Ya, I know.
I had some Toyo Ultra 800's that didn't last too long but were supposed
to have a long tread life. As a matter of fact, they wore out much, much
sooner than the tires that came on the car when I bought it new. So,
after pondering the
stains on the kitchen table, I thought I would make the primary criteria
next tread life, and,
hoping for miracles, lastly rolling resistance.
(or was it tread life and then price?)
Hmmm. I'll have to see if I can find out what Honda put on them in 98.
jim beam wrote:
whatever you do, be careful. in my experience, most of these "eco" low
resistance tires, while great for fuel economy, are pretty damned scary
when it comes to lack of grip. and you don't need to be a hot rod to
worry about that, simply faced with an emergency stop and worrying why
your tires are like glass. personally, i trade a little fuel economy
for grip. screws the planet, but better for my personal health, jack.
Some organization or government agency has a tread-life rating which goes
from ??? to 800. How reliable is that? In my experience it was not a good
predictor. Consumer Reports had an article on tires, and their results
correspond well with that tread-life rating.
loewent via CarKB.com wrote:
I would agree, treadwear is not the greatest indicator. As with EPA fuel
economy estimates, treadlife estimates are subject to standard tests based on
a certain set of driving condtions. if your driving regimen is not the same
as the standard, your treadlife will be different than the estimate.
Message posted via CarKB.com
I found a report that is even more on target. Almost none of the tires
in the 2006
report will fit on a Civic.
Instead, see the November 2005 issue.
I'm going to get the Dayton Grenadier PLE.
John Horner wrote:
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.