'92Q: Michelin Pilot Exalta AS vs. Yokohama Avid H4S

[kdkrone]

I have read the post about tires for the 94 Q45a. I note that the Yokohama Avid's appear to be rated quite well at Tire Rack, with the Pilot Exalta #1

I would appreciate comments on either tire, especially the Yokohama's, which were not mentioned in the other recent thread.

Here is the tirerack.com survey:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...=true

ThanksKen K

[maxnix]

Only Yoko I would trust on a G50 is the AVS dB S2. Had the predecessor, and it was a serviceable tire. Good, but not a Michelin in quality.

[Q45tech]

The 215 H4s [$68] has a 500 treadwear wear index vs the softer 400 for the Michelin [$93].

In the 50 mph braking test Michelin 88 dry/96 feet wet vs 83/95 for Yok.

For a measley $ 100 difference I'll bet you will be much happier with the Michelin once you reach 20,000 miles and again at 30,000 miles.

The Yoks will probably show their ugly side just after 8,000 miles.

No point in saving $100 on 4 tires and being miserable after a few months.

[MattB]

I had the H4S tires on my G20. They were great in both wet and dry weather. I don't know if they'd do as well on a heavy car like a Q.

[Rex]

No really relevant to the H4 question ...

I've liked the Yoko AVS ES100's I've had on my Q, but it's a summer/sport tire with a 280 wear rating and (I would) consider useless in the winter.

The load rating is plenty high enough (100) in the sizes I've used 245/45/18 (a touch tall)

[kdkrone]

The Yoks will probably show their ugly side just after 8,000 miles.

No point in saving $100 on 4 tires and being miserable after a few months.

Thanks. That is why I asked.

Cheers,Ken

[goody90q45]

The Yoks will probably show their ugly side just after 8,000 miles. No point in saving $100 on 4 tires and being miserable after a few months.

If by "ugly side" you mean noisy, I would agree. While the Yoko AVS dB are a great handling tire with lots of traction they are extremely noisy. I've got close to 8000 miles on my set of 245-16's. I'll only be using them as a summer tire and am on (quiet) Goodyear Eagles for now.

[maxnix]

If by "ugly side" you mean noisy, I would agree. While the Yoko AVS dB are a great handling tire with lots of traction they are extremely noisy.

Not my experience at all. Ran them 30K miles without any feathering. Just thought they were a little hard, and of course they were short 225/60-15 size. But they were quiet and better than Sport XGTV in the rain that came on the 1995 Q45t(6 years old and 26K miles, but lots of tread and cracks).

[kdkrone]

Maxnix,

Assuming your wheels are 15" and the same as mine for the '92, what advantage/disadvantage is there running 225/60-15 as opposed to 215/65-15?

ThanksKen

[maxnix]

Load ratings on similar models within brands tend to be the same for both sizes. The lower profile tires are a little shorter so revolutions increase slightly, and give a little better feel to side loading. Straight line braking is about the same. Not much to distinguish them, and adjusting tire pressures will allow you to adjust the transient response vs. quality of ride transient within their performance envelope.

I really think the 235/60-15 is the best size given the same tire, but I would still stick with a Michelin if I could although none are made in this size presently. I think the main advantage of this size, besides being the correct rolling diameter, is the increased load rating, which as Q45tech has noted, results in decreased slip angles when cornering. And the rate of wear seems to decrease slightly also.

Like buying the car, I would go with the best quality. But having driven all three sizes on a G50, I don't like a short tire, but it's not a great sacrifice.

[kdkrone]

I really think the 235/60-15 is the best size given the same tire, but I would still stick with a Michelin if I could although none are made in this size presently.

Like buying the car, I would go with the best quality. But having driven all three sizes on a G50, I don't like a short tire, but it's not a great sacrifice.

It is clear that I will go with the Michelin. I must be reading your post incorrectly, though, as it appears contradictory. With the mention of the 235/60-15 you say it is the way to go (or would be if they made one), then in the last sentence you say that you don't like a short tire. So are you saying, then, that the way to go would be the 215/65-15 or the 225/60-15"? At tirerack.com, the former is $93/tire and the latter is $123.

Ken

[szh]

The 235/60-15 is a better overall size fit to a 215/65-15 original size than the 225/60-15 (the rolling diameter is a bit low on the last one).

For example, if the Pilot Exalto were available in all these sizes at the same (or very similar) load index, I would pick the 235/60-15 as my first choice, the 215/65-15 as the second choice and the 225/60-15 as the third choice.

However, if load index values are different, then I think (have not looked yet), that the 225/60-15 has a higher load index and would become the number 2 choice after te 235/60-15 (assuming that its load index was good).

But, if the load index of the 215/65-15 were significantly higher than the others for some reason (not likely though!), then I might even pick it as number 1 over the other two.

Hope this explains my choices! I think that Brian (maxnix) might agree with some of my comments here.

Z

[maxnix]

So are you saying, then, that the way to go would be the 215/65-15 or the 225/60-15"? At tirerack.com, the former is $93/tire and the latter is $123.

Same model of tire? Probably the former. Either is acceptable, but the former is proper OEM diameter. A very small consideration.

15" tires is becoming a depressing subject with so few choices.

[maxnix]

I think that Brian (maxnix) might agree with some of my comments here.

All, actually. I would be dumb and choose the XGTH 235/60-15 in storage and start saving $100 month for new tires and wheels for the next time.

One disadvantage is if a tire is destroyed (e.g. - sidewall puncture) good luck finding another. You will probably have to replace all four at that point.
Modified by maxnix at 9:35 PM 2/6/2007

[szh]

15" tires is becoming a depressing subject with so few choices.

Very true!

In most cases, it is worth considering a switch to bigger rims for some nominal cost. Something like 17x8 or 17x7.5 G35 wheels, or the 18x7.5 (2003/4) M45 rims, or the 18x8 (2000+) Q4 rims.

There is, of course, a cost to this upgrade ...

Z

[szh]

One disadvantage is if a tire is destroyed (e.g. - sidewall puncture) good luck finding another. You will probably have to replace all four at that point.

Some years ago, this was exactly the reason that I did not do a last buy on four Firestone Firestone SZ50-EP tires that Grant (at Tire Rack) was offering to sell me. I probably should have gone for it ...

Z

[Q45tech]

Or mix and match sizes. MORE DIFFICULT with modern TCS/dynamic traction systems.

I have a cheat since a Michelin friend emailed old graphs [non publishable] that shows all the secret parameters so I can compensate sizes with inflation to make the tires behave nearly identically in most situations.

YOU CAN DO THE SAME by testing inflations under identical conditions ...1.0 psi at a time you will eventually feel what I'm saying.NASCAR drivers can feel 1 psi so most should notice 3 psi even the worst can feel 5 psi. THEN AGAIN I've seen people that can't feel 10-15-20 psi

Michelin is finatical about linearity in lateral stiffness and self aligning torque. SO INFLATION Has linear effects over a +- 5 psi range.

You cannot cross use H and V rated and assume linearity across them as the cap ply/ edge cap ply behave differently.

If you inflate the rear 215 higher by 3 psi they are very close to 235 at x psi. ON A Q45.Not perfect but a difference that can be learned and mentally adjusted to deal with in a safe manner.In a a 0.6-0.8 G skid.

None of these tires are pretty when you get near freezing as they just function as tires at these colder temperatures..............All season was FALL SEASON before the Marketing department dropped the F!

[kdkrone]

The discussion raises the question about larger rims in order to have more choice.

What are the advantages/disadvantages (other than the financial hit) of a larger wheel size? Does it ultimately result in a rougher ride as a tradeoff for improved responsiveness with steering? I am not willing to sacrifice much comfort now at 61 as I was when I purchased the car 15 years ago, but if comfort is not affected by going up an inch in wheel diameter and there is more choice in tire size, then I would like to know that.

ThanksKen K

[maxnix]

Comfort is affected slightly on severe road irregularities, but performance is way up, especially on Michelin PS2 in the wet. On a good highway or road, you will swear they are the most luxurious tire made.

Everything in the suspension must be up to new OEM specification, though.

[bruce.weiland]

Ok you tire experts ( I mean that in the most respectful way ).

During the first 11 years that I drove Q's I had"91" Q45aOEM 15 chromed pie pans with OEM tires - two sets.

Then went to 16x8 255x50x16 with Yoko AVS Intermediate - several sets - tried a couple others but kept going back to Yokos. Very, very slight ride compromise for much better stopping, much more precise turn in. Just a lot more fun."95"Q45aTransfered my 16x8 and contiuned until I got an unrepairable wheel leak

Went to 17x8.5 255x45x17 front and 17x9.5 275x40x17 rear.

Never was as good as the 16's. Didn't handle as well and certainly did not ride as well.

OK - so now some questions;

1/2" less sidewall than OEM did not seem to compromise the ride but 1" shorter did, or was it the continue of the increase of unsprung weight from OEM to 16 to 17? Or both?

Given my previous experience I am reluctant to go to 17" and I think the next set to 16" will be short lived, given what the tire manufacturers are doing.

Additionally, are springs, shocks, sway bars, and geometry that much better than it was 15 years ago when almost no one put an 18" wheel/tire combination on a car ( I am leaving out active sway bars, ABC by Merc and other active approaches, just conventional suspension)?

Thanks for the reponses. I don't mean to take this thread off topic. I have the German/Nissan BBS OEM 15" on my '94'.

Bruce

Modified by bruce.weiland at 7:21 AM 2/7/2007

Modified by bruce.weiland at 7:23 AM 2/7/2007
Modified by bruce.weiland at 5:35 PM 2/10/2007

[maxnix]

17" Should have been 255/45-17 in front.

You don't say what kind of tires, but the Intermediates as far as I recall were short lived tires, but had stiff side walls.

Not sure if your experiences are that relevant across tire brands.

[Rex]

Went to 17x8.5 255x40x17 front and 17x9.5 285x35x17 rear.

Offsets and some pics would be nice information to add tot he "fitment" thread.

[bruce.weiland]

Maxnix,

Rigth you are. I just went back and checked my old tire orders and it was 255x45x17 I had on the front (sizes edited to correct info in previous reply).

Yes the Yokos didn't give me a lot of miles per set (about 15K per set compared to 18K on with OEM), but gave me a lot of fun.

When they discontinued the AVS intermediate, I tried a set of 255x50x16 AVS sports that Yoko said "everyone liked better". I didn't. Also had a set of Goodyear GS-C that Dinan recommended for the 7 series. Again did not perform as well as the Intermedite. Had a Michelin in a 245 as I recall, don't recall the model - like the Goodyear, preferred the Yoko.

With the 17" I had Sumitomo HRT Z II 255x45x17 front and Yokohama AVS Intermediate 275x40x17 rear (approx. 25.66 diameter). So I didn't have 285 in the rear, it was about 6 years ago and, hey at almost 60 (two months to go) sometimes my memory is just convenient.

Does this help?

Bruce
Modified by bruce.weiland at 7:26 AM 2/7/2007

[bruce.weiland]

Rex,

That set and car went to a new home about 6 years ago. I don't have any pictures.

When my 16" wheel failed to hold air and was unrepairable Tirerack had a sale on MSW (Motor Sport Works - 6 spoke) 8.5x17 front and 9.5x17 rear. I don't have any notes about the offset, but I think it was around 37mm.

As I recall I was trying to split the diference, put the additional wheel width equally inside and out so that the center was where OEM would be.

255's always had a slight rub on the third link at full lock, right or left, as in parking. The 275's just cleared the rear fender with about an 1/8" to spare.

[Q45tech]

Take a momemt to calculate the side wall stiffness of 15>16>17.

The demand for fuel efficient tires [low rolling resistance] has tilted manufacturers away from 160 wear index tires that are totally worn out in 15,000 miles.

Even PS2 are 220 wear index vs 160 for AVSI plus 36 psi vs 51 psi for same load so in the same diameter/size AVSI sidewalls were 42% stiffer without inflation.............ratio of materials to air stiffness.

However modern tires are lighter.

Note that modern suspensions are aluminum to offset the higher WHEEL, ROTOR, and Caliper weight.

Half the suspension arm eight is considered unSPRUNG.

I remember changing oem piepans for the ugly FORGED t wheels with the same Michelin tires and NOTICING how much better the Q felt with just a 4.5 pound lighter wheel. Like a different car with just that tiny change.

It would be interesting to measure the front unsprung weight on a new M45 and compare it to an old Q with 15" forced wheels. Bet the old car is less/equal even without the modern aluminum..............wheels, rotors, calipers.

[bruce.weiland]

I took a cursory look through Tireracks wheel and tire selection.

They list wheel weights to the 0.1 lbs, but tire weights to the pound.

It looks like, with the right wheel, one could get wheel/tire weight on 15s down to about 40 lbs, however, 43 would be more afordable.

It seems that every inch of wheel diameter increase adds about two to three pounds of weight penalty for tire/wheel combination. And of course a $$ increase penalty.

15" - 43 lbs16" - 45 lbs17" - 47 lbs18" - 49 to 50+lbs --- for enough $$ 45 lbs

[kdkrone]

Maxnix,

Assuming your wheels are 15" and the same as mine for the '92, what advantage/disadvantage is there running 225/60-15 as opposed to 215/65-15?

ThanksKen

[maxnix]

the shorter sidewall yields a slight increase in response when changing direction and a light increase in acceleration and mileage reported on the odometer.

All minor stuff.

[bruce.weiland]

My estimate for OEM wheel/tire combination was way too high and based on the average weight of 15x6.5 wheels on Tirerack's site.

OEM BBS w/ 215x65x15 = approx. 35 lbs.

[maxnix]

My estimate for OEM wheel/tire combination was way too high and based on the average weight of 15x6.5 wheels on Tirerack's site.

OEM BBS w/ 215x65x15 = approx. 35 lbs.

OZ Racing Superleggera 18x9 and 255/40-18 PS2 ~45 lb.

I would peg the BBS 15x6.5 and 235/60-15 ~43 lb.