I guess its dependant upon dealer, because my IS came with Michelins. They have been utterly fabulous to say the least. 6,012k and not a sign of wear, mind you, I seldomly push the IS to the limit (curvy backroad or two, no auto X).

 

Since you're a mind reader, or you feel so compelled to speak for someone else, what exactly is the 'point'. The poster said he didn't think highly of GY tires and would readily choose Dunlop over GY - I pointed out that GY & Dunlop are now the same company, which he did not know. So what is the simple analogy with the Pilot/Mdx ???

 

yes, I am well aware MDX, Pilot and Odyssey are assembled at the same plant. But this is not the same analogy--Acura is a branch that originated out of Honda from the beginning, as Lexus is from Toyota; Dunlop was an independent company acquired by GY, as Chrysler by MB. Last I heard, Chrysler is not made by MB, even if it uses many of MB's older technologies. I don't believe Lamborghini is made by Audi, either; do you?

 

Oh, excellent. You "KNOW".

Evidently, you've never been in a Pilot. I've cross-shopped the Pilot and MD-X, and have seen enough evidence to tell >>>me<<< that the MD-X is a nicer vehicle. Visiting an MD-X or Pilot forum will tell me nothing.

 

Are you serious?

 

The problem with Honda is they kept improving the Pilot to the point that a fully loaded '06 Pilot does not have much over the '06 Mdx (at least until they debut the '07 Mdx). I said to visit the Pilot/Mdx sites because this issue is discussed at nauseum. You won't ever see an Avalon come close to a LS, Toyota just knows how to market their brands better than Honda. The only thing I can think of that my Mdx has that you cannot get on a Pilot is the Nav w/RES - for the Pilot you can get one or the other, but not both. Of course the sheetmetal is vastly different, but again, a fully loaded Pilot can be equipped like a Mdx for $8k less (moonroof, leather seats, Nav, 6 disc CD, DVD, etc). Major components are the same, engine, tranny, Awd drivetrain, brakes, ext/int colors, etc. If Honda was smart, they'd keep some of the 'nice' features for their 'upscale' brand/division to differentiate b/w the models to justify the stiffer asking price. Like I said, even an '06 Avalon still does not have all the features of a '00 LS400 . . .

Sorry to hijack the thread - this will be my last off topic post on the subject . . .

 

that treadwear numbering system isnt exactly standardized

 

Well, I hate to disagree ... here is a quote from wikipedia (just a quick and easy source) -

"It is important to note that these ratings are based on standardized testing conditions."

That's why it's called the UTQG, or Uniform Tire Quality Grading. It was established by te U.S. Government to give consumers an idea of what to expect from a tire in terms of traction, mileage and resistance to heat, and it's based on standardized testing.

Needless to say, your mileage may vary, since anyone can erase a tire faster if they want to. But when compared to a reference tire, under the same conditions, it's serves as a good guide.

 

There was more flex on the sidewalls in one or more tire, causing the cars to pull to the right.

Yes, Lexus replaced all four tires for free at my 5k service interval. The Dunlops were replaced by Bridgestones, and problem solved.

 

Have to agree with 4TehNguyen here. The UTQG tests are run by the tire manufacturer, not by an independent testing body. Further, they are only run for 7,200 miles, and life expectancy is extrapolated from that point.

I've come to trust the Tire Rack for expert advice; this is what they have to say on the subject:
"The problem with UTQG Treadwear Grades is that they are open to some interpretation on the part of the tire manufacturer because they are assigned after the tire has only experienced a little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This means that the tire manufacturers need to extrapolate their raw wear data when they are assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades can to some extent reflect how conservative or optimistic their marketing department is. Typically, comparing the Treadwear Grades of tire lines within a single brand is somewhat helpful, while attempting to compare the grades between different brands is not as helpful."

 

I don't normally disagree with your posts, Bichon, but I don't think that's the whole story, nor is it the correct answer to the OP's statement. He said the ratings aren't "exactly standardized", whereas the Dep't. of Transportation would take issue. They have a set of standards the tire mfr's must follow to establish the ratings. In fact, the paragraph on Tire Rack immediately prior to the one you quoted says:


"UTQG Treadwear Grades are based on actual road use in which the test tire is run in a vehicle convoy along with standardized Course Monitoring Tires. The vehicle repeatedly runs a prescribed 400-mile test loop in West Texas for a total of 7,200 miles. The vehicle can have its alignment set, air pressure checked and tires rotated every 800 miles. The test tire's and the Monitoring Tire's wear are measured during and at the conclusion of the test. The tire manufacturers then assign a Treadwear Grade based on the observed wear rates. The Course Monitoring Tire is assigned a grade and the test tire receives a grade indicating its relative treadwear. A grade of 100 would indicate that the tire tread would last as long as the test tire, 200 would indicate the tread would last twice as long, 300 would indicate three times as long, etc."


To quote another source (http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/utqg.htm: )

"What is UTQG?

Tires have many markings on the sidewall, but most people don't understand the technical meaning of them, especially UTQG. Therefore, this time we would like to talk about UTQG.

UTQG stands for "Uniform Tire Quality Grading", which is required by "FMVSS" (FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This standard requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance of passenger car tires used in the U.S.A. in the area of Treadwear, Traction, and Temperature Resistance. This applies to all passenger car tires, except deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spares, or tires with nominal rim diameters of twelve (12) inches or less. This is the standard with a history which had been judged as final in the Supreme Court of U.S.A. between the governments, vehicle manufacturers and tire manufacturers.


TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course *. The grading fixes 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index, and the grading shall be in multiplies of 20.

*The test course consists of three loops of a total of 400 miles (644kms) in the geographical vicinity of Goodfellow Air Force Base (AFB), San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.

(TEST PROCEDURE)
* Run a car with test tires mounted till 6,400 miles (10,300kms) pass.
(The tire is tested in convoy with a "base" tire so as to eliminate the variable of temperature and road surface.)
* Measure the tread depth after each 800 miles (1287kms) run.
* Then the projected worn out tire life is calculated. Fixing that 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index.

For example, a tire graded 200 would wear twice as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices, and differences in road characteristics and climates. "

Now, I'm not saying the testing is bulletproof or perfect, but it is indeed "standardized" as part of FMVSS. That's a lot different from implying it's just up to the whim of the tire mfr. And while you can't bank on any specific treadwear performance based on the rating (due to different driving habits, different conditions, etc., etc.), the treadwear rating is a reasonable indicator for people comparing tires.

Agree?

 

Comes down to semantics.

If by standardized you mean that there is a prescribed written testing procedure that manufacturers are compelled to follow, then yes, it is standardized.

If by standardized you mean that the procedures are such that two different manufacturers running the testing procedure against the exact same tire will arrive at the exact same rating number, then no, it is not standardized. The testing procedure runs 7,200 miles, the rating is for 30,000 miles, and there is enough wiggle room in the extrapolation process to makes the final result inconsistant among testers depending on whether they want to be optimistic or conservative.

Two different salesmen from Tire Rack have told me the same thing that is on their web site; that the UTQG ratings are useful for comparing treadlife within a manufacturers own product line, but can not be trusted for comparing between different manufacturers. In 20 years of doing business with them, they haven't led me astray yet.

 

Well, I don't want to get into a drawn-out thing here, but I just think words have meaning, and "standardized" means "standardized'. As in "hewing to a written or accepted standard". Which the tire rating system is.

And if two mfr's took the exact same tire and ran it on the convoy test described above, their results would be identical for the 7200 miles. What they choose to do to extrapolate mileage beyond that is between them, their Maker and the DOT (who approves or disapproves final mileage ratings beyond that 7200-mile test run).

My primary point is that it isn't just a number mfr's pull out of their backsides, and that was the implication I drew from the post.

 

Time to add some real value to this thread. Tread depth new on the Bridgestone RE050 is 8.0mm. I have just under 5k on the odometer (4866 miles) and my measured tread is 6.76mm in the rear and 6.80mm in the front as an average across the tread. Out of 6mm of legal wear, I have used 20.7%. Projecting this in a linear fashion, I should expect to get 23,500 miles from these tires. No doubt it will be a bit less because tires do wear faster as the tread gets thinner, but I have little doubt I'll get 20k miles out of them.

Granted, I drive mostly on long trips, I don't commute at all, and I am not rough with the throttle. However, this does include a trip to the dragstrip where I made 5 passes with the VSC turned off. No burnouts, but definitely got some tire slip on launch. So, all in all, it looks like the RoT (add two zeros to the rating) underestimates these tires for me by a significant margin.

 

19,600 miles on my original RE050s on my S2000, and I'm still getting excellent traction in the wet (well, as excellent as I could with this much wear on a performance tire), and could probably get another 5k miles out of them before needing replaced.