I have a 2005 Honda Civic EX 1.7 and I've had the same factory tires (Potenza RE92) on since getting it in 05' and after putting 70000 miles on it. Things are starting to get pretty slippery even in rainy conditions so I know it's time for new tires.

I have been mostly satisfied with the Potenzas RE92, I have to keep in mind I've had them for 70000 miles. I did a little research and narrowed it down to the same Potenza RE92s or the Potenza G019s.

With pretty much everything else equal, the G019s seem to have a significantly greater/better treadwear grade and I've read a couple of reviews of people preferring the RE92s.

It would be an open and shut case, but what I CAN'T understand is why the G019s seem to be on average $20 less per tire compared to the RE92 when they seem to be superior from what I've read.

My only guess is that I understand the RE92s seem to be a standard factory installed tire for A LOT of new cars, so perhaps when it comes time to replace most people just don't bother doing any research and go with the same tire again, hence the greater demand for them.

If anyone could give me any ideas or input here I would appreciate it!

 

Here are just a few thoughts. I don't usually go for those OEM all-season tires because they don't grip as well as tires in the "ultra high performance all-season" category, but they may be fine for you if you care more about treadlife and quiet and comfort and not so much about grip. There are lots of good tires out there for everyone.

The difference in price is actually even more than you describe. If you need tires in your 195/60-15 stock size, four of the G019 will cost $170 after rebate at the Tire Rack, and four of the RE92 cost $366 after rebate. That difference is huge.

Don't judge tires by their price. Sometimes more expensive tires really are substantially better than less expensive tires, but other times they are not. So do your homework, and don't worry about trying to figure out why one tire costs more than another. (And yes, as you mention, a lot of people buy the stock tire for their car without realizing that there may be better, cheaper choices out there.)

Incidentally, you shouldn't wait for tires to feel slippery for you to replace them. Take a close look at the tread, and measure its depth. The Tire Rack has shown that, in the rain, stopping distances when tires are worn down to 2/32" of tread depth (when the treadwear indicator bars are flat across and the tires must be replaced by law) are double that of new tires, and at 4/32" of tread depth wet stopping distances are 50 percent more. They recommend replacing tires at 4/32" of tread depth for this reason.

 

Thanks for the reply and input. It's just very interesting to find what by all accounts should be an inferior tire costing much more than the other as you pointed out. Grip is paramount to me this time around so I think the G019s are better in that respect, but additionally they have a treadwear rating of something like 440 versus the 160 of the RE92 (OEM).

The one thing which I read which might indicate the RE92 has the advantage in is delivering a quieter/smoother ride, and someone suggested that that might offer better gas mileage/fuel economy. I don't mind a slightly noisier ride, but I don't know if that's true or not about the fuel economy, however.

 

re92's are a much older tire and overpriced for their performance in my opinion, however they are a nice tire.

the g019 grids are a solid tire, but they do have a tendency to cup in certain sizes. i have also seen a few sets wear down much quicker than they should on routinely aligned and rotated vehicles