opposite test results: CR vs TireRack
 

Which one would you buy for W124?
Conti is much cheaper. Michelin got better overall score from both organizations

One thing that makes me confused is that they report opposite test results for some tests.


[Tires tested]

Conti: Continental ContiTouringContact CH95

Michelin: Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus


[Testing organization]

TireRack
New Technology for Grand Touring All-Season Tires October 2002 (
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/grand_tour_tur_lsh.jsp
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/grand_tour_tur_lsh_charts.html)

CR
Consumer Reports Used Car Buying Guide 2003




[Braking Dry]

TireRack: Conti is better
(Conti:92.6 ft, Michelin: 96.0 ft --- 50->0 mph)

CR: Michelin is better
(Conti: Good, Michelin: Excellent)




[Braking Wet]

TireRack: Conti is better.
(Conti: 95.8 ft, Michelin: 97.1 ft --- 50->0 mph)

CR: Michelin is better.
(Conti: Good, Michelin: Very Good)



[Handling]

TireRack: Michelin is better.
(“On the track in the dry, the ContiTouringContact CH95 tires couldn’t match the handling and responsiveness of the other two tires” “On the track in the wet, the ContiTouringContact CH95 tires again couldn’t match”)

CR: Conti is better.
(Conti: Excellent, Michelin: Very Good)

I would be inclined to believe the Tire Rack, over somebody that evaluates toasters & washing machines. ;)

Diferent tires respond differently to different vehicles.
 

Even if the same size tires on the same width rims are being tested at the same pressures, different suspension designs may often favor one tire design over another.

And CR tends to value highly the things that are valued by some of the poorest drivers on the road -- good handling as the tendency to plow straight ahead no matter what, for instance.

well there are a couple of interesting things to point out

#1.) why test performacne tires on under powered non-perforamcne cars which can not push a tire past it's limits because the car itself has too many limitations

#2.) we do not use 'cost' in our evaluations of tire performance

#3.) they also say I have the best toaster in the world and you are welcome to visit my house for burnt toast any morning

I do not know which car(s) CR used for tire test. Did anyone read CR more carefully?

TireRack used Lexus IS300 sport sedan.


I think CR do not consider 'cost' in each of Dry Braking, Wet Braking, Handling, Hydroplaning, Snow Traction, Ice Braking, either.

I think those who test toaster in CR do not test tires.

By the way, I think the opposite results do not mean that CR or TireRack did something wrong in their test.
But that fact is interesting and makes me somewhat confused while I am looking for tires for my W124.

PS.
I am thinking of original tire size. No plus sizing.

Luke, you do have a sense of humor! :p

ktlimq

I went from 205/60R15 on Yokohama ES100 to the original size of 195/65R15 on a Kumho ECSTA KH11 for my 88 W124 260E. I am very happy with the Kumho... very much better than the Yoko. ES100 performed very badly in the wet, and wears out very fast (I only had less than 30,000km)

Try out the Kumho, and I bet you won't regret your decision.

Lim :)

last year we used IS300's this year it's 330ci BMW's and the CR report used base model Ford Focus'

The problem with both kinds of testing, as I see it,
 

is that I'm not really so concerned about which tire can pull the highest g-force on a carefully controlled skid-pad on the dry and then with a carefully controlled depth of water covering the whole thing uniformly, nor with how fast a well practiced driver can get through a slalom under ideal and scientifically uniform conditions. What I want to know is how each tire will perform when I'm already pulling c. .6G on a cloverleaf and a deer suddenly jumps out in front of me, or what the changes in behavior would be if the cars were running on a skid pad which was mostly dry but with puddles of varying depth here and there, and maybe even a pothole or two. I'm talking primarily about transitional behavior here, but as it is usually tested, transitional behavior is still too predictable -- the expert driver is ready for the event and knows the course by heart; I want to know about the behavior of the tires under unpredicted and really unforeseen loadings.

But I suspect such data is just not scientifically quantifiable.

Got to leave on a trip early tomorrow, see you again late Wednesday.

Re: opposite test results: CR vs TireRack
 

My 300CE wore Continental CH95 for about a year....

Now I have MXV4 Plus. I would not go back.

Sqealing MXV4 Plus?
 

I am happy with my MXV4 Plus, but they are not awesome in the rain and they tend to talk to me when I am pushing the car a bit while cornering. I don’t like the squealing. I have read others comment about the squealing during less than extreme cornering, so maybe this is a fault of the Michelins. I am thinking about trying the Bridgestone LS tires. Luke seems to prefer them and, based on the Tirerack tests, they seemed to beat the Michelins in performance with almost no loss in ride comfort or road noise. The Bridgestone tires are also supposed to be very good in the rain. As I said above, the Michelins are not that great in the rain. The Michelins really are very smooth and quiet, except during hard cornering, and that is why I find it hard to select a different tire.

I would not consider the Continental. Michelin or Bridgestone tires for me.

Bridgestone Turanza LS-H looks good. However, I cannot find its winter performance review.

In CR, I find SNOW TRACTION and ICE BRAKING.

MXV4 Plus got VERY GOOD in ICE BRAKING. ContiTouringContact CH95 got GOOD.
Some tires got FAIR or POOR in ICE BRAKING.
I do not know what Bridgestone Turanza LS-H would get in ICE BRAKING.

Not Grand for snow
 

Don't kid yourself about any of the "Grand Touring" tires being very good in the snow on our rear wheel drive cars. They are three season tires, not all season tires. Get dedicated snows for winter.

I got Nokian WR's, in 205/60R15 if I recall correctly, on my 300TE, and they aren't bad.
Much better than the worn Conti CH95's that were on the car when I bought it.

Did anyone use Falken Ziex ZE 512 for W124?

It was top all-season tire on CR November 2003.

The second was Bridgestone Turenza LS-H.

(Tested tire size: 195/65R15 - the size for W124 - on 2002 Honda Accord).

The Falken is cheaper than the Bridgestone.

I read some review on Falken Ziex ZE 512 on carreview.com. Contrary to CR review, there were people who said these Falkens were poor performer.