How good are Hankook tires for the Accord?

I had a set of 4 Hankook Tires put on my 2005 accord ex sedan a month ago. I
believe they are 205/60HR 14's. So far so good. I did have to get one of the
valve stems replaced because it was leaking after going to the carwash, but
the tire place that I had it done did it for free as they gave me a lifetime
warrenty on anything that happens to the tires. I think the car washer was
too rough with the tire brush when he was cleaning my wheels before I
entered the carwash and thats what caused it to leak. I priced them at the
store and it would have been around 600 dollars installed with balancing,
but I got a special deal online for $415.00 for all 4 tires, installed with
balancing, tax, tire disposal, and front and rear alignment too.

Anybody know what these tires are like? I heard they were good but just
thought I'd ask y'all to see if anyone has any thoughts. I know I wont make
it through a RI winter with my old tires that were 80% worn already and I
still have 9 months to go. Why the old stock tires got to 80% worn after
32,000 miles is beyond me, but they did even though the treadware was 340,
go figure!

Al

On May 26, 9:09 am, "alfred" > wrote:
> I had a set of 4 Hankook Tires put on my 2005 accord ex sedan a month ago. I
> believe they are 205/60HR 14's. So far so good. I did have to get one of the
> valve stems replaced because it was leaking after going to the carwash, but
> the tire place that I had it done did it for free as they gave me a lifetime
> warrenty on anything that happens to the tires. I think the car washer was
> too rough with the tire brush when he was cleaning my wheels before I
> entered the carwash and thats what caused it to leak. I priced them at the
> store and it would have been around 600 dollars installed with balancing,
> but I got a special deal online for $415.00 for all 4 tires, installed with
> balancing, tax, tire disposal, and front and rear alignment too.
>
> Anybody know what these tires are like? I heard they were good but just
> thought I'd ask y'all to see if anyone has any thoughts. I know I wont make
> it through a RI winter with my old tires that were 80% worn already and I
> still have 9 months to go. Why the old stock tires got to 80% worn after
> 32,000 miles is beyond me, but they did even though the treadware was 340,
> go figure!
>
> Al

Have you gone to tirerack.com?
my brother got a set of yokohama tires from there for about $60 per
tire. Awesome deal and they're much better quality tires than what
you'll see in stores. I'm not sure about hankook tires. I've used
kuhmo (korean, excellent tires for regular cars - work cars), yokohama
(japanese, excellent tires for any car), firestone (some good, some
not), good year (expensive and not very good), michelin (expensive,
some are great tires - may even best tires, but some models aren't.
Need to do research).

"alfred" > wrote in news:RcX5i.252$106.233@trndny02:

> I had a set of 4 Hankook Tires put on my 2005 accord ex sedan a month
> ago. I believe they are 205/60HR 14's. So far so good.



I've got Hankook H406's on my Integra right now. I suppose they're decent
enough. Put about 20K miles on them so far.

They are not nearly as direct and rigid as the Yokohama ES100's I had on
there previously. The Hankooks seem to have a softer, squirmier sidewall.

I find the quality of the mounting and balancing job is far more important
than the tire itself.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger wrote:

> I've got Hankook H406's on my Integra right now. I suppose they're decent
> enough. Put about 20K miles on them so far.
>
> They are not nearly as direct and rigid as the Yokohama ES100's I had on
> there previously. The Hankooks seem to have a softer, squirmier sidewall.
>
> I find the quality of the mounting and balancing job is far more important
> than the tire itself.

I agree, although the tire itself is still a factor, depending on what
characteristics you want in a tire. I bought my '04 Civic last fall with
newly installed Bridgestone Insignia's on it. These tires have been
horrible in every possible way.

I'm considering getting a set of Falken Ziex 512's, which I hear are good
performing tires at a low price. Although treadwear seems to be this tire's
weakest point, I estimate that I'll drive only 10,000 miles a year. So they
should last me at least 3 years, possibly more since I use winter tires when
necessary.

High Tech Misfit > wrote in
:

> Tegger wrote:
>
>> I've got Hankook H406's on my Integra right now. I suppose they're
>> decent enough. Put about 20K miles on them so far.
>>
>> They are not nearly as direct and rigid as the Yokohama ES100's I had
>> on there previously. The Hankooks seem to have a softer, squirmier
>> sidewall.
>>
>> I find the quality of the mounting and balancing job is far more
>> important than the tire itself.
>
> I agree, although the tire itself is still a factor, depending on what
> characteristics you want in a tire. I bought my '04 Civic last fall
> with newly installed Bridgestone Insignia's on it. These tires have
> been horrible in every possible way.
>
> I'm considering getting a set of Falken Ziex 512's, which I hear are
> good performing tires at a low price. Although treadwear seems to be
> this tire's weakest point, I estimate that I'll drive only 10,000
> miles a year. So they should last me at least 3 years, possibly more
> since I use winter tires when necessary.
>


I was very happy with the Yoko ES100s. Nice and stiff, with excellent
cornering and a good ride. There was a noticeble mushiness evident when I
drove off with the Hankooks.

The Yokos, while more performance-oriented than the Hankooks, had two
drawbacks: thin tread, and directional tread. They wore out fast.

And I have a separate set of winter tires.

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

I always like too look at the Tire before its on the car. Press hard as
you can into the sidewall, the stiffer the resistance , usually better
the tire. If its really mushy don't even bother with it. Also if you
'plus one' your rim size you'll get better handling without sacrificing
ride comfort. Plus one simply means keeping the same overall height of
the tire , but you'll have larger rims with a lower tire profile. If you
get into plus 2 , plus 3 sizes you'll start to sacrifice comfort. JMOO

Okay thanks for all the info. My tires are actually 205/60/16HR and they are
Hankook Optimo. I had the stock Michelins but they were 80% worn with only
32k miles on them, so I didn't like that part! I'm only keeping the car 9
more months and then get a new leased car.

I'm still not sure whether or not I am going to get another accord for
comfort or a civic for gas mileage. The gas prices are just getting worse
and worse though and both are equally as safe and about the same in the
snow, so its going to be a tough decision.



"Private Private" > wrote in message
...
>I always like too look at the Tire before its on the car. Press hard as
> you can into the sidewall, the stiffer the resistance , usually better
> the tire. If its really mushy don't even bother with it. Also if you
> 'plus one' your rim size you'll get better handling without sacrificing
> ride comfort. Plus one simply means keeping the same overall height of
> the tire , but you'll have larger rims with a lower tire profile. If you
> get into plus 2 , plus 3 sizes you'll start to sacrifice comfort. JMOO
>

> I'm considering getting a set of Falken Ziex 512's, which I hear are good
> performing tires at a low price. Although treadwear seems to be this tire's
> weakest point, I estimate that I'll drive only 10,000 miles a year. So they
> should last me at least 3 years, possibly more since I use winter tires when
> necessary.

I got the Falken Ziex's for my 2000 Honda Accord in November and they
were DEAD within 18 months. I do a lot of highway miles, but rotated
every 7K and got about 18K out of them. Pretty bad treadwear if you
ask me.

I just replaced them with Kuhmos that I got on tirerack.com for about
50/each. This time I focused more on treadwear ratings vs.
performance. It's only been 1000 miles with these, but performance-
wise they're no different from the Ziex's (haven't had heavy rain/snow
yet, so we'll see).

The guy who mounted/balanced them remarked that the Kuhmos rarely need
much to balance - he said they arrive balanced 'out of the box' and
they tend to use the lowest counterweight to make them perfect (if
that).

Butcher wrote:

> I got the Falken Ziex's for my 2000 Honda Accord in November and they
> were DEAD within 18 months. I do a lot of highway miles, but rotated
> every 7K and got about 18K out of them. Pretty bad treadwear if you
> ask me.
>
What size tires were your Ziex's? According to Falken's website, 30-55
series tires have only a 30,000 mile warranty, while 60 and higher series
tires have a 60,000 mile warranty. I would get a 195/60-15 size tire, so
perhaps they may last somewhat longer on my Civic.


> I just replaced them with Kuhmos that I got on tirerack.com for about
> 50/each. This time I focused more on treadwear ratings vs.
> performance. It's only been 1000 miles with these, but performance-
> wise they're no different from the Ziex's (haven't had heavy rain/snow
> yet, so we'll see).
>
> The guy who mounted/balanced them remarked that the Kuhmos rarely need
> much to balance - he said they arrive balanced 'out of the box' and
> they tend to use the lowest counterweight to make them perfect (if
> that).

Which model of Kumho tire did you get? I was also considering the Kumho
Ecsta ASX.

On May 30, 5:37 pm, High Tech Misfit > wrote:
> Butcher wrote:
> > I got the Falken Ziex's for my 2000 Honda Accord in November and they
> > were DEAD within 18 months. I do a lot of highway miles, but rotated
> > every 7K and got about 18K out of them. Pretty bad treadwear if you
> > ask me.
>
> What size tires were your Ziex's? According to Falken's website, 30-55
> series tires have only a 30,000 mile warranty, while 60 and higher series
> tires have a 60,000 mile warranty. I would get a 195/60-15 size tire, so
> perhaps they may last somewhat longer on my Civic.

P205 65 R15's. 30,000 sounds correct, but I still only got 18K out of
them. I probably should have taken advantage of the warranty, but too
lazy to go through whatever hassle it would have been to have the tire
wear verified - one of the downfalls of shopping at an internet-based
shop like tire rack. I needed new tires in order to pass inspection,
so just went ahead and did it and had the tire place dispose of my
Falkens.

>
> > I just replaced them with Kuhmos that I got on tirerack.com for about
> > 50/each. This time I focused more on treadwear ratings vs.
> > performance. It's only been 1000 miles with these, but performance-
> > wise they're no different from the Ziex's (haven't had heavy rain/snow
> > yet, so we'll see).
>
> > The guy who mounted/balanced them remarked that the Kuhmos rarely need
> > much to balance - he said they arrive balanced 'out of the box' and
> > they tend to use the lowest counterweight to make them perfect (if
> > that).
>
> Which model of Kumho tire did you get? I was also considering the Kumho
> Ecsta ASX.

The ones I got were the Kumho Solus KH16. Same size as above. Went by
ratings at Consumer Reports as well as comments from people who had
run these tires on some other internet sites.