Personally speaking, I like a large sidewall on a smaller rim. But I do think tires and different brands do play a huge difference. You definitely get what you pay for. We just outfitted our Matrix with a set of Michelin Super Sport +3 tires last week, cost was $650 at Costco USA and they are AA traction rated. The car rides like it did when we first got the car. So nice. Lots of reaction and a decent ride. I also wonder if softer tire that don't last as long might help with ride comfort. My Corolla has Good Year Eagle RSA with a low treadwear rating of 240 and the ride is not bad. I would get them again, only issue is the treadwear is not much past 40K.

 

Michelin has always made a good tire (which is one reason why they cost what they do), though other brands are catching up somewhat. Continental Contipro Contacts are also considered excellent by today's standards.

Definitely agree on a tall, cushy sidewall.

One thing, though, to keep in mind with the tread-wear index. Although modern tire engineering has produced some excellent advances, tires can still be a compromise, at least to an extent. All else equal, a harder rubber compound will last longer before wearing out, but negatively affect ride comfort and traction. That's why hybrids often have low-rolling resistance tires that give good mileage by allowing the engine to not work as hard, but have unimpressive braking/handling/skidpad figures from the relatively poor traction.

 

The Continental Extreme Contact Sports are a great deal for supposedly close to MPSS performance with better wet traction.

 

I used to only buy Michelin tires, but my experience with some other brands over the last few years have shown me other tire makers make tires just as good for way less money. The "Michelin" brand itself costs you a lot because so many people will "only buy Michelins". Sort of like Sony TVs used to be at least (maybe still are). I found the same to be true of Sony products BTW.

 

I was actually surprised, when I test drove the 335i at the dealer, the two cars were identical except for a stick and auto (neither were for sale, 0 were in stock, both were space gray which was a new color, sport package, no navi, premium, comfort access, cold weather). I remember remarking to the saleswoman that I had expected a harsher ride. I truly felt that this car was, and is, purposeful. A lot of fluff is not there, and much of the underpinnings were for performance. Stick with sport package meant 100% the car came with an external oil cooler, auto was hit or miss. Finally stick drivers win!

The funniest thing besides people today feeling that the steering is broken, is that in 2007, the angel eyes powered by a halogen H8 were very cool. Some folks who have acquired these cars in the last few years feel it's embarrassing, how dim the DRLs are! lol And LEDs did exist back then, as demonstrated by the rear markers and obviously high mount....

I don't have a problem with factory sized tires, even if 35's, 40's, etc. If it didn't come from the factory, then it's unlikely that handling is going to be improved by slapping low pros on, they're 100% looks....my .02

 

exactly. but as you know, the "35" or "45" is a PERCENTAGE of the width = sidewall height, so wider tires will have a bigger sidewall than narrower ones at the same percentage.

i personally will likely never own tires with 40 or 35 again due to high cost, flinty ride, and i don't need track-like handling. an exception might be something like an amg mercedes with their amazing active suspensions.

 

The only time I ever owned a new Porsche, it came with 205/55-16's in the front, and 225/50-16's in the rear. If one went back 2 years prior to this car, 15's were standard, and 16's were optional. The 15's would have been 215-60/15, and they were considered wide. A lot of the technology has in fact changed, but much of it again is for looks. As a lay person who cannot afford to have multiple rim diameters and widths with the same revs/mile (magazines can), my educated guess is somewhere between 17-18" is the sweet spot, and beyond, is for looks....my wife's has 19's, such an odd diameter if you ask me....

 

Sony is an excellent example, I'm not sure there's anything good about their products, just like Bose.

I too have always held Michelin in high regard, my wife's car has them, my BMW has them, I got the Xice 3's for the LS430. Not only are they made in a strange country, but they are noisy. Then I dug into the reviews and there were many that slammed these tires. Live and learn. But I likely will always have some flavor of Pilot Super Sport on my BMW....

 

I've been a "Continental guy" for the past 16 years. Mainly because they have been my ORM tire for my past 4 cars. They just didn't let me down, so why fix what wasn't broken? Recently I decided to see what the Michelin hype train is all about. The new PS4S seemed like a good initiation for me. Glowing reviews and supposedly even better than the standard setting MPSS? Why not?

 

I've heard good things about Contis.

Weird issue, but I've found they don't take tire dressing very well...my Sedona has a set.

 

Michelin also used clever marketing, like the ads that continually appealed to parents of infants and small children....as if riding on any other brand would put your kids at risk.

 

The new PS4S look AWESOME, I hope you enjoy your set. I am looking to pick up a set when my Bridgestone RE50's wear out on my GS.

 

OP's post is over 2 years old. But to answer the question, yes low profile tires are a PITA and expensive, especially if you get a staggered setup like my current car. Couple of years ago, the roads in February/March were really bad, lots of freeze/thaw cycles, the interstate was literally disintegrating before your eyes. Anyways, one one of these huge chunks of I will call it "missing road" popped the front tire on my car. Lexus SC300, 18" dealer accessory "Lexus Spyder" wheels, I think the front tire size is a 225/35/R18, maybe a 225/40/R18, anyways, its one of those rubber band sidwalls, its a "plus 3" vs the stock 15" tire/wheel, ie overall wheel/tire diameter is the same, yet the stock rim is 15" vs 18" wheel I'm running now, the overall tire diameter is the same, so of course the sidewall has shrunk A LOT.

Anyways, that "pothole"(I will call it more like a whole missing lane of pavement for several hundred feet) popped the right front tire and scratched the hell out of the rim. I pulled off at the nearest exit and had a flatbed get me home. I was lucky that the damage to the rim was only cosmetic, had it refinished, but the color match wasn't right, so I sent it back for a 2nd go round, free of charge. For the $100+tax it cost to refinish it(it still doesn't exactly match the other three), I should have just bought a new wheel at $150-200. So yeah one stupid pothole cost me about $300, 3 trips around town about the cost to fix wheel/replace tire, three trips to the tire shop, mainly just a huge waste of my damn time.

 

In one word. NO.

 

I have a 2007 is250 lexus bought it with 20 inch tires and rims. My struts need to be replaced now what would be the best struts for this type car and wheel size it has