|
13K Miles seems OK to me for fronts - unless they are particularly hard wearing lke some Michelins
I generally get around 13K out of the fronts on my car (not a C5)
|
|
Wifes old C-Max ate its front original fit Conti Sport Contact 2 in 14,000 miles but the tracking was probably out a bit when it left the factory, it was never knocked. Pirelli P7's that replaced them did 23,000 and still had 2.5mm left. We replaced all 4 at 37,000 since the original Conti's on the rear were only just legal with Kumho KU31's which according to my treat gauge were going to outlast even the P7's. They were also very quiet.
Try Event-Tyres in the link, was most impressed when I used them last year, way cheaper than any local quote and they came to my house and the fitter was the most careful chap I had ever seen. They have got the Kumho’s listed at £80 fitted if you have 4 inc vat, £85 if you have 2.
www.event-tyres.co.uk/
|
|
A workmate has a new model C5 1.6HDi estate. It's got a little over 30k on the clock now, the factory fit Michelins on the rear are down to the wear bars. The fronts are Accelera things (hard wearing budgets from the company who now own Vredestein), and they're down to 3mm having replaced the Michelins long ago.
It's a big motor and it does wear tyres like fury. He tows a caravan too, which I'm sure doesn't help. Though a 110hp 1.6HDi in a big motor like that, plus caravan must be some machine! Seen crawling up the nearest hill...
|
|
I put over 25K miles on Nexen's fitted to the front of my C5 V6, I changed them when they still had 4mm tread left for a set of Nankang N607 all-season tyres, after 20K miles they were still perfectly good. The rear Linglongs had over 25K miles on them when I sold the car with little appreciable wear. I was so impressed with the all-round performance of the Nankang 607s I put them all round my girlfriend's C3.
|
I put over 25K miles on Nexen's fitted to the front of my C5 V6, I changed them when they still had 4mm tread left for a set of Nankang N607 all-season tyres, after 20K miles they were still perfectly good. The rear Linglongs had over 25K miles on them when I sold the car with little appreciable wear. I was so impressed with the all-round performance of the Nankang 607s I put them all round my girlfriend's C3.
All those tyres you mention are budgets made out of Chinese PVC. No wonder they didn't wear.
Those of us who prefer our tyres to grip, come to live with replacing tyres more than once in the car's lifetime.
|
All those tyres you mention are budgets made out of Chinese PVC. No wonder they didn't wear.
Those of us who prefer our tyres to grip, come to live with replacing tyres more than once in the car's lifetime.
The budget " Chinese PVC" tyres will out-perform premium tyres circa 2000 the margins aren't as great as you'd expect, they are perfectly good. My driving style is to maintain corner speed - I don't hang around - grip was fine. I fit budget tyres and replace them half worn - which is much safer in extreme driving conditions than premium tyres with only ~2mm of tread left, Indeed, I spent the best part of two hours towing various cars out of a the snowy company car-park last year, the car park exit is on a slight incline, defeating all BMW saloons and just about anything with heaviily worn tyres. The one which put a smile on my face was towing a four-wheel-drive Audi shod with "sporty" tyres out - the owner looked suitably sheepish sitting there with all four wheels spinning uselessly. Chinese PVC 1 - Audi AWD 0 - I nearly had another 4x4 victim, an X5 struggled llke mad before getting out by the skin of his teeth going nearly as far sideways as he was forward..
Some mid-range stuff is excellent too, the Kumhos I put on my Jag XJ8 gripped better than the o/e Pirelli P6000s wet or dry and lasted longer, they cost less than two thirds of the price. The (bespoke) Pirelli PZeros on my XJR were superb, but they should be at the price! The o/e Michelin Primacys on my C5 were b***** awful - terrible in the wet, no grip or feel, I much prefered the Nexens. (N6000s if I remember rightly - could be wrong though.)
|
Some mid-range stuff is excellent too, the Kumhos I put on my Jag XJ8 gripped better than the o/e Pirelli P6000s wet or dry and lasted longer, they cost less than two thirds of the price. The (bespoke) Pirelli PZeros on my XJR were superb, but they should be at the price! The o/e Michelin Primacys on my C5 were b***** awful - terrible in the wet, no grip or feel, I much prefered the Nexens. (N6000s if I remember rightly - could be wrong though.)
The P6000 has the nickname "Ditchfinder" for a reason. I've had them on a few cars (been on them when I bought the car) and they were awful on all occasions.
Midrange stuff has come on leaps and bounds recently. Most are being fitted OE now - our i30 came factory fit with Hankook Optimos, and my Mondeo back in 2005 was also factory fitted with Hankook Ventus Primes. VW are fitting Hankook in the factory now as well.
Kumho are as good as Hankook in my experience, too, and a little cheaper.
Both Hankook and Kumho have european R&D departments, building tyres specifically for Europe. Can't be bad to that.
|
|
FWD cars will always get through front tyres a lot quicker. I have an old Orig shape Scenic (Facelift) 2.0 RXE and Conti PC2's lasted just over 13K before reaching the 1.6 mm
Kumho Solus 15's were nearly 1k better and Pirelli P6 another 1k on top of that - so you can see - I wouldn't expect much more - swapping around will spread the wear. The suggested practice is to put new tyres on the back and move the old to the front - I understand why as it is considered understeer is safer than over steer - however - my usual tendencey is to keep the fronts on the front and replace then with new. It's swings and roundabouts really - and I would swap around if I felt it for the best.
& If a tyre were 5 years old or more I would generally replace it anyway. I have moved tyres to the front in the summer in order to 'finish them off'
Edited by GeoffC on 01/02/2012 at 01:30
|
FWD cars will always get through front tyres a lot quicker.
That was certainly true back in the day. Our old Austin 1800 "Land Crab" was doing well to get 25,000 miles out of a set of fronts. That was running Michelin X tyres which were legendarily long-lived, at the expense of rotten levels of grip. Anything else wouldn't even last that long. Older FWD cars also used to wear tyre outer shoulders a lot, due to the massive levels of understeer they tended to produce, so new ones on the front and then "flattening them off" on the back when the shoulders wore down was the rule back then.
Time moves on, vehicles improve and priorities change.
More modern vehicles are usually a lot better than that. Maybe the C5's something of a throwback?
|
FWD cars will always get through front tyres a lot quicker.
Not really now, they don't, unless the FWD car is a powerful one driven hard. My Mondeo wears the rears as quickly as the fronts. Same applies to the current model Clio, they tend to wear evenly too.
|
FWD cars will always get through front tyres a lot quicker.
Not really now, they don't, unless the FWD car is a powerful one driven hard. My Mondeo wears the rears as quickly as the fronts. Same applies to the current model Clio, they tend to wear evenly too.
Every front wheel drive car I (and the wife) have owned have used their fronts twice as fast as the rears, sometimes even faster. They have too, the fronts wheels are carrying the most weight, they drive the car, they steer the car, they do most of the braking, the rears just keep the boot floor off the road. We drive in a perfectly normal manner in normal cars on an ordinary mix of roads.
|
|
Ah, so "every car I and and the wife owned" is a comprehensive and exhaustive list of every FWD car on the market, is it? No? Thought not.
|
Ah, so "every car I and and the wife owned" is a comprehensive and exhaustive list of every FWD car on the market, is it? No? Thought not.
How can I have owned every FWD car ever made, of course its not a complete and exhaustive list, how could anyone be stupid enough to think it could be or make such a comment. Surely the point of this Forum is to allow people to relate their experiences to help other Forum users and not to be rubbished by other users because their view and alleged experience differs.
All I am saying is that since the 1970's we have owned 4 Fords, 4 VW's, 5 Nissan's, 2 Hondas, 2 Minis and a Kia and they have all behaved in exactly the same way wearing out the fronts well before the rears. That is our personal experience of 17 or more FWD cars in the last 30 or so years and is in no way meant to rubbish other posters opinions.
ChannelZ, in an earlier post you commented that a works colleagues C5 had worn out its rear Michelins in 30,000 miles while the Accelera fronts which had replaced the original Michelins were still going strong. By that I understand your colleagues experiences were that the OE fronts wore out well before the OE rears thus his experience is the same as mine.
Edited by thunderbird on 01/02/2012 at 09:54
|
ChannelZ, in an earlier post you commented that a works colleagues C5 had worn out its rear Michelins in 30,000 miles while the Accelera fronts which had replaced the original Michelins were still going strong. By that I understand your colleagues experiences were that the OE fronts wore out well before the OE rears thus his experience is the same as mine.
Wow. You're totally missing the point again. YES, the C5 wears it's fronts. My OH's i30 wears it's front faster than it's rears.
That doesn't make EVERY FWD car wear it's fronts faster than it's rears, as you allude happens.
As I said, my Mondeo wears it's rears the same rate as it's fronts. That's why my car has always had 4 identical tyres.
A current model Clio I have as a company runaround also wore all 4 tyres evenly. The Clio I had before that, however was a mid-90s Mk1 Clio and it's rear tyres were the factory fit Goodyears when the car had 80k on the clock, and went through fronts every 10-15k.
So, again, I say it for the slow of mind. NOT EVERY FWD WEARS FRONT TYRES FASTER THAN REARS.
|
ChannelZ, in an earlier post you commented that a works colleagues C5 had worn out its rear Michelins in 30,000 miles while the Accelera fronts which had replaced the original Michelins were still going strong. By that I understand your colleagues experiences were that the OE fronts wore out well before the OE rears thus his experience is the same as mine.
Wow. You're totally missing the point again. YES, the C5 wears it's fronts. My OH's i30 wears it's front faster than it's rears.
That doesn't make EVERY FWD car wear it's fronts faster than it's rears, as you allude happens.
As I said, my Mondeo wears it's rears the same rate as it's fronts. That's why my car has always had 4 identical tyres.
A current model Clio I have as a company runaround also wore all 4 tyres evenly. The Clio I had before that, however was a mid-90s Mk1 Clio and it's rear tyres were the factory fit Goodyears when the car had 80k on the clock, and went through fronts every 10-15k.
So, again, I say it for the slow of mind. NOT EVERY FWD WEARS FRONT TYRES FASTER THAN REARS.
I am not going to join the club that requires all posts that disagree with previous posters to begin with an insult but I guess we must agree to disagree. Even our TDCi Mondeo wore its fronts out twice as fast as the rears.
|
Every FWD car we have owned during the past several decades plus those of my father have worn their fronts out way faster than the rears. Seem to remember dads Renault 14 being particulary bad even on front rock hard Michelins (12,000 max.) and a Golf of his being incredibly kind on rock hard rear Michelins, 60,000 + miles and he threw them away when the sidewalls cracked. As Thunderbird said, the fronts have way more work to do than the rears thus its only to be expected. GeoffC also says exctly the same regarding wear.
Edited by skidpan on 01/02/2012 at 10:26
|
That doesn't make EVERY FWD car wear it's fronts faster than it's rears, as you allude happens.
So, again, I say it for the slow of mind. NOT EVERY FWD WEARS FRONT TYRES FASTER THAN REARS..
ChannelZ
Should have added in my last post that I never said or alluded that EVERY FWD car wears it fronts out faster than its rears, all I said was that EVERY FWD car we had owned performed in this way. If I had experience of cars performing differently I would have said so but I don't. This is not an absolute fact, its my personal experinence.
Edited by thunderbird on 01/02/2012 at 10:49
|
|
2.0HDi Peugeot Partner - maybe more weight on fronts but 25K from Vredestein Hi Tracs at the front and 50K from the rears. So much better than the Michellins in the wet, I can now turn right on roundabouts instead of always having to go straight on!
|
|
If any FWD car were NOT wearing its fronts faster than same tyre on rears I'd be looking for a reason!!
|
|
|
