Having just had both tires, I have to say that I found the MXV4 Plus to be a bit better for ride quality, over the LS-H. I think the MXV4 Plus was both quieter and more comfortable. Handling may be a toss-up, although they accomplish the same thing quite differently. The Turanza LS-H seems firmer, but the MXV holds on anyway. What I hated about the MXV4 Plus, was the squealing that made it seem like I was racing around the corners. The LS-H does not squeal. The MXV4 Plus even squealed just turning around in parking lots. The other issue is wet weather performance. I think the MXV4 was outright dangerous on my rear wheel drive 1995 E320. It was fine on my wife’s Honda Accord, but I was all over the place when it rained. The Turanza LS-H is superb in the rain. My final choice would have to be the Turanza, because of the performance on wet road surfaces, even though I think you do sacrifice some ride quality and have to accept the slightest bit more noise.

My friend just purchased the new Continental ContiProContact tires for his W210 (E300D, a 1997 I think). The Continentals compared very favorably or even beat the MXV4 and the LS-H in many categories of the Tirerack tests. My friend likes the tires and said that he would recommend them. It is just one more tire to consider and I think I may try it next time. Certainly Luke is the expert, but I thought it wouldn’t hurt to chime in since I just used both tires you are considering.

Link to Tirerack tests:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testResultsModel.jsp?tireMake=Continental&tireModel=ContiProContact&partnum=055HR6CPC&vehicleSearch= false&fromCompare1=yes&place=3

__________________
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/