tfischer

My tire knowledge only comes from my limited experience and reading some articles in car magazines. As I understand it, there are two big trade-offs that are made when buying a tire. If the tread is aggressive, it will grip on wet pavement better than a tread pattern with more rubber against the ground. That's why race tires are slicks - no tread at all, so 100% of the tire is in contact with the turf. This extreme holds very well, as long as it's not raining. So all tires design the tread to either grip better in wet or grip better on dry pavement. Take your pick. The other big factor is the compound of the "rubber." In cold weather, a standard tire gets very hard, which gives less traction because less tire contacts the pavement. Snow tires are made to stay soft in cold temperatures, so that they grip better. But they also stay soft in warm weather. Softer tires wear out faster. Tires geared toward performance are soft, so they grip well in cornering, but they wear out quickly. Your choice here is between performance and tire life.
In other words, you can't win all the time, because there will always be conditions for which your tires are not optimal. Unless you want to change your tires like you change your shoes, it could always be better. You have to pick the tire for the factors that are most important to you and for how much, and how often, you are willing to pay.
The real problem is that there are too many choices.

jfelbab

In my real world, my OEM Michelins (MXV4s) lasted 27,000 miles before being down to 3/32nds and they were not handling well for the last 5k or so. Even when new, they were poor in snow and on ice. Michelin was so proud of these tires they gave NO treadlife warranty at all. In my world, Michelin tires were junk on my RX.

I now have 50,000 miles on my Alenzas with 7/32nds tread depth remaining and they are still running well. At their current rate of wear (1/32nd per every 10,000 miles) I expect to see at least another 30-40,000 miles before replacement is needed. That means I should see 80-90,000 miles on this set of tires. Bridgestone treadlife warrantee on these tires was 5 years and 65,000 miles.

Care to site your source(s) for the above quote? Since "performing up until the last day very well is a trait each Michelin has." is a load of bull, IME.

Uniform Tire Quality Grade (UTQG) is a general indicator of tire expectations:
Looking at the 235/55-18 data, the Michelin UTQG rating is 440 A A, and the Alenzas are rated 600 A A.

In fact, when looking at the customer survey data at TireRack.com, comparing these two tires, there is not a single category where the Michelin has outscored the Alenza, not one.

So what line of business are you in that you see thousands of Michelins performing so well? Are you a Michelin dealer?

So as not to be seen as a plug for the Alenza tire there are better choices for our RX, the Michelin MXV4 is just not one of them.

Mercutio

I'm glad your Alenza are doing well. They are a good tire.

You compare the OE Spec MXV4 to the after market Alenza and you may as well compare it to a balloon because nothing is the same. OE Spec'd tires are not for sale to the public for a reason. The automaker owns the reason you don't like it. They may look the same as what is available for you on the shelf but it is not. The chemistry is different in the tires sent to the factory than at the store. (For all brands) The construction (inside) is the same but that is it.

Energy MXV4 is not the best choice for many people but it does provide the ride and feel that the Lexus Engineers designed the vehicle to give the driver. Years are spent on this detail so there is nothing I can say about that. They do however come with a tread-wear warranty aftermarket spec but not on OE.

There are other choices in that brand to choose from and no doubt B/S has a great tire in the Alenza and I'm not knocking it. I personally am not a fan of the Energy MXV4 but I do know of other models I would buy in a heart beat. Aesthetically I am not a fan of the Alenza.

UTQG CANNOT be compared from brand to brand. This number only means something within the same brand. (If you read the info on Tire Rack, it also tells you this BTW) So comparing a Mich 440 UTQG to a 600 B/S UTQG is as productive to comparing it to a chunk of wood. The numbers don't relate.

And Thanks I don't care to share my source. It is what I do. When a doctor tells you your arm is broken do you ask him for his source?

We are all here to offer information to each other. Lets just enjoy the free input without the remarks trying to discredit someone else.

Buhbie

Just bought a set of Michelin Energy Saver A/S. (I run Blizzaks in the winter). If the better fuel economy due to the low rolling resistance is true, the tires will literally pay for themselves over the life of the tires.

I will keep everyone informed as to the performance and whether the fuel economy stats are true.

tfischer

Wow!
I'm going out right now and get some of those tires that "literally" pay for themselves.
In the past, I have always had to pay for them myself, and I am so tired of that.

jfelbab

Well yes, IMO, you can compare tires in this way. The whole purpose of NHTSA's UTQG rating system is to give consumers a means to compare tires across brands. All these tires are tested against a control tire (given a UTQG 100 Rating). These control tires are the same for all manufacturers and last I checked they were certified to meet an ASTM standard. Sure, there is some marketing in this and the tires are only run for 7,200 miles in this test, but its reasonable to expect a tire that gets a 600 rating will likely out-wear one that has a 400 rating regardless of manufacturer.

Well no I wouldn't, but if I was taking health advice from a new doctor that conflicted with my own experience, I might want to ask a few questions.

I was not discrediting you and if you felt so, I apologize. I simply want to know where you are coming from. You state: Your comment simply begs to know where you saw all these thousands of Michelin tires performing so well while my own experience with multiple sets of Michelin tires on several different vehicles throughout some 50+ years has not led me to the same conclusion.

I also am remiss in that I failed to welcome you to the forum as a new member. This forum is a great source of knowledge and I know you will enjoy it. Again, I want to make it very clear that I was not/am not, trying to discredit your input.

takeshi74

In comparing 600 treadwear to 400 that's a fairly safe bet. Mercutio has a point in that UTQG treadwear is really just a guideline and not a guranteee anything since there are other factors at play that will affect real world tread life. I think that Mercutio just overstated the matter. They're not totally incomparable. Just be aware of the caveats when comparing different manufacturers as it's up to each manufacturer to make the measurements. As jfelbab states, the tires are only run to 7,200 miles. The remaining life is extrapolated and there is leeway in the extrapolation.

Actually, that's not what Tire Rack says. I'll let Tire Rack speak for itself:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=48
I guess it's open to interpretation but "as productive as comparing it to a chunk of wood" and "not as helpful" are not equivalent in my book.




Since you're citing Tire Rack you might also want to read:
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/motors...ment-submitted

Enjoy being able to choose from 440 and 600 treadwear tires that are suited for the RX. My other car has tires rated at 200. That said, it's a lot more fun in the twisties.

jfelbab

Agreed, my MR2 is riding on Yokahama rated 160. Sticky as hell and great fun in the corners. Getting close to time to buy some new skins for her. I got that MR2 in November of 1990 and love it as much today as when I bought it. Still looks pretty nice today as well.




And @Mercutio Please don't think your input is not appreciated. Sometimes it is difficult to converse via messaging as we don't get that eye-to-eye contact. I am positive we all are here to offer, and learn from, friendly and helpful advice, from everyone. I really hope you don't feel that I was trying to discredit you or your input. We all benefit from multiple user experiences and need to keep open to the discussion of them here at CL. As a new member, I really don't want to make your initial foray here a negative one. We are a friendly bunch of Lexus owners and can all gain from our experiences.

Mercutio

I'm confused. Your Vehicle Profile says you replaced OEM Goodyear with Bridgestone Alenza. Above you mentioned you had (Micheln Energy) "MXV4" on as OE.... Which was it?

So far my experience here has not been positive. (Thanks for the concern)

I was looking forward to helping people understand things they don't. I know what it is like to be on the other side and since I have spent the last 20 years of my life in this specific field, I thought someone would appreciate that. I was wrong.

A Degree in Physics, Chemistry and Mechanical Engineering has led me to many places. Tire R&D has been by far my most favorite of them all.

I guess there will always be a large generation gap between us. I respect that and would not want to step on your toes here. You have done a good job of providing info for people looking for something.

Good Luck.

garybuyit

Thanks for your input . . .
One of the reasons I bought the Alenza's was the deeper tread depth. And the 65K miles warranty.
In any case, I took them back to discount tire. No hassle, and after much discussion, I went with new Michellin snow tires, the Lattitude X-ice "Green" model. 40k mileage warranty. Main reason was/is a trip from seattle to chicago this week for Thanksgiving, during snow season. As I write this, we are in a hotel in Moline, Illinois. 57*, sunny, and no snow! (still have to go back the other way, of course)
FWIW, after I changed tires, the new tires gave me back 4 mpg, of the 5 mpg I lost with Alenza's. Admittedly, it was only the 77 miles run so not a great control test, however, it was 77 miles in the local roads we run on every day, every week, so I feel the test was fairly accurate.
In addition, the new X-ice tires run quieter, and smoother. So I'll keep them. . . . and yes, I'll spend more $$ in the spring to buy some non-snow tires to run on the other 8 or 9 months. (and damnit, probably some new wheels as well)
I'm only using that 77 mile number because mile 78 we hooked up a U-Haul trailer for the trip, and mileage went on the back burner. :-(

Mileage is another subject, but suffice to say that after 9 or 10 tankfuls, (all non-ethanol fuel), we're averaging 18.09 MPG (measured manually by gallons and miles, not the car computer.) The car computer consistently tells me 19.1 or 19.2 mpg. It is a small 5x8 trailer, weighs 950 lbs, and is maybe 1/2 full, another 300-400 lbs., max. We are driving the speed limit everywhere, which means 75 in Montana/Wyoming & parts of Nebraska, 65 in other states. It will be interesting to see what we get on the way home without the trailer.

Another FWIW, I run the Continental Extreme DWS on my own car, an IS300, and have been very happy with them. About 36,000 miles on them so far, with maybe another 5-6,000 left according to Discount Tires. Now have 216,000+ miles on the 2001 IS300, and it doesn't use any oil at all! :-) I'll run that car forever!
Garybuyit

Adamjeeps

I have never driven through much snow, have a different vehicle for that.

We have about 50,000 miles on the Alenzas now and still plenty of tread. It seems most members here are getting good life on their RX with these tires. I will most likely go with the Verde next to see if they are quieter and get a little better mpg.

Mercutio

Very good Write-up!

For winter I too only choose Michelin. No more winter seasons for me but I will most likely always have a set of Michelin in the Garage in case we decide to Ski sometimes.
X-Ice has saved my life I'm sure on many occasions with thousands of highway miles on them so it is hard to "try" anything else because I'm not into Russian Roulette when it comes to winter.

Thanks again!
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family

RX330inFL

While not an all-season tire, I hear a lot of good things about the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R SUV (studless) and Nokian Hakkapeliitta R SUV (studded) snow tires. While researching snow tires for a possible posting in the mountains for the winter months those came up on a regular basis.

Last set of snow tires I had to purchase, and I did not even get to use them much, was a set of Bridgestone Blizzaks. Was at a time when you could not go wrong with that purchase.

Now, I am much like you, Mercutio. However, what I have found is that my Alenzas do quite well in the PA snows I have experienced during my trips to the PA mountains for hunting season. Will be there in a few days. Six inches of snow has been no problem for my FWD RX, even on the back roads which are rarely plowed in a timely manner. So, no need for snow tires in quite some time.

Had the OEM Michelin MXV4 at first, however, they had a bit more sidewall flex than I care for in my daily driver. Increasing tire pressures did not help, so I made the change to something known for a much stiffer sidewall. I do agree with you though in that while it has the same name as the replacement tire sold by Tire Rack and others it is perhaps not the same tire. The ones sold to the tire distributors and resellers of the same name are often more than likely to be of better quality tread compounds and possibly construction. For me and my RX, the MXV4 was not the tire for the job. Though, I have driven a number of vehicles over the years where the preferred and desired tire was a Michelin. Have even had dealers swap a set of tires before a purchase to ensure I had Michelins on the corners of the vehicle I wanted to purchase.

Mercutio

The Nokian winter that you mentioned is 1 tire line that makes Michelin sweat.

Michelin Engineers have said to me that they really think this tire is a great tire. They also said that Nokian really did their homework on this one and they do have a great product there.
I have not had much hands on with any Nokian tires in my years in the industry.

Thanks for the info

IAGS400

For the first 4300 miles we had our RX350 with the OEM tires we averaged 19.217 mpg.
For the next 9200 miles with the Bridgestone Alenza we averaged 19.068 mpg. It would be higher but I purposely didn't include the miles after my wife changed jobs. All fuel 89 was ethanol.

cliff notes: IMHO switching from OEM tires to Bridgestone Alenza will not noticeably decrease your mpg.



(I have a spreadsheet tab for every vehicle I have owned since mid 1995 that has dates/miles driven/gallons used etc.)

Overall average for the car is at 20.02.