HansGT Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Ok, so i ditched the oem turanza on the 3.6R. Horrible wet traction. I upgraded to the Conti DWS which i ran on the ol GT. Traction is fantastic with these, but I'm missing the ride comfort of the turanza. I'm thinking of meeting in the middle with the Michelin Primacy MXM4's....stepping down from UHP to a quality Grand touring tire. Besides being expensive the only issue I'm facing is which to get. Theirs a 94W and 98V XL 225/50/17 tire. I'm a little hesitant on the W because of its the same as the DWS and the possibility of extra firm sidewalls. But yet the compound and tread pattern is different than the DWS. I'd be fine with V except for the XL load rating...that probably means extra ply sidewalls which could make them as firm or firmer than the W....dunno. Any one got any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolksey85 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I sell those same Michelin's at work (different size and ratings but same tire) and I can say that Michelin always has a very tough, thick sidewall. The DWS feel like chewed up gum compared to the MXM's. Honestly, I can't see you going wrong either way. They (Michelin's) will still probably ride just as well if not better than the DWS while lasting 10k+ miles more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Usually XL tires have stiffer sidewalls (to handle extra pressure required to handle extra load). I have never heard about people complaining about lack of comfort with DWS. What pressures are you running? Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DugsSin Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Very interested in the same tires and putting ride comfort/noise at top of the list. Have you tried contacting Michelin? 1-800-847-3435 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 ^ I emailed them yesterday. If I don't hear anything by afternoon I'll give them a ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Usually XL tires have stiffer sidewalls (to handle extra pressure required to handle extra load). I have never heard about people complaining about lack of comfort with DWS. What pressures are you running? Krzys Was running them at 39/37psi. Dialed them back to 34/33psi...a little more comfy now. I don't think they are that bad its just I think I really don't need a UHP tire anymore (with the R). The Michelins have plenty of grip but from talking to some people and reading reviews they are much more comfortable as they are meant as a touring tire, not edge of your seat style driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 How many miles on DWS? Maybe use them and replace them later? DWS should have better winter traction than Primacy MXM. Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 ..........I'm thinking of meeting in the middle with the Michelin Primacy MXM4's....stepping down from UHP to a quality Grand touring tire. Besides being expensive the only issue I'm facing is which to get. Theirs a 94W and 98V XL 225/50/17 tire............. Michelin has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee on these tires. Buy the V tires, if you don't like how they ride, bring them back within 30 days and get the W rated tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 ^ I emailed Michelin, they said they both should have the same comfort given W is SL vs. V is XL. However they said the W will have better traction. So I went with the W. (installing today) They have that 30 day like you said. If these are still too firm, I'll probably step down to the Bridgestone Serenity Plus...less performance but slightly better snow traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 ^^ So how do you like your new tires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share Posted September 27, 2012 ^ Ok initial thoughts...take into account I have less than 100 miles on them so they probably still have a little residue on them and aren't fully"broken" in. Car: 2011 3.6R w/ OEM suspension except for 19mm rear sway bar. OEM wheels. 225/50/17 Michelin MXM4 94W vs. Conti DWS 94W...if I were to grade 1-10 Comfort: M: 9 DWS: 7 (M feel much smoother as they are a LRR tire. M take bumps and impacts better...not as soft as OEM 93V Turanza, but they sucked in every other category) Noise: M: 9 DWS: 7 (M are very quiet) Dry Traction: M: 8.5 DWS: 9 (Only docking the M a half point. I only notice a difference during extreme cornering. Perhaps I just have more confidence in the DWS as I have 3 years exerience with them vs. 1 week. The M are just a tad behind in feeling secure the entire way through a hairpin turn at high speed. I'll take it....much more enjoyment out of the overall ride quality.) Wet Traction: M:8.5 DWS:9 (Read Dry Traction) Sexy: M:7 DWS:9 (DWS just more pretty although M have nice big blocks) Other notes: Side Wall: Some people say the DWS have soft sidewalls. I've never found them to be an issue. I will say when you push on the side wall of the M you can see the tread block move with it, with the DWS the sidewall alone squishes in. Highway Ride: M:9 DWS:7 (DWS never felt fully balanced...could feel a bit nervous at times. Had that with the GT...took several times to balance them and get them feeling "correct"...but were worse this time around on the R) Snow Traction: M:7 DWS:9 (Pure guess, but given my good experience with DWS in the snow and looking at tread pattern, DWS wins here) Price w/MPG and Tread Life M: $728 ($182ea.) (online price match Mr. Tire) DWS: $552 ($138ea.) (Discount tire) Prices are sometimes lower w/ promotions, but using these prices for example. Many people I've emailed or reviews I've read say it looks like you can expect 40-45K out of the M while probably 30-35K out of the DWS...which I would support give my experience with the DWS. For sake of argument we'll knock it down to 20% more out of the M instead of 25%. So at 20% more tread life on the DWS that's another $110 to the DWS to get the same mileage as the M. Making them now $662. Now if you factor in the M being LRR tires which should gain you better MPG. (Again a guess, but given tread pattern and tire purpose i think its plausible) I'll shoot low here...a mere 0.5mpg gain (2.5% at 20MPG). At 12000 miles a year you'll drink 600 gallons with the DWS and 585 gallons with the M. At $3.75 a gallon that's $56.25 a year. Add that over 3 years and the DWS cost jumps to $830.75. Bottom line, I'm not sorry I switched. If you want to feel more of the road and need better snow traction go with DWS. If you want more comfort go with MXM4. UPDATE: Observation this morning. The smooth sidewall area on the MXM4 is taller than the DWS. From the lip to where the tread starts on the MXM4 is @64mm, while @54mm on the DWS. Same OD, the DSW tread just wraps around further. So I would guess under extreme cornering they may have the edge. Although the MXM4 has firmer sidewall so perhaps they would not flex as much...dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Nice review. I have the same priorities as you. I'll be getting a set of these soon. Just waiting until the Nov/Dec time frame for the holiday season rebate offers to show up from Michelin and Discount Tire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 ^ Ok initial thoughts... Noise: M: 9 DWS: 7 (M are very quiet)........... Are the MXM4s quiet even on rough textured asphalt pavement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 ^ not "quiet", but less noise then most tires I've driven on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 ^ Ok initial thoughts........................... Sexy: M:7 DWS:9 (DWS just more pretty although M have nice big blocks)............... The MXM4s have a subtle asymmetric tread design, don't they? I assume Michelin molds a big "outside" on the sidewall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 The MXM4s have a subtle asymmetric tread design, don't they? I assume Michelin molds a big "outside" on the sidewall? They are marked "OUTSIDE". It doesn't stand out much, but its there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 ^ Ok initial thoughts...take into account I have less than 100 miles on them so they probably still have a little residue on them and aren't fully"broken" in. Car: 2011 3.6R w/ OEM suspension except for 19mm rear sway bar. OEM wheels. 225/50/17 Michelin MXM4 94W vs. Conti DWS 94W...if I were to grade 1-10 Comfort: M: 9 DWS: 7 (M feel much smoother as they are a LRR tire. M take bumps and impacts better...not as soft as OEM 93V Turanza, but they sucked in every other category) Noise: M: 9 DWS: 7 (M are very quiet) Dry Traction: M: 8.5 DWS: 9 (Only docking the M a half point. I only notice a difference during extreme cornering. Perhaps I just have more confidence in the DWS as I have 3 years exerience with them vs. 1 week. The M are just a tad behind in feeling secure the entire way through a hairpin turn at high speed. I'll take it....much more enjoyment out of the overall ride quality.) Wet Traction: M:8.5 DWS:9 (Read Dry Traction) Sexy: M:7 DWS:9 (DWS just more pretty although M have nice big blocks) Other notes: Side Wall: Some people say the DWS have soft sidewalls. I've never found them to be an issue. I will say when you push on the side wall of the M you can see the tread block move with it, with the DWS the sidewall alone squishes in. Highway Ride: M:9 DWS:7 (DWS never felt fully balanced...could feel a bit nervous at times. Had that with the GT...took several times to balance them and get them feeling "correct"...but were worse this time around on the R) Snow Traction: M:7 DWS:9 (Pure guess, but given my good experience with DWS in the snow and looking at tread pattern, DWS wins here) Price w/MPG and Tread Life M: $728 ($182ea.) (online price match Mr. Tire) DWS: $552 ($138ea.) (Discount tire) Prices are sometimes lower w/ promotions, but using these prices for example. Many people I've emailed or reviews I've read say it looks like you can expect 40-45K out of the M while probably 30-35K out of the DWS...which I would support give my experience with the DWS. For sake of argument we'll knock it down to 20% more out of the M instead of 25%. So at 20% more tread life on the DWS that's another $110 to the DWS to get the same mileage as the M. Making them now $662. Now if you factor in the M being LRR tires which should gain you better MPG. (Again a guess, but given tread pattern and tire purpose i think its plausible) I'll shoot low here...a mere 0.5mpg gain (2.5% at 20MPG). At 12000 miles a year you'll drink 600 gallons with the DWS and 585 gallons with the M. At $3.75 a gallon that's $56.25 a year. Add that over 3 years and the DWS cost jumps to $830.75. Bottom line, I'm not sorry I switched. If you want to feel more of the road and need better snow traction go with DWS. If you want more comfort go with MXM4. UPDATE: Observation this morning. The smooth sidewall area on the MXM4 is taller than the DWS. From the lip to where the tread starts on the MXM4 is @64mm, while @54mm on the DWS. Same OD, the DSW tread just wraps around further. So I would guess under extreme cornering they may have the edge. Although the MXM4 has firmer sidewall so perhaps they would not flex as much...dunno. Now that you have been running the MXM4s for 3 months, have any negative characteristics come to the surface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 None. Still not as "soft and comfy" as OEM turanzas, but those tires truly sucked. Traction was hideous. Very happy with the M's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Good to hear. I'll be getting a set of these soon in 215/45-17 87W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris GTO TT Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 They are marked "OUTSIDE". It doesn't stand out much' date=' but its there.[/quote'] Well if they are marked inside and outside, then it means they are asymmetric. I much prefer Asymmetric tires over directional tires as it means the mfg can designate certain tread blocks to do certain things and you can rotate them normally not just front to rear. 2003 Baja 5MT 2016 Outback 2.5i Premium w/Eyesight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Good to hear. I'll be getting a set of these soon in 215/45-17 87W. Have been running the Primacy MXM4 for about a week now, and have about 225 miles on them. I would describe the ride as firm but not harsh, and comfortable on most surfaces, but definitely not plush. No issues with flat-spotting when parked for several days, or pulling, or vibrations. Road force balancing was not required. Steering response is not as crisp as I would like, but that may improve over the next few hundred miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.