Q: Special tires for '99 Camry LE V6?

Sounds like you "heard" just what you wanted to hear. Speed rating also takes into effect vehicle loading and handling (sidewall and tread construction). A heavy vehicle that flexs the side walls of tires builds up heat (easpecially if they are under inflated) -- tires then fail. Doesn't have to be 130 mph - can be 60 --- but a blow out will have the same results. Don't you think manf would skim on low rated tires (even more) if they could. Tire dealers are protecting themselves from a law suite (should you walk away fron the wreck) - listen to them! An extra $100 on tires every 4 yrs is but $25 per year. Just hope you don't kill others on the road when they blow - suspect you could get sued for gross neglect. I have little used Ford Pinto with bias ply tires if you want to risk your safety.

Reply to
Wolfgang
Loading thread data ...

Everyone who reads the Camry newsgroup also reads the Toyota newsgroup. It is very poor netiquette. If you also posted in the Honda newsgroup, that would be different.

The length of time you have been surfing has nothing to do with your netiquette.

Reply to
Mark A

I guess that I knew from your posts about netiquette that you were brain dead.

Many posters (including myself) told you otherwise. Speed rating affects handling and breaking ability of the tire. These are serious safety issues.

You were also told the speed ratings were somewhat misleading. I guarantee you that the Firestone S/T tires that exploded on the Explorer did not exceed 112 mph. The speed rating is done in a laboratory, not in real road conditions.

If higher speed rated tires (H, V) were not a noticeable benefit, why would auto manufactures put them on as OEM?

Apparently you only read the posts that agreed with your preconceived notions about the subject.

Reply to
Mark A

I don't think this is necessarily true. The speed rating is a measure of the tires ability to reduce and/or withstand heat build-up and therefore survive under substained high speeds. It is very possible that a tire that can handle substained high speeds might not provide good traction. The fact that must tires with high speed rating are often more expensive performance tires has more to do with the superior handling qualities than the actual speed rating. For example BF Goodrich seell Tration T/A tires in T, H, and V speed ratings. For the P205/65-15 size the tires comapre as follows (from the tire rack) - UTG UTG UTG Speed Tread Tract Temp TR Rating Wear Rating Rating Price T (118) 620 A B $56 H (130) 440 AA A $62 V (149) 440 AA A $77

Clearly the T rated tire has scaraficed high speed ability and traction in order to sell a longer lasting tire at a lower price. However, I don't think there is any significant performance difference between the H and V rated tires except for the speed rating. For this reason, I can't see why anyone in the US with a Camry would buy the V rated tire. In fact, for most people, the T rated tire would be the more cost effective choice as long as they don't plan to drive at substained high speeds. The wet braking traction is not quite as good as for the H and V tires, but t is unlikely this will be a significant difference.

Consumer Reports (I know, not everyone's favorite source of information) did a big test on tires in November of 2001. There was not a direction relationship betten there evaluation of a tires handling charateristics and the tires speed rating. In this test CR mostly tested S and T rated tires and there were many cases where S rated tires out performed T rated tires.

Consumer Reports did another pretty extensive tire comparison test in November of 2003. In this test, the top rated H speed tire outperformed most of the X, Y, and Z rated tires. In fact, it was arguably better than the top rated W speed tire.

The Firestone tires on an Explorer didn't explode, the usual failure mode was a belt seperation.

Primarily for liability reasons. If a company sells a car that can achieve 150 mph, and then installs tires good for only 118 mph and the tires fail when the car is being driven at high speed, the comapny may be sued. This has not always been the case. I can remember cars being sold with 85 mph max speed tires in the US in the 80's. The theory was, the maximum legal speed in the US was 55, so you didn't need tires capable of sustained high speeds. A secondary reason is snob appeal. If you buy a $60,000+ performance car you don't want to see ccheap tires on the rims.

Persoanlly, I stay away from cheap tires. Nothing ruins the driving experience faster than crummy tires. Today most of the S and T rated tires are intended for the low price market.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

No, it is not "necessarily" true. But it is true more than 95% of the time since softer rubber compounds are needed to dissipate the heat better. There may be some minor exceptions, but not many.

This is simply not true. The Lexus 300 has always used V rated tires as OEM and the Camry XLE V6 uses H rated. Up until very recently they both had the exact same engine that was capable of the same maximum speed.

The reason for the better tires on the Lexus is that buyers of premium cars expect better handling and breaking, and can afford to replace their tires more often to achieve that (V rated tires typically wear faster than H rated).

Reply to
Mark A

Actually if you look at the CR test results, it is true only about 30% of the time - i.e., it is not really a major factor. The top 6 H rated tires in the CR testing fit right in with the top 6 X, Y, Z tires. The bottom 10 tires tested in the H rated category were clearly inferior to all but the very worst x,y,z tires but these were realtively inexpensive tires.

Are you sure of this? The Camry definitely has a computer limited top speed. Does the Lexus have the same limit? And at least for 1999, The Lexus V-6 was rated at 210 hp, the Camry at 194 hp.

I think I covered that in the "snob appeal" passage. How many Lexus owners could actually tell the difference in performance? 1%, 5%, 10%? I don't completely disagree with what you are saying. I am just saying that the reason tires with high speed rating often have better performance in other areas is becasue they are more expensive tires oriented for the performance market. I am confident you could build an H rated tire with great performance characteristics, but in the end it would probably cost almost as much as a higher speed rated tires without having the snob appeal.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Ed, You are full of crap. Auto manufacturers are very cost conscious and most luxury car buyers don't know squat about tires and tire speed ratings. The manufacturers use the higher speed rated tires because they perform better at handling and breaking.

Starting in 1992, the Lexus 300 had the identical engine as the Camry V6 (I owned one) and had V rated tires. They did change the engine slightly a few years after that, but the slight change in maximum speed (if there was actually an increase in maximum speed) was not enough to mandate the higher speed ratings.

It has nothing to do with manufacturers liability of people driving at maximum speed. The speed ratings are conducted on unrealistically smooth testing surfaces, and on a typical road surface a tire will fail long before the official speed rating, especially on a hot day with extended run time.

90% of the tires on the road are under-inflated for at least some amount of time in their life, which makes the speed rating much lower than it ordinarily is.

The CR article is ridiculous and does not rate tires on strictly on performance (i.e., breaking and handling). They also consider tire wear which is notoriously worse for the higher speed rated tires.

I am not suggesting that someone with a Cary needs to purchase V rated tires (because they wear rather quickly), but H rated are a definite improvement over S/T rated tires, which is the subject of this thread.

Reply to
Mark A

You are just another fecking net cop. So, FOAD.

>
Reply to
Sharix

conscious and

perform

Camry V6 (I

slightly a few

improvement

"MarkA", I agree with you on several points .... starting with Ed being full of crap and his source quotes from Consumer Reports being ridiculous on this particular subject. ;^)

I agree with your observation about hot, rough road surfaces contributing to tire failure at less than rated speed. I used to drive tractor trailer and in EVERY case where a trailer tire blew, it was under heavy load, high sustained heat, and rough pavement. If running a higher speed rated tire lowers the likelyhood of carcass separation at speed ('cuz I do drive across I-8 and I-10 in CA and AZ at 75+ mph) then such an upgrade is attractive in my case.

When the time comes for me to replace the OEM Goodyear Integritys on my Corolla ('S' rated w/460 tread wear rating), I'm definitely in the market for a stickier tire, probably with a higher speed rating than the car's "clipped" limit of 112 mph. There are other benefits in using a higher speed rated tire at lower speeds.

Reply to
Philip®

Maybe so, however, I doubt that the average buyer can tell the difference in handling and performance between high quality H rated tires and good quality V rated tires. Again, my basic contnetion is that a high speed rating by itself does not imply better braking and handling performance. In almost any case I can find, tires with high speed ratings are higher priced tires intneded for the performance market. Naturally superior braking and handling and a high speed rating are a prerequisite for this market segment. I can't imagine that it makes much marketing sense for someone to create an expensive high spped rated performance tire with poor handling characteristics. On the other hand, there are plenty of tires with a moderate speed rating that have very good handling and braking characteristics.

I don't doubt that a Lexus gets more expensive tires than a Toyota. It also gets a more expensive stero and more expensive seat trim.

It sounds like you are saying the speed ratings is meaningless. But surely you will agree that a V rated tire can substain a higher speed than an H rated tire. Right?

Did you read the November 2003 CR article? They rated the tires in lots of categories, including dry braking, wet braking, handing, hydroplaning, rolling resistance, snow traction, and ice braking. There were sevral "Ultra-high-performance tires" in the evalustion that got only average marks for dry handling (Michelin Pilot Sport, Kumho ECSTA Supra 712, Sumitomo HTRZ II, Hankook Ventus Sport K104) and several H rated tires that were rated as having "excelent" handling characteristics (Bridgestone Turanza LS-H, Bridgestone Potenza RE950, Continental ContiTouringContact CH95).

I agree with this. My only contnetion is that this more of a price statment than being directly related to the speed rating.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

It is really a shame that people like you are allowed to post things on a newsgroup that you know nothing about, which can mislead many consumers.

There is a direct correlation between a tires speed rating, its ability to dissipate heat, and its handling and breaking abilities. You are a complete quack.

No, the speed ratings are not meaningless. But they are overly optimistic. If someone thinks that they can drive a car with T (118 mph)rated tires at

100 miles per hour (or even 90 mph) without substantially increasing the risk of tire failure is fooling themselves. As I explained, the ratings are conducted on "perfect" surfaces that rarely exist on most roads. The speed rating is substantially reduced (as Ford Explorer owners found out) when the tire is under-inflated by even a few psi.

It would be really nice if you knew what you were talking about instead of just speculating. People's lives may depend on it.

Reply to
Mark A

Mark,

I have posted information to support my position. You have posted your opinions with no support. Instead of trying to support your position you are calling me a quack. Other than your own opinion, do you have any evidence that backs up your apparent claim that a high speed rating always equates to superior handling and braking abilities? I am willing to concede that tires sold with a high speed rating are almost always "performance tires" which implies that they have scarified some other characteristics (long life, low cost) in order to achieve superior handling and braking, however, there is not a direct relationship between the speed rating and these other properties. Try this, go to Michelins luxury performance tire list

formatting link
and compare the specs fortires within the different types. For a given tire line, Michelin claimsthe same handling characteristics. However, all tires within theparticular lines do not have the same speed rating. This supports myposition that there is not a direct relationship between speed ratingand handling.

I see the disagreement this way -

- You claim that tires with a higher speed rating necessarily have better handling and braking characteristics.

- I claim that handling and braking characteristics are not directly related to the speed rating, but believe that tires with high speed ratings are almost always more expensive "performance tires" and therefore most likely will have better braking and handling characteristics. However, this is not cast in stone.

I believe if you buy good quality tires, matched to your driving style and the car characteristics and properly maintain them, then you will be fine. Very few American drivers actually benefit from tires with V or higher speed ratings. If I was selling tires, I would insist on selling tires with at least the same speed rating as the OE tires, but this would be to reduce my liability, not because I think the higher speed ratied tires are inherently better in all ways.

Ed

Mark A wrote:

Reply to
C. E. White

My issue with Consumer Reports is that they review a tire for a short period of time and then provide feedback. They don't make any effort to say how the tire will perform for its expected life. By this, I am referring to the fact that some tires tend to develop sidewall deformities as well as require frequent balancing to remove steering vibration.

It is one of the reasons why I like Tire Rack's customer reviews since, they may not be as technical as Consumer Reports, they can tell you how the tires faired after 20,000 miles of driving and not 200 miles of tests.

Don't get me wrong. Consumer Reports testing offers valuable info, they just need to expand on the long term view of these tires to the manner of how auto journalists from various magazines and web sites take a vehicle for

Reply to
Car Guy

C.E. White,

If you check the Consumer Reports article, they do mention that higher speed tires offer better dry and wet traction and handling but their stiffer sidewalls provide a more harsh ride. Also, this comment can be proven if you visit tire rack, or contact other tire manufacturers, dealers, and publications. I would post the exact references, but I don't feel up to it right now (got a touch of the flu!)

Rest assured tho that Mark A.'s comments are accurate and some of your comments are as well. The areas you differ are the handling capabilities of the tires which can be substanciated by a quick google search. Here is one link that might be of interest:

formatting link
Speed Rating Characteristics Tires have always had the ability to change an automobile's driving characteristics. Technology has given the tire an important role as a component of the automobile suspension.

The speed rating of the tire is an indicator of the tire's performance capability. Improving the tire's performance capability will normally benefit an automobile's performance. Conversely, decreasing the tire's speed rating generally lowers the tire's ability to contribute to the automobile's performance.

Changing from the O.E. tire speed rating to another performance level tire will probably change handling in areas such as:

  1. Steering Response 4. Cornering 2. Braking 5. Evasion/Recovery 3. Traction

Reply to
Car Guy

Consumer Reports tests what it can and/or considers important. I often find myself at odds with their findings and test methods. They are not immune from trying to construct tests to prove their particualr pet theory. I have always though their owner surveys were poorly constructed and of little value. However, for what it was, their November tire test was OK. Unfortunately it will be obsolete within months since manucturers constantly change tire models. I only referenced it as one source of information that showed there was not a direct link between speed rating and performance in other areas. The Tire Rack information is another. However, the Tire Rack information is based solely on the owner's opinions. Becasue of this it is more a measurement of handling or braking feel, than actual performance.

Their results are interesting, but they measure satisfaction, not actual measurable performance. Not that this is unimportant, but it can be misleading.

JD Powers runs a popularity contest. JD Power measures preceprtion which may or may not reflect reality (see

formatting link
and
formatting link
The results available for "free" only address satisfaction buy brand. Since all brands include a wide range of products, it is hard to make any decisions based solely on the information provided for free.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

What they actually said was "But more precise handling and better heat resistance at normal highway speeds are the important reasons that high-performance tires, especially H-speed-rated, performance all-season versions, are quickly redefining the tire market."

I certainly am not arguing that high-performance tires are not a good thing. I just arguing against the idea that a higher speed rating automatically implies better handling or braking performance.

I don't disagree with what was said above, but I do think it really doesn't say anything important either. I am not arguing that in many cases tires with higher speed rating are also higher performance tires. What I am arguing is that there is no direct link between the speed rating and performance in other areas. The test to verify the speed rating does not test traction or handling response. It merely confirms that when loaded to it's rated load the tire can be run at the speed associated with the rating in a laboratory test. From

formatting link
: "Speed ratings are based on laboratory tests where the tire is pressed against a large diameter metal drum to reflect its appropriate load, and run at ever increasing speeds (in 6.2 mph steps in 10 minute increments) until the tire's required speed has been met."

Nothing in this test says anything about braking performance or handling performance. I believe it would be relatively easy to design a tire that could meet the speed requirements while having horrible characteristics in other areas. I can see no reason why such tires would be made, but they could be.

I think we are seeing different things in the CR test report. For the ultra high performance tires (W,X,Y,Z speed rated), the braking and handling performance of the tires varied from only "good" to "excellent." The same was true of the mostly H speed rated "performance all-season tires" tested (only one was rated as poor). If you combined the two lists, it appears to me that you would be unable to pick out the ultra performance tires solely by their position in the list. The worst "H" tires would clearly be at the bottom of the list, but at the top of the list, there would be no consistent differences based solely on speed rating (or price for that matter). In fact, it looks to me that if you are trying to go for the best bang for the buck and you don't need snow traction, the H rated Bridgestone Potenza RE950 was by far the best choice at a cost of $85 per tire. It got top marks in dry traction, dry braking, wet braking, and hydroplaning resistance.

I am fully in agreement with the idea that you should purchase good quality tires for your car. Cheap tires are a sure way to ruin the ride and handling of a car. I just don't agree with the idea that buying W,X,Y, or Z speed rated tires equates to buying the best tires for a car. I am also not in agreement with the idea that tires with higher speed rating necessarily have better braking and handling performance than tires with lower speed ratings. It may usually be true, but it is not written in stone. It is merely one of many important performance characteristics.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

"wet traction" is separately rated by the letters, A, AA, etc.

Higher "speed" rated tires are often not better for wet traction. IOW, being V rated does not ensure better wet traction over a tire w/ H or S speed ratings.

Unfortunately, there is no rating for "sidewall stiffness". Therefore we are left w/ our own personal evaluation and opinions from other users.

Reply to
Martin Yanagisawa

The reason for that usually has to do with tread design and tire width. V rated tires are often used on luxury cars where the tread design is optimized for quiet ride over wet traction.

Reply to
Mark A

Yes, there is a direct link because the MANUFACTURING METHOD that is used to make the speed rating higher also makes improves handling and performance. This usually includes the use of softer tread compounds or advanced high-tech tread compounds.

You are in complete denial as to the facts stated from the above web-site.

That is precisely what I have tried to point out to you. The tests are done in the laboratory and not on real roads. A tire heats up as it flexes due to road contact and due to tread squirm on less than a perfectly smooth road surface. So the speed ratings cannot be used for real world comparison (it is wrong to say that since I never exceed 108 mph, I can safely use S rated tires), except as used on a "relative" basis (H rated tires have a larger margin of safety than S rated tires with regard to speed related damage, almost always caused by heat).

Ed, unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about, and are just speculating based on some rather incomplete information you have received.

Reply to
Mark A

I think this argument over speed rating vs. tire capabilities is becoming more like a law case. You have the Crown (Mark A) and the Defence (C.E. White). At the end of the mud slinging, I wonder who will admit defeat.

Not to pick sides, but from everything I have heard and read, higher speed rating tires tend to be more sticky (temp/tire ratings) and thus offer better braking and precise handling (due to increased sidewall stiffness). Also, as mentioned in this post, these high speed tires are sold at premium prices and add things like silica and other things to promote improved grip.

Now, to compare wet traction, tread design plays a HUGE part in that. A V rated tire may be more sticky in dry weather, but if it does not have evac chutes, the tire will not have adequate contact with the road and cause hydroplaning. Here tire design, not speed rating is important.

Reply to
Car Guy

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.