Yet another tyre thread

[abecketts]

Need to change tyres on our E320cdi, 235/45/17 Firestone Fire Hawks SZ90 fitted, these are to me good in the wet, have very low road noise but if the tyre ratings are to be believed the are a "F" rated for fuel economy.

I've fitted pirelli p7's to the other W210 we have and they have been just fine but are "a" rated for fuel.

Is the rating system just good marketing and the difference between an A rated tyre and an F rated tyre is less than 5% or is there more to this? The firestones are also £18 a tyre cheaper.

Would welcome your thoughts

Cheers

Paul

 

[Chrishazle]

Just bought Goodyear Eagle F1's from tyreleader, £307 for 2x225/45 and 2x245/50, all 17's and rated CAA. Will not be on the car until end of next week.

 

[OneForTheRoad]

a high rated dry grip tyre sticks to the road better and has more rolling resistance , making them less fuel efficient .

hth .

 

[wemorgan]

New EU tyre labelling: what does it mean for me? | Buying Guide | | Learn and Share | MICHELIN

Save up to £110 or 80 litres of fuel over the life of the tyres. That’s for a car fitted with four A-rated tyres driving at 50mph – it uses 7.5%1 less fuel than with G-rated tyres.
Results can vary with type of car or climatic conditions but the performance gaps are proven.

 

[grober]

Despite it's illustrious past Firestone are essentially Bridgestone's " secondary product" The P7 is going to be the better tyre in many ways but as usual you pays your money------?

 

[hotrodder]

Another vote for Goodyear Eagle F1 asymmetric 2 (mine are 225/45r17 91 Y or W), i replaced a set of Conti sport contact 3 with them late last year*... obviously new vs old tyres accounts for a lot of the difference but the F1s are sooooo much quieter & postively leech like in the wet. They're also very comfy as they have a very supple sidewall, despite this turn in sharpness is still very good. Obviously there are other, stiffer/more sports oriented, tyres out there that'll pee all over them in this regard but they're kinda pointless on a big wafty barge...

They have a better economy rating than the Contis (B or C versus E or F), personally i haven't noticed much of a difference but then i don't pay that much attention to fuel consumption, 124s are juicy beasts however you cut it

* based on cost versus how they did in 2011 and 2013 Autoexpress tyre tests

 

[rf065]

Is the rating system just good marketing and the difference between an A rated tyre and an F rated tyre is less than 5% or is there more to this?

I think the rating system is a load of rubbish. I replaced worn Falkens with new Michelins which had far higher ratings. My C rated Falkens had more wet grip than the A rated Michelins.

The wet rating comes from a wet braking test and does not measure traction when pulling out of wet junctions or sideways grip when cornering in the wet. Also, the Falkens were rated E for fuel economy and the Michelins were rated B, but my MPG figures remain the same.

Russ

 

[G.P]

^This. One of Yoko's dry track day tyres (road legal) rates 'A' for the wet test, which is tested in a straight line but you'd not want it in standing water in a curve.

It also must be remembered each manufacture tests their own tires, with some not been so honest as others..

 

[V8 Supercharger]

Just bought Goodyear Eagle F1's from tyreleader, £307 for 2x225/45 and 2x245/50, all 17's and rated CAA. Will not be on the car until end of next week.

You sure you got the right sizes there, its usually 225/45/17's on the front and 245/40/17's on the rear on a C-class.

 

[V8 Supercharger]

This whole ratings system for new tyres isnt really any good to be honest, different tyres work differently on different types of cars.

As said above, some with higher ratings behave worse than those with lower ratings.