Is it really worth buying Premium brand tyres?

[LTD]

I like driving with an approach that I am not going to have to brake hard or corner hard.

If I have to emergency stop then it's an unforeseen event and my own stopping ability is a small part of the situation.

My last two sets of tyres have been Kumho KU31 and Falken 452. Never had to test the full stopping prowess of them in the last 18k miles.

 

[Dblock]

Try cheap tyres they work for some people. But if you like driving, cornering, braking or safety go for falkens or the likes.

 

[Londonscottish]

Having looked at tyres for my e280 (17"), a budget brand was about £85 per tyre and the next best thing was a Pirelli for £160. Is it really worth the extra cost seeing as I mostly drive on the motorway? ( the prices were from kwikfit)

I usually find the latest version of the brand names tyres are £150-£160 for the 245/17's on mine but that previous versions are often £120-£130.

For example I bought Goodyear Eagle GSD's at a discount when the newer asymetrics had come out. And I bought a set of Conti Sport 2's cheap when the 3's had come out.

That's my preferred way of going it.

If you want to go non-brand then try and find brand that's owned by one of the big boys and who knocks out version of tyre that were around a few years ago. Can't recall any at the mo but there are a few of these.

 

[wemorgan]

Having looked at tyres for my e280 (17"), a budget brand was about £85 per tyre and the next best thing was a Pirelli for £160. Is it really worth the extra cost seeing as I mostly drive on the motorway? ( the prices were from kwikfit)

Try prices from camskill.co.uk and consider tyres like Falken and Hankook as they're usually only a bit more than the budget tyres but are of decent quality

 

[del320]

Couple or so years ago, a friend loaned me his BMW E39 whilst my coupe was being refurbished. Unbeknownst to me, it was kitted out with some unheard of brand of cheapo far-east tyres.

Now, it is said some BMWs are tail-happy, but as I was navigating a roundabout I have been on a million times, the back snapped away and I found myself sawing at the wheel whilst looking through the passenger window.

I might as well have been driving on ball-bearings. Thank God there was nothing else on the roundabout and I surprised myself how quickly I recovered the car. Still one of the biggest frights in 45 years driving.

I only use Michelin.

The last time I replaced the tyres I went to KwikFit and produced a quote from Blackcircles. The boy didn't bat an eyelid and more than matched the price on the spot.

 

[W2--]

I like driving with an approach that I am not going to have to brake hard or corner hard.

If I have to emergency stop then it's an unforeseen event and my own stopping ability is a small part of the situation.

My last two sets of tyres have been Kumho KU31 and Falken 452. Never had to test the full stopping prowess of them in the last 18k miles.

Have you test out your car top speed in the last 18k miles?

Same argument!

 

[renault12ts]

I have a Sunny disposition.

 

[wheels-inmotion]

Thread reads more like price over product?

Major manufactures work in-line with car manufactures to develop new tyres in order to compliment new builds, if the new build can turn in at right angles at 90mph then it needs to stick, or at least stay on the road.

If anyone wants to "down-grade" from that ability then fine, any old rubber will do. Same-old-same old applies, how deep are your pockets?

A word of warning for what's it's worth, tyre type approval is not a money making gimmick... Porsche run a N series compound, we ponder the question why?

Well seemingly the Porsche is a reasonably fast car and new tyres don't grip util they are scrubbed in.... Aware of the the initial rubber on N marked tyre is like pencil rubber.

MB use approved MO marked tyres.
BMW *
Lexus BZ/ AZ/ EZ and evolving
Nisasn very similar in identification

And so on

To conclude this "story" i had the pleasure to buy a mint Lotus Esprit turbo a few yes back.... Dream car for me, nevertheless it needed new rear tyres and because of it's age few catered for it's size so i opted for a cheaper brand and i won't say it's name.

I spun that car three times and one time was entering a dual carriageway.. There i was facing oncoming traffic looking at the drivers calling me a tosser in my shiny red Lotus.

Approved grip is everything, depth of pocket another....

Spelling police before you hit me please Google ITA and understand?

 

[renault12ts]

Googling ITA leads to many many things...none tyre related.

 

[coupe deville]

When I bought my 124 it had Nangkang tyres on the front , horrible hard things that thumped and bumped over every road imperfection, I swapped them for Michelins even tho the w@nkangs (sic) had plenty of tread left.

 

[grober]

This is a complex subject and it would be naive to exclude cost from the equation. Tyres are frequently a "distress purchase" i.e. people only buy them when they need to as opposed to when its desirable. Witness the difference between the recommended minimum tread depth 3mm and the legal limit 1.6 mm across 75% tread width. Factor in possible uneven wear across the tread and the increasing phenomenon of low profile tyre sidewall damage from speed bumps/kerbs/road debris and in many cases the tyres are not going to last their entire potential tread life. Under these circumstances it could be argued that decreased purchase cost is going to encourage more frequent renewal which might not be a bad thing? So the choice between wringing out a few extra thousand miles out of those well worn top spec Michelin Pilot Super Sports you inadvertently kerbed last month or buying a set of new Kumho Ecsta KU 31's NOW is brought into sharper focus.

 

[LTD]

Have you test out your car top speed in the last 18k miles?

Same argument!

My car is limited at 155mph. My tyres are speed-rated accordingly.

I cannot see what your point is.

 

[W2--]

My car is limited at 155mph. My tyres are speed-rated accordingly.

I cannot see what your point is.

The point is your car can do 155mph, but when is the last time you took it to 155mph? So the performance is there, but you can't use it. so what's the point? But it's nice to know that it can do that when necessary.

Same thing as better tyres, you don't need to call upon their performance at all times, it just on that little occasion it might mean life or death.

On a dry road, cheap tyres aren't that much different to top performer, the stopping from 70 mph the distance maybe about couple of car lengths more.

However on a wet road, the cheaper tyres will take a lot longer to stop. Evo mag done a tyre test a few months ago, on the wet stopping test (from 50mph) the cheapest tyre (Accelera) took over 12 meters longer and was still travelling at 20mph when the best tyres had come to a stop. Those figures can easy double when travelling at 70mph.

 

[markjay]

Personally, I am convinced that premium tyres as a whole outperform budget tyres and are therefore safer.

And, if you drive on the limit you might as well get the best tyres that money can buy.

But if you drive moderately, you may never ever reach the point where budget tyres under-perform compared to premium tyres, expect for in an emergency, and these are rare.

So for a moderate driver, in a emergency, and rather rarely, premium tyres may just save his/her life.

But so would having more airbags.. or a newer car... or a bigger car... or one with Attention Assist.. and so on, the list is very long - where do you draw the line?

The mere fact that something else is safer than what you have now, is not reason enough to ban the existing item.

As long as a tyre meets current UK and EU standards, it is fine. From that point on it becomes a question of personal choice, how much are you willing to pay for the additional safety margin?

I think the argument is much like the Winter tyres one - yes, winter tyres are better in cold weather, but summer tyres are good enough, and it's a question of personal choice how much you want to spend on the additional safety.


Just to clarify - I always opt for premium tyres, I always replace all four in one go, and I do not let them get anywhere near the 3mm mark, let alone 1.6mm.... I just bought 4 Conti MOs for the Merc (old Dunlop tyres had 4 to 6mm on them), and 4 Michelins from Costco for the Renault (old tyres had 6 to 7mm but were 6 years old - they were the originals that came with the car). But that's because I am very safety conscious, and this was my choice.

I drive very calmly, and I do not remember a single incident in recent years where I felt that a lesser tyre would have failed me. I very very rarely feel the ABS spring into action, and can count the number of times that I saw the ESP light come-on on one hand. And none of these happened to be dangerous situations, by the way. In hindsight, I can honesty say that had I had budget tyres, no ABS, and no ESP, for the past 10 years, I would have not been any worse off. But I have no regrets for having these features.

I recommend to anyone who can afford to, to buy Premium tyres, as I do. But at the same time, I do not condemn taxi drivers that opt for budget tyres that last 50k miles because they have to balance the books - that's their choice.

 

[renault12ts]

Well said.

Premium tyres might stop 10 yards sooner than cheaper ones. But, if the driver on cheaper tyres had quicker reactions than the driver on premium tyres, then the difference would disappear.

The problem with these "tests" is just that...they are tests. Each time the car is braked at exactly the same spot...hardly real life conditions. So, a better driver on cheaper tyres, may well stop quicker in a situation than a dozy driver in the best braking car in the world.

Since I am a great driver, I buy cheap tyres...I don't want a dozy driver with slow reactions driving into the back of me.

 

[DRBC43AMG]

I had cheap discount tyres on a car and quickly changed to a premium make when I saw how they reacted in the wet. A total disaster, not forgetting also the rate of wear on them.

 

[flango]

When I bought my 124 it had Nangkang tyres on the front , horrible hard things that thumped and bumped over every road imperfection, I swapped them for Michelins even tho the w@nkangs (sic) had plenty of tread left.

I have Nankang NS2 on my CLK and they are brilliant, put them on to replace Falken after having a good experience with them on the Scooby rally car, the performance in the wet and dry is adequate and they handle a 150 mph autobahn storm or Nurburgring lap with ease. As it's only a weekend car I'm happy with the choice.

My daily driver the Volvo runs MIchelin Alpin winters and Conti Sport 3 summers, but this car does 40k per year at high speed so justifies the choice of premium brand tyre.

SWMBO Audi A8 only does 3k per year and runs Kumho KU31 another mid range good all rounder

At the end of the day you pays your money and takes your chance

 

[snoop51]

YES YES YES IMHO. Cheapo tyres are the only ones that saw me losing the back end on a rainy day round a roundabout in a FWD Saab Estate some years ago. I thought I'd made a saving but ended up paying out for some premium brands asap to replace the cheapo crap I'd bought in the mistaken belief that they'd do the job. Oh and I wasn't pushing it either before people start saying I must have been toe to the metal. I've never bought cheap tyres since.

 

[renault12ts]

Anecdotes anecdotes anecdotes...the only time I have ever spun a car unintentionally was on a rear wheel drive company car where no expense was spared.

 

[brigadier]

I had "driver" or something tyres on my 300ce when i bought it. It was ok when dry, but in wet it was like driving on ice. slight blip on throttle and back spins out. I have now bought a set of monoblock 2 and will look for michelin ps3, as they are supposedly great in wet. Will have to wait for costco 20% off, perhaps.

p.s. it was fun in the wet i must admit.