i'm coming up on another tire replacement, and i was considering these bridgestones. they look grippy and have favorable reviews at tirerack. my concern is road noise. i'm quite happy with my current setup of bfg kdw tires, but they're annoyingly loud at times.
i live in southern cal so winter weather is not a problem for me. wet weather performance becomes a concern maybe 30-40 days of the year. but luckily no snow (and salt).

so if anyone has experience with these tires please post your opinions, primarily on road noise and tread-wear. i'm convinced they perform very well.

thanks.

 

I bought mine about 1,800 miles ago as replacements for the original RE92's. As you can see from my sig, I did go up in size. They make no more noise that the original tires, and no decrease in ride quality. Wet traction is simply fantastic, would estimate at about 90% of dry traction, which is also impressive and a big improvement over the originals. It also helps that the shoulders at a lot squarer that the RE92's. My 245's put a little over nine inches of tread on the ground. Very agressive looking tire. Can't comment about tread life at this time, haven't had them long enough, but so far, I see no wear.

Mike

 

hey Serin, from what i've read around here, the pole positions are a soft tire so they dont last all that long...but thats just what ive read...im looking on tire rack rite now and from what ive read, the top 2 tires on maximas seem to be the Bridgestone Pole Positions and Michelin Pilot Sport A/S...i know they're both good tires but has anybody had both of em...wanna help differentiate? im not looking at Yokohama AVS Sport cuz i got $60 off tires made by either Bridgestone or Michelin at Costco, so those are my best choices......also, will i get rubbing w/ 235/50/17...thanks
atw

 

i've got 235/45 with my current bfg's and no rubbing.

don't take that as a recommendation to get that size cuz i don't wanna start some lame debate.

 

The S-03's are amazing - you won't notice higher noise levels over the factory RE92's, but you will notice the top notch traction

FYI, they DO wear out pretty quick... not sure how much just yet but I've dug the front ones down a bit already =]

 

is that for all costco members??

 

I have heard nothing BUT good things about the S-03s.. wait, actually i've heard they are pretty heavy.

 

I've had them on for about 1000 miles or so now and I love them. They do make more noise than the OEM Toyo Proxes, but it's by far tolerable. Just to give you an idea what my tolerable is....I like my radio on the softer side, and not blasting. My Bose woofer (on the setting +3)is not loud enough to vibrate the rear shelf..let's put it that way. The road noise is pretty minimal, although obviously more than stock. I can hear it over my radio just a tiny bit, and even from the start it didn't really bother me.

The handling that it gives is also far greater than the OEM tires, and while they are heavier, and DO wear faster, wet traction is amazing. Dry traction is also improved and the stickiness all around is great. It's all give and take. However, they are pretty darn expensive tires. Not to discourage you in anyway from purchasing these tires, but I hear that Kumhos are the best bang for the buck and from what I have heard, are very comparable to these in many, but not all respects.

 

If you're after tread life as well, check out the Michelin A/S. Lots of recent posts say they're the best OEM replacement tires.

 

Yes they are probably one of the heaviest tires out there. If weight isn't factor for you, I highly recommend them. Another downside is both the S03's and Pilot Sport's is the thread life. The Pilot Sport's are one of the best, but...they're so expensive! Unless you have the money, not worth it IMO. I would get the S03's over the RE730's, heard much better review on the S03's than the RE730's.


After saying that, I still would get the S03's. As far as weight, who cares, when you go to the track, you probably going to drag with the smaller wheels and maybe drag radials anyway right?

 

i know for a fact michelin = quite but the so-3 i consider as good if not better than michelins other than tread wear

 

In the summer Coupon book they mailed out to their members, there is a coupon for the $60 off during a certain time of the summer.

 

How does the Parada S2 compare to these tires?

 

i have a set of S-03s in my garage awaiting the arrival of my rims.

they are 245/40/18 and weigh in at exactly 27 lbs. thats not that heavy.

 

so pilot sport a/s = better treadwear than the s03??

where do the kumhos fit into this picture?

 

both these tires are awesome. i would go with the ones that would last the longest! the better treadlife. the michelin's win.

 

I spent a great deal of time researching tires as I have a hard time digesting $200 per tire pricing in a family budget. After much searching and reading of threads here I have gone where it seems few have yet ventured: Yokahama AVS ES100s. The only fitment available in close to OE 17" size is 235/45/R17 compared to 225/50/R17 (Before you all flame me for exceeding the width requirement for the 17x7 wheel, see my DEFENSE at end of post), for a very reasonable $109/tire at TireRack, all with a 280 treadwear rating. At this price I can afford a set of the Yokos AND a set of snows mounted on 4 cheap alloy wheels for winter use.

With about 1500 miles on the Yokos, I love them. The biggest change is hydroplane resistance. We have had some BIG storms here in the last month (Noreaster's), and even in torrential rain with standing puddles they handle almost like dry. Speaking of dry handling, it dramatically improved with MUCH higher cornering and braking traction. In fact, I have noticed more pedal travel brake fade on heavy braking, probably due to increased traction (in need of a brake upgrade, perhaps?. I have a much better feel of the road surface with a "nap of the earth" sense which inspires confidence on unknown twisty roads.

On the downside I notice more bumps and kicks with the tires following road irregularities (probably due to traction increase) and they take a few miles in the morning to warm up and adsorb bumps. Noise is low for aggressive tread, will see how this progresses.

CONCLUSION: GREAT tire at a GREAT price, IF you are willing to accept some small risk related to slight increase in width over stock. Price difference is enough to justify separate snows and summer tires (talk about extended tread life with 2 sets of tires!), the BEST solution to traction for those of us where the snow flies!

DEFENSE: as an engineer I carefully considered upsides and downsides of rim width to treadwidth. The actual width difference is 10mm, which is about 3/8", or about 104% of the recommended width. Having worked extensively with developing safety guidelines as an engineer, I know that the rule of thumb would be to set the safety limit at 20% less than where you might have a problem(no, I don't know the tire manufacturer specific guidelines on this nor will you find them written anywhere, but this is what I have seen in similar safety guidelines in the chemical and defense industries). If I was autocrossing or otherwise exerting extremely aggressive turning manuvers to put stress on the wheel/tire bead seal, I would stay within OE recommendations. But since I only use the car for commuting and country lane twisties (yes, northern NJ has a LOT of fun back roads!), I feel quite comfortable with this slight increase in tire width for my application.
[SORRY FOR THE LONG POST]

 

i liked my s02's better. the s03's aren't as grippy

 

thanks.

in fact, within the last month i also ended up buying the yoko es100s in 235/45 due to some problems with my bfg's. i have the same impressions as you as to their ride and performance quality. very impressive for their price and treadwear rating.

however, this is a one year solution at most since the yokos are only mounted in the front with the two non-damaged bfg's still in the rear. long term, i'm now leaning towards the s-03s in 225/55 for some better ride quality over the more aggressive 235/45.

as a comparison, the bfg g-force kdw's that i have tracks way more than the yokos do. so the sensitivity to roud irregularities is less than before with a slightly quieter ride... at a lower price.

 

I have about 15,000 on my s-o3's 235/40/18
they are more quiet than the RE 92's tons better traction, especially wet. They seem to be wearing quick though. I would say I've used a little over half of the tread already. I drive fast and corner hard. I'm sure I'll get at least 30,000, which is what I got out of the RE 92's

 

I never regretted buying the SO3s. The Eagle RS-As on my car before (stock), were just terrible, and I almost got into two accidents because of them; no wet traction and in the dry they slide a lot.

I notice no more road noise than the stock tires but handling in both dry and wet leave the chassis a lot more balanced, instead of finicky with the stock tires.

Wet traction is absolutely amazing.

 

Thanks, RsMaxMaggie. It's good to hear an opinion from someone with an engineering background. On the other hand, I've found what appears to be an inconsistency in your argument.

An emergency highway maneuver can put stress on the wheel/tire bead seal equalling that encountered in autocrossing. Such stress could easily be multiplied if a collision is involved. Under these circumstances, whether the wheel/tire bead seal remains intact might very well mean the difference between life and death.

Perhaps you could explain why you'd feel comfortable executing an emergency highway maneuver or absorbing a collision on tires that exceed industry and manufacturer safety guidelines.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful follow-up question. There are many factors that go into setting safety standards for items like tires. The most important aspect of these in this discussion in layman's terms is the consideration of "what if...?" So what's the "what if" here? Seating of a tire in a rim has to consider adding all of the forces together that could cause a tire to be unseated, identifying the most critical, then use this as the safety design basis. Even the most severe turn puts very little force on the tire/bead interface. First, the lever affecting the force on the rim (the distance from rim to road of 2.75") is short compared to the overall lever length (12" which is distance from road to hub), hence over 97% of the force (I won't bother with formulas) is transmitted to the center hub (the longer the lever arm, more force is transmitted) at which point the lugs take the stress. Of that remaining force, it is distributed evenly around both circumferences of approx. 120" linear length (total of inside and outside circumference of bead length), PROVIDED THERE IS SUFFICIENT INFLATION to equalize force distribution (back to the caps in a minute).
Hence even a severe turn exerts only a very small lever force that is distributed throughout the tire. Modern tire designs all use wire cable in the bead area for reinforcement to retain tire diameter at the bead, providing an additional safety margin. The CAPS above are to emphasize the lowest common denominator in the tire safety equation: pressure. Tire pressure is what seats and seals the tire to the rim and distributes peak loads throughout the tire to dispell energy. Hence the engineer's challenge and the limiting factor is maintaining adequite pressure in the tire for that dreaded unknown factor: the consumer.
As we all know, most people don't bother checking tire pressure on a regular basis. Therefore the National Highway Department and tire manufacturers have to set their standards to the lowest common denominator, a too-low tire pressure where the rim is almost to the road due to low pressure (probably around 2-3 psi). Under these circumstances, an emergency manuver places at least a 1000-fold increase in point pressure at the tire/bead interface since it is only the bead (<2") on the outside of the rim that has to take all of the side forces of a sudden manuver. The tire contends with an additional force here where the tire tends to "fold over" as the vehicle's weight shifts, bringing much more of a side vector force on the bead interface.
In the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire fiasco, for a few years Ford listed a recommended inflation range of 22-26 psi, actually lower than what Firestone recommended. Given the lack of maintanence that SUV owners are notorious for, in all likelyhood the tires were rolling off the rim, especially in cases where the wheel dropped off the edge of the road. It is no wonder that Explorers were rolling over!
So, what do I do to ensure my own safety margin? In additional to a RSB and FSTB to distrubute force equally to all 4 tires [honey, these mods help improve our safety ]. I also visually check all 4 tires levels before EVERY trip, and maintain my tires with at least weekily tire pressure checks, and run a pressure of f/r 36/32 psi to ensure a tight and safe bead seat. [SIDBAR: Why do I run a higher pressure in the front? To better support the front weight bias of our cars to give me more neutral handling (less understeer)].
Just to anticipate your follow-up question for the accident scenario, if I lose tire pressure suddenly (massive blow-outs don't really occur if tire pressure is maintained, sniper attacks not included!), I imagine there WOULD be an increased risk of the tire rolling off the rim but you have to remember that in this scenario that tire is going to be a handling problem REGARDLESS without its vital air pressure.
SUMMARY: Tire safety standards are set assuming the worst case, which in this discussion is the lowest possible pressure that keeps the rim off the road for many consumers. Since I check my tires at every trip, know their height when normal, and back this up with regular (at least weekly) tire pressure checks, then I am confident that I am operating a safe vehicle at 104% width compared to guidelines.
CAVEAT: I am NOT recommending this choice for all of you, this is MY choice as you might consider me an outer fringe high-risk taker. I am currently starting a business to commercialize a new chemical process to make hydrogen peroxide by directly reacting hydrogen and oxygen gases, certainly a hazardous operation if not done carefully (remember the Hindenburg!). I also have worked with rocket fuels and components for binary nerve gas agents, so I am VERY aware of safety considerations in designs of equipment and materials. Tires that are properly inflated are critical to my own safety and that of my family, and safety an essential consideration at ALL times. [ONCE AGAIN SORRY FOR THE LONG POST]

rsmaxmaggie: 2K SE 5-spd w/ all options, Addco RSB, FSTB, Yohkohama AVS ES100 235/45/17.

 

Thank you, RsMaxMaggie. That is the first lucid explanation of why it might be OK for some EXTREMELY DILIGENT individuals to consider exceeding acceptable tire safety guidelines. I wonder how many people reading your post and considering running 235/45R17 tires on their OEM rims are going to try to convince themselves that they're actually willing to be as diligent as you are.

 

Like I said before I have had no problems with running 235/45s on the stock 17s. As for emergency situations I wouldnt worry too much. I have road raced with the 235s and have taken the car to 99.999% of its limits. I am confident that there is no problem doing emergency manuvers considers I heated up the tires and beat the crap out them for hours with no problems. If you are pushing the car harder than I did at the track, you are out of control. Thats not the tires fault, but driver error.


I also did a lot of research on the matter before I made my purchase. I just kept it to myself because it would lead to a flaming or arguement.

 

NP

The pure fact is, I've been waiting for someone . . . anyone . . . to come up with a LOGICAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED argument in favor of exceeding industry and manufacturer safety guidelines. RsMaxMaggie provided that argument, and my hat's off to him for having done so. His argument is persuasive enough and I am diligent enough to actually consider running 235/45R17 tires on my OEM rims when the time comes to replace my tires. And I hardly need to point out the departure that represents from my previous position.

BTW, I posted RsMaxMaggie's comments in the FAQs if anyone's interested.

 

So, would it be good for me to get 235/45/17s instead of 235/50/17s?

 

i'd wouldn't take it as a recommendation so much as a possibility. i think the majority of us would prefer to stay within spec, but due to the lack of moderately priced tires in the stock size, we've had to look to alternative sizes.
you'll find that when you consider the 235/45 as a possibility, there's many more tires for you to choose from. but now, with other models in sizes within spec (225/50, 225/55, 235/50) you should be ok anyhow.
i suppose you could go with the 235/45 if you're looking for something definitely lower profile than the oem for a sportier look/feel. but having run that size now in two sets of replacements, i'd just assume get 235/50 or 225/55 to recover some of the lost ride quality.
just weigh your options carefully.