Acura TSX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We're not there yet, but we're not that far either.

A lot of us are pushing 20,000 miles, which means we're probably about halfway to having to think about a new set of tires.

I know that a lot of people are leasing and might be getting rid of the car before it's time for new tires.
But a lot of people won't.

So, if we're halfway there, it's not too early to start thinking and to be ready when the time comes. Especially since sometimes stuff happens that makes you have to get the new tires sooner than you thought.

As of now, I gotta say the best option seems to be the totally boring option: another set of stock tires. On all of the TSX sites, people have talked about how crappy those tires are, and about how just about anything would be better. But every time we start asking for specific recommendations, it seems that anything else that gets mentioned involves compromises. Like, you can't use them in winter. Or, the ride is rougher. Or, they'll last only half as long. Or something else. As near as I could tell, nobody was able to suggest any tire that would be better-performing than stock, without some compromise in one of those other areas.

I'd love to hear about some better tire, especially since the price of the stock tires is pretty darn high for something that people say is crap. But the more we've talked about it, the more I think maybe the stock tires aren't crap after all.

Larchmont, who is about to hit 20,000 miles.
 

·
Where am I?
Joined
·
30 Posts
Continental ContiExtreme Contact. A better tire all around, they come in the stock size, AND they cost less (about half as much in most places). Check it out, Larch.

Edit: it's true, the stock tires are crap.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
ClutchPerformer said:
Continental ContiExtreme Contact. A better tire all around, they come in the stock size, AND they cost less. Check it out, Larch.

Edit: it's true, the stock tires are crap.
OK, let's go through the drill:

No compromises on any of those criteria that us lazy-butt nerds care about?

-- good in winter too
-- ride isn't rougher than stock
-- longevity as good as stock

That's really all that I care about; some other people would add:

-- no worse MPG than stock


Whaddya say, Clutch?
 

·
TSX of the Month Winner
Joined
·
5,350 Posts
larchmont said:
OK, let's go through the drill:

No compromises on any of those criteria that us lazy-butt nerds care about?

-- good in winter too
-- ride isn't rougher than stock
-- longevity as good as stock

That's really all that I care about; some other people would add:

-- no worse MPG than stock


Whaddya say, Clutch?
Kumho Dunlop Falken...

Michelin or Yokohama for da win tho....
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
SAZABI said:
Kumho Dunlop Falken...

Michelin or Yokohama for da win tho....
Well, I think we have to be more specific (i.e. which tires from each brand). :donno:
I think most if not all of those WOULD sacrifice some of those things.

Anyway Michelin IS the stock! :mad:
 

·
BUM
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
I'm not really concerned with longevity, and could give a dam about winter performance...I live in the Worlds Finest City=San Diego. What I want is

Increased handling/cornering ability
Increased or sustained MPG
Increased or sustained Noise Levels (reduction that is)
Improved or sustained ride quality

I'm going to get 225/45/17 and keep the stock rims

Any recommendations for these attributes?
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
pocketkiller said:
I'm not really concerned with longevity, and could give a dam about winter performance...I live in the Worlds Finest City=San Diego.
It just might be.
Although perhaps a tad conservative. :D
pocketkiller said:
.....Increased or sustained Noise Levels (reduction that is).....
.....and you can add this one to my list too. (Forgot.)
 

·
TSX of the Month Winner
Joined
·
5,350 Posts
larchmont said:
Well, I think we have to be more specific (i.e. which tires from each brand). :donno:
I think most if not all of those WOULD sacrifice some of those things.

Anyway Michelin IS the stock! :mad:
The all season from those brand that I mention.

michelin is good... stock is good.. hee.... :rollsmile
 

·
Where am I?
Joined
·
30 Posts
larchmont said:
OK, let's go through the drill:

No compromises on any of those criteria that us lazy-butt nerds care about?

-- good in winter too
-- ride isn't rougher than stock
-- longevity as good as stock

That's really all that I care about; some other people would add:

-- no worse MPG than stock


Whaddya say, Clutch?
Well you can see for yourself at a place like TireRack.com where they have numbers and comparison tests and customer reviews, but to answer your questions directly:

-- They're excellent on snow/ice (the ContiExtreme means all-season)
-- Ride should be the same at stock tire size.
-- Longevity will be less than stock, but you'll always pay that penalty for a better-performing tire. It won't wear out as fast as a summer performance tire, though.
-- MPG shouldn't change.

I live in Wisconsin (as you may remember) where the winters are brutal, and I'm getting the ContiExtreme Contacts when my stockies wear out. I've done lots of research.
 

·
Where am I?
Joined
·
30 Posts
pocketkiller said:
I'm not really concerned with longevity, and could give a dam about winter performance...I live in the Worlds Finest City=San Diego. What I want is

Increased handling/cornering ability
Increased or sustained MPG
Increased or sustained Noise Levels (reduction that is)
Improved or sustained ride quality

I'm going to get 225/45/17 and keep the stock rims

Any recommendations for these attributes?
You, my friend, could use some Yokohama AVS dB S2 tires. They're designed to be quiet (the dB is for Decibel) and ride nicely but still perform. Check them out.

Edit: I've never ridden in a car w/ these, so I don't know if the claim about the lower noise is absolutely true. I'm just taking Yoko's word for it. :D
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
ClutchPerformer said:
Well you can see for yourself at a place like TireRack.com where they have numbers and comparison tests and customer reviews, but to answer your questions directly:

-- They're excellent on snow/ice (the ContiExtreme means all-season)
-- Ride should be the same at stock tire size.
-- Longevity will be less than stock, but you'll always pay that penalty for a better-performing tire. It won't wear out as fast as a summer performance tire, though.
-- MPG shouldn't change.

I live in Wisconsin (as you may remember) where the winters are brutal, and I'm getting the ContiExtreme Contacts when my stockies wear out. I've done lots of research.
Nice posts, Clutch -- thanks! This sure sounds like a good recommendation.

While we're at it, let me hit you up for just a little more: What about that additional criterion that pocketkiller mentioned that I liked -- "noise"?

This might already be covered in what you said about "ride," since the two sort of go together, but not always.....

Also: Any idea how much worse the longevity is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Hey Larch... didn't we have this discussion a while back?

Anyway, back then (and now) my opinion is the same... I agree with Clutch. From everything I've read, the Continentals are the way to go.

You claim that you don't want to give up any compromises with your new set of tires, when compared to stock. But if you were to compare the OEM Michelins as just another option for tires, you'll see that you're compromising just by using them.

There is no perfect tire... all have trade-offs.

OEM Michelins
Pros: Low rolling resistance (higher MPG), decent longevity (UTQG 300)
Cons: Below average traction (in all conditions), expensive ($179 each)

Continentals
Pros: Improved traction, less expensive ($92 each), better longevity (UTQG 400), higher performance tire (W rating)
Cons: Slightly higher rolling resistance (lose 1-2 MPG per tank)

You don't have to take my word for it, check out the reviews on TireRack's website. I had the same complaints about the OEM Michelins that came on my Integra. Since I replaced them, I've never considered putting another set of Michelins on it.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
sjlee said:
Hey Larch... didn't we have this discussion a while back?

Anyway, back then (and now) my opinion is the same... I agree with Clutch. From everything I've read, the Continentals are the way to go.....
Yeah, we did -- and the impression I was left with was -- exactly as you say here -- that there were always compromises on one or another of the criteria that I asked about, if you take tires other than stock. And since we're getting closer to when a lot of people (myself included) will need to make a choice, I figured I'd ask again as a final check. Or at least an updated check.

And I don't want to compromise on those factors, just as (I would guess) most other TSX drivers don't either, which could be a good reason that Honda/Acura chose these tires.
I know that basically everybody here keeps agreeing that the stock tires are pretty bad, but if you don't want to compromise on longevity or ride or noise or all-season capability, it's hard to name another tire.

I'm happy enough with the car's current performance that I wouldn't sacrifice any of those other things to get more performance.
And FWIW it's probably a good bet that most other TSX buyers would say the same. That doesn't make my criteria better -- just not crazy.

The info that you provided before was very helpful and very revealing to me. But for someone who rates the criteria the way I do, I thought it still left the "final answer" up in the air.

If the longevity is only slightly compromised with the Continentals, they might be the answer.

Anyway, don't get me wrong -- I've learned a lot from your replies on this and I've found your input very helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
larchmont said:
And I don't want to compromise on those factors, just as (I would guess) most other TSX drivers don't either, which could be a good reason that Honda/Acura chose these tires.
I know that basically everybody here keeps agreeing that the stock tires are pretty bad, but if you don't want to compromise on longevity or ride or noise or all-season capability, it's hard to name another tire.

I'm happy enough with the car's current performance that I wouldn't sacrifice any of those other things to get more performance.
And FWIW it's probably a good bet that most other TSX buyers would say the same. That doesn't make my criteria better -- just not crazy.

If the longevity is only slightly compromised with the Continentals, they might be the answer.
Well, actually the answer is alot simpler than you're making it. First of all, the Michelins cost almost twice as much as the Continentals. You don't seem to include that in your decision making process (or at least you're not mentioning it), but I'd say that is pretty significant cost difference.

Second, if you look at my comments on both tires again, you'll see that the ONLY advantage the Michelins have over the Continentals is rolling resistance. And it's not even enough to make much of a difference (only a couple MPG less) if you consider the price difference with the tires.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand why there's still indecision about it. According to the TireRack ratings, the Continental beats the Michelins in EVERY category (handling, traction - all conditions, ride comfort, noise comfort and wear). The only thing I've noticed about OEM Michelins are that they seem to get slightly better MPG (1-2 per tank) than other tires.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
sjlee said:
Well, actually the answer is alot simpler than you're making it. First of all, the Michelins cost almost twice as much as the Continentals. You don't seem to include that in your decision making process (or at least you're not mentioning it), but I'd say that is pretty significant cost difference.

Second, if you look at my comments on both tires again, you'll see that the ONLY advantage the Michelins have over the Continentals is rolling resistance. And it's not even enough to make much of a difference (only a couple MPG less) if you consider the price difference with the tires.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand why there's still indecision about it. According to the TireRack ratings, the Continental beats the Michelins in EVERY category (handling, traction - all conditions, ride comfort, noise comfort and wear). The only thing I've noticed about OEM Michelins are that they seem to get slightly better MPG (1-2 per tank) than other tires.
BTW.....regarding our having discussed this before, I imagine you're talking mainly about this other thread:

http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=467&page=1&pp=15

We didn't really pin it down over there. Indeed you said that the only advantage of the Michelins over several other tires that you mentioned was on rolling resistance. But.....I couldn't help but think that you were being kind of general, or at least not extremely literal, because it seems to be a basic given that you usually sacrifice some longevity and/or some quiet or some ride when you go for better performance. If that's not true, then indeed my question has easy answers -- and A LOT of them. I'd be very interested in what you can say about that.

Anyway.....wouldn't you be interested to hear what other people have to say also?

About the cost of the tires: Indeed that's not a factor for me. Look at it this way: We pay 25-30K for the car. We could get other cars for a lot less. I don't see that it makes sense to make a big deal even about a $100 difference per tire. Yes, $400 isn't chump change, but it's such a tiny percentage of what we put into the car that I think it gets totally cancelled out by how the tires affect the car.

About MPG, I didn't indicate that as a criterion. None of us would like to make a terrible sacrifice on that, but slight differences on MPG don't matter to me, just as they don't to you either. To the extent that I care about it, it isn't the slight extra cost (just like what I said about the cost of the tires), but the fact that you'd have to stop more often to fill up. Anyway, not a significant factor compared to the other things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
larchmont said:
We didn't really pin it down over there. Indeed you said that the only advantage of the Michelins over several other tires that you mentioned was on rolling resistance. But.....I couldn't help but think that you were being kind of general, or at least not extremely literal, because it seems to be a basic given that you usually sacrifice some longevity and/or some quiet or some ride when you go for better performance. If that's not true, then indeed my question has easy answers -- and A LOT of them. I'd be very interested in what you can say about that.

Anyway.....wouldn't you be interested to hear what other people have to say also?

About the cost of the tires: Indeed that's not a factor for me. Look at it this way: We pay 25-30K for the car. We could get other cars for a lot less. I don't see that it makes sense to make a big deal even about a $100 difference per tire. Yes, $400 isn't chump change, but it's such a tiny percentage of what we put into the car that I think it gets totally cancelled out by how the tires affect the car.

About MPG, I didn't indicate that as a criterion. None of us would like to make a terrible sacrifice on that, but slight differences on MPG don't matter to me, just as they don't to you either. To the extent that I care about it, it isn't the slight extra cost (just like what I said about the cost of the tires), but the fact that you'd have to stop more often to fill up. Anyway, not a significant factor compared to the other things.
Well, I think in general there's a trade-off between longevity of a tire and its performance... higher performance tires usually will wear out faster than lower performance tires, but that's not always the case. Take the OEM Michelins for instance... it doesn't do as well on treadwear because even when brand new, the treads are very shallow when compared with many other tires.

Anyway, I thought I was being clear (and straightforward) both in the other thread as well as my earlier posts in this thread. If not, I apologize for that. I don't always express myself correctly when typing.

I would love to hear input from other people about their experiences with the OEM Michelins and what tires they are considering as replacements. As you pointed out, the TSX is a fairly new model, so the number of owners that are ready to get new tires is probably a fairly small percentage. From the few people that have already posted, it seems that most (if not all) are looking at other brands to rather than going with another set of the Michelins.

I agree that the cost of the tires is a very small percentage of the total cost of the car, but I don't think the price of the car should have any bearing on how much you spend on regular maintenance. The price of the car is a sunk cost. So, going forward, I would think that most owners want to minimize costs (and repairs) and maximize the life of the car (or at least until they decide to get rid of it).

I don't think there are any tire dealers that will let a customer break out the payments over the life of the tires, so why would you look at it that way? To you spending an extra $400 may seem insignificant (and it is if you stretch it out over the life of the tires), but at the time of purchase, I'm sure you could think of other things to spend the money on. In other words, the cost is incurred immediately, so it should be treated as so, not weighed against the life of the tires or even the price of the car.

But I think it comes down to this question, why spend more money on a set of tires that is inferior to another set?

Anyway, I'm only going by the reviews and comments I've read on tires, so who knows, the Continentals may not be as superior to the Michelins as they seem. In addition, I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion or experiences. The only true way of finding out if a set of tires is as good as everyone says would be to try them yourself. Of course, the reviews are a good guide since many don't want to be stuck with a crappy set of tires for 3-4 years.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
sjlee said:
.....But I think it comes down to this question, why spend more money on a set of tires that is inferior to another set?

Anyway, I'm only going by the reviews and comments I've read on tires, so who knows.....
Great post, SJ -- that really covers it. I still do see some of it differently -- like, I don't think the fact that you have to pay the $$ for the tires right away affects what I said about how small an expenditure it is compared to the car. Like, it you spent a million dollars for a house (or, if you're paying a couple thousand a month in rent), I don't see that it makes sense to hold back on spending an extra couple hundred dollars on some one-time expenditure for something that can make the difference between just liking the place and loving it. Same thing, isn't it?

Also you can put it on your credit card, right? :D


And.....sure, I don't want to pay more for worse tires either.

And going by the reviews and comments is exactly what we have to do. There's no other way, except if you have a chance to try the TSX with different kinds of tires.

It's sounding like the Continentals might be the best choice for a lot of people, even the "old lady" types like moi. And some other people I'm sure will be going for more performance-oriented tires.

I'll still be looking to hear more about the longevity factor. I do note what you say about the Michelins. I guess I've been assuming the usual "40,000 miles" or whatever. If they do worse than that, this won't be that much of a criterion in thinking about other tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
larchmont said:
Great post, SJ -- that really covers it. I still do see some of it differently -- like, I don't think the fact that you have to pay the $$ for the tires right away affects what I said about how small an expenditure it is compared to the car. Like, it you spent a million dollars for a house (or, if you're paying a couple thousand a month in rent), I don't see that it makes sense to hold back on spending an extra couple hundred dollars on some one-time expenditure for something that can make the difference between just liking the place and loving it. Same thing, isn't it?

Also you can put it on your credit card, right? :D
Thanks for the good word Larch.

Well, your example isn't really "the same thing". $400 is about 1.4% of $28,000 (the approximate price of a new TSX). If you spent $1 million for a house, we'd be talking about an extra $14,000, not just a couple hundred dollars.

In any case, I don't mind spending extra money for something that I think is better or superior, but I don't see the Michelins as being either. :)

By the way, of course I'd put it on a credit card. I don't normally walk around with $400 in my wallet. :)
 

·
BUM
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Thanks for the recommendations CLUTCH, i'll check out the yoko's at tire rack.

It looks like the Yoko AVS db S2 are going for $127 at tirerack.com with $42 shipping charge. Its the cheapest so far from several sites. I'm gonna try to see if Costco can do it cheaper. It seems that not alot of big time tire companys carry this tire.

They also mention Pirelli P Zero M+S as best rated tire in the ultra high performance All Season section. The YOKO you mentioned is #4. Conti I believe is #2.

I think I would be happy with the Pirelli or Yoko...not bad for ~$125
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top