New Consumer Reports UHP Allseason tires out.

Anyone see this yet? Quite a difference from TireRack's.

 

In order:

Falken Ziex ZE-912

Nitto Neo Gen ZR

Yokohama Advan S4

Falken Ziex ZE-512

General Exclaim UHP

Continental ContiExtremeContact

Michelin Pilot Sport A/S

Kumho ECSTA ASX

Sumitomo HTR+

Pirelli PZero Nero M+S

Bridgestone Potenza RE960 A/S Pole Position

Toyo Proxes 4

Cooper Zeon Sport A/S

Zvon Tech M550 A/S

Hankook Ventus V4 ES H105

I have them General UHP Exclaim but they're summer tires and they're great!

I laugh at the General Exclaims thing. I made the mistake of recommending them to a friend because everyone spoke very highly of them. Then I drove them once and felt bad

 

They are definitely an all season, and anyone who says differently has not driven a good summer, let alone a tire like an RT-615 or RS2

I laugh at the General Exclaims thing. I made the mistake of recommending them to a friend because everyone spoke very highly of them. Then I drove them once and felt bad

 

They are definitely an all season, and anyone who says differently has not driven a good summer, let alone a tire like an RT-615 or RS2

 

i live in Socal, 4 other members strongly recommended them to me, they are great for the price

 

 

 

O, and don't forget to come up for air, you don't want to choke urself while laughing

 

I laugh at the General Exclaims thing. I made the mistake of recommending them to a friend because everyone spoke very highly of them. Then I drove them once and felt bad

 

They are definitely an all season, and anyone who says differently has not driven a good summer, let alone a tire like an RT-615 or RS2

 

Why does tirerack list it as a summer tire?

 

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=General&tireModel=Exclaim+UHP

 

I would classify a summer tire as a tire that loses significant performance below 40F. Even if it sucks as a summer tire, it would still be a summer tire.

 

The UHP may not be the best, but they are certainly very good in its price range. My friend has UHP on his car. They seem to be better than the Kumho SPT. I'm rolling on Yokohama Advan Neova which seem to be better but they are double the price and half the treadlife.

 

I wouldn't classify the RT-615 in the same category as the UHP.

The General Exclaims are supposed to be an all-season tire, but really they are a 3 season tire that might be able to get you around in very light snow. I guess they are kind of a 3.5 season tire.

 

I run them on my car and like them just fine for what they are. Cheap, quiet, long wearing and reasonably grippy enough for daily driving. They are not max performance tires and I wasn't under any illusions that they were.

^^^I know, there have just been some reviews as if they were as good as the Goodyears...

I have the Advan S4s. No complaints with the traction so far, but the sidewalls are a little soft.

OH MAN!!!!! I just ordered the Contis!!!! If they suck arse more than the 512s or the Gen. UHPs..... I'm gonna crap my shorts!!!!! cuz I've used both and they suckkk!!

any opinion on the pilot sport a/s in the snow and rain and on dry streets?

Anyone got a scan of this article?

OH MAN!!!!! I just ordered the Contis!!!! If they suck arse more than the 512s or the Gen. UHPs..... I'm gonna crap my shorts!!!!! cuz I've used both and they suckkk!!

 

You'll be just fine with the Contis. They are more of an extreme condition AS which is why I run them as my winter set up (Chicagoland commuting). Great in rain and snow and good in the dry as long as you pump them up a little.

Any more details on that and what makes the ordering? I checked CU online and this article has not made it there yet.

All moot as far as I am concerned. Nokian WRs FTW.

You'll be just fine with the Contis. They are more of an extreme condition AS which is why I run them as my winter set up (Chicagoland commuting). Great in rain and snow and good in the dry as long as you pump them up a little.

 

Just picked up my Contis today!!! My winter set-up also! 225/40/18 mounted on Spec b rims. I will put them on late Nov. Man those treads look BEEFY!!

We don't get tons of snow in the city, but my 452's don't work well in the cold.

I use the OBXT for mountain/snow fun so I will be putting full-on snows for the winter. I just don't know which snows yet....... maybe the Hankooks?????

Having owned Zeix 512s, Proxes 4s and AS960, I can say that putting the 512 that high up is a joke. They are pretty good for the price, but the 960 Proxes 4 are much better. I'd put the 960s more than one notch above the Proxes4 too.

If someone would post the criteria for what makes the "best" tire according to CU it would be much more meaningful.

 

I have a feeling lower price was a strong factor in the ratings beyond performance.

I have the Advan S4s. No complaints with the traction so far, but the sidewalls are a little soft.

 

 

hell no. I went from Toyo T1R's to the S4's. The S4's are a much better tire than the T1R's.

 

Turn in and all around handling is better withthe S4's. I plan on switching to winters when it turns white out.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a fan of the Falken ZIEX ZE-512s, particularly when price is factored into the equation.....

 

I love how well they resist hydroplaning, and under "light" wintry conditions, they're not bad, either, particularly when their inflation pressures are carefully and religiously monitored.

 

However, after popping into the local public library to check out this issue, I don't think I quite agree with what they've come up with as the final results.....

 

For one thing, no matter how much I like the 512s, I am also quite up-front about one of their biggest weakenesses being ice-related traction. Several local Scooby club owners of these tires - who are just as much a fan of them as I am - agree wholeheartedly with me (and while I admittedly may not know much about tires, these guys and gals are avid AutoXers, with pretty impressive records, too!).

 

I'm very surprised that CR rated the 512s as being decent when it comes to, of all things, ICE BRAKING.

 

This factor alone has shaken my faith in the entire review/article......

Testing a tire in the dry and wet(somewhat) can be quite controlled and yield relatively consistent results.

 

Testing a tire in winter conditions is infinitely variable since the material at hand ice, snow, slush comes in oh so many variations with varying water content and temperature. A certain tire can likely excel on certain type of ice while fall flat on its face on another.

 

I have owned 4 different sets(Nokian WR, Nokian NRW, Blizzack WS-50, Michelin Alpin X) of winter tires to know that none excel in all conditions. They all seem to have a great strong suit somewhere and lack elsewhere dependant on the storm. One thing in New England is that snow is quite variable and on the wet side in my locale which seems the most slippery.

 

I agree on their eval though on Bridgestone RE960 with regards to ice braking. They really are good and tirerack.com found that result too.

 

When a winter test add the dimension of lateral traction I will think more highly of them. I have yet to see any test that includes this.

consumer reports

Nicely put, rjundi, I think I subscribe to your logic.

If someone would post the criteria for what makes the "best" tire according to CU it would be much more meaningful.

 

I have a feeling lower price was a strong factor in the ratings beyond performance.

 

Price or "value" always figures big for CU. Tires are something you don't want to go the cheap route. I'd rather pay a little more and get performance. Especially true for tires you'll use in snow/ice.

^ +1

I find it interesting after looking at CU tire related discussion forum and how many people wrote back in about their previous all-season star the Falken Ziex 512 and how noisy they got after 20k miles and how quickly they wore out.