Last post on Mar 15, 2003 at 3:32 PM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the M&R Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Brakes, SUV
Feb 08, 2003 (8:45 am)
I bought a brand new Nissan Pathfinder in late 1998 that came equipped with a set of Bridgestones. I admit I am not, and have never been a devotee to that brand, and when I had to buy new tires at 14,500 miles, my opinion was solidified. The dead carcasses sported a tread wear factor number of 180. At 45K I bought tire set 3, Cooper Discoverer H/T's. Set number 2 were BFG Radial TA's. Those were car tires and never really seemed proper. I think I'm happy now... RIDE ON! says Arnold Palmer.
Feb 08, 2003 (1:44 pm)
Duh! Since magazine test cars and owners look at stopping distances and handling numbers. The factory wants to achieve the best results so they spec a soft fast wearing tire. Which optimizes both so their car looks good.
Changing from a V rated 180 OEM tire to a 300-400 T rated tire can easily lengthen stopping distances by 20-30 feet [70 to zero]. Even Worse in rain, same with handling which might decline by 3-5% or more.
The other item is manufactures know that the majority of inexpensive tires are less than safe after 20,000 miles [they assume worst case heating and driver abuse], so they want the ones they supplied to be worn and off the car they built to shift the burden to the owner.
This is not necessarily the case with a premium material tire like oem Michelin especially in V rated and above.
Ever notice that some 2002 cars take 215 feet to stop from 70 mph and some stop in 153 feet.....tire compound and weight on tires is the primary factor........as most brakes will lock the wheels without ABS on a single stop. TIRES!
#21 of 28 All very good points
Feb 09, 2003 (3:25 am)
I've never felt it was wise to get 80K mile tires. You usually must sacrifice handling and braking to get a tire to last that long. I admit I have a set of 60K Michelins for my Buick, but then they'll be worn out in two years.
FWIW, I got 30K from a set of Dunlop SP5000's on that Buick. I retired them at 3/32nds of pretty even tread left.
Feb 09, 2003 (5:36 am)
Just because a tire has half the tread left doesn't mean that it functions anywhere near like a new one!
Heat and ozone attack the rubber compound turning it progressively harder and harder [the vulcanization continues].......You should buy a tire that will last 24 months with your type of driving.......for maximum safety and performance.
Generally if 2/32" is legal limit something like 4-5/32" would the the point where a prudent owner would change.
Since tires are the most critical component on the car!
By the way tires are only tested for 8,000 miles then the life is extrapolated based on what happens in the test period.
Many tires on heavy cars are marginally overloaded due to low inflation....internal damage is checkable by xraying them or a sudden change in the amount/position of balance weighs but most owners don't get them precision balanced every 90 days so by the time you feel a problem it is too late!
Whenever you see a rearend wreck think what a better tire with just 5%-10% better friction would have saved.......5,10,15 foot better stopping distance soft vs hard.
#23 of 28 defintely agree with both of you -
Feb 09, 2003 (8:59 am)
somehow, consumers became of the opinion that a longer lasting tire was somehow a "better" tire - and it is, as long as handling, braking distances and dry weather traction aren't concerns of yours.
Unless you pony up for mega-dollar 80,000 miles Michelins, I wouldn't consider any cheaper 80,000 mile tire as being more safe or handling better.
If you're an old dude with a Park Avenue who never drives over 40, then the 80,000 milers are for you.
Me, I want a tire that will help me brake when I want and won't let go when I make it turn.
Feb 10, 2003 (8:18 am)
the OEM tire on my old Subaru was a white-letter Potenza RE92, and when it came time to replace them, I would always get the OEM because I liked the look. Managed to get more than 40K miles from each set - they weren't too bad, although snow traction was terrible, and the car was an outback.
Apart from that, I have always replaced OEM with Michelins - I am a believer. They are usually quieter and always have better traction, in my experience. Of course, they also cost more, so I guess you still can't have your cake AND eat it too.
#25 of 28 Getting your money's worth
Feb 10, 2003 (9:14 am)
I have found that one of the best investments you can make when buying tires is the road hazard warranty. Tires are so susceptible to unexpected damage and "driveability" problems, that having the warranty gives the buyer real leverage over thieving or dismissive tire merchants.
Feb 12, 2003 (4:18 am)
Superior tire are more resistive to road hazards!
Cheapo single ply sidewalls [designed for low rolling resistance- better fuel economy] are accidents waiting to happen as are the newer 44 and 51 psi designs......these ballon like tires have little or no reserve in sidewall impacts.
Thank goodness Michelin uses a 77% stronger polyester material [for its thickness] than do cheaper brands.
Michelin trades off a little [not too much]traction for strength, roundness, and quietness!
#27 of 28 Help ML320 tire
Mar 15, 2003 (12:35 pm)
I bought my ML320 at 1998, it had 65.000KM on it, I think it is time to replace it. any suggestion on brand and models, I need it to use in the SNOW in winter beside that just daily use from home to work. I know the size is hard to find, I also own a Nissan Murano a 18" tire, but I worrie about it when I need it.
Mar 15, 2003 (3:32 pm)
go check out the Tires topic in Aftermarket - report your question for bretfraz or capriracer - they're the real tire guys.