2Lmaker

I think 40k is outstanding. I only got 22k on my GY's before I had to replace them. My fronts were more worn than the backs. Maybe too much hard cornering. I now have 1k on my Mich. Pilot ZP A/S. I don't know how much difference the all season makes as far as traction etc. but they were worth it the 2 times I got caught out in snow. I seem to be able to break them loose a little easier than the GY's but they still hook up good. The Mich. seem to hang on the corners great. I would never go back to GY. I don't regret my choice at all. :yesnod:

AFVETTE

I have the Pilot Sport A/S ZP's. I know they cost - about $1200 but I figure I'll get over 35,000 miles out of them. That alone will equal two sets of cheaper non-run-flats plus not having to pay mounting, shiping etc.

I figure you get what you pay for. Why sacrifice performance and safey when a tire like the Michelin is available.

Tom


[Modified by AFVETTE, 5:50 PM 4/20/2003]

pela

have had them for 4 mos- love them- had gy before- worth the $1200