From: fitchitt@wam.umd.edu ()
Subject: Re: Michelin MXV tire and its competitors
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:49:10 GMT

In article <joso.715142931@vega> joso@vega.math.ualberta.ca (Joseph_So) writes:
>edj@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (edward.jung) writes:
>
>>My wife drives an 89 Accord and I drive a 90 Integra.  Both cars came with
>>the Michelin MXV tires and they had one redeeming quality: The original tires
>>still passed inspection after 60000 miles on them.  OK, my wife drives pretty
>>tame but I drive my car like a madman (I found out that my car has a rev
>>limiter at about 7500 rpm.)
>
>>The tires sucked in the rain.  No arguments here.  It was scarry to drive
>>the Integra whenever the road was wet.  At speeds higher than 45mph I would
>>feel the car losing traction constantly.  This month I put Pirelli P500's on 
>>both cars.  During a rainstorm last week I cautiously crept the speed up to
>>get a feel for how the Pirellis drove.  I found myself quickly up to 65mph
>>without a single twitch out of the tires.  I drove through puddles just to
>>see if the tires would hydroplane and they didn't.
>
>>When I went to shop for tires I was looking for something in the 
>>"high performance all season" or "high performance M+S" category.  I was
>>going to purchase Bridgestone Potenza HP41's, but decided to take a
>>chance and buy the Pirelli's (everyone seems to have a special on them.)
>
>>The Pirelli's at $60 a tire were only a few bucks more expensive than the 
>>Bridgestones and were much cheaper than the MXV's or XGT-H4's.  The treadwear
>>rating on the Pirellis are better than the MXV's also (220 vs 180, I think.)
>
>>(If anyone has any inside info on the Pirelli P500's, like, they melt on
>>a hot summer day or they blow up on Friday the 13th, let me know.)
>
>>Ed Jung
>>e_jung@att.com
>
>
>I also find the Pirelli P500 to be quite OK on my 90 Honda
>CRX Si as far as rain goes. I had the Yoko AX323 before
>that and it was quite dangerous in the rain here in Edmonton.
>However, I haven't got to drive the P500 on snow yet --
>that's why I bought the P500 in the first place (I was
>sick of changing and balancing tires at least twice a year:
>summer to snow ad infinum).
> 
>BTW, the Yoko had better grip and cornering in the dry.
>However, I think the difference has something to do with
>tire pressure. I used 30 psi on all 4 tires with the Yoko
>and 32 psi on all 4 tires with the P500.
>I am now trying the 34 psi on the front and 30 psi on the back
>combination with the P500 and it seems that handling
>improves noticeably.
>Maybe someone will tell me that I am messing up the
>suspension with this combination on the CRX.
>
>
>--------------------------------
>Joseph So
>Mathematics, U of Alberta, Edmonton
>joseph@hyper.math.ualberta.ca
>

I have teh P500's on my '81 Datsun 280ZX, they are pretty nice, can't really
compare to the rotted tires that were on before (came with the car)

The wet performance is very nice, so are the sidewalls, I get a decent
perfomance out of 195/70 tires. I have put 5000 miles on them, and according
to the tire dealer, worn them down less than 10% they are only gaurenteed for
40000, so if I keep going the way I'm going , I'll get 50,000 out of 'em...

I'm really happy with 'em.

One note, to the guy who is filling to 34psi, FORGET the car manufacturer
reccomendation! I had mine a 32 and they were ok. On the advice on someone
on this group a few months ago, I filled them to just under the max sidewall
psi, 40psi. The handling was much improved (some of this might have been
psycosematic(sp?))

I suggest you try it out. It won't hurt, you can always bleed them back down.

3000 miles on them at 40 have show no center balding, they look fine.

I expected a much bumpier ride, for some reason it didn't happen, in fact
going over some of the crummy patches on 95, it actually felt smoother!
I couldn't figure that out.