Tires: replacing 2 or 4?

[COL 911]

1987 Carrera, street use only, no track days. Currently wearing Michelin Pilot VR4 205R60/15 front, 225R60/15 rear. 2003 date of mfr. on the tires, little or no cracking. Front have 7/32 remaining, even wear. Rears down to 2/32, won't pass inspection this month.

Wanted to replace just the rears, but Michelin changed features and model names: new Michelin Primacy MX4 has tread pattern that matches my old front tires, but only 'H' rated, and new Michelin Pilot has 'V' rating, but different pattern.

One option is to replace two rears w/ as close a match as possible (Michelin), if so, what's the consensus on choosing sidewall rating ('V'- Pilot)over tread pattern ('H' - Primacy)? Or, second option, just buy 4 new, lower priced tires, like Kuhmo? I plan to buy tires on-line and have trusted, local shop for the install. Thanks in advance.

[KTL]

1999 is rather old for tires. If you're willing to spend a little extra, I would recommend 4 Kumhos or Hankooks will do you just fine. You usually do get what you pay for when it comes to tires.

Meaning, most high end Michelins are very nice tires. I've had the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 on my M5 and they are impressive tires- great wet or dry. However the Micheline Pilot Sport HX MXM4 VR rated tires i've had on my Mazda 6S wagon (don't laugh, it's a very nice car that handles incredibly well) and my BMW X3 are so-so. That being said, i've had value-based tires like Hankooks, Kumhos, Yokohamas and have been very pleased with them.

It all depends on your intent with the car. If you drive it alot in all sorts of weather, an H-rated or better all season tire would be your best bet. If you only drive it in nice weather and like to carve some corners, an ultra high performance tire is the way to go.

I don't know how the state inspectors are with respect to tires because inspections do not occur in IL. Do they simply look at tread depth? I can't imagine them looking at tread patterns and failing you for non-matching tires, despite all tires having a safe amount of tread.

[80-911SC]

just got priced 4 kumo 17' for my SC under 550 mount and balance at Americas tire

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by KTL

1999 is rather old for tires. If you're willing to spend a little extra, I would recommend 4 Kumhos or Hankooks will do you just fine. You usually do get what you pay for when it comes to tires.

.

"Usually" is a good word here. I have $1000 worth of the worst crap tires I've ever seen. Goodyear Eagle F1 GD-S3. They don't instill confidence. I can't imagine tire a worse for a 911.

[azasadny]

I have been running Kumhos on my 2007 MazdaSpeed3 and really like them. I never keep tires on a car after 5 years, no matter how few miles are on them. Tires are relatively cheap and are the most important part of your vehicle.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by KTL

1999 is rather old for tires. high performance tire is the way to go.

I think he said the tires are all dated 2003?

That's 6 years old, and some say that's about the safe limit on age.

Some installers will not install H rated tires on a car that came w/ V-rated tires.

FYI

[KTL]

COL 911 originally posted that the tires were coded 1999. He must have taken a second look and now determined they're coded 2003?

Agreed that tires are sometimes a crap shoot. The buyer reviews at Tire Rack are actually quite helpful, despite some of the completely stoopid responses you run across. So you obviously have to be objective and not take everybody's experiences as the norm or truth.

The Goodyear F1 GS-D3 is one of those love or hate tires. It seems to be a very good all purpose high performance tire for the street user. However people that track their cars usually have not-so-good things to say about them. They are VERY good in the wet though!

Agreed the tires (and brakes IMO) are the most important part of your car and are often neglected until its too late. I'll also agree that 5-6 yrs. is the limit where you need to consider replacement, regardless of how worn. I have some older winter wheels & tires I bought used this summer for my M5. I put them on the other day and i'm quite disappointed how un-grippy they are in the wet. I suspect i'll be replacing them at some point when the snow flies and I find they're not doing their job. Point being is they have plenty of tread and show no signs of drying-out, yet still seem to lack grip. DOT codes don't make sense on them, so they must be pre-2000?

The H vs. V thing is silly if a shop is using that tactic. H = 130 mph and that's plenty fast for any street driven vehicle. My team and I drove on H rated 195/60-14 Falken Ziex 912 in TWO 24 Hours of Lemons races- one was a 3/4 mi. roval course and one 2 mi. road course. Yes, that's ONE set of tires for two true 24 hour "races." We kept the car lapping at a good pace with only one hour-long breakdown in the two races. That equates to about 2800 miles of hard driving and they withstood the abuse amazingly well. I think that abuse test demonstrates that H rated tires are more than adequate for a street car's use. I'm sure the installers feel like they're assuming some liability if they put H rated tires on Joe Shmoe's 911, and Joe's tires blow apart because he did a high speed run up to 145 mph on the interstate (illegally of course....)???

There are however some good policies shops enforce. I had to get some trailer wheels/tires serviced last month and I was told they will not work on trailer tires older than 9 yrs. So my spare was dated 2000 and couldn't be serviced w/out installing a new tire. Not a bad policy since people are notorious for neglecting their trailers and result in tire blowouts.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by KTL

COL 911 originally posted that the tires were coded 1999. He must have taken a second look and now determined they're coded 2003?

That's what I was guessing after I posted.

[longhornchris04]

Quick thing I've noticed about tires... OEM tires are nearly always more expensive than alternates of equal or higher quality, at least in the OEM sizes.

When I went shopping for tires for my other car, all the equivalent level tires were the same cost except the ones I was currently using (the OEMs) which were about $50 more... each. Hell, even a different (arguable better) model from the same vendor (Goodyear if I remember correctly) was cheaper than the OEMs.

I figure its an easy way to make money off those who just say "I'll replace them with what I've got" rather than look for the alternatives.

Personally, I'd drop the extra money on replacing all 4. Sure, you can get a few more years out of your fronts, but you will likely need to replace them on age rather than tread in a year or 2. That, and front-end blowouts suck something awful.

Another brand to throw out there, I'm running Yokohama S-Drives on my car and I'm happy with them. The price was reasonable and they provide plenty of confidence on the back roads and the highway. I haven't had a chance do Autocross or DE, so I can't speak to that.

[Paulporsche]

I would get all 4 and not drop below the V rating.

[nineball]

i agree with most, 6 years (7 technically next spring) is long enough for a tire. you said it will be street driving only, no track, but that is wide open to interpretation. when the mood strikes my "spirited" street driving can be dramatically different than my "normal everyday" street driving. if you like to have some fun then get a higher performance tire. if you baby it get some cheap kuhmo tires and be done with it. keep in mind it is a porsche...

my car had yoko avid v4s on it when i bought them. the fronts were only 2 years old with 4k miles but the rears were gone. i replaced them with the same and so far i have been very happy with the results. on my awd jag i have pirelli pzero nero m&s, and while they are great in dry circumstances i am not 100% confident in the rain and they never see the snow. mud & snow design my a$$. even with awd it feels like i am constantly driving on a frozen lake in the winter. they were fairly loud when new but have quieted down with ~5k on them.

[jason2guy]

get 4. i got 2 (rear) and the car was all over the road. got 2 front and all is well

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by KTL

The Goodyear F1 GS-D3 is one of those love or hate tires. It seems to be a very good all purpose high performance tire for the street user. However people that track their cars usually have not-so-good things to say about them. They are VERY good in the wet though!

This happened in the wet when they lost traction around a corner and I whacked a center divider. Was not going fast at all really....they're OK for torrential downpours I'd say. But in slight wet conditions, I have to say NOT.

[COL 911]

Thanks to all for the advice. I'll order 4 new tires, matching, all around - leaning towards the Kuhmo or Hankook (previous experience w/Hankook on Audi A4T was positive). I have to pay attention to the treadwear ratings, though - one of the Kuhmo models w/ 'V' rating has like 600 UTOQ treadwear rate, probably not much grip there! I'm certain consensus on this board would be to keep treadwear ratings 'sticky' in the 300-400 range. I realize tire mfr. UTOQ ratings are not closely regulated, standardized, etc. Thanks again for the input.

[KTL]

Keep in mind that new tires need some miles on them to wear-in. The heat cycling takes a long time on street tires, so it takes several hundred miles of tame street driving to stabilize the tires. On numerous occasions i've had people tell me, "These new tires are terrible. They have no grip and feel loose" I always say just give it some time for the tire to wear-in and also more importantly to wear off the mold release agent that is used on the rubber when the tires are manufactured. New tires are always dicey in the wet IMO. Any time I get new tires, I try to "work" the tires more than usual via harder braking, harder accel., harder cornering to scrub them in

Sorry to hear of your woes Wolfe. Were the tires very new at the time of the incident? My experiences with the Goodyear GS-D3 have been only feedback from others. I've not used them myself. But I can say with certainty that a friend who used them at lapping days downright hated them in the dry. However in the wet, nobody could touch him. I can see how they'd be a bit unpredictable in semi-wet conditions. The tread pattern does not have any siping (the tiny slits in the tread blocks) and the sidewalls of these tires are not very stiff.

[Quicksilver]

"Get 4" as a blanket statement doesn't fly on the 911. In your case with the age of the tires I would do 4 simply for that reason. If that wasn't the case then I would do 2 unless there was a contouring/wear problem.

The rears on a 911 generally wear twice as fast as the fronts. You don't just toss out the fronts before they wear down to the fun part of their lifespan.

Tires are the most personal choice you can make on a car. They can change every part of what a car feels like so you have to look at the bigger picture.
- Interested in dry traction? Wear them down past the wear bars so there is less tread squirm.
- Comfort? Get something with a flexible sidewall, quiet treat, and replace before the reduced tread depth makes it harsher.
- Rain or snow? Get something with a good deep tread and replace it earlier then you would for dry conditions.
- and on, and on...