Car Tyres Info

marmitedog

Take a look at Falkens for a well respected "budget" brand. In your size the 912 is for mileage and 452 is for grip. Like others have said, the two attributes are generally a trade off.
The wife got over 30k on the 912s. They're noticably less grippy then the 452s on my BMW though.

plane_boy2000

Omega_1 wrote: »

Thanks - these are original GM tyres and sizes - the 95Y are from new and the 91W were replacements put on the front. The confusion lies with likes of Michelin claiming better mileage, Continental and the other big boys on a similar vein and was wondering if anyone did have access to any data that could point to a particular brand that appeared to be a 'Best Buy' overall

Be very careful - the fronts have a lower speed and load rating than the rears - in the event you had an accident you may run into issues with your insurers if they find you have the wrong speed rated tyres fitted. Some reputable tyre fitters wont fit the wrong speed rating

Your fronts also have a lower load rating - you need to check with VX that this is OK

maninthestreet

17K miles for the front set isnt bad. I only got that out of the front set on my 1.8 Astra.

Omega_1

Certainly a number of factors to bear in mind - thanks. Am prety certain the rear tyres are originals and I had the front replaced by Vauxhall Dealership a couple of months or so ago. Have double checked the rear tyres and they are both Bridgestone Potenza 225/45 R18 95Y and also has on tyre wall - Treadwear 140; Traction A; Temperature A;
I do not drive fast - steady 70 mph (at 1000 rpm with 6 speed auto) on motorway, no rapid take-offs or cornering and only heavy braking when lights change late and not safe to continue, however it does carry a lot of weight up front with big engine and FWD. Thanks to all for your comments and advice.

Mark_Hewitt

Yeah you can expect that after about 17k-20k you'll need to change front tyres on a front wheel drive car.

It was the same with my petrol Fiesta and repeated again with my diesel Fiesta.

I've now put Continental Premium Contact 2's on the front so we'll see how long they last but I don't expect it'll be massively longer!

One slight saving could be when you come to change the fronts, put the rear tyres on the front and then put the new ones at the back. Because the rears usually wear very slowly and won't have a massive effect on the length of time your fronts last, you'll effectively be getting new tyres all around for the price of changing the fronts.

DaveMacD

^ Don't think that's going to make much difference swapping front to back since there's only 2k difference between them wearing out.

Rallydriver

I never understand this trend for these extreme low profiles. It is mere vanity, theres absolutely no advantage from having them

darich

Rallydriver wrote: »

I never understand this trend for these extreme low profiles. It is mere vanity, theres absolutely no advantage from having them

I can corner faster in my own car with lower profile tyres than i can in my gf's car which has higher profile tyres.
Lower profile tyres deflect less and are more responsive under braking, steering and accelerating.
The trade off is a harder ride.

It's not really a trend, nor is it vanity....and there's a distinct advantage in having them if you have a performance car.

Zanzibar

You will find different makes do have different wear rates - e.g. the sports range of Toyo can behave like putty and can go after 10K but are quite grippy.

From experience Michelin wear the best out of the brands I have used - I have 30K+ on original rear wheels and still going. All my cars had them - they are not the cheapest but they are the best overall, specially as far as handling and wear is concerned. They are also not noisy like say Pirelli.

see: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide/

Its reasonable to look at these tests but they wont have sports tyres compared (which is what you have). There also often a big difference between standard tyres and sports ranges e.g. a different variant, profile and size produce different test results so its actually hard to look at general test results and make a specific recommendation. e.g. the Bridgestone Turanza in that test is not the same as the Potenza you have.

There is an actual wear rating on tyres - looking about the Bridgestone Potenza (sports tyre) this is 140 and the Turanza (touring tyre) is 260. However you cant always get the non sports range in the higher sizes (18" +).

The wear rating isn't quoted much (its on the sidewall) probably as the rating is really only of direct use for comparison withing ONE brand. So you can't use it to, say, compare Toyos with Michelin. e.g. the 30K Michelins I have are rated 140 whereas the softer Toys I also have are rated 280 but are no way twice as hard wearing - less I'd say.

see: http://www.etyres.co.uk/tyres-ratings-nhtsa/tyre-wear-ratings.htm

The Potenzas you have are a respected tyre - have considered them myself but have always stuck with Michelin, the Pilot Sports specifically; they are about 30% more expensive though you get that back in extra wear.

You might also consider getting 16" or 17" wheels as the range of tyre available increases and the ride will be better.

tomstickland

Put 17" wheels back on if you want less harsh ride.