Deer Killer Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Like I posted before, the first level of sipes are completely gone after 20k, which means the foul weather performance has just gone down. Basically you should trash the tires at this point.. If you ride them until 50k.. well, good for you I hope you didn't buy a turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 A $20 Swatch tells time just fine. An $1800 Omega Seamaster performs better. Is the Swatch a bad watch? yes. it's got a rubber band and a glass or plastic crystal. the Seamaster has a sapphire crystal and metal band - the band won't dry rot and split nor will the crystal ever scratch. pwnt! I, like heights, at the claim made that nobody here has a valid argument. The $88 Kumho ASX, an almost bald tire I had outperformed the $180 new RE92. Let's talk about hydroplaning. Driving down a three lane, straight highway with proper drainage in the rain. Speed limit = 55mph. Traffic moves at 55-60mph. You come across a spot where the water is draining across the road from where it collected over a bridge support. RE92's = whoosh! hydroplaning. It's scary shit. I've had these tires on: '95 Civic, '97 Prelude, '03 WRX, '05 LGT, '05 Mini Cooper S. One things in common here....poor grip! My wife was so freaked out by them, without knowing any of the RE92 scapegoat crap, she asked me to replace them. I did - I put Nokian WR's on her car. They suffer from none of the hydroplaning issues, though they perform a bit worse in the summer (which is ok, because they are on winter wheels). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjundi Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 1) Comparing the RE92s to ANY summer tire(ref to F1's) is invalid. 2) Who cares how much they cost in open market. They are an OEM tire and most people even unaware would not pay the extra differential for them. We did not "pay" for them directly. 3) Treadwear #'s are irrelevant cross brand. An RE92 with its 160 rating lasts into the 40k range typically where a Kumho ASX with 400 lasts 30k-40k too. You only can compare treadwear #'s within brand. 4) On hydroplaning, RE92's are not the best. However even the best rain tire will fail at "legal" speed as its a function of road's ability to shed water(eg pooling) and amount of rain encountered. Every tire has it limits, RE92's is lower. Still have not hydroplaned yet with them on the LGT. That all being said I am enjoying a light snow winter on my 24k mile RE92's. No snow/ice issues yet! Cannot wait to replace before next winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 However even the best rain tire will fail at "legal" speed as its a function of road's ability to shed water(eg pooling) and amount of rain encountered. Every tire has it limits, RE92's is lower. Still have not hydroplaned yet with them on the LGT. yes, that's true, but what you fail to point out is that the RE92's ability to keep rubber on the road through a puddle is significantly lower than it's all season competitors. I'm not an RE92 hater.....I had an extra set and put them on the wife's car. She hated them...I think that says alot. Also....I had them on my LGT through a freak December snow/ice storm coming back through Williamsburg, VA in 2004. Busy Christmas traffic came to a crawl and it was dicey for about 3 miles. Lots of ice and uneven surfaces due to the traffic. The tires had such little traction on one side that the rear diff was causing me to turn into the next lane. It was friggin scary, even at 5-10mph, trying to get out of the danger zone. read this post for more info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 Maybe I'm having a hard time taking heights seriously because he can't seem to post without calling names. PGT ... sounds like you've had a different experience with the RE-92 as well with the weird side to side thing. Never had anything like that happen, so I can't compare. Can't even really say I've ever experienced bad hydroplaning without expecting it first. My reason for this thread is that it seems that every thread started complaining about RE-92's ends up being an example of someone doing questionable driving. I don't question or even deny that there are better tires out there. I don't recommend replacing your RE-92 with a new set of RE-92. I just don't think they're "bad." Not great, not even "good," but an adequate tire for reasonable driving in most conditions. Factor in that Subaru has to choose a tire that also fits their budgetary constraints of building a car, and you have an understandable choice in the RE-92. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 I know this is a stretch, but how about allowing for the possibility that others have had different experiences than you have Likewise. Not everyone shares the opinion that they're dangerous and a menace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hal9e3 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 yes. it's got a rubber band and a glass or plastic crystal. the Seamaster has a sapphire crystal and metal band - the band won't dry rot and split nor will the crystal ever scratch. pwnt! Nah, that doesn't make the Swatch bad, just cheap:) Use it til it breaks or looks like crap, throw it out and get another one. Having said that I'm partial to my TAG Heuer Aquaracer, even tho I rarely spend any time 300m down:icon_mrgr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 it was a bad analogy to use actually, comparing a Swatch to an Omega. It's not really relevant to comparing a $180 tire to it's competition that costs the same or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 40K miles, 50K miles, uh how about 60K+ miles with 7/32" left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkl303 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Can I complain that the inner walls (side of the tire that isn't exposed) of my RE92's dissintegrated so bad that the tire guy said that he wouldn't install them? But I can admit that mine might have been a unique case. Honestly they aren't they aren't at fault most of the time, but my god there are so many better tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tantal Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Do people not understand hydroplaning? How can someone complain about hydroplaning at 60-70 mph??? Boggles my mind. Um, when driving the same car at the same or higher speeds on different tires there is no hydroplaning at all??? Boggles my mind. The ONLY people who LIKE the RE-92's are people who haven't driven their car on A DIFFERENT tire. Seems like the OP is just trolling to me. This has been done to death. You guys like your RE-92's GREAT - enjoy them. That does NOT mean that they don't suck. Who cares if you realize it or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tantal Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 1) Comparing the RE92s to ANY summer tire(ref to F1's) is invalid. 2) Who cares how much they cost in open market. They are an OEM tire and most people even unaware would not pay the extra differential for them. We did not "pay" for them directly. 3) Treadwear #'s are irrelevant cross brand. An RE92 with its 160 rating lasts into the 40k range typically where a Kumho ASX with 400 lasts 30k-40k too. You only can compare treadwear #'s within brand. 4) On hydroplaning, RE92's are not the best. However even the best rain tire will fail at "legal" speed as its a function of road's ability to shed water(eg pooling) and amount of rain encountered. Every tire has it limits, RE92's is lower. Still have not hydroplaned yet with them on the LGT. That all being said I am enjoying a light snow winter on my 24k mile RE92's. No snow/ice issues yet! Cannot wait to replace before next winter. Wow. This is like talking to a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlsb Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Um, when driving the same car at the same or higher speeds on different tires there is no hydroplaning at all??? Boggles my mind. The ONLY people who LIKE the RE-92's are people who haven't driven their car on A DIFFERENT tire. Seems like the OP is just trolling to me. This has been done to death. You guys like your RE-92's GREAT - enjoy them. That does NOT mean that they don't suck. Who cares if you realize it or not? I know it must give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that you have great tires! Dry? Wet? Snow? I don't think anybody had said that the tires are great. But , clearly some people don't think they are the worst tire available. Even Goodyear's get raps. Heck, I ran Goodyear sports car specials on the street. Sucked in the rain, dangerous in the snow, a blast in the dry!!! You can overdrive a suspension, tires or yourself. The limiting factors are the driver and everything on the car. Blaming the equipment is a non starter with me. There are a lot of parts cars out there sold by people that thought that their great cars could do anything, that they could take any turn. RIP "Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Blaming the equipment is a non starter with me. :lol: ZOMG!! So, I can't blame my Yugo for losing a drag race to an SRT4? <writes that down> good to know! thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 oh, I see! gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 :lol: ZOMG!! So, I can't blame my Yugo for losing a drag race to an SRT4? <writes that down> good to know! thanks!!! Actually, no. I would not blame your Yugo. I'd blame the driver for choosing the wrong equipment for the wrong task. Everyone quoting the $180+ price for RE-92 are using a fallacious argument on performance to price. The RE-92 is sold to the public at an inflated price because Bridgestone knows some people will buy the OEM equipment regardless of price. It really is just a cheapo tire. For how dangerous this tire is and how long it's been around, I'm shocked Subaru, Toyota/Lexus, Infiniti/Nissan still provide these tires on their cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I'd blame the driver for choosing the wrong equipment for the wrong task. yes! see? you do get it. PGT is proud of Brady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 For how dangerous this tire is and how long it's been around, I'm shocked Subaru, Toyota/Lexus, Infiniti/Nissan still provide these tires on their cars.shocked? Why do you think a corporation cares about _you_? You should be shocked when you get something of genuine value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tantal Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Part of the problem on the part of the prosecution (OP, and the guys whining about peeps complaining about the RE92) is that they seem not to understand that a driver can know the limits of his tires, and realize that they are pretty low compared to the limits of another set of tires. This type of driver can hate his tires while still never getting into trouble with them (i.e., me). I have occasionally posted my dislike of these tires, in some detail, pointing out specific weaknesses, never mentioning I have gotten myself into trouble with them, etc etc, saying how and in what way one or another tire is better. After I take the time and effort to post these things, some dork posts that my experiences involve some sort of driver error. It is simply amazing. Fine, don't agree with me, enjoy your crappy tires, but to completely dismiss an intelligent argument where specifics are mentioned, in detail, and not respond or acknowledge any of them, well, you just aren't interested in learning anything. You simply want to argue for the sake of (a) arguing, and (b) pissing off the other person. My father in law is like that. In the next 10 posts someone is going to say that either I'm not intelligent or that my arguments and descriptions are not intelligent. No prob. The thing is, I am trying to share my knowledge and experiences so that others who know nothing about tires and are interested in learning can benefit from my knowledge and experience. I'm trying to contribute to the community. When you bash people trying to do this and make arguments, and try to embarrass the poster and trivialize his input, what is it that you are attempting to accomplish? Do you really think you are adding to the community? Or are you simply defending your childish pride and/or justifying your lack of interest in finding out whether the RE-92 is good/bad/indifferent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal2You Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 beacuse breaking the law is against forum policies:icon_wink Hmmm. Good thing nobody here modifies or removes the catalytic converters in their exhaust systems and then posts about it. We wouldn't want such blatant disregard for the letter of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal2You Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Everyone quoting the $180+ price for RE-92 are using a fallacious argument on performance to price. The RE-92 is sold to the public at an inflated price because Bridgestone knows some people will buy the OEM equipment regardless of price. It really is just a cheapo tire. :confused:What?? People quote the $180+ because that is what they cost! You're saying that they shouldn't cost that much, so lets pretend they don't when we compare them to other tires? That is just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisted Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 RE92s + Auto LGT + snow = no good. i go slow with them on in the snow on my 02 with the pirellis....i go nuts in the snow...even tho they are all season laters gotta go drift in the work parking lot...cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillboy Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Brady = masochist But in his defense...hasn't anyone heard the term "too fast for conditions"? RE92's get a bad rep because too many young guys grew up thinking that driving in a video game is like driving in real life. It is still ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 At least the tires in video games squeal. Above 40-50mph it's like driving on ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 :confused:What?? People quote the $180+ because that is what they cost! You're saying that they shouldn't cost that much, so lets pretend they don't when we compare them to other tires? That is just silly. Right ... once again, I don't support them as a replacement tire, I accept them as OEM rubber. What drives me nuts is hearing "I can't believe Subaru is so irresponsible by putting these tires on this car." I think Subaru is buying a cheap tire that does OK in a wide variety of conditions. Just because the tire costs $180 new doesn't mean that it isn't the most economical option to Subaru. Bridgestone is both a manufacturer/supplier for an OEM and they are an OEM. They have a pretty unique position in the marketplace where most of the time, a supplier will sell to an OEM at a low price and the OEM uses those parts on their equipment. Then the OEM stocks the same parts as replacements, but sells the replacement stock at a MUCH higher cost. Because businesses know that the OEM is making a huge markup, they'll often try to circumvent the OEM for replacements. Yet the Supplier (or manufacturer) still only sees the same small price to the OEM. This is where Bridgestone gets a bonus. They sell the tires cheap to Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, etc. and since the OEMs (Auto manufacturers) aren't the sellers of replacement tires (tire shops) Bridgestone gets to mark up the tire to the retail market to reap the profits of replacement OEM business. Bridgestone doesn't sell the tire for $180 because they think that's the market equivalent ... they sell it for $180 because they know lots of people are mindless sheep! Comparing the tires to similarly priced tires isn't an equal footing because while that may be what you can buy them at, another comparably priced tire could cost Subaru another $400 per vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.