In this months (November) Consumer Reports they have a test of High performance all season tires and Ultra high performance tires. Consumer reports is very through and unbiased in their testing but they usually put more emphisis on comfort than most enthusiasts would.

Of course I get this issue just a month after I bought my RE950s but I am glad to see they finished 3rd and got all 'excellent's for performance, if it wasn't for the 'Poor' snow traction rating they probably would have been first, luckily I have snow tires. They also tested Bridgestones claim that their UNITAQ technology helps maintain wet weather performance as the tires wear by comparing a set of 1/2 worn tires to brand new ones. They found that the claim is true and the Bridgestone tires lost much less of their performace than other tires with worn tread

I am kind of surprised that the Bridgestone S-03s are only middle of the list and the Sumito HTRZ II that many here have raved about is dead last.

All seasons --
1 Falken Ziex ze 512
2 Bridgestone Turanza LS-H
3 Bridgestone Potenza RE950
4 Michelin Pilot XGT H4
5 Dunlop SP sport A2
6 MIchelin energy MX4V Plus
7 Pirelli P6 Four Seasons
8 Sumito Srixon 4
9 Yokahama A550H
10 Continental Contitouringcontact CH95
11 Kelly Charger HR
12 Cooper Lifliner touring SLE
13 Yokahama Avid H4
14 Toyo Proxes TPT
15 Goodyear Eagle LS
16 Uniroyal Tigerpaw touring HR
17 General Exclaim
18 Firestone Affinity

Ultra high Performance
1 Goodyear Eagle F1 GSD3
2 Toyo Proxes T1s
3Continentil Conti sport contact2
4 Michelin Pilot sport
5 Dunlop S sport 9000
6 Pirelli Pzero Nero
7 Bridgestone Potenza s-03
8 Hanook Ventus Sport K104
9 Yokahama AVS ES 100
10 BF goodrich G-force T/A KDW
11 Firestone Firehawk SZ50 EP
12 Kumh Ecsa Supra 712
13 Sumito HTRZ II

 

w00t! falken ziex they're cheap too..
im also suprised that htrzII are at the bottom but not suprised for the kumho
thanks for the info

 

There are many quality tires that they should have tested. I'm sure the results would have been very different if a better representation was tested.

Where are the Continental Extreme Contacts? The Michelin Pilot Sport A/S? Not even tested.

I guess they left out an entire class of all-season tires worthy of consideration. How did they decide what is "High" vs. what is "Ultra"? Price? No....Their are many tires cheaper than those on the CR list, and would have outperformed most, particularly the Extreme Contacts.

In my experience, CR ratings should be taken with many grains of salt.

 

Pilot Sport better than S-03's? T1-S? Contisports? Dunlop P9000 too? You've got to be $hitting me.. I could have killed myself numerous times with the P9000s alone if I had done what I did with the S-03's..

This is to be expected from a publication that probably did the testing in a large warehouse where they also do their refrigerator reviews

 

No Ultra-High Perfermance All-Season tire? How is "General" on there and Michelin Pilot A/S isnt? Continental ContiExtremeContact got great reviews, better than most of these. Thats what I'm going with. But it doesn't seem they tested all the tires they should have. Thanks for the report though

 

They say those are the best?
........................................Consumer Rep

 

they should of tested the nitto 555.

 

There is no such a thing as ultra-high performance all season tires. It's an oxymoron. Notice all the ultra-high performance tires are summer only tires. You will be crazy to drive those in snow. They tested most of the popular ultra-high performance tires except maybe they should've used Yoko. AVS sport instead of the Yoko ES100.

 

Interesting, thanks! I'll have to go pick up an issue soon.

Even if you take their "subjective" rankings with a grain (or teaspoon) of salt, some of the information they give can be interesting, like the noise characteristics. I'm interested in what they have to say about the Falken 512 and Hankook K104. The first one gets lots of good feedback from users, but the latter has very little info available.

BTW, what sizes did they test for each? I'll probably get this issue soon, but I'm just curious.

 

i would rather see what the tire rack states. they do serious testing year round. also, you can see what the comments are for each tire for your particular model vehicle. i went with the pirelli nero zero due to maxima owners stated this tire was the best tire overall, and had a 400 treadwear rating in a 235-40-18. this was the m & s zero nero by pirelli. i have had them on for two days, and they are much quieter than the bridgestone re92. continental i believe was 2nd. kumho's were near the bottom.

 

Test results aside, I refuse to believe that Falken Ziex 512 is better than Continental ContiExtremeContacts.


~limsandy

 

Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to pick up a copy of Consumer Report to help my shopping decision for a tire.

 

Unfortunately they didn't rate the ContiExtremeContacts so it's anyone's guess as to how the 512's compare to that one. Too bad, since I was kinda curious too.

BTW, I just bought a copy today and man, was I disappointed at how skimpy these tire tests have become. Sure, they rate things like Handling, Cornering (skidpad), wet/dry braking and handling, snow/ice traction, noise, and ride, but there are virtually NO little comments or blurbs about each tire like they used to do in the past. More info, less content.

 

I have been a little busy to respond to this thread but when I am buying an expensive item I like to get reviews from several different sources if possible. Even if you do not give the Consumer reports test a lot of weight it is still another source to look at. If you don't put any faith in the results than it does not bother me any.

Usually Mags like Car and Driver put more weight on peformance and driving experience while Consumer Reports is biased towards reliability, comfort, safety and practicality. I compare what I want to the Mags bias when I read their reviews.

The Tire Rack tests usually only compare 4 tires at a time so it is less likly that two tires you are considering will be going head to head. The Consumer Reports test is nice in that it compares 18 and 13 tires together even if they missed a few we thought should be included.

Looking at the details of how they did the test I am a little less impressed with it than I was at first. For all season tires they used 195/65R15 on a 2002 Honda Accord. For the Utra high performance tires they used 215/45R17 on a 2002 Ford Focus SVT. In my opinion the differences would have been much more apparent on a sports car.

The tests for wet, dry and ice braking, Snow traction, and hydroplaning all seem very good. They simply measured the distance it took to stop, time to accelerate 5-20 MPH, and speed reached before hydroplaning started. The Cornering test also seems good, they used a skid pad to test grip. They also measured rolling resistance.

However there 'Handling' test was only based on an avoidence manuver, A swerve to the left, to the right and then left again. This obviously is no where near as good as the Tire Racks test on an autocross course. But this shows Consumer Reports bias, they consider handling primarily a safety consideration and test it by seeing how well the tires would hep you avoid an accident.

If you feel you can trust the results use them to help you decide which tire you want to buy, if you don't trust them than ignore them.

 

no Nitto???????????