PDA

View Full Version : bridgestone turanza ls-v? govt. tire web link


red beast
09-01-2004, 06:01 PM
went to a tire dealer down the road and discussed getting new shoes for the "red beast".

1. don’t go by the reviews at the websites. read what kind of cars these people are testing. camry's? mommy vans? suvs? and bias.

2. don't take recommendations from places like tirerack.com etc. they sometimes "push" some items over others.

3. know what type of tire (obvious).

4. know tire size and speed rating wanted. v=149mph t=118 etc

5. look for the "uniform tire quality grading" developed by department of transportation .

“The Uniform Tire Quality Grading rating is a quality rating system developed by the American Department of Transportation. It is designed to tell consumers the relative performance of passenger tires. Below is an example of a UTQG Rating:

150A B
The "150" indicates the treadwear rating
the "A" indicates traction
the "B" indicates temperature

The ratings are based on controlled conditions based on a particular course. A tire graded 150 would wear 1 and a half times as well as a tire graded 100. Traction ratings are AA, A, B, and C, from highest to lowest. This measurement indicates a tires ability to stop on wet pavement. Temperature ratings are as follows from highest to lowest: A, B and C. These measurements indicate the tire's ability to sustain high temperatures which often cause tires to wear away quickly or in extreme conditions lead to sudden tire failure.”

6. now start to search for a tire.

so the turanza ls-v ,which is used on higher end vehicles, has a rating of AA (best traction), A (best temperature), v (149mph), wearout of 400 which in "real world" subaru driving is about 40,000 miles. the number 400 not related to 40,000 miles.

although i respect peoples real world testing (here) i still have that "nagging question". how can i be positive these tires are going to work to MY satisfaction? what percent increase will i see between the re92’s and the tires people recommend?


goverment web site for tested tires

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/utqg/

Limeydriver
09-01-2004, 06:40 PM
Having given the RE92 an AA rating. The NHTSA have no credibility with me.

red beast
09-01-2004, 06:46 PM
i hear ya but it got the "A-A" rating as which is lower than a "AA-A" rating.

remeber the test are uniform.

maybe the tires people recommend arn't that much better and that's what i'm trying to figure out.

Limeydriver
09-01-2004, 07:00 PM
I think they have too few bands. Looking at a bunch of tires most tires are A-A. The only AA-A seem to be ultra high performance summer only tires. Almost all of the M&S tires are all A-A. To put the Falken Ziex ZE-512 at the same rating as the RE92's is where I start to have a problem. They did have the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S with an AA-A which was interesting. That might persuade me to go with the Pilot not the Falken. But for an extra $70 per tire it really should be better.

RobY
09-01-2004, 07:05 PM
Pick up a consumer reports or any other venue that does real world testing of tires.

Lab tests differ from real world testing.

outahere
09-01-2004, 08:13 PM
although i respect peoples real world testing (here) i still have that "nagging question". how can i be positive these tires are going to work to MY satisfaction? ........

Choose a tire for which you can get a test trial period, and return them for exchange or a refund if you don't like them. Bridgestone offers this program (30 Day Test Drive) on most of their tires. I believe Toyo also offers a similar program.

BTW, the Turanza is a touring tire, not a high performance tire.

SUBE555
09-01-2004, 08:43 PM
Those figures that you list red beast are only a fraction of the truth. I wouldn't base my whole decision upon them, they lack sufficient proof to back up which one really will outhandle another in this or that situation, that's why we compare with TireRack, 1010Tires.com and other sites. I actually am not that big of a fan of Consumer Reports, my dad is though. I shoot from the hip a lot using my instincts, and much of the time they are right.

Is it going to be at least decent at snow, rain, dry handling? By taking a visual look at them, I can at least narrow out a decent amount of which ones are likely to do better.

I just wouldn't rely too much on those ratings. But if you have a 2.5i model, rule of thumb is H-speed rating or higher (actually any late model Subaru), turbo models= V-rating or higher.

I would not go for a touring tire on a new Subaru, generally too soft, the terms are sort of skewed and don't mean exactly what they do IMO.

red beast
09-02-2004, 06:25 PM
i looked at 1010tires.com. the reviews can't be trusted. one numbnuts entry has all 0's and points out the he'll come back later to update it.

well if you have a bmw, camry, caravan, honda, and some jackass putting in zeros how can you take it seriously? at least the government rating are based on standard testing.

i was told that the turanza would be a little "softer" in the sidewalls.

i think the response i'm looking for is a percentage of difference between tires. you know 10% better cornering etc..

SUBE555
09-02-2004, 11:39 PM
I don't base all my data on one site, I look multiple places and ask around too, like on NASIOC people's personal experiences as well as reading the mfg data. Never throw all of your eggs in one basket.

outahere
09-02-2004, 11:56 PM
i looked at 1010tires.com. the reviews can't be trusted. one numbnuts entry has all 0's and points out the he'll come back later to update it.

well if you have a bmw, camry, caravan, honda, and some jackass putting in zeros how can you take it seriously? at least the government rating are based on standard testing.

i was told that the turanza would be a little "softer" in the sidewalls.

i think the response i'm looking for is a percentage of difference between tires. you know 10% better cornering etc..

What's wrong with the tires you have on the car right now?

red beast
09-03-2004, 01:06 PM
i don't put my eggs in one basket. hell i don't even put my nuts there. :P

i would like to hear from sombody that has gone from re92' to something else and let us know what percentage of cornering etc. that they beleive has improved.

the re92's seems to slide to much on cornering. their is less understeer built-in which encourages the slide. also the car seems a little "side to side twitchy" at 50mph +. i haven't had any experiences yet in the rain and hope they will be ok.