The Tyre Topic

[mit]

Aah, finally someone else who thinks budget and BMW shouldn't be used together.

Sadly on this forum that's all I ever see these days...

I just did a search for tyres out of curiosity. The price of Continental tyres for my car (19" wheels) is double what it is for 17" wheels where they become pretty much the same price as all the other makes, with about £10 per corner difference (hardly a big deal). So the answer really is to get smaller wheels if you're on a budget.

Edited March 15, 2013 by mit

[L333JSA]

Sadly people are more concerned about how nice their alloys look rather than how their tyres potentially perform so this is where they spend their hard earned cash!

[Proffitt]

I have Nangkang NS2's and for the money, they're great. Will defo get another set

[mjn]

Has the OP given a budget yet?

[john.med]

I agree with the earlier comments about wheel size. Often cars can perform better on smaller rims. AND you can afford to steer clear of ditch finders on a 16" rim. In a tyre I want good grip in wet/dry and longevity.

[Jay.]

I agree with the earlier comments about wheel size. Often cars can perform better on smaller rims. AND you can afford to steer clear of ditch finders on a 16" rim. In a tyre I want good grip in wet/dry and longevity.

I have to say, i disagree with the handling on a 16" rim with a baloon tyre, i felt the tyre sort of folding on itself when i pushed it round corners when they were fitted the other week.

I however strongly agree they perform well in all other areas & The fact tyres are like £0.02 per corner is highly tempting

[Jim27]

Despite what people think, the truth is that you can pick up a 330 coupe for as little as £1,500 if you don't mind high mileage. Not saying that it'll be a good example, but there you are. So there WILL be some owners for whom budget for tyres is a massive limitation. Other owners may not like it, but it's the reality and at least people are asking rather than just blundering ahead in ignorance. A wise man once said "the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance" - better that they know that they do not know and instead choose to ask, yes?

There will always be those people who will buy nothing but the top dollar tyres for their car.

There will always be those people who will buy nothing but the cheapest tyres for their car.

There will always be those people who do their research and compromise, normally in an attempt to save some money.

This is, for many on here it seems, an inconvenient truth. When I had my R32 Skyline GT-R I bought Falken 452s for it, and in that particular community they were seen as the pauper's tyre of choice. Here they're quite highly revered, so horses for courses.

Whilst I'll be the first to acknowledge that tyres are perhaps THE most important piece of safety equipment on your car, I'll also acknowledge that there is a minimum quality threshold that, once passed, the choice of tyre is going to be down to budget and personal choice, rather than necessity. What I mean by "minimum quality threshold" is that there ARE some cheap-ass tyres out there that split, blow out and deform, because they are SO poor. Once you get above this level, tyres should be considered rather than purchased in a "follow-the-herd" mentality.

Personally, I use my 330ci for motorway miles. I don't go hooning around A and B roads - I do 15-20,000 miles a year and use the car for business. As such my preference for a tyre is less performance-orientated and more about the cost/safety compromise for the type of driving I do. When looking at the wet grip and fuel economy ratings of the tyres. Wet grip is determined by a combination of tread pattern and the rubber compound hardness. For anyone who wants to get on their high horse and start preaching about cheaper tyres versus more expensive tyres, I first encourage you to look into the physics of how tyres actually work.

You will be hard pushed to find a tyre with a good wet grip rating as well as a good fuel consumption rating. The two are effectively inversely proportional (with some exceptions pertaining to more expensive and technologically-advanced compounds that I'll cover a bit later). When a tyre tread rolls down into contact with a wet surface, the pressure on it "squishes" the tyre (notice the tyres sit wider at the bottom than the top due to the pressure on them). This causes the water dispersing channels of the tread to compress, changing the channel shape from narrow and deep to wider and shallower. This expands the volume of the tread channel, and because it is in contact with the wet road surface, this effectively "sucks" the water up off the road surface, leaving the outer surface of the tyre then free to contact the road surface directly. The water, now sucked into the tread patter, is pulled off the road surface as the wheel rotates, and when that part of the tyre breaks contact with the road surface the pressure on the tyre is relieved, the tread channel returns to it's normal "unsquished" shape and the water is expelled from the tread to the rear of the tyre. This is why you get spray off tyres on wet roads.

The softer the rubber compound, the better the "squish", leading to better water displacement.

Conversely, softer rubber adheres to the road surface better than harder rubber. This means that the tyres that have the best wet grip will also create more friction (also referred to as traction) between the tyre and the road, which is also referred to as DRAG. This impacts negatively on fuel economy, hence the normal inverse relationship between wet grip and fuel economy.

For that basis my preference for a tyre for my own type of driving is one with a respectable wet grip rating and a low fuel economy rating.

If you want to know what a tyre with a good fuel economy rating feels like then I recommend you go test drive a BlueMotion VW Polo or Golf in the wet and see ust how much grip those tyres have on a wet corner. Take spare underpants and a first aid kit though.

The Nankang NS-2s I chose to replace the knackered Khumo Ecstas that were on the car when I bought it have a wet grip rating of C. This isn't the best rating but it's the same as Bridgetsone Potenza RE050s (£200+ a corner), Dunlop Sport Maxx (£170+ a corner), Toyo Proxes T1 (£150) and Vredestein Ultrac Sessanta (£130+ a corner), to name but a few.

True, there are some tyres out there that have high wet grip AND fuel economy ratings, but these all tend to be because they use far more technologically advanced rubber compounds that have a good "squish" capacity without the molecules of the tyre rubber liquifying too readily under pressure/heat (yes, the physics around tyres AND brake discs is that the molecules on the surface liquify at the point of contact due to the energy exchanged through them by virtue of the heat//pressure - this is how disc and tyres wear out, more so with heavy use). The rubber technology to produce these more advanced compounds is certainly a good thing, but it hoiks the price up too and for some people who perhaps don't use their car "to the extreme" this level of performance is overkill, hence a ore "economy" tyre is perfectly acceptable.

It's just as wrong to buy the cheapest piece-of-s**t tyre you can buy, just because it's the cheapest. Just as equally wrong as buying the most expensive tyres because they "must be the best because they're the most expensive".

But there's nothing wrong with understanding how and what you drive and buying the most cost-effective tyre that are suitable, which is what I *think* some members on here are looking to do. I equally think that some people are wrong to criticise them in a Pavlov's Dog-type kneejerk reaction when the words "budget" and "tyres" are used in the same sentence.

So long as people know what they've got fitted to their wheels and recognise the potential limitations of them, then that's far more important than shelling out more pound notes on one single tyre than some people could want, or can afford, to spend on a pair of tyres, or even a full set of four. With due consideration to the tyre choice, it's the driver and their temperament, their driving style and their ability that is by far and away the biggest factor in deciding if their car is going to end up sideways/backwards/upside-down/inside-out through a hedge rather than what tyres they have on their wheels.

That's in my humble opinion, anyway.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Jim27

[john.med]

I have to say, i disagree with the handling on a 16" rim with a baloon tyre, i felt the tyre sort of folding on itself when i pushed it round corners when they were fitted the other week.

I however strongly agree they perform well in all other areas & The fact tyres are like £0.02 per corner is highly tempting

Yeah I can see your point Jay, I was referring (all be it not clearly) to my old car. It came with 17s on it, with low profiles. I got the stock wheels and OEM tyre and the car was transformed.

I've never had a larger tyre on my e36 or e46. They did come with larger wheels as standard so I can well believe you.

[mit]

That is a nice summary, Jim27

But I think you'll find that in general, expensive tyres have better compounds than cheap tyres, and it's easier to take advantage of the general correlation between overall tyre performance and price and use that to explain why someone shouldn't buy cheap tyres than it is to write that summary every time.

But it is beautifully written and nice to see more people with a clue on the forum

Edited March 15, 2013 by mit

[L333JSA]

But I think you'll find that in general, expensive tyres have better compounds than cheap tyres, and it's easier to take advantage of the general correlation between overall tyre performance and price and use that to explain why someone shouldn't buy cheap tyres than it is to write that summary every time.

You'd like to think this was the case.......but I've found Dunlops to be shocking in the wet compared to Pirellis or Bridgestones.

Yet my Dunlop slick wets on my Clio track car are absolutely phenomenal!

[mit]

Only a general correlation, of course there will be exceptions like there are to pretty much every generalisation

[Jim27]

Cheap CHEAP tyres have quality issues rather than performance issues. Delamination of the tread, splits/bursts etc. These are the real reason to avoid the cheapest of cheap, but similarly once you get past those and into the range of tyres that will not, in all likelihood, experience significant and sudden failure, there is then an upper echelon of tyres that, IMHO, represent diminishing return for extra ££ spent. What I mean is that the difference perhaps between a £150 tyre and a £50 tyre may well be pronounced and worth the extra £100. But I do not feel that the difference between that £150 tyre and then a £250 tyre (for road use) is similarly pronounced and obvious. I therefore also question whether the additional value added by the extra £100 is worth it as clearly as the £100 spent to go from £50 to £150.

Yes the newer compounds are higher performance in terms of combining fuel economy with wet grip but there is a point on the upwards price curve where each person will feel that they are happy with the balance of the tyre's overall performance and it's cost. But the reality is that the quality of the tyre does not neccessarily ncrease progressively in direct proportion with the price tag. Tyre manufacturers are commercial businesses - they'll charge whatever they think they can get away with, irrespective (to some degree) of the actual product. It's why you pay more for a VW over a Skoda or Seat. More for a Jag than a Mondeo. There is a point where the extra cost isn't really buying extra value - it's more psychological than anything.

[L333JSA]

Cheap CHEAP tyres have quality issues rather than performance issues.

Trust me.....they have both types of issues in abundance!

[mit]

it's more psychological than anything.

I agree with you to an extent. It's a bit like the peace of mind you get from changing your oil more often than you need to

[Jay.]

I don't know how... But I just managed to bag 4 matching continental conti sport contact 2's with 6.5mm on all four for £170! Amazed!

[Daz 330 Cs]

You'd like to think this was the case.......but I've found Dunlops to be shocking in the wet compared to Pirellis or Bridgestones.

I have Dunlop SP Sports and find them excellent in all conditions.

As others have said though, Bmw & budget shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. If you can't afford quality rubber, you can't afford to run a Bmw

[Jim27]

...If you can't afford quality rubber, you can't afford to run a Bmw

Given that I bought my 330ci in August and in 7 months have had to replace the clutch, flywheel, release bearing, starter motor, front brake discs, front brake pads, LPG vaporiser, main auxiliary drive belt and tensioner, air filter, air intake housing plastics, and all four tyres....

I *USED* to be able to afford quality rubber *UNTIL* I bought a BMW!!! FPMSL

[mit]

lol

[Daz 330 Cs]

Oh bugger, that's some expense right there

[SamN]

Haven't read the whole thread but a couple of bits. Agree with the general statement that tyres are the only thing holding you to the road so wouldn't go for ditch finders personally.

Unless they're on the rear... That's just more tail happy fun.

By the way some people have said not to put budget tyres on a 330 though, makes a 330 out to be a super car!! Sorry to break it to you but they're hardly what a lot of people would class as a fast car.. Nippy enough though!

Edited March 15, 2013 by SamN

[Jim27]

Definitely. It's pokey sure, but it's no animal on the modern roads. Plus don't forget it has ABS, traction control and umpteen electrical safety system to boot. In my old Cerbera the only safety equipment you had was a brake pedal and a seatbelt And that was a 4.2 litre V8 in a car made out of plastic that weighed bugger all more than a tonne! When you bought the car new TVR gave you the option of having a "power limiter" fitted at the factory "in case you might want to let your wife drive it". This factory-fitted option was actually a block of wood fixed to the underside of the accelerator...

[B9SLJ]

Ive got matadors on rear of my touring 265 30 19 an cant complain really,had em on 3 months, grip seems fine in all conditions, at 75 quid each didnt expect much but pleasantly surprised, grippier an quieter than nankangs i had on before em .

[Chris330]

I don't think that's anything to be proud of I'm afraid mate........in my experience of them they are shocking!

What was your experience? Seem grippy, good in the rain so far thought they were a great price.

Each to there own but for me I have not had any issues with budget tyres, im not planning to go on the track and as long as I get good performance in the rain then thats fine for me as I doubt I will ever be pushing them to the limit on the roads

[sive s]

You'd like to think this was the case.......but I've found Dunlops to be shocking in the wet compared to Pirellis or Bridgestones.

Yet my Dunlop slick wets on my Clio track car are absolutely phenomenal!

+1, about Dunlops being crap on wet roads

had it on the 16 alloys i had, they were really bad

[Ginger]

Our cars when new were between 20 and 40k. Yes they have depreciated over the years, but the running costs will not depreciate in direct proportion with that.

I would say tyres need to be the best you can realistically afford. If you're a city banker, go for the best performing tyre, as you can afford it!

Not everyone is flushed though, so it really is relative to budget vs comprise. The op really needs to say his budget. As if its £200 then we know the type of tyres (new ones) that he will be buying, won't be that wonderful.