tire recommendations

I bought a set of TripleTreads for my '04 Accord 4-banger. I hated the
original Michelins - they had very little traction, I was glad to get rid of
them. Honda should be ashamed for putting such trash on their cars.

So far, the only downside I've noticed on the TT's (other than original
cost) was that the handling wasn't quite as crisp as the original Michelins
(it was the only thing I liked about the M's).
The TT's have a slight delay when you make a turn. When I first got them it
annoyed me, but either I've gotten used to the delay or it has gotten
better; I don't notice it anymore. I haven't had a chance to try them on
snow or ice yet.


"Doug B" > wrote in message
...
> According to Consumer Reports (November 2005), Michelin "X" is top-rated
> for noise, rolling resistance, braking and cornering, but only fair in
> snow & ice, and tread life is average. They also are only available from
> shopping clubs (e.g., Sams Club or Costco). #1 overall is the Goodyear
> Assurance TripleTred, though its rolling resistance isn't quite as good.
>

Art wrote:
> Consumer Reports rated tires this month.

Apparently it won't reach their website for a while; the most recent
tire rating at consumerreports.org is November 2005.

I have TripleTreds on my 2000 Accord and love the tires. I boosted
pressure to 32 psi and was very pleased with the handling and
responsiveness. I drive 100 miles per day commuting in all kinds of
weather. I second the poster who said rolling resistance shouldn't be
primary concern -- I want traction, but then, I live in Ohio...

Full disclosu I work for Goodyear. My comment is offered in the
spirit of assistance.
SDW

Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed
air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose
pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though.

"Doug B" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed
> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose
> pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though.

Well given that the atmosphere is about 76% nitrogen already I never saw the
return in spending money for the other 24%. Your mileage may vary of course.

I have the Goodyear triple treads and I have been very pleased. I don't
work for Goodyear.

there are two versions of the TT ( I can't remember the names). you need to
get the more expensive one. I don't think the lesser one was rated too
highly.
"Milleron" > wrote in message
...

I'll soon be replacing the OEM Bridgestone Turanzas on my '03 Accord
V6. The tread life and fuel economy they've given have been
outstanding, but the handling leaves something to be desired. For
example, I've found myself slowing to 60 mph in strong, gusting
crosswinds while other drivers, even in smaller cars, keep going
65-70.

Fuel economy (rolling resistance, I guess) is the most important tire
quality to me, but I'd be willing to sacrifice a little in that
category for somewhat better handling.

What's my best choice currently?

Ron

Nasty wrote:
> "Doug B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed
>> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose
>> pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though.
>
> Well given that the atmosphere is about 76% nitrogen already I never saw the
> return in spending money for the other 24%. Your mileage may vary of course.

It's what's in the other 24% that matters. It includes water vapor and
carbon dioxide, whose pressures vary more with temperature than
nitrogen, and also oxygen, which is more chemically reactive than
nitrogen. Granted, these differences aren't enough to make me want to
spend extra money to fill my tires, but the differences are there to
some extent.

--
Mike Smith

"Mike Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Nasty wrote:
>> "Doug B" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed
>>> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose
>>> pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though.
>>
>> Well given that the atmosphere is about 76% nitrogen already I never saw
>> the return in spending money for the other 24%. Your mileage may vary of
>> course.
>
> It's what's in the other 24% that matters.

Is this where I say "Duh!"?

<It includes water vapor and
> carbon dioxide, whose pressures vary more with temperature than nitrogen,
> and also oxygen, which is more chemically reactive than nitrogen.

Yes it does. That's why it's CALLED the other 24%.


>Granted, these differences aren't enough to make me want to spend extra
>money to fill my tires, but the differences are there to some extent.

I think you just solidified my case.

If somebody wants to go off the deep end and do something extravagant
filling their tires there's always helium. It's inert, resists temperature
changes well, and should make the car go faster because of its lift
characteristics. Then again too small a car with too large tires my tend to
float. But that could be kinda cool too...

Again, YMMV.

oklaman wrote:
> I have the Goodyear triple treads and I have been very pleased. I don't
> work for Goodyear.
>
> there are two versions of the TT ( I can't remember the names). you need to
> get the more expensive one. I don't think the lesser one was rated too
> highly.
>

Was one of the names "Assurance"? I was quoted a price of $560 for
four Goodyear Assurance TripleTred P205-65x15s (mounted, balanced, sales
tax and disposal charge). I can't imagine paying more for a set of
tires unless I was planning to race.

Nasty wrote:
> "Mike Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nasty wrote:
>>> "Doug B" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Has anyone tried filling their tires with nitrogen instead of compressed
>>>> air? It's supposed to make tires last longer, run cooler and lose
>>>> pressure more slowly. No idea what it costs, though.
>>> Well given that the atmosphere is about 76% nitrogen already I never saw
>>> the return in spending money for the other 24%. Your mileage may vary of
>>> course.
>> It's what's in the other 24% that matters.
>
> Is this where I say "Duh!"?
>
> <It includes water vapor and
>> carbon dioxide, whose pressures vary more with temperature than nitrogen,
>> and also oxygen, which is more chemically reactive than nitrogen.
>
> Yes it does. That's why it's CALLED the other 24%.
>
>
>> Granted, these differences aren't enough to make me want to spend extra
>> money to fill my tires, but the differences are there to some extent.
>
> I think you just solidified my case.
>
> If somebody wants to go off the deep end and do something extravagant
> filling their tires there's always helium. It's inert, resists temperature
> changes well, and should make the car go faster because of its lift
> characteristics. Then again too small a car with too large tires my tend to
> float. But that could be kinda cool too...
>
> Again, YMMV.

no kidding. helium diffuses through rubber like you left the door open.
fact is, unless you have a specific [aerospace type] need such as
corrosion resistance, condensation resistance or fire resistance, an
all-nitrogen tire inflation is utterly pointless.