Timmayy Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 after all, the Japanese OEM's have been using them for going on 15 years. /sarcasm off. Seriously, I was surprised to see RE92's on this car. I used to work on Hondas for a living, and the 1991 Civic Si came with RE92's, and they may be even older than that. The only difference I can see is these newer ones are Z-rated. The tread is identical. I'm putting Blizzaks on my leftover 17's from my first WRX, and S03's on the stock wheels next spring. All seasons suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundBoy Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 and the wheels / Tires topic must be a GREAT forum ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Moved to Wheels and Tires. On another note, the Legacy's tires with about 37 psi aren't anywhere near as bad as the higher-profile RE-92s. Drive on them before dismissing them out of hand, even though that is the fashion. Cheers, Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidiq Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']Moved to Wheels and Tires. On another note, the Legacy's tires with about 37 psi aren't anywhere near as bad as the higher-profile RE-92s. Drive on them before dismissing them out of hand, even though that is the fashion. Cheers, Kevin[/QUOTE] Agreed, I put my fronts at 36psi and the rear at 34psi, and it tightened it up a little (from the dismal 31psi that the dealer had it at). Much better than the 205/55/16s that are on the WRXs ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Mine are up at 38/37. Made a difference since the dealer had in the twenty-somethings... :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 41/39 and they still suck... Its kinda upsetting that subie put these on a sports sedan when they were obviously marketed these tires towards the economy car market. Its the wrong tire for the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 [quote name='RobY']41/39 and they still suck... Its kinda upsetting that subie put these on a sports sedan when they were obviously marketed these tires towards the economy car market. Its the wrong tire for the car.[/QUOTE] According to Bridgestone, they are a Z-rated performance tire, rather than aimed at the economy car market, where people might blanch at spending something around the $150 per tire that our RE-92s cost. You could safely say that it is upsetting that Subaru put RE-92s on MY sports sedan, and you'd be accurate. But most people drive in a manner that never, ever explores the capabilities of their car and the tire. They want an all-season tire that will work pretty well, and last more than 40,000 miles, all of which the RE-92 will do. Are they an enthusiast's first choice? No. But for a mass-market sports sedan, which the Legacy GT, they are a fine choice. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeLoo Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']But most people drive in a manner that never, ever explores the capabilities of their car and the tire. They want an all-season tire that will work pretty well, and last more than 40,000 miles, all of which the RE-92 will do. Are they an enthusiast's first choice? No. But for a mass-market sports sedan, which the Legacy GT, they are a fine choice.[/QUOTE] Well said, Kevin. I think I would be one of those persons myself (the non-enthusiast I guess...). That being said, I'm pretty sure that no matter which tire brand/model would end up on the LGT, people would still complain about the tire choice made by Subaru, I guess it's like the JDM things that we perceive as never getting and feeling sorry about. 2005 Legacy GT Wagon Ltd 5EAT Garnet Red 1999 GTI VR6 Black - sold but not forgotten... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Not really. Look at teh STi...I don't see many people complaining about those (other than low tire life). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC GT Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']According to Bridgestone, they are a Z-rated performance tire, rather than aimed at the economy car market, where people might blanch at spending something around the $150 per tire that our RE-92s cost. You could safely say that it is upsetting that Subaru put RE-92s on MY sports sedan, and you'd be accurate. But most people drive in a manner that never, ever explores the capabilities of their car and the tire. They want an all-season tire that will work pretty well, and last more than 40,000 miles, all of which the RE-92 will do. Are they an enthusiast's first choice? No. But for a mass-market sports sedan, which the Legacy GT, they are a fine choice. Kevin[/QUOTE] Does anyone know how RE-92s get such good lifetime mileage with such a crappy treadwear rating (180 if I'm not mistaken)? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 [quote name='SC GT']Does anyone know how RE-92s get such good lifetime mileage with such a crappy treadwear rating (180 if I'm not mistaken)? Just curious.[/QUOTE] What kills tires is sliding around. As long as you're smooth and just drive the car, a tire will last quite a while. I also wonder if there isn't a highish plastic content in the RE-92... Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Well, I have seen economy sized RE-92's on sale at costco for 79 bucks a tire. 205-60-R15 The fact is that yes these tires are fine for economy cars. Thats where you see this tire most. On cars with 150 or so HP and FWD. They are strikingly inadequate for a sports sedan. If I were to drive my car like an economy car I guess they are fine. The problem is I bought my car because It is a sports sedan. Like many other people I drive my car like a sports sedan. how many sports sedan's come with RE-92's Not many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 [quote name='RobY']Well, I have seen economy sized RE-92's on sale at costco for 79 bucks a tire. 205-60-R15 The fact is that yes these tires are fine for economy cars. Thats where you see this tire most. On cars with 150 or so HP and FWD. They are strikingly inadequate for a sports sedan. If I were to drive my car like an economy car I guess they are fine. The problem is I bought my car because It is a sports sedan. Like many other people I drive my car like a sports sedan. how many sports sedan's come with RE-92's Not many.[/QUOTE] The S0-3 comes in 205-55-15, also an economy car size. What does that mean? :D Bridgestone puts the RE-92 in the performance tire category, and lists cars such as the Saab 9-2X, Inifiniti FX45 and Lexus IS300 as among the OE fitment cars. There are others listed there as well, but that trio is assuredly sports-minded. Now, I will buy that "they are strikingly inadequate for a sports sedan (added) when coupled with my driving style." But to make a generalization such as the one that you have, means that every magazine that tested the GT, WRX or other car that comes with RE-92s, would have said "Boy, this car is awesome we think, but the tires are a disaster." None, to my knowledge, have. I had the RE-92s on my GT for about two weeks, and I can assure you that I don't drive my car like an economy car. And with 37 psi, they were fine. No slippage, no ABS activation, no nothing. Did Dunlop 9000s improve the car? Sure, but comparing a max-performance summer tire to an all-season one, in the summer will always come down on the side of the MP tire. Put both in the snow, and I'd have been singing a different tune. The RE-92 is widely, and routinely villified, for precious little justification. People get the car with that tire on it, drive it hard and say "Hey, this tire sucks." No, it doesn't. What sucks is when a driver exceeds the capabilities of their equipment. There are also different driving styles. The RE-92 doesn't respond to certain driving styles well, this is true. But I don't understand the routine bashing of what is in fact a fine tire, in its context, which I wrote above. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_hunter Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 [quote name='Timmayy']after all, the Japanese OEM's have been using them for going on 15 years. /sarcasm off. Seriously, I was surprised to see RE92's on this car. I used to work on Hondas for a living, and the 1991 Civic Si came with RE92's, and they may be even older than that. The only difference I can see is these newer ones are Z-rated. The tread is identical. I'm putting Blizzaks on my leftover 17's from my first WRX, and S03's on the stock wheels next spring. All seasons suck.[/QUOTE] You need to look closer, the RE-92 "A" on the Leg GT are different from the previous RE-92. ANd believe it or not, there were multiple flavors of the RE-92 with different tread, speed ratings, and treadwear ratings. The RE-92 on my WRX had a TW rating of about 160, while the ones on my 02 Outback had a TW rating of 360. They looked completely different, and both were different than the RE-92A on my 05 OB XT and the RE-92 on my 97 Prelude. So thats at least 5 different tires called RE-92 that I have driven on. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.