What happened to cheap tyres?

mikey72

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

..................Interesting that Linglong managed a good test result there because in Auto Bild's tests (and they are fairly decently performed too) they finished last with a do not buy recommendation! The winner of that test was out of interest Hankook- not the premiums! Perhaps a different type.............

Not quite a level playing field again though.

The test car was a Mazda 3 MPS, all the other brands were the top of the range performance tyre, (the winner was £150, as opposed to the £50 Linglong, and actually dearer than a lot of the "premiums"), and there is no method given for the test, (although Linglong don't give theirs).
I probably wouldn't rate the L688 with the Ventus S1 EVO, or the Michelin Pilot Sport PS3, but it would be interesting to see the same test with something like an Astra diesel on Hankook Ventus Prime's or Michelin Energy E3A's.

Strider590

jase1 wrote: »

Any "test" that pits a £50 product against a £150 one really isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

What next? "£1000 Pioneer TV in whooping £200 Technica telly test shocker"?

Yes, bit the difference with tyre's is that "shopping snobbery" doesn't come into to play, people buy cheap !!!!!! because they think nobody else can tell.

If budget tyre's had "BUDGET" written in big white letters around them, nobody would buy budget tyres, even if they cost 10% of a premium brand.

mikey72

Strider590 wrote: »

Yes, bit the difference with tyre's is that "shopping snobbery" doesn't come into to play, people buy cheap !!!!!! because they think nobody else can tell.

If budget tyre's had "BUDGET" written in big white letters around them, nobody would buy budget tyres, even if they cost 10% of a premium brand.

You might find looks mean more to you than others.

Strider590

mikey72 wrote: »

You might find looks mean more to you than others.

But im right

Look at it another way...... Take two identical premium brand tyre's, add the above mentioned text permanently to the side of one tyre and reduce it's price by half.... Which tyre sells first? (to the average driver)

mikey72

Strider590 wrote: »

But im right

I don't base everyone else on my opinions. Some people would be quite happy. I would. You wouldn't.
Start a poll.

flyingscotno1

jase1 wrote: »

Any "test" that pits a £50 product against a £150 one really isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

What next? "£1000 Pioneer TV in whooping £200 Technica telly test shocker"?

Why would it be not worth it? Both are competing at different price points, like saying not worth comparing a Kia Ceed to a VW Golf at £5K more. It is perfectly valid to compare different things at different prices in the same market as the results let you see whether that price is worth it.

Equally sometimes they compare new tyres with tyres that have been on market for a year or two. That is the way of a comparison. The best products are lower priced ones which out perform high end ones.

I'm not totally against cheap tyres but I think care needs to be taken in buying some of them as I found out to my cost. Reading the Linglong reviews on that tyre it is just owners forums and all negatives on the wet aspect.

I wouldn't buy the cheapest possible but nor the most expensive tyres, I go for the ones that are fairly cheap but high up in tests.

mikey72

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

Why would it be not worth it? Both are competing at different price points, like saying not worth comparing a Kia Ceed to a VW Golf at £5K more. It is perfectly valid to compare different things at different prices in the same market as the results let you see whether that price is worth it.

Equally sometimes they compare new tyres with tyres that have been on market for a year or two. That is the way of a comparison. The best products are lower priced ones which out perform high end ones.

I'm not totally against cheap tyres but I think care needs to be taken in buying some of them as I found out to my cost. Reading the Linglong reviews on that tyre it is just owners forums and all negatives on the wet aspect.

I wouldn't buy the cheapest possible but nor the most expensive tyres, I go for the ones that are fairly cheap but high up in tests.

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2011-Autobild-Max-Performance-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm

Would you consider putting a £50 budget tyre in a "Max Performance Summer Tyre Test"
I have used budget tyres, and premium tyres, but I wouldn't put any of them in maximum performance.

mikey72

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2011-Long-Term-Subjective-Touring-Shootout.htm

More like the right sort of group.
But surprisingly few contestants.
Top priced tyre, at over £55 is the Michelin Energy, cheapest in the size (not tested) is one I've seen around £30.
Ones in the test vary from about £45 to £33.

flyingscotno1

jase1 wrote: »

No, it would be more like comparing that Cee'd with something like a BMW 5-series. A pointless and meaningless comparison.

The Kia vs Golf comparison would be more like comparing a Pirelli P7 with a Khumo KH31. Similar production quality but without the brand premium.

It's not really because that is comparing something completely different, a different size and class of car.

If tyres are the same size say 225/45R18s then they can be fitted on any car with those wheels. If someone does them for £50 then they should be compared to someone doing them for £75 or £150. Then you can see the results and why the tyre is £50. If someone does a 32" LCD for £200 and another for £700 I'd want to know why there is a difference. If the cheap product does well, even if it doesn't top the results it is a bargain buy, if it gives poor results then it's maybe worth spending a few more pounds. Why is comparing the same sized Linglong to a Khumo or Pirelli a pointless comparison?

mikey72 wrote: »

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2011-Autobild-Max-Performance-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm

Would you consider putting a £50 budget tyre in a "Max Performance Summer Tyre Test"
I have used budget tyres, and premium tyres, but I wouldn't put any of them in maximum performance.

Max Performance is relating to that it is a tyre size on high performance cars being tested is it not -stated as Golf GTi, Audi S3 Octavia RS etc. Given that I've seen many performance motors on cheaper tyres (Z4 on triangles), no reason not to stick it in there. It is a performance car sized tyre so if your going to make that size it will be included in those tests. I'd imagine a performance car owner may be tempted if a tyre is cheap to take it and doing a comparison isn't as bad as it seems. If I had that car maybe a set of Uniroyals might be the best balance of price and performance?

mikey72 wrote: »

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2011-Long-Term-Subjective-Touring-Shootout.htm

More like the right sort of group.
But surprisingly few contestants.
Top priced tyre, at over £55 is the Michelin Energy, cheapest in the size (not tested) is one I've seen around £30.
Ones in the test vary from about £45 to £33.

Few in test as it is a 30,000 mile test after all. Smaller tyre sizes like that have less spread in cost than larger sizes so percentage wise difference top to bottom at that size is probably the same.

A big bugbear for me is manufacturers specifying silly tyre sizes and speed ratings and not thinking of long term cost- strange when they should be for fleet use- but there must be a reason for it.

My car has 205/55/16 Hs which are not too bad for cost from all tyre manufacturers using Hankoook and car before that it was 185/65/14 H which were cheap as chips, 4 new tyres from a top brand could be done for £180 all in, never mind the Avons which were £150 for 4.

However I was looking at a Focus which was a 1.6 diesel with low profile and W rated tyres on which were needlessly expensive for a car that can't top 120, and doesn't need wheels like that. Fair enough on a 2 litre sporty petrol but for a diesel to cruise a motorway? Same with the Fiesta using 205/45/17V tyres on a diesel model. Just needlessly expensive when even downgrading the tyres to H would be much cheaper or putting a lower radius size on.

mikey72

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

However I was looking at a Focus which was a 1.6 diesel with low profile and W rated tyres on which were needlessly expensive for a car that can't top 120, and doesn't need wheels like that. Fair enough on a 2 litre sporty petrol but for a diesel to cruise a motorway? Same with the Fiesta using 205/45/17V tyres on a diesel model. Just needlessly expensive when even downgrading the tyres to H would be much cheaper or putting a lower radius size on.

My point exactly.
You wouldn't be putting max performance tyres on, so the budgets compare to the Primes, not the S1 Evo in this case.
Hankook do a Ventus V12 Evo in that size, about £100.
So by rights, that could also be on any car that the S1 Evo can be on. It would be fairer to have put that in the mix, and see what happens.