Car & Driver Tire Comparo

[mele63]

Rating tires is complicated. In the new Car & Driver, they tested approx. ten of the top brands. They only tested "summer only" tires, so the test wasn't very useful to me; I'm willing to compromise for the sake of convenience of all-season tires.

 

In any case, they tested only "objective" factors, such as braking, skid pad (wet and dry) and performance by E.T. on a closed circuit (same car, same driver, diff. tires). They did not give points for ride or noise, or other "subjective" factors.

 

What was most surprising to me is that some of the tires that "scored" highest as per the objective measures did not impress the drivers as being the "best". Personally, I would prefer a tire that makes me feel safe & satisfied with the driving experience, even if that means giving up some sheer performance numbers.

 

For those of you who are interested in tires, it would be worthwhile to pick up a copy of the issue.

 

FWIW, the Bridgestone Potenzas (not our Potenzas, which are all-season)scored next to last in this test. The editors thought Bridgestone may have sacrificed performance for ride quality.

[AWD-Turbo]

I found it interesting to see a tire comparison outside of the tirerack (even though C&D used their track).

I was a little disappointed in the toyo, but the GSD3 is looking more and more like my next tire.

[Boostjunkie]

It was a fairly narrow comparison, which favored tires biased towards wet performance. They also did not take ride comfort or noise at all. While those are certainly not areas of concern for track only tires, they do matter on the street and the tested tires were all street tires. Still good info, but their picks might not necessarily be the best for another person.

[sputnik]

Is there a link? I couldn't find this review on their web site.

[RockyMtnGT]

I (or someone else, since I going to bed... ) can scan the article.

 

I was REALLY psyched to see it there since I've been researching new tires for the spring.

 

It's a great take on tires from a group of professionals. I mean it's infinitely more informative than the review on Tirerack written by 13 year old Bobby describing how his Z28 does awesome on BF G's in 6 inches of snow...

 

They drive thousands of cars, on thousands of different tires, in a much more diverse set of circumstances and speeds. Not to mention graphs with data to back up their words.

 

If I could test all of these differnet tires first hand I'd do it, but until then I'll definitely consider at least some of what these guys had to say...

 

Mods cool if we post scans?

 

BTW I'm likin' the Contis!

[mele63]

 

It's a great take on tires from a group of professionals. I mean it's infinitely more informative than the review on Tirerack written by 13 year old Bobby describing how his Z28 does awesome on BF G's in 6 inches of snow...

 

 

I don't know about the 13 year olds, but I am very skeptical about asking the sales reps at Tire Rack for recommendations. It's just commom sense that they are going to "push" the tires that have the highest profit margin, are overstocked, ect. I had an A4 with Goodyear RSA's and Tire Rack always tried to steer me to another brand. You can be sure that the profit margins on Goodyears are among the lowest.

[emlevins]

but the GSD3 is looking more and more like my next tire.

 

You won't be disappointed. I have them as do many others do on the board. Do a search and you should be able to learn alot about them (if you haven't already).

[rexster]

they finally put it online:

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/article...2&page_number=1

[racerdave]

It was a fairly narrow comparison, which favored tires biased towards wet performance. They also did not take ride comfort or noise at all. While those are certainly not areas of concern for track only tires, they do matter on the street and the tested tires were all street tires. Still good info, but their picks might not necessarily be the best for another person.

 

They actually weighted dry performance higher (double, if I recall correctly) than wet. It's just that the differences between all the tires were much smaller in the dry than they were in the wet. The Goodyear really distanced itself from a lot of the tires in the wet. (like more than 2 seconds on a 30-second wet autocross... that's a ton)

 

I was surprised at the relative lackluster performance from the Toyo T1-R, but it's good to see them included in this test. Takes a lot of the mystery away from them, as TireRack (obviously) never includes them in any of their own comparisons.

 

Also good to see the Hankooks in there... and they did very, very well in the dry tests.

[Xenonk]

remember, not everyone drives the same way, so yes, you are correct to feel that way to not buy a tire that shows up by numbers.. besides, how many of us really drive that hard to get those numbers as shown in a magazine? Isn't that itself dangerous?

[meier motor sports]

i want a tire thats safe in the rain. perdictable in the dry and great in the lateral grip ie turning. other then that i have the gsd3's they are good. but i wouldnt buy em again

[gfxdave99]

remember, not everyone drives the same way, so yes, you are correct to feel that way to not buy a tire that shows up by numbers.. besides, how many of us really drive that hard to get those numbers as shown in a magazine? Isn't that itself dangerous?

 

Well another thing to note about this test. The overall ratings numbers between 1st and last were only 70 points out of a possible 1100, aka the Kuhmo got 990.7/1100 and the goodyear got 1050/1100.. none of these tires were truly horrible and the total points were dry performance x 2 so 600, wet performance 300, price 100, tread 100..

 

I think the point was to show what your best bang for the buck for summer performance tires is.. however I found it quite dumb to have in the december issue..

 

I would much sooner trust tirerack's online reviews/ratings by people who have actually driven their cars with the tires for an extended period of time.. oh and of course advice by people like Xenonk

[Boostjunkie]

They actually weighted dry performance higher (double, if I recall correctly) than wet. It's just that the differences between all the tires were much smaller in the dry than they were in the wet. The Goodyear really distanced itself from a lot of the tires in the wet. (like more than 2 seconds on a 30-second wet autocross... that's a ton)

 

I was surprised at the relative lackluster performance from the Toyo T1-R, but it's good to see them included in this test. Takes a lot of the mystery away from them, as TireRack (obviously) never includes them in any of their own comparisons.

 

Also good to see the Hankooks in there... and they did very, very well in the dry tests.

 

While the points awarded for dry performance were double that of the wet points the finishing order seemed to favor tires that were good in the dry and great in the wet. Price aside, the Yokohama Advan Neovas kicked the butt of every tire in the dry and was decent in the wet, but finished third, while a generally middling performer like the Continental finished above it.

 

Not a bad test, but I would have like to see a chart of how many points were actually awarded in each category for each tire. I would also liked to have seen some weight given to ride quality and noise. Then people could decide better based on their preferences. BTW, did anyone notice that some of the bar graphs were totally messed up? The bar lengths did not match the numbers they were supposed to represent in a few instances.

[racerdave]

Yeah, the bar graphs were messed up. In the wet autocross, I saw the Goodyear's bar before I read the number and was like, WTF?

 

I think the test was decent. You're never going to please everyone.

 

Oh, and in response to your point about "price aside," well, price was one of their key factors. Without it, the Yokos probably would've won.

[magnetic1]

Also.. I believe I read somewhere that these tires were all tested brand new out of the box. Since every tire company has different mold release compounds... I cant see how this test is accurate. And TireRack is not an un-biased tester either.... hell, they dont even carry Toyo or Hankook. Would C&D let 2 tires that one of their top advertisers doesnt carry come close to winning in a shootout? Much of Motor Trend, C&D, etc are like this... take their tests as a grain of salt...

 

also, something I picked up from another forum:

 

Tire design is a combination of art and science. After the Kumho intro I gained a new found respect for tire test engineers and the minutia they are expected to evaluate. The C&D test, like most tire tests, makes the "also runs" look significantly disadvantaged. At the performance level those tires compete in, it has almost as much to do with what the driver is comfortable with as it does ultimate grip. It is misleading to merely look across the bar graphs for the longest bars and conclude that one tire or another just plain sucks.

 

True, some tires were faster than others. But notice that the Toyo is less than half a second off the winner for dry lap-time, less than 5 feet away from the winner in dry-braking, tied for the lead in the dry slalom, and less than one quarter of a second off the winner in the wet slalom. Those are pretty close margins.

 

Is the Michelin a better tire on a BMW in a tire test with hero race drivers? You bet it is. Is it the best tire for a college student with an Integra or Civc? I say, no way. The money saved between the Toyos and the Michelins might be enough for 3-5 auto crosses. And that kind of practice and experience might be worth a lot more in lap-times to a young driver than simply getting the tires which won a C&D test.

[andrew_j]

I was looking at Consumer Reports for Winter tires review and they had a similar comparo in 2003 for ultra high performance summer tires. I have to say that Consumer Reports and Car and Driver results correlated very well including the individual categories (wet/dry/braking). And yes Goodyear was at the top also.

[eVoMotion]

I have a set of T1-Rs (255/45/18) on our OBXT - Ksport suspension. These tires are light years better than the Falken Azensi I have our Miata R-type currently. It is a grain of salt between 1-8th in this test. I would buy the Toyos again - and the price is right thanks to Magnetic1 at Tireswap.com

 

I am very impressed with the tracking and drip in the dry and wet handling of these tires.

 

Offer is open to anyone who wants to drive our car for a tire test.

 

 

Also.. I believe I read somewhere that these tires were all

tested brand new out of the box. Since every tire company has different mold release compounds... I cant see how this test is accurate. And TireRack is not an un-biased tester either.... hell, they dont even carry Toyo or Hankook. Would C&D let 2 tires that one of their top advertisers doesnt carry come close to winning in a shootout? Much of Motor Trend, C&D, etc are like this... take their tests as a grain of salt...

 

also, something I picked up from another forum: