If 60000 miles is enough for you, look into the Bridgestone Turanza LS-H.
Don't expect great snow performance, but in all other wet dry conditions,
these are excellent. A bit pricey, so shop around.
I have HydroEdge on my 2005 CR-V. They are great in the wet. I don't
notice any more noise, on the contrary compared to the original Bridgstone
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:54:50 -0400, rjdriver wrote:
I have Turanza LS-T tires on my '88 Civic and I got 70,000 mi out of my last
set (I'm now on my 2nd set). They do fine in the rain but not in the snow.
For that I have a set of snow tires on an extra set of rims to swap over for
the 2 or 3 times a year I might need them.
I've got Harmonys on a '94 Toyota Pickup. I don't think I'll drive
them down to the wear bars as I do some serious commuting. However
they will probably give me 65-70k miles. I've had no traction
problems with them and I drive them hard in the rain on occasion. As
far as noise, I know our Civic is bad for road noise so I don't what
if anything you can do about that. They aren't noisy on my truck.
Yah, drove my newish 2007 Accord EX in the rain for about the first
time the other day (it never rains in southern California), and
noticed the poor traction. Tires on previous Accord, most recently
2004, did much better, I think, and were still solid past 45k miles.
I know that's no help to you know, just concurring on the observation.
Must have changed something between 2004 and 2005.
My suggestion is not to worry about the "long lasting" part but
concentrate on the performance aspects that are important to you. You
can use the Tire Rack's survey results for that type of analysis (be
sure to read the user comments as they often provide good information
on how the tires perform on different types of cars). My experience
with long lasting tires is that after several years their performance
begins to suffer in significant ways regardless of how much tread is
left. I'd have been better off buying higher performance tires with a
warranty of 40,000 to 60,000 miles than paying for the 70,000 to
80,000 mile warranty. In the overall cost of auto upkeep, tires are
really cheap - buy the best you can afford. Perhaps the Michelin Pilot
Exalto A/S or Bridgestone Potenza Pole Position or the Goodyear
Assurance TripleTred depending upon your driving style.
I was thinking the exact thing with the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S, but
comparing them with the Bridgestone Potenza RE960. I've tried a couple sets
of the Potenza RE950s on my old car, and have never had a better tire in the
rain. Excellent, along with dry. Snow was not good, but worked in light
snow. I hear the RE960s which replaced them are better.
My '05 Accord LX has the OEM Michelin Energy, and agree - they have a LOT to
Agree - www.tirerack.com - excellent source for reader surveys and test
Unlike 950s 960s I believe do not even come with any
treadwear warranty (not that you'd get any money out
of the japs on the 950s either). Just my anal 2 pennies.
I'm just giving money to koreans lately. Good traction,
good value, good feelings. Ecsta MX is soooo cushy
and quiet compared to ventus R-S2. Not for snow obviously.
I'm lately under the impression that Bridgestone Medium Industries
is the secret jap weapon to suck as much money out of americans
as quickly as possible. Just look at the crapenza 92 UTQGs
for various sizes and you'd understand.
You're right, the OP *did" say a lot of miles. But I tend to agree with
what ACAR said about performance, too. Don't want something lasting for 80k
miles but perform like crap.
But yes, the 950s and 960s do come with a treadlife warranty - or at least a
rated one the last time I checked Tire Rack. From what I've read about the
Potenza RE92 I'll agree - stay away from them! RE960s have a treadlife of
There is no perfect tire for everyone.
It'll be time to buy stock in Bridgestone/Firestone. But this tire is not
perfect for everyone. I think it's relevant since the OP mentioned the OEM
tires were terrible in the rain. The RE950s were the best tires I've ever
had in the rain, and also happened to work well on dry pavement. Snow on
the other hand.... different story.
How do you even trade on the jap stock exchange?
You have an agent over there or something?
Hmm, you gonna give money to a jap company so that it's rip
off your fellow citizens thru crap like RE92s?
Btw did you notice that the treadwear rating got RE050As is
HALF of that for F1 GS D3 and ContiSport Contact 2?
Even my korean Ecsta MX that cost me $88 a piece
(about half what you'd pay for RE050As) has the rating of 220 or 240
vs 140 for RE050s. So I did not really paid half the price,
it was a quarter!
I haven't compared 960s with Advan S.4 mileage wise
yet but won't be surprised if the Yokohama is as much of a ripoff as
If you didn't notice, it was meant as humor. Lighten up. I also agreed
with you on the RE92s. There are probably tired from each manufacturer that
do not perform how you or I would like. You seem to show hostility with
Japanese companies. This IS a Honda newsgroup, and Honda is also Japanese
Didn't notice the treadware on the RE050. Never looked at them or the
others you mentioned. Didn't know it was part of the discussion, so you
would know more about them than I. If you feel they're a ripoff, best not
to buy them.
It takes some doing to make a tire that does not grip AND does not
last. The treadwear rating for 92s is between 160 and 360
depending on the size whereas 960 and 950 are 400. I would be hard
pressed to find one area where 92 performs better than (longer lasting
is snow traction a smudge better?
this was just one example. I think 92s are engineered specifically so
that they won't last. I'm not aware of any other tire by any other
that has a combination of pure traction in all conditions combined
with low treadlife. i'm not saying there is no such thing I just
haven't seen any. i'm sick of companies riding the brand reputation
fueled by the billions of dollars spent on the brainwashing of the
that was an example of bridgestone ripoff strategy.
960s are probably very competitive though traction and treadlifewise.
That's why you probably don't see them on any new cars.
maybe they cost more to make then 92s too.
I noticed the treadware on the RE92s varied. Still too soon to tell but the
960s at least look better than the 950s for snow traction. I know from
personal experience they had a lot to be desired in the snow.
No, Japanese is not immune from producing garbage. The previous message
shows hostility and anger at Japanese companies. Can't say I've seen
anything as bad as the RE92 but then again I haven't looked for it. Brand
reputation is a guide but not a rule. Good companies can still have lacking
products! But they normally like to keep a good reputation. All it takes
is one bad product to drag them down. Research before purchase works.
Amazing how some OEM tires cost more than others that are rated and perform
much better. Must be feeding on people who believe it's best to buy the
same ones that came with it. I agree OEM parts often work better but tires
is not one of them.
Hi : I switched from Harmonies to Hydroedge on both my '92 and '04
Accords a couple of years ago. Bottom line is that I LOVE the
Hydroedge, both in terms of performance and relative quietness. I did
not experience much of the dreaded extra noise at all, but I did
notice that my wet weather handling felt much safer and more
controlled. I was at 6 mm tread on my Harmonies when I switched, but
those tires were still too scary for me in the rain. Too many
hydroplaning incidents througout the life of the Harmonies. Virtually
none since I switched to Hydroedge. One caveat: Hydroedge is not the
best tire in ice and snow!!! In that department, I felt obligated to
go to a dedicated winter tire for here in sourthern Ontario, and so
now use the Michelin X-Ice starting in November. One thing that really
helps me is to get a four wheel alignment every March when I switch
back to the Hydroedge. - Paul
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.