The other day, I told my mechanic I needed winter tires, and asked for a recommendation. “I’ll get you some Dunlops, they’re not bad, and cheaper than the Uniroyals you had last time.” When I asked him about rolling resistance and about tire wear, he looked at me like I was stupid, and repeated: “They’re pretty good tires”. So I looked at some car sites in the Internet, gave up after about five minutes, and ordered the Dunlops. Does buying tires have to be a “trust the guy in the greasy overall” event? The EU Commission (the executive branch of the European Union) says no, and intends to introduce new rules for labelling tires. The tire industry agrees that yes, change is probably necessary, with some qualifications, under certain conditions…
But back to the proposed rules. Tires would be stamped with a “A” to “G” label (isn’t “F” bad enough?), for their performance in three categories: rolling resistance, braking performance, and noise. That means that consumers can decide by themselves which tires fit their own criteria. Any objections from the green side? I spoke with Nina Renshaw of the European Federation for Transport and Environment, a lobbying group. She said, “this initiative is a great first building-block. It is complementary to planned standards which will improve tire noise and CO2 performance, but of course it doesn’t replace standards.”
It’s good to see that green activists think the consumer is a part of the solution. And the industry? Continental, a major European producer of tires, has filed a kind-of protest against the new rules. Their complaint: since the labels are based on self-certification, who will oversee the process, and who will prevent cheap imports from lying about how good their tires are? Yes, we live in strange world. A company from an industry that frequently says it wants less government intervention and less stringent standards is asking for… a tire-labelling police. One more (not quite related) wish: why can’t the DOT drop its obscure date-of-production labelling system? How many consumers know that the code “2599” means a tire was made in the 25th week of 1999? Why not something simple, such as “June-1999”?
I just go to tirerack.com. They have a pretty solid database of user tire reviews and surveys that rate things like cornering response, light/deep snow traction, ice traction, braking etc.
auto, motor und sport does excellent in-depth comparisons of tires. A cheap Hankook recently won against the expensive “big boys” (Michelin, Dunlop, etc.).
Consumer Reports’ style of testing lends itself well to this. They round up a bunch of tires, use a set of standard test vehicles and situations and give simple ratings. If you’re a special case (off-road, ultra-performance) you’ll probably not be satisfied, but for “appliance” all-seasons or snows, they do well.
Never trust the guy selling them. Salesmen get spiffs or deals or directives to clear dead stock. There’s some sales reps I more or less trust, but (and this comes from supporting sales staff) they always have an agenda, and it’s not always aligned with your own.
I go to tirerack and read the reviews. I’m usually looking for a sport tire, so I look for reviewers more interested in performance than road noise and comfort. They also have the performance of each tire tested, so you have tirerack’s comparison and the reviews to let you know everything you want.
A combination of much more useful standardized consumer readable information AND ever improving minimum standards is not an incompatible mix.
One of the many problems with unregulated free markets is that the producers normally go to great lengths to obscure the key objective criteria by which a well informed customer would make a decision. For example, just try to get the actual numerical test results for an given major brand motor oil after the many lab tests it goes through to get API certification. All the consumer gets to know is pass/fail. But, there is a big difference in quality between “just passed” and “aced the test”.
California is also moving towards setting efficiency and labeling standards for Tires.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/
I’m all for having easy to understand efficiency labels on tires similar to those on appliances and cars.
Good tire advise is hard to get from your garage. An acqaintance wanted winter tires but the mechanic only had 2 of the tires she wanted. She asked if mixing tires was bad and the mechanic said no problem, just put the snows on the front drive wheels. I was always taught that mixing tires, especially snows with summer tires was bad for handling and potentially dangerous. Any comments?
Potemkin,
actually, consensus seems to be it’s advisable to put the better tires on the back wheels, even if you have a FWD car. Loss of traction in the front is one thing, but loss of grip in the back while you are cornering is altogether more dangerous.
And mixing tires (snows in front, summers in back for instance) is downright foolish, unless you are restricting yourself to really low speeds, like under 40 mph.
John Horner: I agree with you (as so often). We need both (improving) minimum standards as well as better transparency.
For Canadian readers, for Tires check out http://www.apa.ca
They have a list of Tires that where road tested by a Montreal Tire Company.
In Canada Winter Tires carry a “Snowflake” mark on Tires that are considered Winter use.
Studs are okay in Quebec Province, but Banned in S. Ontario, but okay north of Parry Sound -Muskoka area.
Personally I use Hancook Winter tires as I found them best value and available whereas some tires like Blizzak where out of stock in many wheel sizes.
If you can only afford to buy two winter tires, put them on the rear of a Front drive vehicle.
I agree to go to Tirerack.com & one should better educate themself before walking in blind to your local mechanic or dealership.
There is a vast selection of different winter tires to choose from (is ice traction more important to you or deep snow traction?)
One problem I have with winter rubber is that there are no rules for putting on a UTQG rating on the sidewall….I’d perfer to have a winter tire with a longer treadlife personally.
Having said that, Michelin has a new winter tire out called the X-Ice Xi2 that is suppose to have 75% longer wear life compared to the Bridgestone Blizzak WS60….one of the most popular choices for consumers. More info on the tirerack website & Michelin.com
Fewer folks do better winter tires than the Finn’s though – Nokian’s.
I disagree to ever putting only 2 winter tires on your vehicle however front or back…..it will screw up the handling characteristics of your vehicle especially during an emergency maneuver.
Having been about 10 years in the industry: it is well known that the tire dealer will recommend to you the tire brand on which he makes the most profit. You cannot rely on his recommendations fully. This is why tire manufacturers spend money on advertising: that you go to the dealer with a set mind.
In any case, the tests from Stiftung Warentest or ADAC are the most reliable. And I would prefer them over some kind of labelling, since the different categories you mention have different weight in choosing a tire.
Allowing self certification in my view would be stupid. Same as letting banks pay for the rating of rating agencies. We have seen the results.
Finally: mixing summer and wintertires is a deadly idea. You will have different traction on front and rear and, unless you have ESP, may just start skidding once you brake.
And as a very final point: Continental simply is the best winter tyre manufacturer of them all – proven continuously over many years.