Consumers Reports Nov. 2004
SUV/Light truck tire ratings (ranked in performance order and recommended) 22 tires were tested

1) Goodyear Fortera HL $115
2) Pirelli Scorpion STR A $110
3)Hankook DynaPro AS RH03 $80
4)Kelly Safari Signature $90
5)Dayton Timerberline HT $75
6)Hankook DynaPro AT RF08 (not recommended despite rating) $80
7) Dunlop Radial Rover AT $85

Other interesting tidbits.
Consumers says over-inflation will cause harsh ride and uneven wear. Under-inflation is even worse. Guess I'll let those extra 3-4 lbs of air out.

Car batteries
#1 battery)Advance Autocraft (fits Accord and Nissan pick-ups)

P.S. Consumers said that in the last 2 years, SUV tire selection and performance has dramatically improved and prices have dropped.

2 years ago, Consumers top rated tire was the Toyo SUV all season.
In late 2004, Toyo was rated #10.

#10) Toyo Open Country M410 $75
#15) Michelin XC LT4 (Sears) $140
#17) Michelin LTX M/S $120
#18) Yokohama Geolander $85
#19) Michelin Cross Terrain $120
#22) BFGoodrich Radial Long Trail T/A $85

What kinds of objective measures did they use to compare tires?

Have any of the tires in their top 10 gotten publicity on these forums?

paulj

It would be nice if ANY of those came in the stock Element size. Sort of a worthless list if we can't use ANY of them anyway.

Which probably also answers the question about tires from this list being discussed much on the forum...... :?

i bet most of them come in 225/70/16

Size of tires tested:
235/70R16

Criteria tested:
Dry braking -done from 60mph with anti-lock engaged
Wet braking from 40mph and without ABS engaged
Handling avoidence manuever-swerve left,swerve right,swerve left, includes wet&dry cornering and steering feel(steering feel seems a little subjective)
Hydroplaning-reflects speed at which tire reached before hydroplaning
Snow traction-how far test vehicle had to travel to get from 5-20mph on moderately packed snow.
Rolling resistance
Ice braking-measured from 10mph on an ice ring
Ride & Noice-reflect their subjective judgements

Can we fit a 235/17R16 on the Element?
What more common sizes can we fit on the stock rims?

[quote:8245010b60=" "]Can we fit a 235/17R16 on the Element?
What more common sizes can we fit on the stock rims?[/quote:8245010b60]

225/70/16 - 2% larger, no fit problems reported
probably the best alternative size
235/60/16 - bit smaller (sport alternative for RAV4)
good choice if you want to move to a lower profile 'performance' tire
235/70/16 - most fit; some rub with blocky treads
workable if you like a 'full' wheel well look
225/75/16 - iffy
an option is you want to maximize 'off-road' looks, and the tire dealer offers an alternative if they don't fit.

Other considerations when changing tire size:
- change in speedometer reading
- change in rpm v speed at various gear ratios
- fit of flat tire behind the rear seats
- possibility of using tire chains
- ease of finding a replacement tire if one blows.

paulj

Thanks for the answer PaulJ.

Will the 235/70/16 disrupt the speedo?
How bad the change in rpm vs. stock size?


PaulJ writes:
225/70/16 - 2% larger, no fit problems reported
probably the best alternative size
235/60/16 - bit smaller (sport alternative for RAV4)
good choice if you want to move to a lower profile 'performance' tire
235/70/16 - most fit; some rub with blocky treads
workable if you like a 'full' wheel well look
225/75/16 - iffy
an option is you want to maximize 'off-road' looks, and the tire dealer offers an alternative if they don't fit.

Other considerations when changing tire size:
- change in speedometer reading
- change in rpm v speed at various gear ratios
- fit of flat tire behind the rear seats
- possibility of using tire chains
- ease of finding a replacement tire if one blows.

PPSS:
All things being equal, won't a larger tire have a bigger contact patch/grip?

What is the weight difference between 235/70/16 vs. stock per tire?
Thanks for the answers

I thought the tires they tested were 225/70/16! Please double check.

It is easy to calculate the nominal diameter of a tire

e.g.
for a 215/70/16 tire
nominal width is 215 mm
section height to width ratio is 70%
so section height is 215 * .7 = 150.5 mm = 5.925 inches
x2 plus 16" wheel diameter = 27.85 inch overall diameter

You could do the same with the 235/70/16 size
(20 mm x .7 x 2 /25.4 = 1.1" larger diameter - about 4%)

Tire spec tables from the manufactures or retailers (such as Tirerack) also list the overall diameter, and revolutions per mile. These numbers may be slightly different from the nominal calculation I just did. There are also online calculators of this sort of thing.

I don't think it is easy to determine the change in contact patch when changing tires. There are lots of variables - vehicle weight, tire pressure, tire tread width v nominal width, etc.

The contact patch is 2 dimensional. Going to a wider tire may increase the width of the patch, but other things being equal, it may decrease the length of the patch. I suspect the overall area of the patch is determined more by the weight of the vehicle and the tire pressure, than by the tire width - since weight/patch area = force deforming the tire.

A wide soft tire will give you a large contact patch with lots of grip on dry pavement. It will also hydroplane sooner, unless the tread design is good a evacuating water. The large patch may also make the steering feel sluggish, since that grip resists turning the wheel.

Another thing that happens on turning is that the tire deforms, rather like a rectangle deforming into a parallelogram. This effect will be greater with a high profile tire (e.g. 70% or higher) than with a low profile one (60% or lower). That deformation affects the handling feel. Tire design details may also affect this deformation - side wall stiffness, tread etc. However if you look at threads about larger diameter wheels (17, 18" and even 20) you see that low profile tires also increase the harshness of the ride - you end of feeling all the small bumps.

It would hard to make the case that changing the tire size will make the Element safer. It will affect handling, ride, and traction in various ways, but not all for the better.

paulj

PaulJ:
How can/likely will handling be effected in the E with 235/70/16?

There was an attempt to collect the tire 'testimonials' on a sticky thread under the 'performance' section.

http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9618

Most who have reported changing to 235/70/16 tires are thrilled with their choice - however it would be hard to distinguish between effects of size and effects of tire model.

I recently changed to the 225/70/16 size (Goodyear Integrity), and can't say with any confidence that I detected a change in handling or ride.

paulj

Element Art:

Direct quote from Consumers tire rating article:

"While you can still spend $120 or more per tire for the common P235/70R16 size we tested, we paid well under $100 for several high scoring models"

Yup, my bad. 235s.

From a tech note on tirerack:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/general/contact.jsp

"Low profile tires (most performance tires) have a short and wide contact patch that is effective in converting the driver's input into very responsive handling, cornering stability and traction...especially on dry roads."

"High profile tires (light truck and most passenger tires) have a long and narrow contact patch which helps to provide predictable handling, a smooth ride and especially good traction in snow."

However, the section width for a 235/70/16 (or 60%) tire is only 10% greater than for a 215/70/16, so the contact patch shape won't be that different between the two.

paulj

I glanced at this CR evaluation. The overall scores for tires ranked 5 through 18 were nearly identical. In individual categories they used the usual CR red and black circles. Thus there is little indication of how significant the differences are between one tire and another, e.g. how much worse is a half black circle than a half red one when it comes to stopping on ice. Also there is no indication of how many times they tested each tire in each situation, and whether the differences were statistically significant.

The pattern of circles across tires and categories is pretty random. It is hard to see why one tire is ranked above another, or to generalize.

I also would like to have seen some attempt to relate features of the tires to the test results. For example, did the ones with good ice stoppng distances have lots of siping? What differentiated the good wet traction tires from the poor ones? Any connection between a solid center rib and quiet tires? With manufacturers coming out with new models all the time, or different models in different sizes, it would be nice to draw some all purpose lessons from these tests, not just ranking of one model v.v. another.

For all the testing they seem to have done, the report is not very informative.

paulj

PaulJ,
I think you have a great point. I think they (Consumer Reports) have extra information on their on-line pages( you pay extra for that). I'd like to see really indepth stuff on-line that might be too much content for the magazine.
S

I also recognize the limitations of Consumer Reports. It's not perfect, but it is a good data point when compared to mostlyanecdotal evidence from this website. I've also had prior good experiences with Goodyear. While the Wranglers aren't as good as the Goodyears on the MDX, they are still on my E after 37,000 miles. I'll probably replace them with the MDX's Goodyears (235/75 16)