Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Mercedes-Benz Wheels & Tires

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2003, 04:08 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 764
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)


Last edited by ktlimq; 10-08-2003 at 05:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-08-2003, 04:14 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,160
I would be inclined to believe the Tire Rack, over somebody that evaluates toasters & washing machines.
__________________
2007 C 230 Sport.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-08-2003, 04:55 PM
Fimum Fit
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-08-2003, 06:49 PM
Moderator and Tire God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,091
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
__________________

Please, call me to place orders or for more info
use my name for on-line orders
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-08-2003, 07:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 764
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.

Last edited by ktlimq; 10-08-2003 at 07:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-08-2003, 08:09 PM
need2speed's Avatar
speedaholic
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally posted by Luke@tirerack
they also say I have the best toaster in the world and you are welcome to visit my house for burnt toast any morning
Luke, you do have a sense of humor! :p
__________________
Dean Albrecht
"Lead, follow, or better yet, get out of the way!"E500 owners motto
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-09-2003, 04:40 AM
Lim Lim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 55
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-09-2003, 05:14 PM
Moderator and Tire God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally posted by ktlimq
I do not know which car(s) CR used for tire test. Did anyone read CR more carefully?

TireRack used Lexus IS300 sport sedan.

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

Please, call me to place orders or for more info
use my name for on-line orders
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-10-2003, 06:02 PM
Fimum Fit
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.

Last edited by Fimum Fit; 10-10-2003 at 07:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-23-2003, 09:22 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,126
Re: opposite test results: CR vs TireRack

Quote:
Originally posted by ktlimq
Which one would you buy for W124?

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

Now I have MXV4 Plus. I would not go back.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-24-2003, 08:13 AM
ksing44's Avatar
1995 E320 SE
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 658
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.
__________________
I just couldn't give up on my 1995 E320.

I think it might be like always going back to that same bad relationship with an ex girlfriend.
You feel you love them too much, or you are just too stupid to know any better.



Flickr slideshow of my 1995 E320
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24145497@N06/sets/72157616572140057/
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-27-2003, 07:25 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 764
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-28-2003, 06:30 AM
ksing44's Avatar
1995 E320 SE
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 658
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 just couldn't give up on my 1995 E320.

I think it might be like always going back to that same bad relationship with an ex girlfriend.
You feel you love them too much, or you are just too stupid to know any better.



Flickr slideshow of my 1995 E320
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24145497@N06/sets/72157616572140057/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-01-2003, 03:34 AM
Robert W. Roe's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Lehigh Valley PA
Posts: 1,330
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.
__________________
Bob Roe
Lehigh Valley PA USA
1973 Olds 88, 1972 MB 280SE, 1978 Datsun 280Z, 1971 Ford T-Bird, 1972 Olds 88, 1983 Nissan Sentra, 1985 Sentra, 1973 230.6, 1990 Acura Integra, 1991 Volvo 940GLE wagon, 1983 300SD, 1984 300SD, 1995 Subaru Legacy L wagon, 2002 Mountaineer, 1991 300TE wagon, 2008 Murano, 2007 R320CDI 4Matic 52K, some Hyundai, 2008 BMW 535xi wagon, all gone... currently
2007 Honda Odyssey Touring, 2014 E350 4matic
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-14-2003, 01:55 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 764
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.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page