94 Accord - tires?

Peabody wrote:
> I have a whopping 54K miles on my 94 Accord LX, and it's finally
> time to change the tires.

Check out the web site www.tirerack.com and refer to their survey
results. These are comprised of customer ratings and are very accurate
so long as the "Total Miles Reported" column has a substantial number
(anything over 250,000).

Once the Tire Rack's system knows what size tire your car requires you
can find your way to their "Consumer Survey Results by Category." The
tires that fit your car will be highlighted and you will be able to see
how they stack up against other similar tires. Your easy driving style
allows you to concentrate on the Passenger All-Season, Standard Touring
All-Season and Grand Touring All-Season categories.

With that information you should be able to make an educated decision
at your local tire shop.

(FWIW: I have an older car that is used for in-town shopping/commuting.
Based on low cost I put Kumho (Touring Plus 732) tires on the car and
have been entirely satisfied with their performance.)

ACAR wrote:
> Peabody wrote:
>> I have a whopping 54K miles on my 94 Accord LX, and it's finally
>> time to change the tires.
>
> Check out the web site www.tirerack.com and refer to their survey
> results. These are comprised of customer ratings and are very accurate
> so long as the "Total Miles Reported" column has a substantial number
> (anything over 250,000).

i disagree.

1. their selection is limited and has notable omissions like toyo. to
me, that looks like the "pay to play" that may super markets exercise
with shelf space.
2. their ratings are afaict, /not/ based on customer feedback, although
they sure do seem to want you to believe that.

example 1: i bought a set of michelin hydro-edges a few years back.
impeccable ratings all across the board, including ride comfort. but
ride comfort was /not/ a feature of their ride. not in a civic anyway.
in fact, they were so brain-jarringly rough, i had to change them out
again after less than 1000 miles because of passenger complaints. [not
that i needed much persuasion they were so bad.]

example 2: in civic tires, dunlop sport sp2 a+ tires score "7.9" for
tire rack wet traction, yet have a utqg rating of "aa". michelin pilot
exaltos have a tire rack rating of 9.0 wet, and utqg of only "a", which
is entirely inconsistent. declaration: i am running these dunlops right
now and can vouch for exemplary traction in line with utqg.

example 3: my previous tires were continental ch95's. they scored
"excellent" across the board with notable exception for tire wear.
after nearly 40k miles, mine still had 40-50% tread life remaining.
they're also rated 6.6 "excellent" for wet traction, but are frankly,
more likely to send you into the barrier in the wet than any other tire
i've ever driven. fine when new, but abysmal when slightly worn.

example 4: the photos used are photoshopped. this may sound trivial,
but the little rubber "hair" things that a lot of tires have are
studiously removed on tire rack pics. that concerns me because one of
the ways you can tell between a silica rubber compound and a carbon
rubber compound is presence of the "hairs" - carbon generally has them,
silica generally doesn't. personally, that has a significant impact on
my buying preferences, but tire rack's "evidence" is misleading in that
regard.

conclusion: tire rack's rating is based on some subjective system
they've come up with in-house. it's a system that's wide open to "pay
for play", and based on my experience, one that's fully exploited by
tire manufacturers.

jim beam wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> > Peabody wrote:
> >> I have a whopping 54K miles on my 94 Accord LX, and it's finally
> >> time to change the tires.
> >
> > Check out the web site www.tirerack.com and refer to their survey
> > results. These are comprised of customer ratings and are very accurate
> > so long as the "Total Miles Reported" column has a substantial number
> > (anything over 250,000).
>
> i disagree.
>
> 1. their selection is limited and has notable omissions like toyo. to
> me, that looks like the "pay to play" that may super markets exercise
> with shelf space.

I didn't claim the Tire Rack's list was comprehensive.


> 2. their ratings are afaict, /not/ based on customer feedback, although
> they sure do seem to want you to believe that.

In my experience, their ratings are quite accurate. I've purchased a
LOT more sets of tires than you using their ratings. However, I also
read the customer comments which frequently indicate different
experiences depending upon vehicle weight and driving style.

snip

>
> conclusion: tire rack's rating is based on some subjective system
> they've come up with in-house. it's a system that's wide open to "pay
> for play", and based on my experience, one that's fully exploited by
> tire manufacturers.

So the tire manufacturers bribe The Tire Rack to put up phony ratings
and customer comments? What, you think they don't make enough $$ from
the tires? Imagine the legal exposure from a single irate former
employee.

ACAR wrote:
<snip>
> So the tire manufacturers bribe The Tire Rack to put up phony ratings
> and customer comments?

it's "pay for play". you witness this every time you walk into a
supermarket. ever wondered why there's so much more shelf space for a
certain shampoo or a certain beer than all the others?

> What, you think they don't make enough $$ from
> the tires?

do supermarket's not make money from sales too?

> Imagine the legal exposure from a single irate former
> employee.

what legal exposure? it's not customer ratings. they can set any rank
by any criteria they want, just like a supermarket can allocate shelf
space however they want. as for customer comments, i've been approached
by a manufacturer on a different forum to post reviews if a certain
product - provided my review agreed with what they wanted of course.
similarly, past employers of mine have published research and have
"weighted" results to assist sales. no legal recourse whatsoever. i
have no grounds for belief that this situation is any different.

jim beam wrote:

>
> it's "pay for play". you witness this every time you walk into a
> supermarket. ever wondered why there's so much more shelf space for a
> certain shampoo or a certain beer than all the others?

It seems to bother you that a company can pay for shelf space. Why?

> what legal exposure? it's not customer ratings.

Off The Tire Rack's web page explaining Consumer Survey: "In addition
to The Tire Rack team's new tire tests, we have maintained an
independent consumer survey to help drivers help each other by sharing
their long term tire experiences."

That sounds like "customer rating" to me.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> it's "pay for play". you witness this every time you walk into a
>> supermarket. ever wondered why there's so much more shelf space for a
>> certain shampoo or a certain beer than all the others?
>
> It seems to bother you that a company can pay for shelf space. Why?

shelf space doesn't bother me. telling me that one thing performs
better than another in the absence of real data bothers me.

the difference is, there's no published science to these ratings - it's
all subjective. therefore, product can easily be ranked any way they
like, including manufacturer incentive.

>
>> what legal exposure? it's not customer ratings.
>
> Off The Tire Rack's web page explaining Consumer Survey: "In addition
> to The Tire Rack team's new tire tests, we have maintained an
> independent consumer survey to help drivers help each other by sharing
> their long term tire experiences."
>
> That sounds like "customer rating" to me.
>
read that wording again. they do their own rating. then they say they
have customer feedback. there's no declaration of acceptance of
customer feedback that does not agree with their ranking.

you've got to be very careful when trying to interpret this kind of
marketingspeak. example: mobil say "The world's leading synthetic motor
oil, it features a proprietary SuperSyn anti-wear technology that
provides performance beyond conventional motor oils." [further reading
is at http://mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorO...Qs.aspx#FAQs1]

given that "supersyn" is poly alpha-olefin [pao], would you assume that
this "synthetic motor oil" is /based/ on pao or merely /contains/ pao?
have you any way of telling what the relevant proportions might be? i
ask because i happen to know the answer and am interested in the answer
you give based on reading the above.

jim beam wrote:

>
> given that "supersyn" is poly alpha-olefin [pao], would you assume that
> this "synthetic motor oil" is /based/ on pao or merely /contains/ pao?
> have you any way of telling what the relevant proportions might be? i
> ask because i happen to know the answer and am interested in the answer
> you give based on reading the above.

Do you know this answer in the same manner that you know The Tire
Rack's ratings are manufacturer incentive driven? (Can you find PAO %
on any manufacturer's web site?)

Since you claim the survey results are incentive driven, please point
out the "pay for play" pattern in the survey results scores.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> given that "supersyn" is poly alpha-olefin [pao], would you assume that
>> this "synthetic motor oil" is /based/ on pao or merely /contains/ pao?
>> have you any way of telling what the relevant proportions might be? i
>> ask because i happen to know the answer and am interested in the answer
>> you give based on reading the above.
>
> Do you know this answer in the same manner that you know The Tire
> Rack's ratings are manufacturer incentive driven?

i know from reading the site that rankings are subjective and that this
is a business, which like many others i know from personal experience,
are "open" to "sales enhancement".

> (Can you find PAO %
> on any manufacturer's web site?)

they don't publish it directly to the web, but they publish that info
for public record and i /can/ cite a copy of that.

>
> Since you claim the survey results are incentive driven, please point
> out the "pay for play" pattern in the survey results scores.
>

dude, i'm not trying to catch you out - i'm trying to illustrate that
there is a difference between what the marketingspeak tries to imply and
what it actually says. it takes scores of lawyers carefully craft
wording so that while it's technically accurate, it's still sending a
message easily misunderstood to mean something much different.

so, i ask again, from reading the marketingspeak, what composition do
you think that oil has?

jim beam wrote:

>
> i know from reading the site that rankings are subjective

Yes, we all know this.

and that this
> is a business, which like many others i know from personal experience,
> are "open" to "sales enhancement".

i.e., you have no proof.

>
> > (Can you find PAO %
> > on any manufacturer's web site?)
>
> they don't publish it directly to the web, but they publish that info
> for public record and i /can/ cite a copy of that.

super. not pertinent to the current discussion re. tires but something
many folks would like to see. why not post it to the newsgroup under a
new topic that someone besides you and me will read...

>
> >
> > Since you claim the survey results are incentive driven, please point
> > out the "pay for play" pattern in the survey results scores.
> >
>
> dude, i'm not trying to catch you out

obviously, because you can't make a case via the survey results scores.

- i'm trying to illustrate that
> there is a difference between what the marketingspeak tries to imply and
> what it actually says.

and I'm trying to point out that other than The Tire Rack not posting
data for tires they don't sell, you can't prove your point that the
consumer survey ratings are somehow influenced by the various tire
manufacturers.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> i know from reading the site that rankings are subjective
>
> Yes, we all know this.
>
> and that this
>> is a business, which like many others i know from personal experience,
>> are "open" to "sales enhancement".
>
> i.e., you have no proof.

with respect, i think i have more experience in this kind of thing than you.

>
>>> (Can you find PAO %
>>> on any manufacturer's web site?)
>> they don't publish it directly to the web, but they publish that info
>> for public record and i /can/ cite a copy of that.
>
> super. not pertinent to the current discussion re. tires but something
> many folks would like to see. why not post it to the newsgroup under a
> new topic that someone besides you and me will read...

with respect, i don't think you read my last post. simply put, the
question is, "what facts can you learn from a marketing piece". i have
a fact i can share that illustrates the point, but you're not addressing
that.

>
>>> Since you claim the survey results are incentive driven, please point
>>> out the "pay for play" pattern in the survey results scores.
>>>
>> dude, i'm not trying to catch you out
>
> obviously, because you can't make a case via the survey results scores.
>
> - i'm trying to illustrate that
>> there is a difference between what the marketingspeak tries to imply and
>> what it actually says.
>
> and I'm trying to point out that other than The Tire Rack not posting
> data for tires they don't sell, you can't prove your point that the
> consumer survey ratings are somehow influenced by the various tire
> manufacturers.
>

if you address the point above, maybe i can illustrate by example?