I read your message and all the replies. Then I did what I always do
when the great tire debate comes up, checked out the Tirerack web site.
I plugged in your tire size and checked off high performance, and came
up with the Sumitomo HTR200. Then I checked out the Owner's Tire Survey
results at http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/hp.jsp and saw
that the Sumitomo rises to the top in wet traction. I realize the survey
is not scientific, but in my experience, the ratings have been pretty
accurate for wet traction.
Sumitomo was tied up with Dunlop so the tires used to be similar. I'm a
huge Dunlop fan, but I wait with fear and trepidation to see what
BadYear is going to do to them since they took them over in '99.
Then I went to my favorite winter tire store on the net,
http://www.swedishsolution.com/snow.html Again, your size is available.
I run the Gislaveds Nordfrosts three months a year during snowy season.
They are far better dry tires than the Blizzaks or Hakkas, both of which
I find scary bad in the dry. The Gislaveds feel almost like summer tires
in the dry, yet they are almost as good as the Blizzaks and Hakkas in
the snow and ice. Yes, I've driven all three plus Michelin Arctic
Alpines recently. So for the person who has to go from 60 degree weather
to the slopes, Gislaveds would be an ideal ski season tire. The
Gislaveds also last much longer than the Blizzaks.
So get yourself a set of Sumitomo HTR200. Get a set of steel wheels from
Tirerack or the junkyard and run the Gislaveds for snow an ice season.
You will be delighted in all seasons instead of scared. As for costs,
well, what is being in control in heavy weather worth to you vs. being
out of control?
Jon Rush
Matt Liggett wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Apologies for the off-topic material, but I couldn't think of a better
> list to ask. Suggestions to that effect are welcome.
>
> I've got a 2001 Honda Civic LX Sedan. The car supposedly weighs 2465
> lbs and has the factory all-season Firestones in 185-70-14. I have
> been sorely disappointed at how easy it is to get them locked up in
> the ice, snow and even plain old rain. My old SAAB (89 900 Turbo SPG)
> was never this bad. Admittedly, the SAAB had all-season performance
> tires, but can this be ALL the difference?
>
> It seems to me that the tires might just be too damned wide. I ran my
> SAAB (about 2900 lbs) on 195-60-15 tires. It makes sense to me that,
> all things being equal (like tire compound, weight distribution and
> weight transfer), tread width ought to be proportional to vehicle
> weight in order to get similar traction characteristics out of both
> cars. In the SAAB's case, that's 2900/195 or about 14.9. The Honda
> is 2465/185 or about 13.3. In order to get a similar weight:width
> ratio out of my Honda, I'd need to run 165s (fat chance finding a
> decent set).
>
> Am I out to lunch here? Should tread width and vehicle weight be
> proportional, or will I be happy as a clam once I buy some better
> tires?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -Matt Liggett
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk
|