Do budget tyres really just not last?

[Botus]

26 minutes ago, anon said:

I don't think that there is anything in your post that I can agree with.  Goodyears I find to be below average and Continentals are not designed for idiots. As for German cars being unrefined, I would say that You are talking  nonsense  but I shall hold my tongue because I cannot drive at 12/10ths or even 11 on Michelins. Silica is sand. It doesn't add grip, just life.

Budget tyres have to meet stringent safety standards and most people using them don't drive like morons which is why so few of them get killed doing so.

you are allowed to be wrong -

there's a reason Merc are known as taxis - unrefined nasty rubbish

on a Focus mk 2 the wipers just work - on a modern BMW or a Merc the whole car shudders as they wipe

on Michelin's own website
+15% more grip than MICHELIN Road 5 * in wet conditions thanks to 100% Silica Technology and a brand new tread pattern.

bridgestone
Silica-reinforced compound enhances all-weather and all-temperature performance.

dunlop
This new compounding technique improves silica dispersion to improve the overall flexibility and resilience of the compound, enhancing road adhesion for even better wet grip performance

[StephenFord]

6 minutes ago, Botus said:

you are allowed to be wrong

there's a reason Merc are known as taxis - unrefined nasty rubbish

on a Focus mk 2 the wipers just work - on a modern BMW or a Merc the whole car shudders as they wipe

You seem to have a lot of built in anger. I do hope you have a coping mechanism for it that will see you chill out a bit. Hard to stereotype a whole car brand with a century of history as 'unrefined'. Maybe one or 2 specific models over the years, but branding any totality with such derogatory unmoderated undertones  is just scary...

[StephenFord]

.

[59bhp]

Nexen Blu or Daventi have always seen good wear on my daily driver. Check suspension arm bushes. Recently had two suspension arms replaced that caused excessive wear. Failing that 4 wheel alignment check

[alanfp]

 

I've travelled in a Mk2 Focus and I've travelled in an E-class 220D taxi that had done 250,000 miles and one of them was indeed unrefined 😉

[eddie eastwood]

Had Evergreen, Chineese make, medium priced, on that 2006 Focus I had and they did over 19,000 miles, they would have done more but the wishbones bushes started to wear and caused wear on the insides of them

[AntonovAN12]

Another problem with budget tyres is that the rubber can start to crack long before the tread wears out.

I replaced both the rears on my Mk2 at its last MOT as one had started to crack badly at only 5 years old. The other side looked a lot better but was 10 years old.

Both were on there when I bought the car in 2021. They still had plenty of tread depth left.

Both were cheap budget tyres. The one that was cracking was made by goldway.

[anon]

Any tyre company adding something to make their tyres cheaper will claim huge benefits but making tyres from stone means that they don't grip and they do crack, like the Michelin's on my last mk8. I will regard the rest of the delusional and bigoted rantings with contempt and continue to be afflicted with my German made Fiesta, almost universally acclaimed as having the most refined chassis of any small car currently available.

[Nimrodmk8]

10 hours ago, AntonovAN12 said:

Another problem with budget tyres is that the rubber can start to crack long before the tread wears out.

I replaced both the rears on my Mk2 at its last MOT as one had started to crack badly at only 5 years old. The other side looked a lot better but was 10 years old.

Both were on there when I bought the car in 2021. They still had plenty of tread depth left.

Both were cheap budget tyres. The one that was cracking was made by goldway.

I had cracking around the circumference when I had Bridgestone on my MR2 and tram lining, Yokohamas were fine and Falken were just as good in my opinion.

[TomsFocus]

10 hours ago, AntonovAN12 said:

Another problem with budget tyres is that the rubber can start to crack long before the tread wears out.

That's not specific to budget tyres.  I've had more Michelins crack than any others!  Also had Pirelli's, Conti's & Goodyears crack prematurely. 

Though what surprised me recently, even with considerable sidewall & tread cracks, the pair of Michelins still held more pressure than the pair of newer budgets, having both been inflated the same level previously.

 

[Jimpster]

AND ALL these comments on branded and unbranded tyre goes to prove buying new is a complete waste of money.

[StephenFord]

7 minutes ago, Jimpster said:

AND ALL these comments on branded and unbranded tyre goes to prove buying new is a complete waste of money.

Normally, I entirely agree with all money saving activities, but I confess that in my motoring career to date, I have alway bought new tires. Though on my mum's Yaris, there are 2 x remolds about 15 years old now, no cracks, still hold pressure, plenty of tread, obviously a low mileage car! 

[MarksST]

15 hours ago, Botus said:

longevity is never what its about - your life is dependant upon the grip found - the simplest way to get this message across is stopping distances...  wet or dry - standing on the brakes at 70mph and stopping 5 metres shorter than an alleged comparable tyre is the difference of having having a scary moment and having the agro of an insurance claim and to walk to work for a few weeks, all for a saving of £15 quid a tyre ? But budget tyre are far worse, like saving £25 a tyre but stopping 12m longer and having no legs in a situation where using good tyres would have meant nothing ever happened .... worth the money? many seem to think so - but if we spell it out so clearly even a bloke on min wage and in debt would get it

In general

Bridgestone have an appalling life span, but otherwise can be OK

Michelin expensive, competent to a point and used to last well, but at 11/10ths they give up and you fall off the road wondering why they suddenly let go

Continental are designed for idiots, to drive like idiots and last ages - much like the cars from the same country, unrefined but cope with high speed abuse

Pirelli are good in the dry, hopeless in the wet, for many years they were deadly in the wet

Goodyear are better everywhere. slight vagueness on the steering, but more than compensate by hanging on far better even at 12 / 10ths and usually win all the tests by a country mile - but the pathetic scoring for irrelevant bits holds them back from everyone realising this

Silica can increase wet grip and extend life dramatically and we get more of it in high end newer tyres - rubber is old hat and is in older budget tyres and many last much less then proper tyres

the cost in premium tyres is in the research and development and the overall competence in multiple areas, vs sort of work for some areas almost as well as class leaders - but often woeful in most other areas, and outright dangerous in some critical places

“In general” should read “in your opinion”.

[unofix]

Personally I always find it amusing when people mention the hidden dangers of buying part used or secondhand tyres. "You don't know whats happened to them" and  "They may have been in some kind of accident". Both statements very true, but when they go to buy a used vehicle one of the first things they check is that the tyres have plenty of tread.

This is presumably because they intend to keep these part used tyres on their new secondhand car.  Of course they have no knowledge of the past life of these tyres, and for all they know all four of them might have been bought last week from a scrapyard in order to get the car ready for sale.

So logically when buying a used vechicle you want one that has almost four bald tyres so you can negotiate the price down and then once you own it drive straight to the nearest tyre garage and replace them all.

[Wino]

Had Nexen tyres fitted on our previous Focus and has no issues with them at all, they were black in colour and went around in circles as and when required 😉

[Botus]

On 3/12/2023 at 8:06 PM, StephenFord said:

Hard to stereotype a whole car brand with a century of history as 'unrefined'. Maybe one or 2 specific models over the years, but branding any totality with such derogatory unmoderated undertones  is just scary...

having qualifications in motor vehicle engineering and understanding quite how awful merc engines have always been, it doesn't take much to tell the truth

don't forget the 7 years of success lewis had was driving a ford with an engine made by ex employees of cosworth  - the only german thing was the star on the cam covers and and latterly some dyno work

they didn't even create the first car that was an englishman taking a french idea, many years earlier

[StephenFord]

16 minutes ago, Botus said:

having qualifications in motor vehicle engineering and understanding quite how awful merc engines have always been...

On a very quick Google search, Mercedes have created the following Petrol engines (I have not listed diesel) Incredible that you condemn every single one as being 'awful', that must be quite some qualification you have...

Straight-three[edit]

• M160, 0.6 – 0.7 L (1998–2007)
• M281, 0.9 - 1.0 L (2014–present)

Flat-four[edit]

• M144, 1.3 L (1936–1937, prototype)

Inline-four[edit]

• M23, 1.3 L (1933–1936)
• M30, 1.5 L (1934–1939)
• M136, 1.7 – 1.8 L (1935–1955)
• M149, 2.0 L (1938–1939)
• M121, 1.9 – 2.0 L (1955–1968)
• M118, 1.5 – 1.8 L (1965–1972)
• M115, 2.0 – 2.3 L (1968–1985)
• M102, 1.8 – 2.5 L (1980–1996)
• M111, 1.8 – 2.3 L (1992–2006)
• M166, 1.4 – 2.1 L (1997–2005)
• М135 1.3 – 1.6 L (2004–2010)
• M271, 1.6 – 1.8 L (2002–2015)
• M266, 1.5 – 2.0 L (2004–2012)
• M270, 1.6 – 2.0 L (2011–present)
• M200, 1.2 L (2012–present)
• M274, 1.6 – 2.0 L (2012–present)
• M133, 2.0 L (2013–2019)
• M139, 2.0 L (2019–present)
• M260/M264, 1.5 – 2.0 L (2017–present)
• M282, 1.3 L (2018–present)
• M254, 2.0 L (2021–present)

Flat-six[edit]

• M145, 1.9 L (1936–1937, prototype)

Straight-six[edit]

• M836, 3.9 – 4.0 L (1924–1929)
• M9456, 6.3 L (1924–1929)
• M01, 1.4 L (1926, prototype)
• M02, 2.0 L (1926–1933)
• M03, 3.0 L (1926–1927)
• M04, 3.0 – 3.1 L (1927–1928)
• M09, 3.4 L (1928–1929)
• M06, 6.8 – 7.1 L (1928–1934)
• M10, 3.5 L (1929–1933)
• M11, 2.6 L (1929–1935)
• M15, 1.7 L (1931–1936)
• M18, 2.9 L (1933–1937)
• M21, 2.0 L (1933–1936)
• M143, 2.2 L (1936–1941)
• M142, 3.2 L (1937–1942)
• M153, 2.3 L (1939–1943)
• M159, 2.6 L (1940, prototype)
• M180, 2.2 – 2.3 L (1951–1980)
• M186, 3.0 L (1951–1958)
• M188, 3.0 L (1952–1958)
• M194, 3.0 L (1952)
• M198, 3.0 L (1954–1963)
• M199, 3.0 L (1955–1958)
• M127, 2.2 L (1958–1964)
• M189, 3.0 L (1958–1967)
• M129, 2.5 L (1965–1967)
• M108, 2.5 L (1965–1967)
• M130, 2.8 L (1968–1972)
• M114, 2.5 L (1967–1972)
• M123, 2.5 L (1976–1985)
• M110, 2.8 L (1972–1986)
• M103, 2.6 – 3.0 L (1984–1995)
• M104, 2.8 – 3.6 L (1989–1997)
• M256, 3.0 L (2017–present)

V6[edit]

• M106, 2.5 L (1994–1996; non-production - prototype DTM racing engine)
• M112, 2.4 – 3.7 L (1997–2005)
• M272, 2.5 – 3.5 L (2004–2017)
• M276, 2.8 – 3.5 L (2010–present)
• Mercedes-Benz turbo-hybrid V6 F1 engine 1.6 L (2014–present)^[1]

Flat-eight[edit]

• M146, 2.5 L (1936-1937, prototype)

Straight-eight[edit]

• M08, 4.6 – 5.0 L (1928–1940)
• M07, 7.7 L (1930–1938)
• M19, 3.8 L (1932–1933)
• M22, 3.8 – 4.0 L (1933–1934)
• M24, 5.0 – 5.4 L (1934–1944)
• M150, 7.7 L (1938–1944)
• M124, 5.8 L (1939, prototype)
• M25 / M125 3.4 - 5.7 L (1934–1939)
• M196 2.5 – 3.0 L (1954–1955)

V8[edit]

• M147, 4.0 L (1938, prototype)
• M100, 6.3 – 6.9 L (1963–1981)
• M116, 3.5 – 4.2 L (1969–1991)
• M117, 4.5 – 5.6 L (1971–1992)
• M119, 4.2 – 6.0 L (1989–1999)
• 500I, 3.43 L (1994; non-production – Indy car racing engine)
• IC108, 2.65 – 3.43 L (1995–2000; non-production – Indy car racing engine)
• M113, 4.3 – 5.5 L (1997–2012)
• M155, 5.4 L (2004–2009)
• M273, 4.7 – 5.5 L (2005–2010)
• FO, 2.4 L (2006–2013; non-production – Formula One racing engine)^[2][3][4]
• M156, 6.2 L (2006–2014)
• M159, 6.2 L (2009–2014)
• M278, 4.7 L (2010–2020)
• M157, 5.5 L (2010–2019)
• M152, 5.5 L (2012–2015)
• M176/M177/M178, 4.0 L (2014–present)^[5]

V10[edit]

• FO, 3.0 – 3.5 L (1994–2005; non-production – racing engine)^[6]

V12[edit]

• M154 / M163 3.0 – 4.7 L (1934–1939; non-production – Grand Prix racing engine)
• M148, 6.0 L (1941–1942, prototype)
• M157, 6.0 L (1941–1942, prototype)
• MB503 42.4 - 44.5 L (1937-1939, prototype)
• MB509, 44.0 L (used in Panzer VIII Maus V1)
• M120, 6.0 – 7.3 L (1991–1998)
• M297, 6.9 – 7.3 L (1997–2016)
• M137, 5.8 – 6.3 L (1998–2002)
• M285, 5.5 L (2003–2012)
• M275, 6.0 L (2004–2015)
• M279, 6.0 L (2012–present)
• M158, 6.0 L (2012–present)
• M277, 6.0 L (2014–2020)

Flat-12[edit]

• M291, 3.5 L (1991–1992; non-production – Group C racing engine)^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]}

Wankel[edit]

• M950F, 1.8 – 2.4 L (1969–1970)

[Botus]

here we go a review - found on an incredible site - if you want to find info on just about any tyre

and whilst the new tyre from conti wins - worth noting aquaplaning is poor, its noisy, drinks fuel  and its uncomfortable

where the goodyear is well balanced tyre, excellent wet handling, great dry handling, low noise, good levels of comfort, low rolling resistance.

 

https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2023-Tyre-Reviews-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm

[Botus]

not sure your problem, I thought it was a ford site and a thread on tyres

but here's a clue (funny they are all recent cars from the same country)

 

 

[iantt]

Ah, Wankel. There's always a Wankel in the group. 

[StephenFord]

8 minutes ago, Botus said:

not sure your problem, I thought it was a ford site and a thread on tyres...

You could be right, maybe there are no YouTube videos whatsoever berating engines of other brands - oh, wait a minute LOL

[StephenFord]

Just now, iantt said:

Ah, Wankel. Everyone needs a Wankel. 

just off now for one 

[Botus]

oh no ! - on Mk2 Focus tyre size - 2023 mega test of 50 tyres for a 50th anniversary of one of the most well regarded tyre testing regimes out there - and the flipping Goodyear....

https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2023-ADAC-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm

1st: Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/A/69

Test # Difference % Dry Braking 13th +1.8 M 95.23% Wet Braking 11th +3 M 91.98% Wet Braking - Concrete 5th +0.8 M 97.78% Straight Aqua 27th -6.4 Km/H 92.62% Curved Aquaplaning 19th -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 15th +1.5 dB 97.88% Tyre Weight 11th +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 2nd -5800 Km 91.89% Value 8th +0.64 Price/1000 61.68% Price 44th +65 40.91% Fuel Consumption 10th +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 5th +26.5 mg/km/t 56.77%     Good: Very balanced, good on dry and wet roads, good environmental record, very high mileage (top grade), efficient. Weakness: None mentioned. Driving safety: The Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 secures an overall good rating for driving safety. It offers the driver decent feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, shows itself to be safe at the limit and boasts an above-average braking distance on dry roads. On wet roads, the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 shines in braking distance measurements and wet handling with good grip and safe drivability. Only when it comes to aquaplaning behaviour does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 scores with above-average mileage in the wear test and low abrasion. The efficiency is also impressive thanks to the low tire weight and low fuel consumption. When it comes to noise, the Goodyear performs satisfactorily.

 

 

[dontpannic]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:16 PM, Botus said:

oh no ! - on Mk2 Focus tyre size - 2023 mega test of 50 tyres for a 50th anniversary of one of the most well regarded tyre testing regimes out there - and the flipping Goodyear....

https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2023-ADAC-Summer-Tyre-Test.htm

1st: Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/A/69

Test # Difference % Dry Braking 13th +1.8 M 95.23% Wet Braking 11th +3 M 91.98% Wet Braking - Concrete 5th +0.8 M 97.78% Straight Aqua 27th -6.4 Km/H 92.62% Curved Aquaplaning 19th -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 15th +1.5 dB 97.88% Tyre Weight 11th +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 2nd -5800 Km 91.89% Value 8th +0.64 Price/1000 61.68% Price 44th +65 40.91% Fuel Consumption 10th +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 5th +26.5 mg/km/t 56.77%     Good: Very balanced, good on dry and wet roads, good environmental record, very high mileage (top grade), efficient. Weakness: None mentioned. Driving safety: The Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 secures an overall good rating for driving safety. It offers the driver decent feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, shows itself to be safe at the limit and boasts an above-average braking distance on dry roads. On wet roads, the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 shines in braking distance measurements and wet handling with good grip and safe drivability. Only when it comes to aquaplaning behaviour does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 scores with above-average mileage in the wear test and low abrasion. The efficiency is also impressive thanks to the low tire weight and low fuel consumption. When it comes to noise, the Goodyear performs satisfactorily.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean by this post, but I have these on my Focus - it had nearly new ones on the rear when I bought it but premium brand but non matched tyres up front, so I changed the non matching fronts to the same as the rears. Very good tyres from what I can tell so far, not quite as grippy as the Michelin PilotSport 4 I have on my Fiesta but they're a good all rounder.

Just to jump in with some of the discussion so far. I always prefer premium / midrange tyres to budgets - I've run Pirelli, Michelin, Goodyear, Nexen, Avon, UniRoyal, Toyo and countless others. The only tyres I've had bad experiences with have been budget brands. Whether them being so hard they're like plastic child toy wheels with next to no grip, whether it's bulges in the tyres, or premature cracking, or just poor performance.

Considering tyres are the only thing that connects the car to the road, I always have the thought "if someone is happy to run the cheapest of budget tyres, what else have they scrimped on when it comes to maintenance"? Has it really been properly serviced over the years? Is it likely that the water pump / cambelt / thermostat etc has been replaced with horrible quality pattern parts?

[StephenFord]

55 minutes ago, dontpannic said:

...if someone is happy to run the cheapest of budget tyres, what else have they scrimped on when it comes to maintenance"? Has it really been properly serviced over the years? Is it likely that the water pump / cambelt / thermostat etc has been replaced with horrible quality pattern parts?

I think you'll find that many of us aren't, 'happy' but are limited by the income we have to live on. I have been in the situation before where money was no object on a car, £300 tires were bought on a whim, servicing was carried out with no reference to the price. However, things change, I am now on a very tight budget, everything is now carried out on a budget, including tires.

Budget tires are manufactured within the same legal regulations as premium tires. I am no longer a boy racer, have an Institute of Advanced Motorist exam (and a RoSPA class 1 driving test), so I always stay away from other drivers because with respect, most are idiots!. Not having a single accident in over 40 years, odd the more careful I am, the luckier I seem to be.

Yes, I would love to be rich, but I'm not, neither are millions of other car owners in the UK who rely on their car. I use 'branded' parts for brakes and critical components, but 'horrible quality pattern parts' are fine for many other uses.