Stock Legacy GT tires seem ok, is something wrong with my senses? [Archive]

VVG

11-26-2006, 11:05 PM

I was reluctant to blame the Impotenzas for anything, since a poor workman blames his tools.

But my eyes were opened when I drove my 97 OBW (Michelin HydroEdge with 40,000 miles on them) through the same area of standing water on the highway as my brand new 06 - and the 06 hydroplaned!

I've since put them on one of our minivans, which has helped clarify their strengths and weknesses. Strengths are low noise, smooth ride, low rolling resistance, and respectable cornering limits on dry roads. On wet roads, they feel greasy and their transition to high slip rates is not communicated well to the driver.

The best rain tires have better hydroplane resistance and have slip rates that increase gradually, giving the driver more margin to cope with the conditions.

Beanboy

11-27-2006, 12:55 AM

Okay dry, horrible in rain.

As others have mentioned, no indication they are gonna slip and then they do, and hydroplane on the highway.

MIKEBRAVO

11-27-2006, 01:28 AM

If you have nothing to compare them to they are great. Compare them to any thing and then they suck . I found them acceptable in California snow. However, They are shit compared to the Contiextreme I just put on.

AirSix

11-27-2006, 03:31 AM

I've put about 35K of spirited driving on these tires and they're fine at about 40 - 50% wear left ( rotation every other oil change religiously). I live in the Seattle metro area and drive on soaked roads that haven't been fixed in three decades and yes hydro planing is an issue. But with siping I found it occurs less frequently. I mean come on, this is a 215mm all weather tire on a 17x7-inch wheel. It wasn't made to handle the autobahn. The truth is most drivers are outdriving their skills as opposed to outdriving the Potenzas. As stated above, this tire is the recurrent Scapegoat for driver error.

Underdog

11-27-2006, 07:04 AM

I felt the same way until this past Thursday when my front right blew out and I went to Dunlop Wintersport M3's (OEM sizing). Coincidently, earlier that day had been the first time I felt one of the tires let go on a turn.

I only had < 2000 miles on the RE92's but switching over I felt a difference in grip that resulted in much more confidence in all driving scenarios.

But hey if you like the re92's that much, I have 3 of them for sale! :icon_wink

Oh, BTW, the price for a new re92 was ~$250 and the M3 was $190...

Beanboy

11-27-2006, 10:00 AM

35K and 50% tread left? That seems to be really mild driving... Either that, or showing how plastic the OEM tires really are!

MilesA

11-27-2006, 10:34 AM

They are a compromise tire. They are designed to suit the average driver. As enthusiasts, we might wish a different set of compromises had been made.

If you push them, you will find their limits pretty quickly. I have kept them because it seems wasteful not to use them. I am looking forward to their replacement, though.

tantal

11-27-2006, 11:39 AM

These tires are bad in comparison to what is available these days. 15 years ago these were good tires. Of course, new cars of that time were offered with 110 hp engines as the top - line model, and had 9 inch disc brakes, and a 50 series tire was exotically low profile.

With a 250 hp, 3400 lb car like the GT, you notice the limitations of these tires. In the dry the other day I was able to spin the left front at full throttle shifting into 3rd gear on a highway on-ramp, in a straight line. May not seem like a big deal, but the car is just overdriving these tires. I am not able to spin, by way of comparison, my summer rubber under any conditions in a straight line, at temperatures above 50 F - haven't driven on them in colder temps.

In the cold and wet, about 45 F with a wet road but no rain, I had a similar situation where the wheelspin was more noticable - but not at full throttle this time.

There is a noticable improvement in braking distances upon switching from RE92's to my summer rubber too - Bridgestone RE 050. Highly recommend this tire, and it is about $20 cheaper than the RE 92 last I checked LOL.

They just aren't particularly good tires. With a performance car like this, you notice it a lot more than with a 100 hp, 2500 lb nissan sentra and auto transmission.

nKoan

11-27-2006, 04:39 PM

I certainly wouldn't buy them again, but I'd hardly call them horrible.

I've lasted through a couple of winters on RE92's and they are a very predictable tire. They lose grip easier then other tires (in all conditions), but they do it gradually and predictably and start making noise well before traction is really lost. Unfortunately, a lot of people outdrive the tire and blame the tire. As long as you know the limits of the tire, then it isn't half bad. But, you won't get the most out of your car with them (then again, who is 'getting the most' out of their car on public streets anyway).

All in all, they aren't junk that you should throw away, but once they are gone don't buy them again, since there are plenty of better tires out there for cheaper.

Trax

11-27-2006, 05:00 PM

They hydroplane badly and stop the car poorly.

Agreed.

VVG

11-27-2006, 05:10 PM

MilesA

11-27-2006, 05:13 PM

How is the driver at error during hydroplaning?...

Hydroplaning increases with speed. If your tires can't shed the water building up under them, it's time to slow down and regain traction. If you are hydroplaning, you are overdriving the tire -- I thought everyone knew that...

:icon_conf

Gire

11-27-2006, 05:25 PM

They are fine if you drive like grandma, but if you drive the car in a spirited manner as so many of us to, then they become inferior. They are econo tires meant for slower driving in a mix of conditions. The are horrible on the limit so get new ones if you plan to do spirited driving.

+1

At the limit, ie: fast highway speeds in sweeping turns, they have always felt too greasy and squirmy for me to have any confidence in them. Cheaper Kumho's I've owned in the past just stuck to the road much better and and didn't give me any buttered road feeling...

Drive around the city in regular traffic without acting like a dumb ass, and they are completely acceptable. :icon_wink

rjundi

11-27-2006, 05:42 PM

I feel at least the RE92's communicate when they are about to let go vs my Nokian WR's on my Subaru WRX. The Nokians have more grip but just let go vs letting you know.

I cannot wait to shed the RE92's on our LGT and Nokian's on my WRX.

AirSix

11-27-2006, 10:50 PM

MilesA took the words right out of my mouth. As a driving instructor and someone who has investigated hundreds of traffic collisions, I can say if you're hydroplaning, you're driving too fast for road conditions. Similarly, if you lost traction in snow would you blame the equipment or just make the necessary input correction? How about on a track if you kept breaking loose through the turns? Tires, coilovers, sways, or driver input? Now again, I wouldn't expect a snow tire to perform well on a track in the middle of summer. But that would allude that we're discussing the relationship between a very specific task and the best tire suited for the task. But that's not the question here. For an all weather tire, the Potenzas are fine for probably 90 plus percent of the drivers that will ever use them. My overall comment was not really to de-bunk that the 92's are not the cream of the crop (but def overpriced), but merely to say that the average drivers, although probably at their skills limits, are not driving anywhere near the limits of even a bone stock LGT.

As enthusiasts I think we can all agree that the first mod should be done to the driver.

Brady

11-27-2006, 10:55 PM

Hydroplaning increases with speed. If your tires can't shed the water building up under them, it's time to slow down and regain traction. If you are hydroplaning, you are overdriving the tire -- I thought everyone knew that...

:icon_conf

Yeah ... this seems like kind of a no-brainer ... Hydroplaning = Driving too fast for conditions.

unclemat

11-27-2006, 10:57 PM

Yeah ... this seems like kind of a no-brainer ... Hydroplaning = Driving too fast for conditions.

Oversimplification. Different tires have different hydroplanning resistance.

Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires

AirSix

11-27-2006, 11:00 PM

Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires

It's all semantics....just slow your a$$e$$ down!

unclemat

11-27-2006, 11:02 PM

It's all semantics....just slow your a$$e$$ down!

No, it's not. I can much faster without hydroplanning on GY F1 DS-G3 then I could have even thought of going with RE92s...

Brady

11-27-2006, 11:04 PM

Oversimplification. Different tires have different hydroplanning resistance.

Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires

You can hydroplane any tire at the (im)proper speed, at what point do you determine you're driving on crappy tires and at what point to you determine you're driving too fast for conditions? If you're hydroplaning, you're going too fast. Slow down. It's pretty simple.

unclemat

11-27-2006, 11:07 PM

Yes. Your and AirSix statements seemed like it's the driver fault to hydroplane ONLY and tires are not part of the equation. I am saying they are as some tires hydroplane much worse than others. RE92 happens to hydroplane worse than most. It's pretty simple.

Brady

11-27-2006, 11:07 PM

No, it's not. I can much faster without hydroplanning on GY F1 DS-G3 then I could have even thought of going with RE92s...

Super ... how well do your F1's do on snow? Mud? Subaru pretty much has to provide a tire that's good for use year round. So that's what they do. Sure, we all pretty much agree that there are better tires out there, but you can't convince me there aren't worse tires than the RE92.

:icon_roll

unclemat

11-27-2006, 11:09 PM

Super ... how well do your F1's do on snow? Mud? Subaru pretty much has to provide a tire that's good for use year round. So that's what they do. Sure, we all pretty much agree that there are better tires out there, but you can't convince me there aren't worse tires than the RE92.

:icon_roll

I wasn't trying to convince you there are worse tires than RE92s. I don't know how F1s do on snow. Have Nokian WRs now.

:rolleyes:

AirSix

11-27-2006, 11:10 PM

I dont disagree that certain tires have better hydro- resistance. I believe I said I've experienced hydro-planing with the 92's. My overall point was to look at your driving habits first and know that the majority of drivers can function quite safely on the stockers. If you feel that your GY tires allow you to plow through standing water one and half times faster than my stockers....knock yourself out.

unclemat

11-27-2006, 11:15 PM

nKoan

11-27-2006, 11:24 PM

Oversimplification. Different tires have different hydroplanning resistance.

Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires

Given conditions should include your tires. You should ALWAYS be taking your tires in consideration when you are driving.

So, the original statement is correct. Hydroplaning equals driving too fast for the condition (or situation).

nKoan

11-27-2006, 11:27 PM

Why the hate? And did I say something about one and half times faster?

And I disagree with the recommendation to keep the stockers. Sure, they can be safe most of the time for ppl driving gradma style. However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires. That reason alone should be good enough to ditch the stockers.

I am done.

Or you could just learn to break earlier and not have to worry about wasting money by throwing away perfectly acceptable tires. Sure, they aren't great, but there are a lot worse out there.

lgt_nube

11-27-2006, 11:28 PM

However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires.Are there tests that show that?

unclemat

11-27-2006, 11:39 PM

Or you could just learn to break earlier and not have to worry about wasting money by throwing away perfectly acceptable tires. Sure, they aren't great, but there are a lot worse out there.

Luckily there are members like you who like them and even buy them for not a bad price here! :lol:

legandrex

11-27-2006, 11:51 PM

I think they get a bad rap. It all started back in 02 with the wrx crowd. I had them on my wrx and they were ok and they are ok with my legacy. I have 24000 miles and tread wear is still decent and they are still quiet. Snow performance is acceptable for me. Maybe I need to put P ZeroNero M+S on to see difference, but I will never find out. When mine wear out I will probably purchase RE-92's used from someone willing to part with them due to the perceived performance being equal to our spare tire. Many are almost giving them away.

nKoan

11-27-2006, 11:56 PM

Luckily there are members like you who like them and even buy them for not a bad price here! :lol:

No, I wouldn't exactly say I like them. I won't buy them again unless I bought a new car on which they came stock, and this car would be my third.

But to say they are worthless is disingenuous to the quality of the tire. I think its a waste of money to replace the tires right after driving off the lot, because they will do just fine in most situations if the driver is reasonable. The trick is, of course, the driver, and getting them to realize the limits of the tire and not just have them make that split second bad call. But, then again most drivers don't take car control clinics, and probably can't be expected to drive properly in all situations.

AirSix

11-28-2006, 12:12 AM

Why the hate? And did I say something about one and half times faster?

And I disagree with the recommendation to keep the stockers. Sure, they can be safe most of the time for ppl driving gradma style. However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires. That reason alone should be good enough to ditch the stockers.

I am done.

No hate bro, I just speak from the standpoint of a trainer. People are more than willing to drop 500 bills on some high speed sways or springs because of perceived "balance" issues, but with that same money they could go out to an 8-hour high-speed driving clinic and really make a difference.

Trax

11-28-2006, 07:07 AM

A driver must obviously drive within the limits of his/her ability and vehicle. That doesn't mean the driver has to like the limitations of the tires.

Beanboy

11-28-2006, 10:40 AM

I was being blasted by on the highway Thanksgiving evening during some heavy rain. Talking 90% of the cars on the highway were flying by me. My car did not feel comfortable at all.

Now I know everybody thinks they are a better driver than everybody else, but I am certainly average at least with a smattering of track schools, autocross school, autocrosses and rally crosses under my belt.

I doubt everybody else was feeling what I was feeling when standing water was hit. If so, everybody else was far braver than I.

Certainly a situation where the RE92s suck if I had to slow down so much to feel comfortable with the hydroplaning, especially versus the majority of other cars on the highway.

Why Subaru continues to use an inferior tire on their performance models is beyond me, especially when in car tests the Subaru gets horrible "numbers" much of which can be attributed to the tire selection.

rjundi

11-28-2006, 10:52 AM

tantal

11-28-2006, 11:04 AM

The guys posting that people should be mindful of their car's capabilities under given conditions are totally correct - if you are worried about not having enough traction then you should slow down or you are being a moron.

OK, point taken and whole-heartedly agreed with. NOT the point.

The point is, the RE 92 is not a very capable tire, and there are a great many tires which outperform it under most conditions, and many which outperform it under any and all conditions. A further point is that very few of these tires which b@%#-slap the RE 92 are more expensive than the RE 92.

Some of you guys are sophomorically changing the argument when you say "yea, don't blame the tire, when it's the driver." The argument is not about who is at fault for an accident or whatever, the argument is that the RE 92 is not very capable, and is a poor choice of tire for such a high performance car.

Certainly if you drive on them you should be careful, but this is NOT the point.

Mmm'kay?

Can we all just get along now =)

Lots of good posts on this thread (seriously), but not enough conversation.

tantal

11-28-2006, 11:05 AM

Beanboy you were probably the only smart one driving at a reasonable speed. Just because people blast by that does not mean there cars are hydroplaning on occasion, most vehicles are too numb anyway (as are drivers) to tell what is going on with the tires.

There's no doubt in my mind that many or most of the people driving faster than Beany were driving below the hydroplaning limits of their tires.

There are many Mass-holes around here, but not that many that are completely stupid.

Err, have I got that right ????? :lol:

Beanboy

11-28-2006, 11:33 AM

That's right tantal... I could see some folks not caring and just flying through (is MA and all), but this seriously was the vast majority of people driving around 60 in a 55 zone during the rain. Not the first time this has happened, alignment specs are good and tire wear normal. Running slightly higher psi than stock, but not enough to make stability an issue at 38/36 for cold psi.

And folks think the RE92s give plenty of warning before slipping? Couldn't believe how floppy the sidewalls felt at stock pressure. Felt weird starting a turn, then having the whole car settle a bit when the sidewalls rolled over. And when they let go, I hear nothing. That fine tire squeal doesn't happen until right before the tires let go, not much of a guide.

Are they death traps? No, I drive at their level. But with so many cheaper tires on the market that are better to much better at everything (noise, dry traction, wet traction, winter traction, price) I still want to question why Subaru uses them for OEM tires.

tantal

11-28-2006, 11:35 AM

MilesA

11-28-2006, 02:53 PM

...Some of you guys are sophomorically changing the argument when you say "yea, don't blame the tire, when it's the driver." The argument is not about who is at fault for an accident or whatever, the argument is that the RE 92 is not very capable, and is a poor choice of tire for such a high performance car.

Certainly if you drive on them you should be careful, but this is NOT the point.

Mmm'kay?...
Well, no...

The original poster started this thread to say, "You know, the RE-92s aren't as bad as I thought they'd be." Other people agreed, saying they are OK within their modest limits.

If anyone started changing the argument, it was to ask "why is the driver at fault in hydroplaning?". To which some people replied, "just slow down, you're overdriving the tire." And then we began to have yet another RE-92 bashfest.

Mmm'kay?

rayu

11-28-2006, 03:02 PM

As a New England driver, I was debating on whether or not buy a set of dedicated snow tires (to go on the stock rims) or see the RE92's through the winter. My decision was determined on Sunday in the middle of Nebraska on I-80 as a wicked cold front dropped the temperature of everything, including the rain, form 50 to 24. I shook my head as high plains drivers in their SUV's and pick-up's roared past at 80 even as ice began to accumulate on everything. No one slowed down until they saw the group of vehicles that had slid off the road. A very nasty accident between a black SUV and a black pick-up closed I80 totally in the east bound direction. I was very glad that my old 99 FWD Passat 5MT wagon that my son and I were driving to Colorado for him to use at college was wearing Bridgestone Blizzaks, perhaps (when in outer tread depth) the best ice tire in the world.

If you want to see what others think of the RE92's, go to tirerack.com (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE92). With over 40,000,000 miles reported, this tire comes in 20 our of 21 tires in its category with an extraordinary low score of 2.4 (out of 10) for "Would you buy this tire again?"

Han'sGT

11-28-2006, 03:11 PM

with 20K under my belt on the RE92's...

out of 10...10 being the best

dry....7.5
wet....6
snow..7

Spring time, those babies are GONE....YEEEHAAAAWWWW!

MilesA

11-28-2006, 03:24 PM

...With over 40,000,000 miles reported, this tire comes in 20 our of 21 tires in its category with an extraordinary low score of 2.4 (out of 10) for "Would you buy this tire again?"
That is one statistic out of many. One statistic does not the truth make.

If you look at peoples comments on the Tirerack site, you will see they are all over the place, from people who think these tires are Hellspawn from the fiery pit to people who think they descended from Heaven.

I wouldn't buy them again either, because there are other tires out there that suit my needs for much less money.

However, that doesn't change the fact that I own a set because they were OEM'ed on my car. So, I have to decide whether to use them or throw them away. And from my personal experience, for my driving conditions, they are OK, just.

Brady

11-28-2006, 03:52 PM

I'm not going to say I would recommend the RE92, but I think they're artificially expensive in the marketplace. I HIGHLY doubt Subaru (or Toyota or other OEMs who use RE92) are paying more for their tires than they could be paying for some of the better tire options on the market. Instead, Bridgestone marks up a cheap tire for the Retail segment because they know a lot of people will buy the same OEM tires and Bridgestone makes a big profit. Don't blame Subaru for that. They have nothing to do with retail pricing versus OEM direct pricing.

And if you look at the Tire Reviews on Tire Rack, most stock OEM tires get ripped to shreds in reviews - this isn't a Subaru Specific Issue. If you really want to see bad tire reviews, check out the stock rubber on the Altimas! :lol:

heightsgtltd

11-28-2006, 04:09 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I am glad that people who like these tires havent had any problems. What's interesting is no one loves them, people are at best luke warm.

However, since MANY of us have had dangerous experiences with these tires that have NOTHING to do with driver error, letting people know about it isnt like not rooting for a team "The packers suck, no they don't :rolleyes:

IT is a safety issue so treat it as such.

Han'sGT

11-28-2006, 04:22 PM

guy at work is running his at 50PSI....yes 50, he says they are much better. :confused:

LordJim

11-28-2006, 05:18 PM

+1
Drive around the city in regular traffic without acting like a dumb ass, and they are completely acceptable. :icon_wink

Sheesh! What's the fun in that? :icon_mrgr

-
Jim

rjundi

11-28-2006, 05:36 PM

I'm at 22k relatively easy miles on our RE92's (wife does 98% of driving). They do not hydroplane at road legal speeds during heavy rain storms I have encountered.

Maybe they will go downhill soon as treadwear continues(only appear 40% worn), we shall see this winter.

LordJim

11-28-2006, 06:09 PM

I'm at 22k relatively easy miles on our RE92's (wife does 98% of driving). They do not hydroplane at road legal speeds during heavy rain storms I have encountered.

When I first got my car back in '05 I thought that the RE92's were pretty decent tires - and I think that they were. They seemed solid on dry ground, slipped occasionally in the rain (but I figured out pretty quickly that gassing my way through a corner on wet roads was a Bad Idea) and seemed OK in the snow. However - as time goes on and I've now got 21K on these tires I have become more and more worried about their performance. I was driving down 95 just south of Philadelphia the other night in a rain storm and I felt the car slipping at 60MPH on some road surfaces - that's Bad. No wait, it wasn't bad, it was just plain terrifying.

So, all that said - I'm going to take the money I've been setting aside for those new Cobb pipes and a tune and order another set of Bridgestones this week, this time though it's the going to be the 960's.

-
Jim

rudy

11-28-2006, 06:09 PM

Well, I decided to not find out for myself how they'll perform in cold/wet conditions. Ordered some Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2's to go on the stock rims and I guess I'll get something like Azenis for the warmer months.

tantal

11-28-2006, 07:13 PM

The only time I've ever noticed a dramatic improvement in the dry grip of a new set of tires over the set I was replacing was when I replaced my RE92s.

It is just unbelievable how little grip the RE 92 offers, under any conditions, but its difficult to believe that you notice how little dry grip the tire has. I mean, how often does anyone approach the limits of their tires in the dry, in any car?

nKoan

11-28-2006, 07:55 PM

IT is a safety issue so treat it as such.

Its only a safety issue if the driver doesn't know what they are dealing with, or is inattentive while driving. If anyone feels uncomfortable driving on RE-92s, then I would have to recommend to replace them. But, I think the average driver won't push the car to the point where the RE-92s will be a problem. For better or for worse, we are on an enthusiasts website, and a majority will be pushing their cars harder on the street compared with the average driver and will notice the shortcomings of the RE-92 sooner (and there lies yet another rant of taking it to the track, but I'll spare everyone right now).

Driving on RE-92s, IMO, is not a safety issue, it just simply isn't. I still firmly believe that a driver should never blame the equipment, because quite simply, it is the job of the driver to make sure the equipment is satisfactory and then to drive within the limits of the equipment and the environment. I wish people buying high horsepower cars were more in tune with what they are buying (and some are, and replace the tires to suit their needs -- this isn't a rail against them). But, personal responsibility is thrown out the door a lot of the times nowadays, and its much easier to blame the equipment then to accept responsibility. And in that sense, maybe it is a safety issue, but an issue to be brought up with SOA, not just on an enthusiasts message board.

Personally, I've had plenty of times when I've nearly hit a deer mid-corner, or been forced to stop short due to an inattentive SUV driver, but not once did the RE92s cause an accident. They never broke traction and they never caused me to rear end anyone due to increased braking distance. In fact, the only "accident" my car has seen is when it was parked and my neighbor backed into it.

Lastly, if I were to pick a greater disservice to consumers by Subaru, it would have to be putting the RE070 on the STi. It is an awful idea to put summer only tires on an AWD vehicle, and most dealers don't tell the customers their new tires are not good for the snow. And if you want to see hydroplaning, these tires are some of the worst offenders I've ever seen. But, on the other hand they are a great dry street tire. For what its worth, I like the tires a lot and have a set, but I keep them off the car for street driving (esp. in the inclement seasons).

heightsgtltd

11-28-2006, 08:11 PM

Its only a safety issue if the driver doesn't know what they are dealing with, or is inattentive while driving. If anyone feels uncomfortable driving on RE-92s, then I would have to recommend to replace them. But, I think the average driver won't push the car to the point where the RE-92s will be a problem. For better or for worse, we are on an enthusiasts website, and a majority will be pushing their cars harder on the street compared with the average driver and will notice the shortcomings of the RE-92 sooner (and there lies yet another rant of taking it to the track, but I'll spare everyone right now).

Driving on RE-92s, IMO, is not a safety issue, it just simply isn't. I still firmly believe that a driver should never blame the equipment, because quite simply, it is the job of the driver to make sure the equipment is satisfactory and then to drive within the limits of the equipment and the environment. I wish people buying high horsepower cars were more in tune with what they are buying (and some are, and replace the tires to suit their needs -- this isn't a rail against them). But, personal responsibility is thrown out the door a lot of the times nowadays, and its much easier to blame the equipment then to accept responsibility. And in that sense, maybe it is a safety issue, but an issue to be brought up with SOA, not just on an enthusiasts message board.

Personally, I've had plenty of times when I've nearly hit a deer mid-corner, or been forced to stop short due to an inattentive SUV driver, but not once did the RE92s cause an accident. They never broke traction and they never caused me to rear end anyone due to increased braking distance. In fact, the only "accident" my car has seen is when it was parked and my neighbor backed into it.

Lastly, if I were to pick a greater disservice to consumers by Subaru, it would have to be putting the RE070 on the STi. It is an awful idea to put summer only tires on an AWD vehicle, and most dealers don't tell the customers their new tires are not good for the snow. And if you want to see hydroplaning, these tires are some of the worst offenders I've ever seen. But, on the other hand they are a great dry street tire. For what its worth, I like the tires a lot and have a set, but I keep them off the car for street driving (esp. in the inclement seasons).

I am really attempting to remain civil in this discussion, but you are in no position to decide how and why people have had dangerous experiences.

Who do you think you are?

It is extremely ignorant to come from that perspective, and belies how little you truly understand about driving conditions.

Additionaly, it is ignorant to assume that because for whatever reason you haven't had the issues that no one else has? Or better yet, that it was their fault that it happened if it did?

the multiple times I had issues with the Re-92s were not a high speeds, or even regular speeds. They were at weather specific speeds (e.g. slow in snowy or icy conditions, and the same for deep water.

These are sentiments shared by many members here, and of other car boards.

We are not making any assumptions about you, so dont about any of us.

I will continue to advise anyone who lives in an area like North East where you have wet, snowy and icy conditions to switch them out.

The contiextremes I replaced them with instill a confidence in inclement weather that wasnt conceivable with the RE92s.

you need to seriously check yourself.

mccorry

11-28-2006, 08:43 PM

:rolleyes:

(where is that RE92 scapegoat picture.... hmmmmmm )

godwhomismike

11-28-2006, 08:43 PM

I had one suddenly die on me at only 300 miles on the car - I was heading home from church with my mom and dad in the car and the tire split along the bead on the rear tire. I was going 15-20 mph at the time.

nKoan

11-28-2006, 08:52 PM

I am really attempting to remain civil in this discussion, but you are in no position to decide how and why people have had dangerous experiences.

Who do you think you are?

It is extremely ignorant to come from that perspective, and belies how little you truly understand about driving conditions.

Additionaly, it is ignorant to assume that because for whatever reason you haven't had the issues that no one else has? Or better yet, that it was their fault that it happened if it did?

the multiple times I had issues with the Re-92s were not a high speeds, or even regular speeds. They were at weather specific speeds (e.g. slow in snowy or icy conditions, and the same for deep water.

These are sentiments shared by many members here, and of other car boards.

We are not making any assumptions about you, so dont about any of us.

I will continue to advise anyone who lives in an area like North East where you have wet, snowy and icy conditions to switch them out.

The contiextremes I replaced them with instill a confidence in inclement weather that wasnt conceivable with the RE92s.

you need to seriously check yourself.

Look, my point wasn't that I'm a great driver. Or that I safely escaped on the RE-92s and everyone else should be able to too. I still don't have a first place trophy from Nationals on my book case, nor am I completely accident free. I don't mean to imply that I am a great driver, but I have been good enough and safe enough to stay out of most accidents even ones that wouldn't have been counted as my fault.

My point is that it is really up to the driver to decide what they want and that a person should never blame the equipment in the event of an accident, because the driver implicitly or explicitly chose that equipment. Heck, I'd even be okay with people blaming the equipment, if they would own up to it being partially responsible for buying it.

And in my opinion of the original poster's question, replacing the RE-92s is a waste of money and a waste of an okay tire. And in my experience, which includes growing up in an area that varies wildly in driving conditions (from 110 degree days to driving on sub-1 inch of ice), on many different sets of tires, the RE-92 seem adequate. And it has also been my personal experiences that most accidents 'blamed' on RE-92s could have been avoided by safer driving. I'm not basing this on accounts that I've read on the internet, nor opinions from other people. They are simply my direct experiences which directly form my opinions, which I will share when asked.

So, in summary, if the OP doesn't like the tires then they should get new ones. Personally, I think its a waste, but if it its what they want, then they should do it. And their action doesn't invalidate my or anyone else's opinion on the matter. And since you have an experience that relates more directly to the original poster, thankfully we've been lucky enough that he listened to you instead of me. But, a different opinion on my part is never meant to be an insult on an opposing opinion. I am merely trying to relate my direct experience with the tires and if you took it as an insult, I apologize. I know my tone was a bit harsh, but I intentionally do that in the hopes of getting someone to listen. It was never meant as an insult to anyone specifically.

So, have I checked myself enough?

tantal

11-28-2006, 08:53 PM

snip
Lastly, if I were to pick a greater disservice to consumers by Subaru, it would have to be putting the RE070 on the STi. It is an awful idea to put summer only tires on an AWD vehicle, and most dealers don't tell the customers their new tires are not good for the snow. And if you want to see hydroplaning, these tires are some of the worst offenders I've ever seen. But, on the other hand they are a great dry street tire. For what its worth, I like the tires a lot and have a set, but I keep them off the car for street driving (esp. in the inclement seasons).

Dude I have to disagree with both of you. You are both preaching! The 070 is an excellent high performance summer tire, and people are aware of this. If you buy a $35 k car and cant afford a set of winter tires, then you should buy another car IMO - but anyway, people know these are summer only.

Second, I don't agree that it is a safety issue per se, but the car is soo much more capable than the perforamance the tires can deliver - acceleration, cornering, and braking - that putting this tire on the GT version of the car is, well, putting it mildly, a poor choice.

Finally, IMO the tire offers so little grip under certain conditions - cold (under 40 F) with a wet road but no standing water, that it could be a safety issue if, for example, a deer runs out on you and you have to make an emergency course correction.

Under normal circumstances, though, I have to agree with the mother hens in the thread that if you feel like your car cant keep up with the conditions then you should slow your ass down. This just seems to be common sense to me - or Darwinism at work - take your pick.

Anyway as much as I do NOT like this tire, there's no need for all of us to get upset about it.

:icon_bigg

heightsgtltd

11-28-2006, 08:58 PM

:rolleyes:

(where is that RE92 scapegoat picture.... hmmmmmm )

okay so lets look at this from a logic perspective.

Because you havent had a problem with the re92s, that means that others who say they have are wrong or were the cause of it? :confused:

Changing to the contis improved in every way. I can go through fairly deep water in heavy rain and no scary hydroplaning...same with snow. Not to mention, dry conditions are improved as well.

whatever....

Any noobs reading this, be warned.

good luck with those tires..:icon_wink

rc0032

11-28-2006, 08:59 PM

:rolleyes:
(where is that RE92 scapegoat picture.... hmmmmmm )

http://www.trunkmonkey.com/Scrapbook/Gallery/WTLW/re92_poster.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c315/KYLiquid/Forum%20Pictures/davidhasselhofko1.jpg

nKoan

11-28-2006, 09:01 PM

Dude I have to disagree with both of you. You are both preaching! The 070 is an excellent high performance summer tire, and people are aware of this. If you buy a $35 k car and cant afford a set of winter tires, then you should buy another car IMO - but anyway, people know these are summer only.

Second, I don't agree that it is a safety issue per se, but the car is soo much more capable than the perforamance the tires can deliver - acceleration, cornering, and braking - that putting this tire on the GT version of the car is, well, putting it mildly, a poor choice.

Finally, IMO the tire offers so little grip under certain conditions - cold (under 40 F) with a wet road but no standing water, that it could be a safety issue if, for example, a deer runs out on you and you have to make an emergency course correction.

Under normal circumstances, though, I have to agree with the mother hens in the thread that if you feel like your car cant keep up with the conditions then you should slow your ass down. This just seems to be common sense to me - or Darwinism at work - take your pick.

Anyway as much as I do NOT like this tire, there's no need for all of us to get upset about it.

:icon_bigg

I must disagree with in part about the 070s, but I can definitely agree with the rest.

Unfortunately, I've met a lot of STi drivers here in Nevada and over the hill in California, who are not aware that the 070 is a summer only tire. And it pains me to see that these cars are getting sold without that information. Its not a question of means to buy new tires, but a question of the dealerships (and the consumer) not being properly informed about the tires on the new vehicle.

I do think they are an amazing tire though. I've competed on them exclusively for the past two autocross seasons. The only reason I won't use them again is that I want to try out a different tire.

tantal

11-28-2006, 09:07 PM

Koan,

Okay if thats how you feel, but it is hard for me to understand/feel sympathy for some dude buying a hellishly fast car and never taking a look at the rubber.

IMO, and forgive the stereotyping, but these must be bubba's you're talking about.

Really difficult to feel bad for guys like this. You shouldn't need the dealer to tell you that a nearly slick tire wont be very useful in winter.

I'm buying an RX8 a the moment, and even though these guys know I'm very knowledgable about the car they have told me 3 times now that I should get snows on separate wheels or garage the car.

Hell, three years ago I was just considering a 3 series coupe and before I got far into the conversation the sales guy told me there are summer only tires on the car and I'd need an alternative for winter.

Anyway I guess I'm starting to sound like I'm tellin' you like it is, and I don't want or mean to do that, so pls take all this as JMO.

But I feel pretty strongly aboutthe bubbas comment =P

tantal

11-28-2006, 09:10 PM

okay so lets look at this from a logic perspective.

Because you havent had a problem with the re92s, that means that others who say they have are wrong or were the cause of it? :confused:

Changing to the contis improved in every way. I can go through fairly deep water in heavy rain and no scary hydroplaning...same with snow. Not to mention, dry conditions are improved as well.

whatever....

Any noobs reading this, be warned.

good luck with those tires..:icon_wink

LOL reminds me of my argumentative father in law who once tried to tell me that just because chevy sold hundreds of thousands of some shit box late 90s' chevy every year that it must be a great car, and why buy my A4 when I can have that shitbox that the public appears to approve so highly of.

LOL God after that I don't take his advice about anything - even whether I should wear a sweater outside!

:lol:

nKoan

11-28-2006, 10:11 PM

Hah, I don't take offense to the bubba's statement, cause its probably true.

Actually, a more accurate statement would be bubba's and ricers, or anyone else that wants the car so bad they don't know what they are buying. :lol:

Its not that I have sympathy for them, I'm just flabbergasted when I get blank stares when I mention how "Those tires won't do well when winter hits. They are summer only." And its definitely more of a comment on the dealership then anything else.

Beanboy

11-28-2006, 10:17 PM

Same thing is happening with MS6 folks regarding summer tires. Think the MS6 is worse scenario, certainly not as performance-oriented as th STI.

Curious how some folks are finding the RE92s fine at posted highway speed limits in the rain while others don't. Temperature/road condition issues perhaps?

NSFW

11-28-2006, 10:17 PM

FWIW, I did some A/B testing last night on some icy roads: my old car w/ Blizzaks (not sure which model) and my LGT, bought two weeks ago w/ RE92s and 15k miles. Mostly just brake testing, plus just a little bit of hooliganism.

You'd expect a big difference, since the Blizzaks are a winter tire and the RE92s are (ostensibly) a performance tire... and you'd be right. There is indeed a big difference. With the RE92s, ABS kicks in much sooner in straight-line braking. When the Blizzaks would be gripping and slowing the car down effectively, the RE92s were sliding and not slowing much.

Also rode the RE92s up into the mountains to go snowboarding, without incident. I couldn't call them unsafe, but I can certainly see why people who drive much on snow/ice want to get better tires. I'll be getting some.

Deer Killer

11-28-2006, 10:24 PM

When I took off my F1's for the winter and put the RE92's it was comical driving the car, like driving on snow.. except the roads were bone dry..

Above ~45mph the tires will give no warning that they are about to lose grip.. and again, it's like you're driving on snow as you are sliding with no tire squeal..

ilh

11-29-2006, 06:16 AM

I better keep my eyes wide open on MA roads for you guys sliding all over the place on RE92s. I don't want you hitting me!

Mine have been "OK". I did last winter in them gingerly. Now at 22K that would be crazy in my mind. Wet performance has fallen off significantly since a year ago too, at which time highway hydroplaning at 60-70mph was rare. I probably have about 6/32 left. After the Nokians come off after the winter, I'll likely try to get rid of the RE92s and get some summer rubber.

sebberry

11-29-2006, 01:21 PM

So, the original statement is correct. Hydroplaning equals driving too fast for the condition (or situation).

Bullshit.

I was accelerating from a stop (light at an intersection) on the highway at a speed which was appropriate for wet conditions. As it was at night, I had no idea there was a huge puddle just on the other side of the intersection. Immediately after hitting it, I started to hydroplane towards the center barrier. Fortunately I regained control and didn't hit anything.

While I agree that some cases of hydroplaning can be attributed to driving too fast for the conditions, certain road features or hazards such as a puddle in the dark cannot be seen or anticipated. This was a low-speed incident that wouldn't have taken place if it weren't for the miserable hydroplaning properties of the RE92's.

lgt_nube

11-29-2006, 01:25 PM

certain road features or hazards such as a puddle in the dark cannot be seen or anticipated. This was a low-speed incident that wouldn't have taken place if it weren't for the miserable hydroplaning properties of the RE92's.How do you know that?

sebberry

11-29-2006, 01:29 PM

with 20K under my belt on the RE92's...

out of 10...10 being the best

dry....7.5
wet....6
snow..7

Spring time, those babies are GONE....YEEEHAAAAWWWW!

so you give them a score of 70% in the snow?

How slow do you drive? Are you driving at a pace that pisses most people off? How slow do you take turns? Have you ever had it oversteer in the snow (back end coming out further than the front in a turn)?

A couple of years ago we had a trace amount of snow and I thought it would be a perfece time to try out the Outback in the snow (first snowfall for the car). I took one turn at a snails pace and the rear end immediately kepy swinging out well into the other lane. It took me 3 or 4 correction attempts to get the car to stop swinging and trying to rotate. They were dangerous and thankfully the roads were bare or I would have been in a collision.

With my WR's, I never have this problem. Steering inputs are responded to quite well and the back end is fairly well controled.

sebberry

11-29-2006, 01:30 PM

How do you know that?

Because after I switched out the tires, I have never had a problem in that section, or anywhere else for that matter, since.

mccorry

11-29-2006, 02:05 PM

Tires are a personal choice. You guys that are bitching are just as guilty as the guys that are saying that they are fine.

If a person looses control of their car... it could be due to the weather, the tires, or the persons lack to understanding where the driving limits are. Either way... it isn't because that person was a dolt or because they were reckless. That is why they call it an accident. Yet the RE92 is cast out as the sole party responsible. Come on. The tires do not drive the car...

Anyone who comes on this board gets it HAMMERED into them that the RE92's are the worst thing to EVER happen to the automotive industry.

I understand that some of you have had bad experiences (Godwhomismike, etc)... but ... you shouldn't get pissed when other side states their opinion.

I, personally think that the RE92s are an average all season tire. I have 45K miles on my first set. I've never had a puncture. I've never had any issues, actually. They are very predictable tires when you push them to the limit. Yeah... this is all IMHO. But opinions are like a$$holes... everyone has one.

But... it is a two sided discussion point... either you like them.. or you hate them. All the arguing in the world won't change your opionion......

or anyone elses....

heightsgtltd

11-29-2006, 02:26 PM

Actually, the difference is those of us who are not fans of the RE92s have allowed for the possibility that there are conditions (dry for example) in which they are ok. For that matter, we accept the fact that some people have had good experiences in the rain and snow.

conversely, those of us who have shared harrowing experiences on these tires are disrespected by being told that we were driving too fast, didnt know the limits of the tires, yadda yadda.

So you tell me who isnt allowing for the possibilty that they have problems? :rolleyes:

Sorry but statistics play into this. Dont forget that Bridgestone has actually changed the tread compound and other attributes because of problems.

If this was isolated to this site or car I could maybe understand. But people driving low powered minivans have reported problems in wet and snowy conditions.

Being open minded should allow for negative attributions as well as positive ones, no?

Lastly, the great irony is that those of us who have had both re92s on and new tires have a basis for comparison. Show me one person who has switched who prefered the re92s. IF you havent driven the LGT on anything but Re92s, you are essentially bench racing.

Bottom line: I feel tremendously more sure footed in every weather condition on my contis in comparison to the RE92s.

Rant off.

Deer Killer

11-29-2006, 02:28 PM

mccorry: they are unpredictable and that's not IMHO, they don't give warning and slide without any tire noise at speed. If by predictable you mean they're not going to stick to the road, maybe.. The $35 185mm 80k warranty econo-tires on my old accord were better than the re92's..

Also after 20k miles the first level sipes on my re92's were completely gone, so you've just lost inclement weather performance right there, and it looks like it still has another 30k of tread left.. They just get worse. How many people are driving around like this? yeah...

Beanboy

11-29-2006, 02:31 PM

mccorry, if you think the RE92s are average all season tire, what do you consider a bad one?

mccorry

11-29-2006, 06:44 PM

See what I mean? This is too :lol: .

If you don't like them.. get rid of them. Why the constant badgering of the tires on this board? It is silly.

Tires are a personal choice. You guys that are bitching are just as guilty as the guys that are saying that they are fine.

blah blah blah blah....

But... it is a two sided discussion point... either you like them.. or you hate them. All the arguing in the world won't change your opionion......

or anyone elses....

Maybe you didn't read the whole post????? :icon_wink

sebberry

11-29-2006, 07:56 PM

If a person looses control of their car... it could be due to the weather, the tires, or the persons lack to understanding where the driving limits are. Either way... it isn't because that person was a dolt or because they were reckless. That is why they call it an accident. Yet the RE92 is cast out as the sole party responsible. Come on. The tires do not drive the car...

Are you saying that I was unreasonably exceeding the limits of my car or skill when my relitavely gentle acceleration from a stop light on the highway turned into almost slamming into the center barrier?

I am always paying attention to what the car is doing and react accordingly. However in this case, there was no warning of the hydroplaning.

hondas123

11-29-2006, 08:02 PM

So far I have no complaints with my RE92's. My car is one year old with 14k on it. Last winter they performed flawlessly here in the Northeast.

I am however very cautious in inclement weather, knowing full well of the stories others have posted on this forum.

Even though I haven't had an incident, I don't trust them 100%. It's like dating a girl that has a reputation for cheating. :)

When it's time for new tires, I'll likely go with the Continental Contact Extremes.

pillboy

11-29-2006, 08:08 PM

Very few car crashes are true accidents...there is a reason for the crash happening...usually driver error of some form. Part FAILURE could be classified as an accident provided there is no underlying reason for it happening such as extremely low tire pressure causing a tire failure (the low pressure being caused by driver error of not checking pressures). It all comes down to overdriving (or poorly driving) the equipment you choose to put on the road.

mccorry

11-29-2006, 08:22 PM

Are you saying that I was unreasonably exceeding the limits of my car or skill when my relitavely gentle acceleration from a stop light on the highway turned into almost slamming into the center barrier?

I am always paying attention to what the car is doing and react accordingly. However in this case, there was no warning of the hydroplaning.

Read it again.... :rolleyes: And hydroplaning can happen with any tire. Try a set of RE070's :lol:

If a person looses control of their car... it could be due to the weather, the tires, or the persons lack to understanding where the driving limits are. Either way... it isn't because that person was a dolt or because they were reckless. That is why they call it an accident. Yet the RE92 is cast out as the sole party responsible. Come on. The tires do not drive the car...

Geesh! :argue:

Brady

11-29-2006, 08:57 PM

in this case, there was no warning of the hydroplaning.

You didn't see the huge puddle you described immediately in front of you? :icon_conf

heightsgtltd

11-29-2006, 08:59 PM

You didn't see the huge puddle you described immediately in front of you? :icon_conf

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

intercede007

11-29-2006, 09:11 PM

They also bubble easily. You can look at them wrong and they will form bubbles.

http://members.cox.net/intercede007/104954872-L.jpg

23,000 miles
3 autocrosses
4 road trips over 800 miles each
Tyre pressure checked weekly. Subaru prescribed pressure for street use. 38f/42r during track events.

No bubbles. No abnormal wear. Rotated regularly.

I live in Florida. Average annual rainfall: 60 inches. I have never hydroplaned.

Beanboy

11-29-2006, 10:07 PM

Hydroplane or not? Somebody is lying! :D

krzyss

11-30-2006, 12:43 PM

RE 92 - 46K miles in less than 2 years, still have them on my car. I am saving money for new tires.

I hydroplaned on highway in heavy downpour but there was standing water and I did not slow down enough. Do I blame tires? No, it was me not slowing down sooner. Would I need to slow down with better tires (like F1 GS D3)? Probably but not that much.

With any OE tires there are better choices. And when replacement time comes it is YOUR choice.
If you do not like them sell them on eBay or craigslist.

Krzys

PS As far as I can tell this UTQG 160 rating is quite strange. I would expect less than 20K miles with such rating.

sebberry

12-02-2006, 03:14 AM

You didn't see the huge puddle you described immediately in front of you? :icon_conf

I saw water but there was no way to tell how deep it was.

sebberry

12-02-2006, 03:15 AM

I live in Florida. Average annual rainfall: 60 inches. I have never hydroplaned.

Do you actually drive it in the rain? :lol:

petert123

12-27-2006, 01:21 AM

I drive an older 97 gt wagon, and am wondering if anyone has any ideas on tyre pressures.

tantal

12-27-2006, 06:16 PM

I drive an older 97 gt wagon, and am wondering if anyone has any ideas on tyre pressures.

I'd suggest somewhere between 30 and 35 front, 28 to 33 rear. You should be able to find the MFR recommended pressure on your drivers side door pillar.

If you want someone to just tell you a pressure to use, here goes:

Use 33 front and 31 rear :icon_mrgr

speeddr7

12-27-2006, 07:33 PM

I had the same tires for my Impreza. Same bad reviews and I loved them. No problems hydroplaning and even good in the snow. So I felt confident getting the same tires on the LGT. What a difference. They are not that good. Dont like the rain, and am worried about the snow.
I believe its Bridgestone themselves. There mst be different factories or chemicals used sometimes that make them inconsistent. I loved them before and now I really cant believe the differece.
Weird.
Love em or hate them, ur lucky to get a good batch.

magnus617

12-27-2006, 10:22 PM

Hydroplane or not? Somebody is lying! :D
beanboy may not be lying. my car has 33,000 miles, original tires and the car is stock + a k&n. i live in iowa and we get our fair share of crappy weather, 60 degrees and sunny one day, 12 degrees and snowing the next. my point is that i have yet to hydroplane the lgt on re 92s, and i'm usually driving faster than 90% of the other drivers. it mostly has to do with the speed at witch you are going through the water and also the tires to an extent. that said, i'm going to switch out to new rims and tires(18x8;22540r18)as soon as these wear out .... maybe sooner!:icon_wink

heightsgtltd

12-27-2006, 10:24 PM

I believe its Bridgestone themselves. There mst be different factories or chemicals used sometimes that make them inconsistent. I loved them before and now I really cant believe the differece.
Weird.
Love em or hate them, ur lucky to get a good batch.

This is actually an interesting theory that could explain the truly polar opinions of these tires.

There could absolutely be quality discrepancies between or within factories.

Then again to be fair, even the supporters dont really think they are great tires by any stretch of the imagination.

mccorry

12-27-2006, 10:31 PM

No... they are "adequate" tires ..... ;)

laneygirlid

12-27-2006, 11:53 PM

I live in snowy country in Idaho and have owned a 2007 Sub Legacy GT for 6 weeks. I am coming from a 1997 Audi A4 Quattro with some high end Toyo All Season tire and thought the control that came with the car was INCREDIBLE.

I got the VDC/Navigation option and am driving with the stock tires. On my way home from the ski hill today, about lost control going around a corner at a pretty low speed. I took them in today to get siped, but am considering getting some better snow tires, like Bridgestone Blizzac or Michelin Alpin. I am not that excited about spending another $600-$1000 right now on this car, but think it might be worth it for safety factor. Even the Toyo "better" all season were going to cost $800.

Any suggestions for snowy conditons?

I am not that crazy about 17" wheels with no option to change to something smaller. I know it's a "performance" thing, but my smaller tires on my Audi (15"?) always handled wonderfully.

NSFW

12-28-2006, 02:59 AM

I've driven up and down snowy mountain pass roads a few times since getting my car a few weeks ago, and I have not crashed or lost control. They are not as good as the Blizzaks on my other car (I did some A/B testing while I had both) but they ain't gonna kill ya.

And I have an appointment to get some Goodyear GW3s next week. :)

VVG

12-28-2006, 06:34 AM

//
Any suggestions for snowy conditons?

I am not that crazy about 17" wheels with no option to change to something smaller. I know it's a "performance" thing, but my smaller tires on my Audi (15"?) always handled wonderfully.

Any other model but the Legacy GT can use 16" rims. You got big brakes.

How much do you drive on dry roads versus snow or ice covered roads? The two most popular dedicated snows on this board seem to be the Dunlop M3 and Nokian RSI.

For occasional snow use, the Nokian WR, an All-Season with Severe Duty Snow rating is also popular. I have two cars with RSI's, one with WR's, and one with Michelin X-Ice.

tantal

12-28-2006, 08:39 AM

There are winter tires and there are snow tires.

Winter tires are for peeps who have a lot of miles in cold but clear conditions - the sidewalls are stiffer and the compound wont wear as quickly. This type of tire will be good in the rain, and H or V speed rated.

Snow tires are pretty much all Q rated. They typically have very soft sidewalls and are annoying to drive on the highway when its dry. These are typically noisier, and handle snow and particularly ice much better than a winter tire. This is the tire you want if you go most of the winter on snowy/icy roads.

Of course there are differences among the brands too.

For a snow tire, I'd suggest the michelin X-ice, but some sizes of this are already sold out. The blizzak WS 50 is a good tire but not as good in the dry. The Nokian RSI is another excellent choice, but you have to find it and it is typically quite expensive.

For winter tires you have several good choices. I am liking my contiwintercontacts TS810 that I have on my RX-8. Nice in the dry and still good traction. The LM-25 I have on my GT, and it is also fine in the dry. Other good choices are the dunlop wintersport M3, the michelin Pilot Alpin, and the tire I WAS going to get for my LGT before I found the great deal I got on my LM-25, is the Yokohama AVS winter, from discount tire.

all good choices. Pick the one with your favorite tread pattern. :lol:

I live in snowy country in Idaho and have owned a 2007 Sub Legacy GT for 6 weeks. I am coming from a 1997 Audi A4 Quattro with some high end Toyo All Season tire and thought the control that came with the car was INCREDIBLE.

I got the VDC/Navigation option and am driving with the stock tires. On my way home from the ski hill today, about lost control going around a corner at a pretty low speed. I took them in today to get siped, but am considering getting some better snow tires, like Bridgestone Blizzac or Michelin Alpin. I am not that excited about spending another $600-$1000 right now on this car, but think it might be worth it for safety factor. Even the Toyo "better" all season were going to cost $800.

Any suggestions for snowy conditons?

I am not that crazy about 17" wheels with no option to change to something smaller. I know it's a "performance" thing, but my smaller tires on my Audi (15"?) always handled wonderfully.