michelin harmony vs hydroedge

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.

Bob

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 crap.

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.

I was wondering if the Hydroedge were a quiet tire myself. I had the Harmony tires on my '01 Accord and I got 120,000 km on them before they were down to the tread wear marks.

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.

J.

i found hydroedge to be a brutally harsh ride in a 2000 civic. great in all other respects though.

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.

Eric

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.

YMMV

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 be desired. Agree -

- excellent source for reader surveys and test track reviews.

-Dave

I have 30k on my original tires of my '04 Accord, and they look like they can go another 30k.

Yeah, but the OP is looking for some long lasting crap. 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

40k.

There is no perfect tire for everyone.

imagine what happens if everyone would go out and buy at least 960s: the rubber consumption (and prices) would almost double. And all that stuff would eventually end up in landfills. At least I don't think they burn used tires these days like they used to.

you're right. warranted to 40k

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 the Bridgestones.

that michelin hydrocrap should be adequate for a lot of people.

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 company.

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

9560). is snow traction a smudge better?

are japanese somehow immune from producing garbage? 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 manufacturer 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 public.

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.

well... i don't :-)

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.

Good choice! :-)