New Tire Suggestions

SamirD · Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:22 am

twoqttsdad wrote:Just a tip for those reading this thread and looking for a tire.

The UTQG (universal tire quality grading) system is what a lot of tire buyers look at when comparing tires. The tempurature and traction ratings are cross comparable between tires of different manufacturers as these are assigned by the US DOT. The tread wear rating is not as this is by the tire manufacturer, each with their own measuring standards. I get he feeling that the cheap stuff has overinflated tread wear ratings and the better stuff more conservative.
I have started to see tires coming in being labeled with a tire grading system that started out of Europe. It has rolling resistance, noise, and traction ratings. Easy to read bar graphs for each rating.

Oooo...the European system sounds lovely. Can you see how much of a 'cutoff' there is in grip at the limit in the graphs? That would be awesome!

SamirD · Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:24 am

bootymac wrote:The UTQG system is too vague for decision making IMO. The traction grade only measures stopping ability on wet pavement. Any tire worth your money should be AA at minimum.

Here's an example from my past experience:

Bridgestone g-force Super Sport A/S are 400-AA-A. Kumho 4X are 420-AA-A. Both are UHP all season tires with AA traction ratings but I've found that the Kumhos are far superior to the Bridgestones.

The factory tires are 340-A-A for what it's worth

Yep. I've seen this too--tires with almost identical specs are night and day apart in real-world performance. To take it even a stop further, I've found that even tread depth isn't an indicator. Goodyear Eagle GAs would hydroplane with over half the tread left. On the other side, Firestone Firehawk SH30s on the same car wouldn't hydroplane at all in the same road conditions almost bald.

twoqttsdad · Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:52 am

Oooo...the European system sounds lovely. Can you see how much of a 'cutoff' there is in grip at the limit in the graphs? That would be awesome

That would great but unfortunately the bar graphs aren't displayed with any measurable units. They are only a visual aid with a rating assigned A through G I remember. You can see an example if you google EU tyre label. I wish it showed a tread wear and temp' rating to make It complete. The EU label is easy on my eyes.

SamirD · Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:57 am

twoqttsdad wrote:
Oooo...the European system sounds lovely. Can you see how much of a 'cutoff' there is in grip at the limit in the graphs? That would be awesome
That would great but unfortunately the bar graphs aren't displayed with any measurable units. They are only a visual aid with a rating assigned A through G I remember. You can see an example if you google EU tyre label. I wish it showed a tread wear and temp' rating to make It complete. The EU label is easy on my eyes.

Bummer. Depending on if they use a log or linear scale, they could even skew those results unless there's a standard.

LPSISRL · Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:17 pm

From tirerack.com:
"UTQG Treadwear Grades are based on actual road use in which the test tire is run in a vehicle convoy along with standardized Course Monitoring Tires. The vehicle repeatedly runs a prescribed 400-mile test loop in West Texas for a total of 7,200 miles. The vehicle can have its alignment set, air pressure checked and tires rotated every 800 miles. The test tire's and the Monitoring Tire's wear are measured during and at the conclusion of the test. The tire manufacturers then assign a Treadwear Grade based on the observed wear rates. The Course Monitoring Tire is assigned a grade and the test tire receives a grade indicating its relative treadwear. A grade of 100 would indicate that the tire tread would last as long as the test tire, 200 would indicate the tread would last twice as long, 300 would indicate three times as long, etc.

The problem with UTQG Treadwear Grades is that they are open to some interpretation on the part of the tire manufacturer because they are assigned after the tire has only experienced a little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This means that the tire manufacturers need to extrapolate their raw wear data when they are assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades can to some extent reflect how conservative or optimistic their marketing department is. Typically, comparing the Treadwear Grades of tire lines within a single brand is somewhat helpful, while attempting to compare the grades between different brands is not as helpful."

LPSISRL · Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:28 pm

Since I started this thread and it's all about me...

I'm leaning towards either the Continental ContiProContact or the or PureContacts with EcoPlus. I don't know if the fuel savings and longer treadwear over time will offset the higher cost. However, I like the AA traction rating of the ProContacts over the A rating of the PureContacts. Thoughts? Does one know of a better tire at the same price point?

~tc~ · Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:06 am

The ExtremeContact DWS is considerably cheaper than the ProContact. I really liked the Kumho ASX on my previous car, and they are cheaper yet.

Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:18 am

Just thought I'd share this for anyone that's interested. It's Consumer Report's test results for UHP all season tires

LPSISRL · Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:37 pm

~tc~ wrote:The ExtremeContact DWS is considerably cheaper than the ProContact. I really liked the Kumho ASX on my previous car, and they are cheaper yet.

Hmmm... tirerack.com shows the DWS to be $39 more per tire at $185 and $146 for the ProContacts.
Also, I don't really need the "S" part.

Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:02 pm

bootymac wrote:Just thought I'd share this for anyone that's interested. It's Consumer Report's test results for UHP all season tires

I wouldn't wipe my butt with anything CR has to say.