Did anybody else catch the Car and Driver tire test? They compared several summer tires, using the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 as a benchmark.

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

 

Seriously? Nobody else read it?

People here are always talking about tire choices. You should read it.

 

Plenty of magazines review tire selections, just as an FYI. I try to catch most of them, but time is never on my side.

 

I just skimmed thru the review, thanks for posting it! Curious to see how the PS2's really did as they are not ranked. (unless I missed it)

Been rolling on 225/40/18 PS2 for awhile now and they are arguably the best tire I've owned. Perfect combination of grip, ride quality and noise. Treadwear has been great too,

 

I think you are right. I don't think they ranked the Michelins among the group of test tires. In the description of some of the better ranked tires they do compare and contrast the differences in performance between the PS2 and the tire being tested.

I think that only 2 or 3 tires from the test group were able to outperform the PS2s , except the ones that were able to beat the PS2s had much softer rubber and would not last nearly as long.

 

With them not ranking the Michelins makes it an epic fail of an article in my opinion. They mentioned that Direzza and the Hankooks were better in some aspect but not in others. Fine, how does it ultimately rank? Is it still considered the "benchmark"?

No matter, still love my Michelins, better if they were a little bit cheaper, $220/tire mounted and balanced is a lot to swallow nowadays.

 

We're sorry, the page you've requested cannot be found.
If you got here by typing a URL, please make sure the spelling and punctuation are correct.
Try searching for your item in the search box above.

Try this link instead.

 

The problem with that test is that they set a price limit ($140) and tested whatever tires they could get for that price. The reason that's a problem is, they wound up with tires with entirely different performance objectives (what the Tire Rack calls "performance categories"). For example, the highest performance categories, starting with the stickiest, are these, and here are their general characteristics:

Extreme performance summer tires - Offer exceptional traction on dry pavement, with low priority for everything else. These tires typically offer treadlife that is substantially lower than in other categories, and some (the RT-615 in particular, and to some extent the XS) are not very good in rain. Some are very expensive, others (notably the Star Spec, XS, and RT-615) are less so.

Maximum performance summer tires - Offer a blend of excellent traction on dry pavement and in rain, and very good treadlife. These tires are often very expensive. As a result, most of these tires were excluded by the arbitrary price point used in the test.

Ultra high performance summer tires - Offer a blend of very good traction on dry pavement and in rain, and very good treadlife. This segment typically is very value-oriented, with a lower purchase price than the previous two categories.

There's nothing wrong with any of these categories; different drivers have different priorities, so typically any individual probably is better off looking in one category and not the other, based on his/her own priorities. However, when you have a mix of these three categories due to the price constraint, you wind up with a real mish-mosh. The most expensive brands have examples from their lowest performance category, and the less expensive brands have examples from the highest performance category. And one of the extreme performance tires won. Duh.

The other problem with the test is that they used as a benchmark a tire that would have been excluded due to its price. Which doesn't make any sense at all.

 

That is so weird, because I swear the link worked when I posted it. I don't know.

 

I suspect they (Car and Driver) moved it so that certain folders in the website address changed. IOW, not your fault.

 

I agree. Comparing Dunlop Star Specs with Yokohama S.drives is unfair and borderline deceptive.

 

I think it's interesting, though....it shows you what you get (or not) when you step up to a pricey tire like the PS2.

The results of comparing tires in "different categories" is also interesting - Sure, the Direzza Z1 stomps on the S.drive, but the "UHP" RE760 apparently beats the Azenis in the dry autocross.

For me the hardest part of deciding on my tires is not inside "performance categories" where it's typically easier to get comparison data, but deciding which "category" to choose.

For example, Z1 v RE11 v XS vs R1R is fairly easy to choose, and heck, I don't think there's much of a tradeoff for any of them....but Z1 or RE760 is tougher. Stuff like this helps explain what one gets and doesn't get...and sure the test it would be a lot better if it was more comprehensive, but what wouldn't be. I'm not going to complain about free information


And I will admit some sort of "cost per mile" metric instead of cost per tire would have been preferable...not an easy number to come up with though.

 

Not only was there an arbitrary $140 limit per tire cost for the comparison, it was in a 225/45/17 tire. If the cost limit was for a 15" tire then the choices would have changed for sure, because, correct me if I am wrong, some of these tires aren't available in 15".

However, it is nice to know how some of the the high performance tires compared to the extreme performance tires.

I find it nice that I can 'afford' two different sets of tires. One for daily and one for autox.

 

I think that the price limit gets you to wonder why some companies sell their tires for so much more than others.

Why is the Extreme performance tire from Bridgestone so expensive that it couldn't get in to this test, yet it is still outperformed by the much cheaper Dunlop Star Spec tire?

 

Well, that's the way it is. Some companies charge more than others - for tires, for cars, for oil, for breakfast cereal, etc. Sometimes there are significant differences between the products produced by different companies. Sometimes the differences are in characteristics that some people don't care about. Sometimes there are no product differences. Lots of companies spend millions of dollars on advertising to make people think that their brand name is better than other brand names.

Well, if you look at the test on the Tire Rack website, you'll see that the performance of the Bridgestone Potenza RE-11 and Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec is very similar in most respects. But you're right, the Star Spec is much less expensive. (IN that particular segment, the Kumho Ecsta XS is another inexpensive choice, and the Yokohama Advan Neova AD08 is another expensive choice.) Why are the prices so different? Each company can set prices however they want, based on input from their engineering department on production costs, and from their marketing department on how much they can sell them for. Customers can "vote with their wallets" and buy the less expensive tire if they want, or the more expensive one if they want. When tires are similar in performance but different in price, I try to recommend the less expensive option for that reason. (To me, it's something of a "no brainer".) But sometimes people want a specific brand.

Also, with tires, sometimes people want a specific size, and it's only available in one brand and not another. For example, if you have an Integra or '97-00 Civic with 16" wheels, you need 205/45-16 or 215/45-16, and the Star Spec isn't available in either size. Or if you have a pre-'96 Civic with 15" wheels, you need 195/50-15, and the RE-11 is available in that size, but neither the Star Spec nor the XS is.

 

More and more, companies are vying for a specific car 'demographic' when positioning their product, rather than offer every tire at every size. That accounts for the availability of certain Honda and Acura sizes in certain brands and not others.

 

It was a good article.I was surprised kumho's did that good.

 

I don't know why you say that. Like most big tire companies, Kumho makes a variety of tires, everything from R compound tires for the racetrack, to supersticky street tires for brisk high-performance driving, to all-season tires for cars that are driven year round in snow as well as warm weather, to inexpensive tires for those looking primarily for value, to tires for trucks. They included Kumho's supersticky street tire, so the fact that it did well is no surprise. If you look at the recent Tire Rack comparison test, you'll find that it's really not all that different from the supersticky street tires from Dunlop, Bridgestone, and Yokohama (except that the ones from the latter two companies would have exceeded the price limit in this test).

 

Great review, thanks for posting.