Do I need new tires?

[warhead]

Car lost traction when turning a round-a-bout in the rain the other day which has never happened before so I took a look at the tires when I got home.

Front ones are about 1-2mm away from the wear indicators, rear ones about 4mm from wear indicators.
I'm going to get the wheels rotated tomorrow but I'm slightly wearing of the rear of the car losing traction and I end up with a bit of oversteer.

I drive a GT TSI ( 3yrs old, APR ECU upgrade installed a couple of months ago ), stock rims and 225/45 R17 CSC2 tires. I've only been on spirited runs probably about 4-5 times so I wouldn't say I'm too aggressive on the rubber.

I'm looking at prices on tirerack.com and not quite sure whether to buy new tires or not. And whether I should just replace the front 2 or replace all 4.
Currently on the decision list are the Michelin PS2, Pirelli P-Zero and Bridgestone Adrenaline.

[audi-tone]

federal 595 rsr? great grippy tyres - meant to be good in the wet too..
in saying that the michelins are meant to be great. depends on how much you wanna spend

[warhead]

Just noticed JAX have the Michelin PS3s for 265ea. How different are they to the PS2s?
As a comparison, tirerack prices on the PS2 is 640US for 4, shipping is ~ 260US, currency conversion charge is 3%, works out to be about 230ea AUD, and I'd have to pay some dollars to get them fitted.

[Diesel_vert]

Car lost traction when turning a round-a-bout in the rain the other day which has never happened before so I took a look at the tires when I got home.

Front ones are about 1-2mm away from the wear indicators, rear ones about 4mm from wear indicators.

Degradation in wet performance really starts to become noticeable when the tread markers are at 3 mm or less.

I'm going to get the wheels rotated tomorrow but I'm slightly wearing of the rear of the car losing traction and I end up with a bit of oversteer.

Yeah, it's a bit late for that. At this stage of the tyre's lifespan, any combination will be a compromise. If you leave it as is, wet performance suffers (as you have found out). If you rotate, then snap oversteer in the wet (due to aquaplaning at the rear) is a real possibility.

I drive a GT TSI ( 3yrs old, APR ECU upgrade installed a couple of months ago ), stock rims and 225/45 R17 CSC2 tires. I've only been on spirited runs probably about 4-5 times so I wouldn't say I'm too aggressive on the rubber.

Whether you drive aggressively or not, try to ensure all four tyres wear evenly in the future (by rotating or otherwise).

I'm looking at prices on tirerack.com and not quite sure whether to buy new tires or not. And whether I should just replace the front 2 or replace all 4.

If your budget allows, it's always better to get four new tyres. If you get two, you're still stuck with the same compromises mentioned earlier, particularly in the wet (not so much in the dry).

Currently on the decision list are the Michelin PS2, Pirelli P-Zero and Bridgestone Adrenaline.

Anecdotes from various forums:

The Michelin PS2 is focused on dry performance (still one the best in this regard). Its replacement, the Pilot Super Sport (due 15 April on Tire Rack) promises to further impress.

The Pirelli P Zero (not to be confused with the Nero, Rosso or System variants) performs on the same level or better in the dry as the PS2, but also has superior wet performance.

The Bridgestone Adrenaline is slightly a level down on these two. Better than the CSC2 in the dry but not that much better in the wet.

The Michelin PS3 is supposed to have PS2 levels of dry performance while vastly improving on its wet performance.

[brad]

TWIs are 1.5mm, which is the legal minimum. As diesel vert said, wet weather grip drastically deteriorates below 3mm total depth (1.5mm off the TWIs). I've run tyres down to 1.5mm & a major adjustment in wet weather driving style & concentration is mandatory. Even then, every so often the tyres would lose traction without warning. It's no fun driving down the M5 in a downpour doing 50kmh in the slow lane when everyone is belting past doing 20-40kmh faster.

If it was me, I'd turf out the 2 low ones & put the 5.5mm (new is generally 8mm) on the front. Stick a couple of PS3 or Continental DW on the rear. When the fronts are down to 2.5-3mm then turf them out & repeat the above process (rear to front, new on rear).

PS2 are the performance focussed tyre; PS3 are 95% as good for a lot less dollars. Both will be an improvement over the (perfectly acceptable) CSC2.

[warhead]

I had actually asked for the wheels to be rotated at my last service. Obviously it wasn't done. Most likely would've been still too late to ensure even wear.

After they got rotated today, dry grip has improved, no idea about wet. And at the same time I got quotes for the RE001s and the PS3s. They came out to be $279 and $260 ea respectively and that includes fitting.

I'm thinking about just driving the car as it is ( unless wet handling still gives me problems ) for the next couple of months until I run down the rotated fronts and just go for 4 new PS3s.

[TomC]

Am also in need of replacement tyres. With the current exchange rate Tire Rack seems pretty unbeatable. These are the couple i'm tossing up between:

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric

Continental ContiSportContact 3

Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position

Michelin Pilot Super Sport

4 different options with four different prices. Even the most expensive ones though shouldn't be too much more than $1k delivered, which is a considerable saving on purchasing them local I would have thought (being an Adelaide boy too, we don't have some of the good tyre stores of the Eastern States).

Any opinions on any of these? All of them have a higher load rating than the OE tyres, but my understanding is that this isn't a problem. Correct?

[brad]

I had actually asked for the wheels to be rotated at my last service. Obviously it wasn't done. Most likely would've been still too late to ensure even wear.

After they got rotated today, dry grip has improved, no idea about wet. And at the same time I got quotes for the RE001s and the PS3s. They came out to be $279 and $260 ea respectively and that includes fitting.

I'm thinking about just driving the car as it is ( unless wet handling still gives me problems ) for the next couple of months until I run down the rotated fronts and just go for 4 new PS3s.

RE001 are a good tyre but the Michelin are a level upwards again.

I would be reluctant to drive with the 3mm tyres on the rear. Light rear end & near bald tyres are bad bedfellows. I guess as long as you are aware of it & the potential for a rear end aquaplane & the car swapping ends, the risk is somewhat reduced. FWD = best tyres on rear always (which makes a rotation plan a bit of a problem)

[Diesel_vert]

Am also in need of replacement tyres. With the current exchange rate Tire Rack seems pretty unbeatable. These are the couple i'm tossing up between:

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric

Continental ContiSportContact 3

Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position

Michelin Pilot Super Sport

4 different options with four different prices. Even the most expensive ones though shouldn't be too much more than $1k delivered, which is a considerable saving on purchasing them local I would have thought (being an Adelaide boy too, we don't have some of the good tyre stores of the Eastern States).

Any opinions on any of these?

The F1A and CSC3 are best for wet roads. On dry roads they perform well objectively, but subjectively they don't feel as good as Bridgestone, Dunlop or Michelin.

The RE050A are great in dry conditions and a real enthusiast's tyre, but wet performance isn't that great anymore when compared to newer rivals.

The PSS is the true successor to the PS2, and if the claimed improvements on the PS2 are true, it promises to be an absolute cracker in the dry. Still very new, so no one has really reviewed them properly. Wet performance should be good, if not spectacular, but remains to be seen. As an enthusiast, these would be my choice (note the availability date though).

All of them have a higher load rating than the OE tyres, but my understanding is that this isn't a problem. Correct?

Yes, that is correct. You can always go up in load index, but never down.

[TomC]

Diesel_vert, that is really helpful. Thanks!

On a slight sidetrack (but not really, seeing as the thread is/was about tyre wear), something I've been reading a bit about is treadwear rating. Some articles I've read recommend the CSC's and similar because they have a 280 treadwear rating, which suggests longer tyre life (although driving style obviously plays a part). I've got 55k kms out of my OE CSC2's.

I'm thinking this might sway my decision a little. I know some people disagree with treadwear ratings but my experience maybe suggests otherwise (he says with drawn breath ). Anything 240 or more is recommended. Thoughts?

[Diesel_vert]

After they got rotated today, dry grip has improved, no idea about wet.

You will find that braking and handling will be improved in the dry and wet.

Light rear end & near bald tyres are bad bedfellows. I guess as long as you are aware of it & the potential for a rear end aquaplane & the car swapping ends, the risk is somewhat reduced.

Yep, that's the downside.

FWD = best tyres on rear always (which makes a rotation plan a bit of a problem)

Understand that, for the general public, it is in the interests of vehicle and tyre manufacturers to recommend new tyres be fitted to the rear axle. One can appreciate their point of view if you accept that directional stability in the wet takes priority over any benefits from fitting new tyres on the front axle.

On a slight sidetrack (but not really, seeing as the thread is/was about tyre wear), something I've been reading a bit about is treadwear rating. Some articles I've read recommend the CSC's and similar because they have a 280 treadwear rating, which suggests longer tyre life (although driving style obviously plays a part). I've got 55k kms out of my OE CSC2's.

I'm thinking this might sway my decision a little. I know some people disagree with treadwear ratings but my experience maybe suggests otherwise (he says with drawn breath ). Anything 240 or more is recommended. Thoughts?

Treadwear ratings are calculated by the manufacturer's own internal performance measurements (some are conservative in their ratings, while others are optimistic) so direct comparisons of treadwear ratings are only valid within a single manufacturer. And the mileage you get from your car won't necessarily reflect the experiences of other cars (source - Tire Rack).

Example 1: If you got 55k from the SportContact 2 (TW: 280), then you can expect to get 59k from the EcoContact 3 (TW: 300).

Example 2: If someone else only got 40k from the CSC2, then they should only expect to get 43k from the CEC3.

The problem is that you cannot predict how other manufacturer's tyres will last on your car. All you can go by are other people's experiences in relation to the CSC2. For example, the Michelin PS3 (TW: 320) will obviously last longer than the Michelin PSS (TW: 300), but you won't know how long they'll last in relation to the CSC2, as fitted on your car.

In short, treadwear ratings are relative, not absolute.

[TomC]

That begs the question then... What is the point of having a treadwear rating on tyres if it is always subjective between companies? Is there a universal set of guidelines companies need to follow when testing treadwear? Is testing consistant enough between companies to at least be able to use the rating as a guide?

Otherwise it seems pointless...

[brad]

That begs the question then... What is the point of having a treadwear rating on tyres if it is always subjective between companies? Is there a universal set of guidelines companies need to follow when testing treadwear? Is testing consistant enough between companies to at least be able to use the rating as a guide?

Otherwise it seems pointless...

Better than nothing at all I guess.

I think you'd get reasonable life out of all those tyres. The 280 for the Bridgestone seems odd - I allways thought RE050A was about 180-220.

Also, if you are aiming to get ~50,000km out of your tyres then it's a bit pointless to get an extreme performance tyre (eg: Michelin Super Sport). You need to match the tyre to your driving style so possibly the Michelin PS3 might be a better match? I got 45,000km out of my CSC2 (3mm remaining) and now have Michelin Primacy HP & they are a good match for the way I drive.

Also, Goodyear have just released the F1A mkII - possibly worth a look.

[TomC]

I think you'd get reasonable life out of all those tyres. The 280 for the Bridgestone seems odd - I allways thought RE050A was about 180-220.

I thought that too. But I discovered there are two types of 050's on Tire Rack - the regular RE050 (180 tw) and then the Pole Position (280 tw, the one I listed). Not sure whether the Pole Position is an America only model?

I've been reasonably happy with the CSC2's, apart from being a bit noisy later in life. I do a lot of commuting but also regular (windy) trips down the coast to surf. Found them a nice balance. I'm really coming around to the PS3's, based on people's recommendations. But may also look at the CSC3's based on my good experience.

[Diesel_vert]

That begs the question then... What is the point of having a treadwear rating on tyres if it is always subjective between companies?

UTQG marking is not an international requirement. It is only compulsory for tyres that are to be sold in the U.S. and some countries in the Middle East. IMO, it is a misguided attempt by the Americans to try and quantify something that is subject to so many variables.

Is there a universal set of guidelines companies need to follow when testing treadwear?

No.

Is testing consistant enough between companies to at least be able to use the rating as a guide?

No.

Otherwise it seems pointless...

Quite.


The technical regulations for tyres, as well as other aspects of vehicles, are in the process of being harmonized under a single group of "Global Technical Regulations" (GTR) via the UNECE, and it is expected that UTQG markings will be eliminated from future requirements (see Paper No. 2 - PDF, 431 KB).

As a general guide, Continentals tend to wear faster than Michelins, as the former tends to focus on wet performance, whereas the latter tends to focus on dry performance (different company philosophies). But as always, YMMV.