Passenger All-Weather Tires with 3PMSF aka "4season" tires discussion

snwbrdr

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Posts
91
Location
CA
What’s the Goodyear Vector tire in the US?

The Michelin Cross Climate+ did better than the Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady in wet. Look at the tread pattern, the CrossClimate just looks like it would be better getting water out.







Michelin CrossClimate+


Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady
But also look at the winter test that TireRack also conducted.

Michelin introduced the cross climate 2, that gets a UTQG traction rating decrease to a B, but some more aggressive siping in the center of the tread.
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,218
Possibly Goodyear don't do the Vector in the US? Seems daft that in 3 generations they wouldn't while Michelin are marketing the hell out of Crossclimates



A climate thing with only the NW really able to replicate European seasonal weather?
 

snwbrdr

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Posts
91
Location
CA
Possibly Goodyear don't do the Vector in the US? Seems daft that in 3 generations they wouldn't while Michelin are marketing the hell out of Crossclimates



A climate thing with only the NW really able to replicate European seasonal weather?
Mid Atlantic states can replicate Central European weather. Central European winter tires are known as "Performance Winter tires" to us yanks. They trade max snow and ice grip of the Nordic studless winter tires for better road grip for dry-cold and wet-cold conditions, but can still deal with snow and ice, but not to the same degree as nordic winter tires

Nokian WR G3 and G4 start life as a central european winter tire
 

Jwrags

Aka pwdrhnd
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
869
Location
Portlandia
I have read through this thread and it applies to my circumstances. I have a 2013 Toyota Highlander Hybrid that needs new tires. On the past it had the factory provided AT tires which is what I replaced them with. In looking for new tires I doubt I will own this car long enough to put on another set of tires after this. I do not want dedicated snows as I don’t drive in snow that often. Since we are planning a ski road trip this year I thought perhaps tires in this category would work well. However, more important than snow performance is wet driving performance since I live in Oregon. If the snow conditions are too bad I can put on the chains. Quiet tires are nice too.
I have zeroed in on the GY Assurance WeatherReady and the Michelin Cross Climate 2. Looking for thoughts and recommendations. Thanks.
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
1,855
Location
SF Bay Area
I have read through this thread and it applies to my circumstances. I have a 2013 Toyota Highlander Hybrid that needs new tires. On the past it had the factory provided AT tires which is what I replaced them with. In looking for new tires I doubt I will own this car long enough to put on another set of tires after this. I do not want dedicated snows as I don’t drive in snow that often. Since we are planning a ski road trip this year I thought perhaps tires in this category would work well. However, more important than snow performance is wet driving performance since I live in Oregon. If the snow conditions are too bad I can put on the chains. Quiet tires are nice too.
I have zeroed in on the GY Assurance WeatherReady and the Michelin Cross Climate 2. Looking for thoughts and recommendations. Thanks.
I don't think you are going to go wrong, since you're driving a 7year old SUV it's all going to work and be effective with these latest and greatest tires; but if you want to split hairs for the best current choice:

Between these two, I'd probably go with the Michelin CrossClimate2 as the better choice for the main following reason
  • CrossClimate2 is just a released as a brand new tire (replacing crossclimate 1 and plus) , so it's should have all the latest improvements baked in; vs the WeatherReady which is not a new tire. CC2 is what Michelin is bringing to battle for at least next few years against against what the rest of the market brings.
Since you said you might not be owning this car too long, you seem like you are indicating you're willing to make the tradeoff for the "better tire" over long lasting tires
  • Pricewise it is about a wash.
    From a generic specs analysis on tirerack (although you are better served when customer reviews come out),
  • CC2 it is a V rated tire tire over the Weather Ready H Rating, so indicates it is biased more towards performance
  • CC2 is 31lbs vs 35lbs, so is more performance oriented
  • 640 UTQG vs 740 UTGQ. While you cannot compare UTQG across brands, the 740 UTGQ on the GY is extremely high which means it maybe focused on longevity rather than better performance.

Personally, my perspective is to not just treat driving and car as a strict appliance and optimize costs. I treat tires as a consumable rather than just a requirement, so I change them early to enjoy a better driving experience with fresh rubber even though the old tires are still "usable". It is the same as treating yourself to a new pair of skis every few years even though your old ones are perfectly serviceable but unremarkable.
 
Last edited:

snwbrdr

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Posts
91
Location
CA
But, the CC2
I don't think you are going to go wrong, since you're driving a 7year old SUV it's all going to work and be effective with these latest and greatest tires; but if you want to split hairs for the best current choice:

Between these two, I'd probably go with the Michelin CrossClimate2 as the better choice for the main following reason
  • CrossClimate2 is just a released as a brand new tire (replacing crossclimate 1) , so it's should have all the latest improvements baked in; vs the WeatherReady which is not a new tire. CC2 is what Michelin is bringing to battle for at least next few years against against what the rest of the market brings.
Since you said you might not be owning this car too long, you seem like you are indicating you're willing to make the tradeoff for the "better tire" over long lasting tires
  • Pricewise it is about a wash.
    From a generic specs analysis on tirerack (although you are better served when customer reviews come out),
  • CC2 it is a V rated tire tire over the Weather Ready H Rating, so indicates it is biased more towards performance
  • CC2 is 31lbs vs 35lbs, so is more performance oriented
  • 640 UTQG vs 740 UTGQ. While you cannot compare UTQG across brands, the 740 UTGQ on the GY is extremely high which means it maybe focused on longevity rather than better performance.

Personally, my perspective is to not just treat driving and car as a strict appliance and optimize costs. I treat tires as a consumable rather than just a requirement, so I change them early to enjoy a better driving experience with fresh rubber even though the old tires are still "usable". It is the same as treating yourself to a new pair of skis every few years even though your old ones are perfectly serviceable but unremarkable.
But the CC2 braking friction got downgraded to a "B" rating.
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
1,855
Location
SF Bay Area
But the CC2 braking friction got downgraded to a "B" rating.
Yea I saw that, but the temp rating drop is not a dealbreaker in my book, you're making tradeoffs with these 4season tires. Remember with true winter tires you don't even get grades at all; so you make tradeoffs in performance tires such as softer or lighter tire will heat up more.

With a premium brand and basically a flagship tire model, you have to make an assumption that they've optimized and purposefully made this tradeoff; and the lower rating gained a lot more elsewhere.
If this CC2 tire heats up more than the CC+/CC1 when you're going 100mph, but they made it half as loud, and has better performance (softer friction rubber); that's an acceptable OK tradeoff in my book.

If a tire rating was low for some no-name tire; and you got nothing in return from that tradeoff other than price; and it's just low just because it's a cheap crappy tire, there I'd completely agree with you.
 
Last edited:

snwbrdr

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Posts
91
Location
CA
Yea I saw that, but the temp rating drop is not a dealbreaker in my book, you're making tradeoffs with these 4season tires. Remember with true winter tires you don't even get grades at all; so you make tradeoffs in performance tires such as softer or lighter tire will heat up more.

If this CC2 tire heats up more than the CC+ when you're going 100mph, but they made it half as loud, and has better performance (softer friction rubber); that's an acceptable OK tradeoff in my book.
If a tire rating was low but you got nothing in return from that tradeoff; and it's just low just because it's a cheap crappy tire, then I'd completely agree with you.
It's not a temperature rating that dropped, it's the traction rating for braking on wet concrete and wet asphalt surfaces

ie 640 B A. The first letter, B is the (wet) traction rating, the second letter, A, is the temperature rating.

GradeAsphalt G-forceConcrete G-force
AAabove .54.38
Aabove .47.35
Babove .38.26
Cless than .38.26

Also certain sizes are H-speed rated and others are V-speed rated
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
1,855
Location
SF Bay Area
You're absolutely right, I misread the order.
I think I still stand by my analysis. If having traction A rating is a requirement for you, then you can write this tire off.
But as the flagship model, I will assume they have traded this for better performance elsewhere (perhaps the winter performance) and not just for cost savings

The tirerack real world test seems to show that it made it through the wet track better than regular Allseason tires that have "A" traction ratings though so maybe the rating doesn't mean too much anymore in the real world. :huh:
 
Last edited:

Ogg

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Posts
1,368
Location
Long Island, NY
It's not a temperature rating that dropped, it's the traction rating for braking on wet concrete and wet asphalt surfaces

ie 640 B A. The first letter, B is the (wet) traction rating, the second letter, A, is the temperature rating.

GradeAsphalt G-forceConcrete G-force
AAabove .54.38
Aabove .47.35
Babove .38.26
Cless than .38.26

Also certain sizes are H-speed rated and others are V-speed rated
Are those letter ratings actually based on testing or are they a more arbitrary rating based on tread pattern like the M+S rating?
 

snwbrdr

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Posts
91
Location
CA
Are those letter ratings actually based on testing or are they a more arbitrary rating based on tread pattern like the M+S rating?
It's testing.

M+S is is just a minimum requirement for Tread to Void ratio, iirc 80:20. Which is meaningless for snow performance.
 

neohio

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Posts
7
Location
ohio
You're absolutely right, I misread the order.
I think I still stand by my analysis. If having traction A rating is a requirement for you, then you can write this tire off.
But as the flagship model, I will assume they have traded this for better performance elsewhere (perhaps the winter performance) and not just for cost savings

The tirerack real world test seems to show that it made it through the wet track better than regular Allseason tires that have "A" traction ratings though so maybe the rating doesn't mean too much anymore in the real world. :huh:
im on the fence between cross climate 2 and firestone weathergrip for my Honda Pilot. I dont want a dedicated winter tire. I just want the best all-weather tire for snow. There isnt really much data about the CC2 (or as pointed out, it seems a little inconsistent re: wet braking friction). CC2 is around $830 OTD with a recent Michelin $150 discount at Coscto. [email protected] is almost sold out everywhere due to high demand and the factory being lmiited due to covid. Seems like I can get the Firestone weathergrip for around $700 at Discount Tire. The only review I could find is the following:

Do you think the CC2 is worth the extra $100-ish? is the difference in snow performance going top be nominal? or really worth it?
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
1,855
Location
SF Bay Area
Those answers are all up to you and you need to make your own metric on whst you like and what values are important to you. I mean you drive a honda pilot man, so you're not out to win any races, what you value is clearly different from anybody else's values and your own personal choices.
End of the day, its just a minor choice betwewn some premium tires and some money, both are rated well so its again splitting hairs and tradeoffs. It's not a binary black and white decision where one is an obvious win, and the other you will die in a horrible death, but a nuanced answer. Read the reviews and just get some idea. Ultimately there are some unknowns that you either have to accept as being unknown as a new tire.

My 2cents though on that car engineer link though, is all they did was aggregate data they found on the internet and have done zero actual "reviewing" so take it with a grain of salt they are just an opinion on the internet (just like my 2cent opinion) and not a review. They seem like just millenial kids who are fairly competent with new media, and reminds me of kids science fair experient that aren't really "experiments" but just a book report copying and summarizing info from the book (or i guess google/wikipedia these days). So none of their site I see has any actual engineering. Not that there is anything inherently different about new media vs old media, but it has an even higher tendency to be heavily manipulatible and biased to whichever company is able to do the best marketing job to improve their internet standing and resonate in an echo chamber to be on "best" list.
 
Last edited:

neohio

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Posts
7
Location
ohio
Those answers are all up to you and you need to make your own metric on whst you like and what values are important to you. I mean you drive a honda pilot man, so you're not out to win any races, what you value is clearly different from anybody else's values and your own personal choices.
End of the day, its just a minor choice betwewn some premium tires and some money, both are rated well so its again splitting hairs and tradeoffs. It's not a binary black and white decision where one is an obvious win, and the other you will die in a horrible death, but a nuanced answer. Read the reviews and just get some idea. Ultimately there are some unknowns that you either have to accept as being unknown as a new tire.

My 2cents though on that car engineer link though, is all they did was aggregate data they found on the internet and have done zero actual "reviewing" so take it with a grain of salt they are just an opinion on the internet (just like my 2cent opinion) and not a review. They seem like just millenial kids who are fairly competent with new media, and reminds me of kids science fair experient that aren't really "experiments" but just a book report copying and summarizing info from the book (or i guess google/wikipedia these days). So none of their site I see has any actual engineering. Not that there is anything inherently different about new media vs old media, but it has an even higher tendency to be heavily manipulatible and biased to whichever company is able to do the best marketing job to improve their internet standing and resonate in an echo chamber to be on "best" list.
Actually, I made a mistake on the pricing. Its only a $30 difference, which doesnt mean much given your comments above about Michelin having the most state of the art tire. The Costco price ($827 OTD) seems like a steal right now for such a premium tire. Any thoughts on the 60000 versus 65000 mile wear difference? Im thinking that's nominal and leaning to try the Michelin since they are almost sold out in my area. I bought the last set in my area (although I can always return them before install). Like you said, im assuming its just splitting hairs at this point. Wish I had seen the Firestone sooner as I probably would have leaned toward those given the extra 5k mile difference. Just not sure its worth the wait now for the Firestone tires to be ordered and installed. Analysis paralysis....haha
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
1,855
Location
SF Bay Area
i actually would prefer the tire with lower rated mileage warranty so a presumption that the 65k is a positive and better than 60k is not always true for all buyers. For myself I'd even go as far as to actively avoid tires with very high mileage ratings. But again what I value is different from what you value.
 
Last edited:

neohio

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Posts
7
Location
ohio
i actually would prefer the tire with lower rated mileage warranty. For myself I'd even actively avoid tires with very high mileage ratings. But again what I value is different from what you value.
Just of curiosity, why do you have that preference?

In the end, I just want a great tire for the winter (thats my biggest value want)
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
1,855
Location
SF Bay Area
I prefer higher performance tires and don't want a tire that traded off performance to solely have long tread life. I think my last have all been from the highperformance /ultra category and like 40 or 45k on the "warranty" and even so I change them at 30k or so even before they were fully worn.

I mean 60k is like 6years for me. I can afford to waste money on tires sooner than that, and in the grand scheme this is not that much money over several years, and i feel i get the value in more driving enjoyment on better and new rubber rather than minimizing car operating/transportation costs to be as low as possible and transportation being just a cost and necessity.

I don't know your personal circumstances, but for me in your shoes either tire is not the final decision in the world. Any new tire in this category should be pretty good for at least two sessons unless you truly are in extreme weather and should go full winter. And if you don't like them, nobody is forcing you to use them for the whole 60k/65k, just change early.

I mean even your car too, you have a pilot presumably with awd, but why not an acura with a superior sh-awd system if we're focused on technical performance only. There's a choice there where your personal circumstances and values have said the pilot makes more sense for you than an mdx.
 
Last edited:

Tom K.

HRPufnStf
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
3,288
im on the fence between cross climate 2 and firestone weathergrip for my Honda Pilot. I just want the best all-weather tire for snow.

Do you think the CC2 is worth the extra $30? is the difference in snow performance going top be nominal? or really worth it?
Personally, I can't imagine a world in which I wouldn't gleefully pay only $30 more for the Michelins.

Note: I changed the dollar figure in your quote to reflect the correction you made in a subsequent post.
 

neohio

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Posts
7
Location
ohio
Personally, I can't imagine a world in which I wouldn't gleefully pay only $30 more for the Michelins.

Note: I changed the dollar figure in your quote to reflect the correction you made in a subsequent post.
thats what I was thinking!! Its a steal at that price.
 
Top