Corner Country 2014 Tyre discussion
- Thread starter Tweaksta
- Start date
Ratbag
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 7,474
- Location
- Bayside, Melbourne, Vic
- Car Year
- MY06, MY10
- Car Model
- Forester SG & SH
- Transmission
- 5MT/DR & 4EAT Sports
Bugger about the tyre. Sounds exactly like the bird's mouth tear I got in one of my (fairly new) XM2s. Bridgestone Dueler A/T D697 in 215/65 16" for me next time around, I think. Bridgestone will fit these because the car has a "Category MC" classification on one of its compliance plates :biggrin:.
Tweaksta
Senior Member
Yeah the tyre was a bit of a pain - hey speaking of tyres, how are ther D697s going? Are they as indestructible as the XM2s? I'd love to get some AT 65s one day, but I'd need to look at getting a lower 1st gear to compensate and improve my offroad tractability.
Ratbag
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 7,474
- Location
- Bayside, Melbourne, Vic
- Car Year
- MY06, MY10
- Car Model
- Forester SG & SH
- Transmission
- 5MT/DR & 4EAT Sports
I don't have the D697s yet. My XM2s have about 75% of their life left. If I lose another tyre the way I lost the first, bugger the cost, they're coming off.
Tweaksta
Senior Member
So you don't like the XM2s? I find they are prodigiously robust - in 110,00kms on XM1s and XM2s the only puncture was that most recent one which was butchered by twisted, sharp steel - no tyre could have resisted it - hence the dilemma I'm in regarding whether to stay on XMs or go A/T. The roads around Sturt NP/Innamincka/Coongie/Thargomindah/Cunnamulla left not a scar on my rear XM2s or front XM1s (and I wasn't nice to them).
Ratbag
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 7,474
- Location
- Bayside, Melbourne, Vic
- Car Year
- MY06, MY10
- Car Model
- Forester SG & SH
- Transmission
- 5MT/DR & 4EAT Sports
As for the XM2s, no complaints except for the side wall rupture.
Guy tried to tell me I had hit the kerb with it. I pointed out that it was on the inside of the tyre ...
Then he came up with another story. I was less than impressed. He had previously refused to give me the number for Michelin at Port Melbourne (as if it's a State secret ... ).
I'm one of those pedantic types who remembers every single object on the road, particularly if I have to drive over or near it. There were none.
Nothing was found in the tyre. My friend had leant his camera bag against it when I dropped him off at his place about 1.8 kms away, and it was fine then.
It was fine when I got home. Went out half an hour later to find it flat. The dealer reckoned it had been driven on while flat. I offered another possible explanation: that the tyre side wall had separated in normal use, causing the damage to the side wall, and causing the split as it blew out while sitting at the kerb. The bird's mouth tear was in the wrong direction for an object penetrating the tyre unless I had reversed over it at speed ...
He was totally unaware at this point that I had already arranged for the Michelin rep to meet me there that morning, and sure enough, he drove up as we were disagreeing to disagree ...
To cut a quite long story short, the Michelin rep made a very sensible business decision and pro-rated the tyre for a new one, with Michelin picking up the tab for the tyre, fitting and balancing.
Next set of tyres will be the Bridgestone Dueler A/T D697 ... A bit exxy, but cheaper than the Yokohama A/T, and apparently wear far better, and a heavier duty tyre all round.
Guy tried to tell me I had hit the kerb with it. I pointed out that it was on the inside of the tyre ...
Then he came up with another story. I was less than impressed. He had previously refused to give me the number for Michelin at Port Melbourne (as if it's a State secret ... ).
I'm one of those pedantic types who remembers every single object on the road, particularly if I have to drive over or near it. There were none.
Nothing was found in the tyre. My friend had leant his camera bag against it when I dropped him off at his place about 1.8 kms away, and it was fine then.
It was fine when I got home. Went out half an hour later to find it flat. The dealer reckoned it had been driven on while flat. I offered another possible explanation: that the tyre side wall had separated in normal use, causing the damage to the side wall, and causing the split as it blew out while sitting at the kerb. The bird's mouth tear was in the wrong direction for an object penetrating the tyre unless I had reversed over it at speed ...
He was totally unaware at this point that I had already arranged for the Michelin rep to meet me there that morning, and sure enough, he drove up as we were disagreeing to disagree ...
To cut a quite long story short, the Michelin rep made a very sensible business decision and pro-rated the tyre for a new one, with Michelin picking up the tab for the tyre, fitting and balancing.
Next set of tyres will be the Bridgestone Dueler A/T D697 ... A bit exxy, but cheaper than the Yokohama A/T, and apparently wear far better, and a heavier duty tyre all round.
Tweaksta
Senior Member
Crikey Ratbag, sounds like some shoddy service right there. I'd be miffed too.
I've heard good things about the D697s, they look good too. I'd like to get some but my XM2s are near new so I'll need to drive another 80,000km to wear them out....which isn't necessarily a bad thing :biggrin: - it'll just take a few years.
An extra set of rims for the A/Ts would be awesome but nowhere to store them for now.
I've heard good things about the D697s, they look good too. I'd like to get some but my XM2s are near new so I'll need to drive another 80,000km to wear them out....which isn't necessarily a bad thing :biggrin: - it'll just take a few years.
An extra set of rims for the A/Ts would be awesome but nowhere to store them for now.
Ratbag
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 7,474
- Location
- Bayside, Melbourne, Vic
- Car Year
- MY06, MY10
- Car Model
- Forester SG & SH
- Transmission
- 5MT/DR & 4EAT Sports
So have I, Tweak (about the D697s ... ).
NachaLuva
Product Developer
Do NOT get Duelers!!
If all you want is something that wears well they're fine. I f you want something with grip you'll be happy for the first 1000kms then the grip drops off as the rubber hardens, which is where they get their good wear.
The 1st thing I did when I got my Foz was to bin the near new Bridgestones & get some Yokohama Geolander ATs. Far better offroad, far better onroad (the Geo ATs were way better than Bridgestone HTs!!) esp in the wet. IMO there is no comparison!!
Plus the Geos are built better. I've given my tyres hell for nearly 40,000kms...no punctures, heaps of tread left.
If all you want is something that wears well they're fine. I f you want something with grip you'll be happy for the first 1000kms then the grip drops off as the rubber hardens, which is where they get their good wear.
The 1st thing I did when I got my Foz was to bin the near new Bridgestones & get some Yokohama Geolander ATs. Far better offroad, far better onroad (the Geo ATs were way better than Bridgestone HTs!!) esp in the wet. IMO there is no comparison!!
Plus the Geos are built better. I've given my tyres hell for nearly 40,000kms...no punctures, heaps of tread left.
Tweaksta
Senior Member
Thanks for the interesting opinions on the tyres Nacha, I'm always keen to hear unbiased and real world tales of everyone's experiences with tyres (and any other parts of a Foz we like to replace :ebiggrin
.
Kevin
Administrator
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,148
- Location
- Sydney, Oz
- Car Year
- MY'03
- Car Model
- Forester
- Transmission
- A/T
Some club members run D697 and have nothing but good things to say about them. I found the original Yoko ATs were crap having lost 6 of 11 tyres to sidewall damage - which is why I changed to BFG AT, but as we know - things do change and people are now having a good run with Yoko AT/S
NachaLuva
Product Developer
IMO (in my opinion) Bridgestones are crap tyres, hence why I call them "Crapstones".
This is my opinion...
There is one other member on here who has had a bad experience with the new Yokis but others like myself are very happy. Interesting you say the originals didnt seem to be very good
This is my opinion...
There is one other member on here who has had a bad experience with the new Yokis but others like myself are very happy. Interesting you say the originals didnt seem to be very good
MiddleAgeSubie
Forum Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 990
- Location
- AZ
- Car Year
- 2018 / 2008
- Car Model
- 4Runner / Tribeca
- Transmission
- 5EAT
As for my Yoko AT-S, alignment has caused premature wear, but other than that I have had no issues. Great in dirt, good on road, good in rain, just ok in rocks--but no punctures so far. What is that I do not like? Their looks...loved the Toyo AT on the B9. But the Geolanders are great all around tires, in my experience. I hope to learn about wear unaffected by alignment in the near future!
Tweaksta
Senior Member
From what I can gather from people's perceptions is that the D697s are "pretty good" mostly except for Nacha's bad experience with them which has been noted.
Some of the guys at work are running them on their 4wd utes and they have mostly been good with one person reporting a puncture about a year ago.
Like Kevin, I still need to be convinced that Yokohama are building better A/Ts. It is a proven fact that the old Yokos were a shortcut to poverty. I for one, can't afford to be buying new tyres every time I go offroad. From several members here (and by searching) I've been hearing that the new Yokos are much better which is good to know and worth bearing in mind.......
Am I chasing fairies trying to find an A/T tyre that will last 80,000km like the XM2s do?
How about BFGs and Coopers?
Surely something out there must be as indestructible as what the big 4x4s have access to...
Some of the guys at work are running them on their 4wd utes and they have mostly been good with one person reporting a puncture about a year ago.
Like Kevin, I still need to be convinced that Yokohama are building better A/Ts. It is a proven fact that the old Yokos were a shortcut to poverty. I for one, can't afford to be buying new tyres every time I go offroad. From several members here (and by searching) I've been hearing that the new Yokos are much better which is good to know and worth bearing in mind.......
Am I chasing fairies trying to find an A/T tyre that will last 80,000km like the XM2s do?
How about BFGs and Coopers?
Surely something out there must be as indestructible as what the big 4x4s have access to...
Kevin
Administrator
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,148
- Location
- Sydney, Oz
- Car Year
- MY'03
- Car Model
- Forester
- Transmission
- A/T
Though Nacha's experience was with HT not AT.
Nothing is "indestructible"; I got an Old Ghan rail spike side-wall tear on a BFG muddy on the Triton when out there mid-year. I'm happy with the BFG AT on the Foz; I'd most likely run D697 but I think they may not be aggressive enough in mud i.e. very little side blocks compared to BFG AT. One club member has run Bridgestone AT for many years and has never had a puncture.
Nothing is "indestructible"; I got an Old Ghan rail spike side-wall tear on a BFG muddy on the Triton when out there mid-year. I'm happy with the BFG AT on the Foz; I'd most likely run D697 but I think they may not be aggressive enough in mud i.e. very little side blocks compared to BFG AT. One club member has run Bridgestone AT for many years and has never had a puncture.
ateday
Forum Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2014
- Messages
- 982
- Car Year
- 2002
- Car Model
- MY03 Forester
- Transmission
- 5 sp manual, 1.59 LR
I`ve tried Coopers, 4 of them, 215X60X16.
Three tread ply separation and the fourth developed a circular crack about 4 cms in from where tyre meets rim. All still with plenty of tread left.
Coopers didn`t want to know about it.
Wouldn`t touch them ever again.
Have heard no complaints at all about BFGs except not in 215X65X16.
Three tread ply separation and the fourth developed a circular crack about 4 cms in from where tyre meets rim. All still with plenty of tread left.
Coopers didn`t want to know about it.
Wouldn`t touch them ever again.
Have heard no complaints at all about BFGs except not in 215X65X16.
NachaLuva
Product Developer
No not at all. Go for the hardest tyres with the least grip you can find in a LT construction & you can get that
This is a pet hate for me, people think you can get great grip AND great tyre wear...you can't! Its not possible. If you wish to redesign the laws of physics however lol... :lol:
Its very simple. The softer the tread compound, the more grip it has but the faster it wears. The harder the compound, the less grip it has but it wears slower.
Other factors come into it like construction (silica is by far the biggest advancement made in tyre technology) & tread pattern (esp on wet roads & snow), but that basic tenant cannot be overcome. It is true for every type of tyre made by every manufacturer on every car, truck, pushbike, motorbike, 4WD, 2WD, AWD, shopping cart, go cart, anything with rubber tyres
You need to decide...do you want a tyre that grips so you can stop safely when a little kid runs out in front of you on a wet road OR do you want tyres that will last 80,000kms. You CANNOT have both, no matter what anyone says!
BTW, consider this. If a set of tyres cost $1000 & lasts 4 years & 80,000kms, thats only $250 per year.
If it lasts 3 years & 60,000kms, thats only $333 per year.
By contrast, fuel is ~$3000 (20,000kms/yr at 10L/100km $1.50/L)
If you put tyre cost in perspective, its a minor cost. If you use hard wearing tyres with little grip, consider the emotional cost of hitting that little kid plus the financial cost of your lawyer. Or to be less dramatic, the excess when you hit another car
BFGs have a great reputation but are expensive and heavy (reduces fuel economy). Great offroad but not so good on wet roads.
Coopers have a 80,000km warranty, one reason I would NEVER get them! I want something with grip
There are a few people with them, Ateday isnt too happy with his...
Yes there are, but its always a trade off.
My Kuhmo muddies KUHMO ROAD VENTURE MT KL71 | are heavy duty LT construction but weigh a ton (~19kg) which saps economy & power. They are also like driving on ice if the roads are remotely wet
I only use them when I have toBFGs BFG - All Terrain T/A KO are rugged, Maxxis M8060 Trepador seem to be very solid
Remember, a lot of the big 4WDs dont care about handling. All they want is something that lasts forever and grips offroad. We have light nimble Subies. We have these for their great handling plus some offroad ability. Hard tyres will ruin their great handling as I notice everytime I put the muddies on
Last edited:
Ratbag
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 7,474
- Location
- Bayside, Melbourne, Vic
- Car Year
- MY06, MY10
- Car Model
- Forester SG & SH
- Transmission
- 5MT/DR & 4EAT Sports
Gidday NL
If you look at the Bridgestone D697 data sheets and sizes you will find that there are two types of this tyre. One has the suffix "LT", the other has the suffix "C". I would suggest that this might refer to differing applications such as Light Truck or Car ... .
The 215/65 16" is only offered with the suffix "C" ...
Other than that, it is an A/T type of tyre, with a load rating of 106 vs the 98 load rating for the Yokohama A/Ts, both in the same size - 215/65 16". The Yokohama has a higher speed rating - H vs S.
Many people here have reported Yokohamas wearing out in around 40-50K kms. This is very poor mileage for a very expensive tyre IMO.
With all due respect, you talk about safety. For on road use (which is about the only place this aspect has any relevance), none of the A/T tyres will compare with (say) Michelin XM2s or Bridgestone Potenza R002 tyres. It really depends on whether one plans to drive one's car like a racing car on the bitumen, or not. Unless one is driving right at the limit - in which case safety has already become irrelevant ... - almost any tyre that doesn't fall apart under its own weight is adequate to the task.
Do you really think that a tyre with an S speed rating is going to be totally unsafe on a bitumen road? I would suggest that this is unlikely to be the case these days. I mean, will a tyre that's "only" rated at 180 kmh (S) instead of 210 kmh (H) really be dangerous when fitted to our cars?
[EDIT]
BTW, let's get that speed in perspective. The S rating is 10 kmh faster than the maximum speed that my '93 Impreza could attain.
It's also about 40-50 kmh above the speed at which there is now mandatory, on the spot, loss of licence here in Victoria, IIRC ... Have to check the latest version of the Road Rules.
[end edit]
If you look at the Bridgestone D697 data sheets and sizes you will find that there are two types of this tyre. One has the suffix "LT", the other has the suffix "C". I would suggest that this might refer to differing applications such as Light Truck or Car ... .
The 215/65 16" is only offered with the suffix "C" ...
Other than that, it is an A/T type of tyre, with a load rating of 106 vs the 98 load rating for the Yokohama A/Ts, both in the same size - 215/65 16". The Yokohama has a higher speed rating - H vs S.
Many people here have reported Yokohamas wearing out in around 40-50K kms. This is very poor mileage for a very expensive tyre IMO.
With all due respect, you talk about safety. For on road use (which is about the only place this aspect has any relevance), none of the A/T tyres will compare with (say) Michelin XM2s or Bridgestone Potenza R002 tyres. It really depends on whether one plans to drive one's car like a racing car on the bitumen, or not. Unless one is driving right at the limit - in which case safety has already become irrelevant ... - almost any tyre that doesn't fall apart under its own weight is adequate to the task.
Do you really think that a tyre with an S speed rating is going to be totally unsafe on a bitumen road? I would suggest that this is unlikely to be the case these days. I mean, will a tyre that's "only" rated at 180 kmh (S) instead of 210 kmh (H) really be dangerous when fitted to our cars?
[EDIT]
BTW, let's get that speed in perspective. The S rating is 10 kmh faster than the maximum speed that my '93 Impreza could attain.
It's also about 40-50 kmh above the speed at which there is now mandatory, on the spot, loss of licence here in Victoria, IIRC ... Have to check the latest version of the Road Rules.
[end edit]
Last edited:
Venom
Forum Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 632
I really dislike tyre discussions. Recommendations based on punctures been one of my least favourites. I've had 1 puncture ever, doesn't mean anything other than I've had 1 puncture.
Tyre treads do not scale up/down the same. Your friends 275's might be amazing the equivalent 215's may not. Driving style. Use of the vehicle. Regularity and quality of car maintenance. Regularity and quality of wheel alignments. Tyre pressures (what pressure, is it adjusted for loads, how frequently and accurately is it checked). What tyre (brand, size, tread) have they come from/to. Sidewall construction variation amongst the same tread but varying with size (LT or C). Tyre compound. Tread depth (total and useable). General driving conditions varying with location for the opinion given.
Take the extact same tyres, two different cars. One poorly maintained and the tyres replaced prematurely because of sidewall wear hitting the indicator. Now take that same tyre on a well maintained car that gets driven down to the steel belts. The difference in mileage would (not could) be significant. Differences in the order of double the tyre life would not surprise me. I've seen a Volvo get 115,000km out of a set of Dunlop 3000a. Prior to that anything more than 45-50,000km would have impressed me.
The comments about Geolanders mileage. Which ones? The factory fit or the AT/S. Ok so assume they're accurate but all in relation to the factory fitted tyres, does that have any relevance whatsoever to the other Yokohamas? Maybe the factory fitted ones are a slightly different compound to give better handling out of the box?
Not sure I could find a grain of salt big enough, if i did it would be potentially life threatening to take.
Tyre treads do not scale up/down the same. Your friends 275's might be amazing the equivalent 215's may not. Driving style. Use of the vehicle. Regularity and quality of car maintenance. Regularity and quality of wheel alignments. Tyre pressures (what pressure, is it adjusted for loads, how frequently and accurately is it checked). What tyre (brand, size, tread) have they come from/to. Sidewall construction variation amongst the same tread but varying with size (LT or C). Tyre compound. Tread depth (total and useable). General driving conditions varying with location for the opinion given.
Take the extact same tyres, two different cars. One poorly maintained and the tyres replaced prematurely because of sidewall wear hitting the indicator. Now take that same tyre on a well maintained car that gets driven down to the steel belts. The difference in mileage would (not could) be significant. Differences in the order of double the tyre life would not surprise me. I've seen a Volvo get 115,000km out of a set of Dunlop 3000a. Prior to that anything more than 45-50,000km would have impressed me.
The comments about Geolanders mileage. Which ones? The factory fit or the AT/S. Ok so assume they're accurate but all in relation to the factory fitted tyres, does that have any relevance whatsoever to the other Yokohamas? Maybe the factory fitted ones are a slightly different compound to give better handling out of the box?
Not sure I could find a grain of salt big enough, if i did it would be potentially life threatening to take.
Tweaksta
Senior Member
I agree with NL's comment about Silica...(silica is by far the biggest advancement made in tyre technology) as I believe that one of the reasons the XM1s and XM2s are so durable is the inclusion of silica in the compound. This may also be the reason why they are not hard, un-grippy or dangerous. I have never lost traction going around a roundabout in the wet or doing an emergency brake. On twisty mountain roads I am constantly overtaking hot-hatches with no tyre squeal.
Since we are driving all-purpose vehicles in a variety of terrains and surfaces, our goal here is to find the best trade-off for OUR needs. It's not just black & white.
I spend about 25% of my kilometres on dirt roads, sand, mud, gibber and even clay. The only traction issues I have ever had were on wet clay and mud - hence my wish for something chunkier - but with the same durability - if it doesn't exist then I'm quite happy to stick with the XMs.
.......and yes Venom, you are dead right mate. How long is a piece of string?
Still, it's enlightening to hear everyone's anecdotes provided the truth hasn't been skewed.
All I can conclude from all of this is that if Michelin made A/Ts out of the same compound as the XMs they would be the perfect tyre for me.
Since we are driving all-purpose vehicles in a variety of terrains and surfaces, our goal here is to find the best trade-off for OUR needs. It's not just black & white.
I spend about 25% of my kilometres on dirt roads, sand, mud, gibber and even clay. The only traction issues I have ever had were on wet clay and mud - hence my wish for something chunkier - but with the same durability - if it doesn't exist then I'm quite happy to stick with the XMs.
.......and yes Venom, you are dead right mate. How long is a piece of string?
Still, it's enlightening to hear everyone's anecdotes provided the truth hasn't been skewed.
All I can conclude from all of this is that if Michelin made A/Ts out of the same compound as the XMs they would be the perfect tyre for me.
Last edited: