From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Michelin MXV tire and its competitors
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:38:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: rec.autos
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.autos, knightf@infonode.ingr.com (Frank Knight) writes:
>In article <Bt4zC3.Cz7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> msingh@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (T
>he Supreme Commander) writes:
#>>on a price/performance basis, the MXV is one of the worst tires
#>>Michelin has ever produced.  i was never happier than when i finally
								^^^^^^^
#>>wore out the set that came as OE on my Alfa sedan and got to
   ^^^^
#>>replace them with decent tires.

Long life, and your complaining? If they were that bad, why not just
replace them?

#>I had a set of MXV's on my '87 Integra. Now, that car is bad in slick
#>conditions as it is, but the MXV's made it *far* worse. Terrible set
#>of tires in my opinion.

A car that is bad in the rain, and you want tires to cure the bad design?

>I *like* my MXV's, grip well and are smooth as silk at any speed
>(<125mph)

Personally, I like the MXV's also. Had a set of Dunlop D60 M2's on the
car, a 1988 Celica Turbo Alltrac, and had nothing but trouble. The tires
tended to pull the car in one direction (never discovered why, appeared
to be no broken belts or strange wear patterns) and had excessive wear
(less than 22k miles) NTW replaced them with MXV's. The first thing
I noticed was an immediate drop in noise that must have been between
3-6 Db at highway speeds. The second thing I noticed is, la voila, the
car drove straight, no more pulling tendencies. After 11k miles, I've
worn off between 2-2.5mm on all four tires, which have received
the same care and driving conditions of the previous tires. (This means 
that I expect them to last ~40k miles, maybe more.) I have noticed *very*
little difference in *overall* handling. The difference between the
two? - in wet weather, the Dunlops held a little better, but when they
broke free, they really went. The MXV's broke earlier, but rolled, allowing
a sliding traction to be maintained. I can actually go around a corner
a little faster in the wet with the MXV's than the Dunlops. If performance
really is that important to you that you're willing to call what by
most standards is a decent tire total trash, my first suggestion would
be to get rid of the car you're driving, and purchase a decent handling
car. (Something along the lines of a 959 comes to mind :> ) Failing
that, quit quibbling over minor differences when it is your car that
fails to make the best use of the tire's characteristics.

As for the Bridgestone HP RE 71's, a guy at merchants told me to expect
less than 20k of useable driving tread from them, said they were so
soft they'd melt on the road in city driving (I live in the DC region).
I might try a set anyway, after the MXV's are worn, just to see what
they're really like, if Bridgestone is still making them. I understand
that the Turato (SP) is supposed to take their place, and they come
with a 50k mileage warranty, but aren't supposed to be as high end as
the RE71s.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: rec.autos