New tyres

[Parrot of Doom]

I need 2 new rears and was thinking about Michelin Primacy HP - primarily for their economy and their result here:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/total_tyre_guide/213186/tyre_guide.html

I value quiet tyres as well, the Michelins don't score greatly in that regard but they can't be any louder than the ones I have right now - and they lasted 30,000 miles so they're obviously quite hard.

And also because Costco apparently do great deals on Michelin tyres (I'm a Costco member).

Anyone else had these on their Merc? At the moment I have some really cheap crappy tyres on the back, something I've always regretted doing (especially as the back end of the car enjoys paying me a visit on wet roundabouts). Continentals on the front which are their usual excellent standard.

 

[Myros]

Parrot if you like Contis

you'll love Barums. Same firm better tyre cheaper price. I'd never heard of them 3 years ago, and I have them on 3 of our 4 now.
Duke St Autos in Rochdale stock them, or I'm sure your local fitter can get them.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Michelins I love em they would always be my first choice.. tho some of the other cheaper makes including barums are worth considering if you aint a lunatic... but motorway and fast road use the pilots are the tyres

 

[swells]

i have Michelin Primacys all round,grip is excellent even in the wet, road noise is minimal,
all round a good choice

 

[carabind]

same here, for michelins. Got mine three months ago from www.blackcircles.com, they had the best price with nationwide fitting (costco are a couple of £ cheaper, but only have a handul of sites)

 

[drivinggod09]

continental sport contacts are also on par with michelin but offer more grip thats my ethos anyway for same money too

 

[s999sws]

I had 4 Primacys put on a couple of months ago. They were the first set I had to buy after the originals were worn, Dunlops. The Michelins are far superior, both in grip, comfort and especially surface noise. I completely recommend them.
Stephen W-S

 

[jberks]

Reading the review, their tests are comprehensive but their final line up calculations surprised me. They just didn't tally, until I read this
"a win in aquaplaning or rolling resistance – where there can be 30 per cent between the best and worst tyres – counts for as much as a victory in dry handling, where as little as three per cent separates top from bottom."

So a tyre that is better than another by a large margin in 3 safetly critical categories and fractionally (1%) behind in 4 other less important areas (such as noise) will come out lower down the table. In my mind, unless the difference is 10% it is doubtful I will be able tell the difference on my stop-start commute or 60-90mph motorway cruise. Ok if I throw my E round a roundabout like dick, maybe I will see a difference, but whilst I'm no grandad, I'm not a nutter either. If it starts to slide, the esp will slow me down anyway. There is one possible exception to this. An emergency stop where the difference between me and Lewis Hamilton may be less critical.

So, with this in mind, I looked back at the braking results. Who comes out on top? In the wet Khumo of all people win, though admittedly only by a fraction over that other cheapie Toyo and then Michelin coming in third but all with a hairs bredth between them. In the real world there is nothing in it. 2 specs of gravel different and the results would swap around.

On dry braking the gap is considerably wider with BFG winning, khumo a chunk behind but Michelin an equal margin again behind that. However, the wet braking results for BFG were poor. So, sum them up and Michelin gets 189.9, BFG 184.9 and khumo 194.2. Based on that, if I want the best chance of not smacking into the back of someone, I should buy Khumo.

So, Khumo is ahead of Michelin in the braking stakes, drastically cheaper and quieter too but is still way down in the conclusions? On handling- If you're after going round roundabouts in the wet as fast as you can and money is no object, then Michelin are your tyre - no question. But, if you want wet 'handling', presumably a more real world test unless you live in Milton Keynes, then you're better off with Vredestein which are 25% cheaper into the bargain, unless of course you have the mental ability to set your speed to the conditions and slow down a bit when it's raining, but still want to stop before splatting that group of teenagers who just jumped out in front of you, in which case save your money and buy khumo.


They quote rolling resistance as an important factor. I agreed - until I read their results!
The best - Michelin - has a lower resistance for better economy - great, that's one of the reasons I thought highly of them and wondered whether they were a better buy that I gave them credit for - but that equates to 5% from best to worst. Sounds good, but taking khumo as an average cheapie (and that one is still more expensive than the cheapest) and say that Michelin does give 5% better economy than the khumo (which it doesn't), based on a set of 4 tyres on a 50mpg car (which few of us own), it would take 37,600 miles to break even. On the cheapies that rises to 45,600 miles. Turn it around and you would save £125 over 25,000 miles and that is only if you can average 50mpg - hands up anyone that can do that!


- In other words there is no such thing as a great all round tyre, all have strengths and weaknesses. Where i differ with the reviewers is that I do rank those strengths and weaknesses on where there is a real world safety difference and if you do this, your results are drastically different to theirs.

I'm not knocking Michelin as a tyre, from the review they are no better or worse than any other make. Some they win, some they lose, but thats the point, they aren't way out there in front .. except for one area - price.

If someone asks me to pay 55% more for something then ok I'm listening - but I expect a valid 'cost/benefit analysis', not just an 'it's betterer cos I say so'. If they want more moeny then they better have a good justification and if so, and it's safety related I may well spend the money. After all, I'm happy enough to spend my well earned on a Merc.

That review tells me that there's nowt in it in terms of safety, but 55% in it in terms of cost. Sorry I don't get it. There is badge snobbery - sure. I used to insist on Pirellis on my C class. Good car, good tyre was my view. On;y according to every review I have read, Pirelli is crap and I wasted my money.

 

[rf065]

I whole heartidly agree with jberks findings.
In my experience, the only thing guaranteed about a Michelin, is it will be the dearest tyre available and usually only slightly above average in most tyre tests. The tyres that have impressed me lately in the most recent tyre tests, have been the Vredesteins, i think they would be my choice.

Russ

 

[SLinKyjoe]

Try Hankooks.

They last, are quiet, are cheap, are designed by Michelin.

I recommend them.

My SLK had Conti's on. They were useless in all but dry and warm weather. Then they were very good, but not an all round weather tyre.

The current car has Bridgestones on. They are rubbish in the wet, I get understeer from them, and they rumble along. They will get replaced with Hankooks about October. They have done 14000m and are not done yet which is why they will stay on through summer. But thats it.

Too many heart stopping moments. I could try slowing down I suppose, but then with roads like I have, better tyres it is.

 

[st13phil]

FWIW, my W204 came on Michelin Primacy HP's and the levels of grip in the wet are pretty impressive - both cornering and braking. They seem quiet enough, but then I don't have anything to compare them against on the same car.

I haven't used Michelin tyres for many years (I was driving a company car and Autolease insist on Dunlops - coz they get 'em cheap) but Michelin's always used to last considerably longer than other brands that offered similar grip performance. I don't know whether that's still true, but if it is then that's an important part of the cost/benefit equation that the performance-biased tyre tests often leave out.

BTW, Dunlop SP1's on the front of my Golf GTI used to be worn out in about 16,000 miles. I drive briskly, but I'm by no means that hard on a car: front pads used to last 60k miles and more!

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I was in Costco today, £100 per wheel fitted, including VAT.

Since I'm VAT registered, that isn't a bad price for me. (for the 2008 tyres, the 2007 tyres are about £88)

 

[grpar]

continental sport contacts are also on par with michelin but offer more grip thats my ethos anyway for same money too

I have Pilot Exaltos on my C-class. Whilst the Conti Sport Contact 2s gave better grip in the dry, the Michelins inspire more confidence in the wet.

 

[Dinnie]

Try http://www.valuetyres.co.uk

I hear Falkens are quite good, especially the 452(?)

http://www.falkentyres.co.uk

There's also http://www.mytyres.co.uk and http://www.etyres.co.uk

Some of them operate similar to blackcircles where you can choose to have the tyres delivered to your house if you know someone who can fit them (about £6 to £10 per tyre)or to a garage of your selected choice (enter postcode to find nearest fitter, and there are a plenty available). Some have a mobile fitter who will do the job at your work which is quite good because usually the convience outweighs the couple of extra £££ charge. (Takes about 40 mins for a pair of tyres).

 

[zsadiq1]

I had 4 Michelin HP's fitted to my E320 about 1 month ago. They are the best tyres I've ever had and the ride is fantastic - smooth and quiet. I also got them at costco and buying 4 allowed me to save approx £60 on the best internet quote. My last HP's lasted approx 25000 miles (my contisportcontact 2 lasted about 12000). Costco also fill the tyres with nitrogen - I'm not sure if that's what's contributing to the smooth ride. I would now always buy michelins - they're fantastic.

 

[swells]

some maybe cheaper.but are thay as good,if so why are we not all driving a ford focus

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I had 4 Michelin HP's fitted to my E320 about 1 month ago. They are the best tyres I've ever had and the ride is fantastic - smooth and quiet. I also got them at costco and buying 4 allowed me to save approx £60 on the best internet quote. My last HP's lasted approx 25000 miles (my contisportcontact 2 lasted about 12000). Costco also fill the tyres with nitrogen - I'm not sure if that's what's contributing to the smooth ride. I would now always buy michelins - they're fantastic.

Thanks mate, thats what I needed

 

[Xtractorfan]

As I said before on here Michelins would be my first choice, best in wet and brilliant on cornering and braking and the best wearers, also they were always quiet.. the contis and pirellies tend to get noisier as they wear down ..now this in itself isnt a bad thing especially on a top of the range motors as the driver will inevitably get the noise checked, and have to fit new tyres .. so I think this is a good safety feature.