Car tyres

Lum

Well on the Eagle F1s I only notice a degradation in performance in the wet when it's down to nearer 3mm which is when I'd normally replace them, though I try to time it so when they're getting low it's in the summer time so I don't have to worry about wet weather performance.

I guess that's easier to do when it's not your main car though.

jase1

The Eagle F1s are one of the tyres that I was alluding to being worth paying that little bit more for.

For most people pottering around town and doing the occasional motorway journey the average Korean tyre is plenty good enough. The Mitsu we have as a second car has P6000s on the front and Admirals on the back -- the Admirals were new when I bought it.

On my main car I would be looking to burn this rubber and replace as soon as practical. But on the second car? Nah. The tyres are adequate for the kind of trundling around the car does and I see no point in replacing them.

grizzly1911

What about KUMHO or do these fit into the "Korean" pot?

mikey72

Good tyres.

jase1

Most Korean tyres are decent now.

Nexens are fine. Maxxis make good tyres. Marshal and Admiral are Kumho and are also decent enough. Hankook and Kumho make some excellent tyres.

The Taiwanese are also catching up fast. Federal and Nankang have moved on from the ditchfinder past and are making some reasonable products.

The Chinese will catch up soon enough. Some of the Chinese firms have been making good tyres for years, just not under their own names. Their factories are well-equipped and efficient. At some point they are bound to realise that selling hard-compound tyres designed for hot countries to Western Europe isn't going to work.

jase1

And FWIW I've tried to coax some slippage out of the Admirals in the wet recently and failed miserably -- the Pirellis always let go first

G51shopaholic

I had Mitchelin tyres on my Picasso - regularly did 10k mileage, generak driving and annual family holiday to Devon (from Glasgow).

In the 6yrs I had the car, I changed the tyres twice. Cost me just over £350 for alloys.

Better tyres cost more but last 2 x longer.

jase1

G51shopaholic wrote: »

Better tyres cost more but last 2 x longer.

This may be the case with Michelins, but the principle does not hold generally.

There are plenty of budget tyres that last twice as long as some premium tyres.

How long a tyre lasts is only relevant if your chief priority is price anyway. I'd sacrifice life for grip. Some Michelin tyres (the energy saving ones) just don't grip as well as the best premium rubber.

grizzly1911

jase1 wrote: »

This may be the case with Michelins, but the principle does not hold generally.

There are plenty of budget tyres that last twice as long as some premium tyres.

How long a tyre lasts is only relevant if your chief priority is price anyway. I'd sacrifice life for grip. Some Michelin tyres (the energy saving ones) just don't grip as well as the best premium rubber.

We have some Michelin energy tyres on a Corsa only done 13K from new and down to 3mm, on the front, already (and it isn't driven hard either). I knoe the rate of wear slows down but that is going some IMO.

mikey72

Ours do about 30,000.

I put Michelin Energys on the car in two pairs.
First ones did 22,000 on the front, then another 6,000 miles on the back,
the other pair did 15,000 miles on the back, then another 17,000 miles on the front.

Grip is fine wet, dry, and even in the snow in winter they were still ok.

I put a pair of Kumho's on the back when the first pair wore out, they've done 17,000 miles on the back, and they barely look worn.
I've just swopped them onto the front,and replaced the back again.