|
I need to replace two front tyres on my trusty M reg 306 Pug. have been quoted £42 each (inc fitting) for Conti premium contacts. Any one had any experience/opinions on this tyre, or would I be better of with budget tyres on a car of this age?
|
had a set on a corolla, they were great, certainly better than the michellins on before
although i always think you need 4 matching tyres to get the full benefit
i got them very cheap fitted by printing the quote from one of the national fitters web sites and taking it to their nearest fast fit place
you can often get the 4th tyre for free if you buy three, so the difference in price between 2 and 4 sometimes doesnt make it worthwhile just having 2 done, have you tried getting a quote for 4?
|
|
|
Age of the car has nothing to do with whether you should fit budget tyres or not, even a 20 year old car for example still needs to be able to stop sharply when required.
Budget tyres are for people who wish to gamble with their safety to save a few pennies. Fit the Conti's.
|
|
Had Contis on my Vectra (19" wheels). Excellent tyres that I got 26000 miles out of on the front. Back ones were good for a good few thousand more.
|
I have had them on my 307, from new. They seem quite noisy on some surfaces. I don't drive that hard but the fronts were replaced at 22K and the rears at 28k.
|
|
Excellent tyres. I use them on my 75 and find them quiet and grippy. Would recommend, especially at that price!
|
Excellent tyres in all respects. I totally agree with the comment relating to the fitment of good quality tyres to an old car - the age of the car has nothing to do with it. Fit the best tyres you can afford at all times.
If only people would spend more on tyres and less on wheels - the wheels are there to keep the tyre the correct distance from the axle and should be made of fatigue resistant material.
659.
|
|
Continental have always made good tyres. I think they are as good as any other 'premium' tyre. Which? magazine did some tests recently (I think they're done pan-European, in conjunction with other consumer organisations) and Conti were close to the top. Interesting that the pecking order seems to vary slightly depending on tyre size and profile. Again, IIRC, Kumho and Hankook featured in the top 10 and for one or two sizes I think they were above the better known brands.
|
|
Have them on my Golf as original equipment. Two years - 46,000km - fronts will probably go to 50k - rears to 60k+. Will probably replace with similar.
|
|
Contis always win or come very near the top of any tyre test conducted by AutoBild.
|
|
I have PremiumContacts on my (old) Jag XJ8 - they're superb. I agree with the comments about it not mattering how old the car is - and I would go further and say it doesn't really matter how its driven, either - I would never fit 'economy' tyres if I could possibly afford better. (I've just put Michelins on my old Suzuki swift 'station car' - because even in that car, I'd rather keep contact with the road!) The Contis really are an excellent choice.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments folks..all taken on board, and had the Contis fitted this afternoon. Very pleased with them. I was talking to the fitter, who said that one of the major differences is that premium brands tend to have nylon plies in their construction, whereas most of the cheaper tyres just have polyester ones.
Apparently this nylon cap greatly increases the stability and strength of the tyre, and can help reduce the risk of blow outs. very reasuring I think, and well worth the small increase in price.
|
My Father in Law has Conti EcoContact's on his Focus and one was loosing pressure. He took the car to the tyre place that he's used for years and does all their firms vans and the owner pointed out that in the tyres gooves were lots of small cracks. All the other tyres were the same.
He asked why, and the guys comment was that 'Conti's are carp'. !!
That's a bit concerning as our new Colt came with those tyres and VAG forced me to have them fitted to our Ibiza under the maint contract.
|
the owner pointed out that in the tyres gooves were lots of small cracks. All the other tyres were the same.
Interesting. Sister-in-law had to have all four original fit Contis replaced on her then year old Fiesta because two were showing signs of the tread separating from the carcass after 6,000 miles.
The tyre fitter made a similar comment to her.
My old company Focus had SportContacts on it when it came from the factory, and they were superb tyres. Quiet, grippy and long lasting. Far better than the Dunlop P's O S that the lease company forced us to have fitted from then on.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
>>The tyre fitter made a similar comment to her.
Wierd that Continental has almost a prestigious brand image yet some people in the trade dismiss them as rubbish. If they are generically bad then it's well hidden - the web isn't full of posts complaining about them.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments folks..all taken on board and had the Contis fitted this afternoon. Very pleased with them. I was talking to the fitter who said that one of the major differences is that premium brands tend to have nylon plies in their construction whereas most of the cheaper tyres just have polyester ones. Apparently this nylon cap greatly increases the stability and strength of the tyre and can help reduce the risk of blow outs. very reasuring I think and well worth the small increase in price.
I think virtually all the tyres I've seen are a combination of nylon and polyester ply. Usually its 2x nylon and 2x polyester, or a variation on that. Nylon is stronger than polyester but its stiffer - so you get flat-spotting and stiffer sidewalls, hence polyester is also used, which is strong but more flexible.
'Blow outs' - where the tyre disintegrates - don't really happen on cars like they used to. Radial tyres are very strong and have a 'belting' (steel or nylon usually) that runs on top of the plies, longitudinally around the circumference of the tyre.
I think people make too much of differences between tyres. In May's AutoBild they had a tyre test with tyres from Continental, Michelin, Dunlop, Bridgestone and Kumho, and they all rated 'excellent'. The differences come down to things like noise levels, sidewall stiffness etc., and a lot then depends on the car's suspension and driving style.
|
Just found this tyre test report from AutoExpress last year:
www.marshaltyre.co.uk/store/tyretest.pdf
Vredestein comes out best, Continental second. Michelin Pilot Premacy is worst (below the 'budget' brands). The Marshal (Kumho's bargain-bucket brand range) comes third.
|
|
Contis used to and probably still do decent bike tyres, but hey what would motorcyclist know ?!
|
|
|
Michelin Pilot Premacy is worst
The article does point out they're being replaced though - I've got the 'new' (I've had them over a year) HP version and they seem fine.
I'm sure in everyday use the only difference most people would notice between any of the tyres is noise and the wear rate.
|
I've heard so much utter rubbish from tyre fitters over the last few years I simply ignore everything they say, tell them exactly what to fit, and let them get on with it.
'No mate I don't have any 265/35/18 Eagle F1's or Bridgestone Potenza S-03 but I've got some Marshalls which are just as good'
No, thanks very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
