Mazda & Michelin recommends 205/60VR15 V rated for the BBS vert wheels, but of course H rated Michelins came on my convertible.

Most shops recommend H rated for the warrantee and decent mileage. From what I understand:

H - 30-40K miles (is 35K they're bald)
V - 20-30K miles (i.e. 22K they're bald)

Is V rated really necessary to keep the tires from warping/wearing wrong?? My commute is 55mi/day, so more tread life is good. Max speed on the H rated is 118MPH @ 32PSI, 124MPH @ 33.5PSI, and 130MPH @ 35PSI. The vert tops out at 140MPH, but I don't go that fast very often (ya think).

ANYONE SWTICHED FROM H TO Vs?? If so, notice any differences (besides the treadwear going faster).

You WON'T FIND $75 tires here. Check these prices out.



What's funny is the "performance" tires are cheaper than the "luxury" ones.

 

I thought the only difference in the speed rating was the top speed capability? but I could be wrong.

 

grip is the main difference between H and V rated. It's supposively a "class up." There's even H, W, R, V, and Z rated tires.

I'm guessing a score of "7" in grip for Vs would be "3" in Z rated tires or such.

 

so that's why my Z rated tires were so grippy!

 

So is Mazda nuts recommending V rated for the convertible or is there a REALLY GOOD reason to to go with Vs?

 

Vaughnc, those are speed ratings, they having NOTHING to do with how grippy or not grippy they are. That is only a measure of how fast the tire is capable of being driven without coming apart.

A more common measure is the UTQG rating, with Traction and Treadwear being more indicative of a tire's grip.. The lower the treadwear, generally the softer and grippier the rubber used. The higher the traction rating (AA, A, B, C), the better as well.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/tiretech.htm

PaulC

 

And as for a decent street tire, I like the Kumho Supra 712s, 67$ each for a 205/55/15VR from Tire rack.. I'd rather go with the MX, but they don't have them in your size.

PaulC

 

The biggest indicator of a tire's ultimate grip and tread life IMHO is the treadwear rating.

If you want a long-life tire that's still decent, get around a 300ish treadwear. You want something grippy and fun, get 200 or lower.

Tires are cheap enough that I prefer to get something nice and grippy - hell, you're even buying for 15" rims, tires that small are cheap!

Some recommendations on 205/60/15's -

Yokohama AVS intermediates - 160 treadwear, grip like CRAZY, not the best tread life - $43/tire

Sumitomo HTR 200 - 380 treadwear, great life and wet grip, $45/tire.

For $200 you can have a full set of tires - that's DAMN cheap.

BTW, this is all from http://www.tirerack.com - the ONLY place to buy tires.

Dale

 

Wow, so why is Michelin so much more expensive? Even $125-$135 at tire rack. Makes me wonder if I've been getting ripped these last few years. Or are the Kumho and Yokohama's only good for 50% of their treadlife - then it's uneven wear and no traction.

Tires never wear evenly after 60% of their treadlife is gone.

Thanks for the link Silkworm and the tire recommendations dcfc3s.

$35 for shippings pretty sweet as well. Now I know why people get Z rated tires all the time

 

I am currently running Michelin ENERGYs on my vert. The traction in the wet is SOOOOO much better than my old tires (whatever mazda originally put on it), and dry traction is noticeably increased, as well.

I have only had the tires for about 8K miles, so I do not know what their treadlife is, but I am very happy with them. 205/60R15 V rated.

 

mine are W rated 168mph. toyo t1-s

those speed ratings are for substained speed though. like holding it there for 30+ mins before they start to melt.... any tire can take high speed for a short time. but the higher the rating, the more stable it will be

 

the speed rating is the heat rating...faster you go, hotter the tires are gonna get.

 

Michelins are just more expensive...because .

The Yokes are on closeout - they're discontinuing the line. That's why they're dirt cheap right now.

IMHO, most of the problems I've seen with uneven treadwear are related to poor alignments and running improper air pressures. But, hell, tires are so damn cheap if they start lookin' at you funny get some new ones!

Anyhow, you'll be happy with either of those setups.

Dale

 

rephrase .....

As tires wear, the tires loose grip and the rear tires "round" and fronts stay square. When you rotate your tires, suddenly you have no front traction and too much traction in the rear.

I've been runing 32 PSI and the middle & corners wears faster than the outside of the tire. You'd think I overinflate or something.

 

I've gone through my fair share of Dunlop SP8000's - always had even wear across the carcass, right down to the wear bars.

I usually buy tires in twos - put the two new tires in the back, and the back tires on the front. When the fronts get to the wear bars, get two more tires, repeat .

You may have too much negative camber in the rear - it's a common problem on 'verts. The heavier car with old suspension quickly makes some negative camber.

Dale

 

just to rephrase what is on that tire tech page for those who didn't check it out... and I found this kind of odd a couple years ago when I started looking into it. A Z rated tire is rated LOWER than a W or Y tire. V and Z are both rated 149, but the Z adds a 149+ mph, meaning it should be able to go higher than the V, but not much. The W is 168 and Y is 186.
The speed rating doesn't tell you how "grippy" the tire is. The tread compound does that. The speed rating has more to do with the "internals" of the tire (just so I don't use technical terms and confuse myself here). The bands on the inside have ALOT of forces when you get them spinning fast (centrifugal force), and that's why alot of people blow tires doing burnouts. Some of it is wearing away the rubber, and alot of it is the heat making more pressure and the speed making centrifugal force. All of those are basically trying to rip the tire outwards, so you get the impressive tire blow out. Sorry for the lengthy post, just thought I'd add my 4 or 5 cents.

 

I have to agree with Dale, you can't go wrong with the Yoko AVS Intermediates. I have had two pairs of them and they are awesome tires. That is what I am currently running on my TII at the moment.

The tire that I wish Yokohama still made was the Nexxus, that was a hella bad *** tire, I think the tread wear rating was something like 80 or so. But those suckers would grip like you wouldn't believe. I ran those on my NA till there was no tread left and they gripped just as good as the day I put them on. Could still take the 270 degree off ramps at 70 or so.

The biggest thing that I want in a tire is predictability, so I know just how the tire is going to handle in the same situation everytime.

 

I just got a decent deal on a set of General xp2000's. They are a V rated tire, directional and assymetrical. They are narrow for a 225- only a little wider than most 205's, but they fit up front. MAN are these things amazing on the highway!! The car feels like it's riding on rails!
MUCH smoother and more controlled when doing 140+.
No comparison to the no-name 205's I had before.
Tranformed the whole damn car! I feel like doin 140 all day long!
Havn't had a chance to drive it in the wet yet.

 

dcfc3s,

Hmm... 108K on the suspension, but the shocks still work very nicely. I had an allignment done when I had 2 tires put on, and the car was ROCK SOLID. Then I rotated the tires 9K miles later and - UGG. They loose grip every time you hit a bump, but corner well. Sounds like uneven wear to me

 

I switched from H to V. Wore those out, put H's back on, and quickly switched to V's again. The one "feel" difference that I noticed was that the sidewalls on the V rated tires were much stiffer. The steering response and turn in were much crisper. It might have given up a bit of the shock absorbtion through the tires but who cares. I gained a much better level of grip.

I went from H rated A510's, to V rated A520's. Love the 520's - and the wear numbers are the same for both 180.

 

If you really have the original shocks and springs, I'll bet you the rear shocks are blown out. I've replaced shocks and springs on at least 20 second gens, and EACH one had rear shocks that were gone. There's varying levels - some were totally free-wheeling, some you could push in but wouldn't come back out, etc.

I would highly recommend at least new shocks on your car. Even getting the alignment checked, the shop might not bother looking at the rear camber since they can't adjust it.

Dale

 

Getting adj. coilovers on the TII soon, which has 145K on the original springs. If I see a huge improvement over stock, then I'll probably do the same on the convertible.

The vert rides smooth, but does seem to be hitting every bump lately. Also the convertible sits like 2" lower than my turbo II - go figure.