So I'm getting ready to replace my current summer tires soon, and I've started shopping for prices. I found a set of All-season V-rated tires, and interestingly they're one of the cheaper sets that I'm seeing. I'm not going to mention what brand or model they are, as I'm sure this is going to degenerate into a war of brands after that, and the original purpose of the question will disappear. Now my car isn't a WRX or STI or anything performance-oriented like that, so the V-rating is unnecessary. However, is there any disadvantage to getting such a tire? Other tires that I'm also looking at mainly are ranging from a T-rating up to an H-rating. (Some of the higher priced tires actually have lower speed ratings!)
I'm looking at pros and cons, and wondering what sort of cons there are? One thing I noticed is that the lower speed rated tires have a tread-life warranty, but this V-rated one doesn't. Is that a big deal or not?
How fast will you drive (sustained)? How much weight will the tires carry?
formatting link
Are you commutting and can tolerate a shorter term of higher vibration and a harsher ride? Or will you tour around longer distances or are an older driver and perhaps with family or regular passengers and want a smoother and quieter ride?
formatting link
Speed rating is affected by temperature. Driving fast makes the tires get hotter but so does living in high heat locales. I haven't found at what temperature the sustained speed rating is measured but I suspect driving where the average temperature is 110F (Sahara) results in hotter tires at 150 mph than would driving where the average temperature is 0F.
formatting link
"the higher the speed rating, the better the grip and stopping power, but the lower the tread life."
formatting link
Read the "HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER FOR YOUR DRIVING & TREAD LIFE?" section.
Soft compound tires are great if you feel the need to take right/left turns at 30 mph. Instead of squealing and skidding, soft compound tires will growl and grip. Back when I had a blueprinted muscle car, I'd go through a set in less than a year but then I was nuts back then. Nowadays I'd rather not spend money on tires more than necessary. I also don't do oil changes anymore: let someone else do that grunt work.
Go with V rating if only for added safety. We live in an era of cutting production costs and overall deteriorating quality.
I drive my Impreza fairly fast and buy H rated tires, but only from Michelin (!) as this company has a good record of quality. If I were to venture into a lesser manufacturer I would definetely bump up the rating to V.
Not much difference in speed rating; however, my guess is the H tire will have a longer tread life (under identical usage to a V tire). You need to check what is the tread warranty by the tire maker to get an idea of what to expect for tread life.
The same size Bridgestone tires for my car for two different models, both all-season, both R rated (no, they're not watching mature-rated movies), both the same wheel size, width, and aspect ratio have a difference of 15K miles for tread warranty. The "performance" tire has a 55K mile tread warranty and $8 more than the "passenger" tire with a
70K mile tread warranty. I suspect the performance tire has a softer tread compound so it wears faster, grabs better (on dry road), and transmits more vibration than the passenger tire.
If it was for a commuter car making 20-mile one-way jaunts to work and not that tight on money (only $8 difference in *initial* price), I might get the performance tire. When touring where I'm driving for hours or days, I'd likely notice the harsher ride and more noise. If I was concerned about total tire costs over 25 years that I own the car, the $8 initial price difference is trivial and vastly overwhelmed by having to buy more sets of tires for that car over its lifetime. Assuming 15K miles per year for my commuting between home and work and miscellaneous errands (groceries, doctor, etc), a 25-year old car would have 375K miles on it (which isn't unreasonable for Subarus). For 55K tires, I'd have to buy 7 sets of tires. For 70K tires, I'd have to by 6 sets. Only 1 set difference but also add in the shop cost to replace the tires along with other concurrent services (e.g., balancing, alignment). I don't think I've ever pushed to the rated tread life of tires so likely there'd be 2 or maybe 3 sets difference in how many tire sets got bought for that car for its lifetime, especially since getting performance tires with more grab means I'm likely "playing" a bit more with the car (i.e., I'll scrub them off faster because they grab better).
Depends on how much you want to budget for tires during your ownership of the vehicle. I keep my Subies until repairs are prohibitive, especially if a new Subie needs repairs for where I need to focus my funds. I kept my '92 Subaru Legacy for 24 years. Would've kept it longer (only had 170K miles) except repairs were too costly: needed all
4 calibers, 4 pad sets, 4 rotors, brake lines, brake flush, fuel line from tank to pump had to be replaced due to rustout (the car sat for years unused), rubber (hoses) were getting pretty old), tranny shifter cable was rusted (impossible to shift unless I managed to get it moving and repeated in a couple weeks), and it had lots of body rustout. Might've repaired it but the head gasket on my '02 was leaking along with needing a timing belt kit, coolant flush, new water pump, spark plugs & wire kit, and thermostat. Once the engine was apart for the head gasket repair, might as well combine lots of overdue or soon-to-be-scheduled repairs to eliminate the same repeated disassembly for later individual repairs. Instead I poured the money into the newer '02 car (now 16 years old). The 24-year old '92 went bye bye.
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.