ferenc said:hmm, i thought it was advisable to put the better set of tires on the front, or ...?
thanks,
ferenc
VegeLady said:I went with the Michelin Defender XT 225/65R17 102T. There was not a problem on the speed rating. They explained they could install since it was just one rating lower, not two.
There's also a Michelin Defender LTX M/S with 102H, low rolling resistance and a UTQG rating of 720 A A (versus the base Defender at 820 A B). Tire Rack is currently listing a full set at $624 after shipping.ferenc said:Costco also carries the 225/65R17/101H Michelin Defender. Thus the speed rating is not reduced, but the load capacity per tire is reduced from 1874 to 1819. Considering the load rating will not come into place, the H rated tire seems like a better choice.
ferenc said:Michelin said the Defender is a 102T rating, which they say dealers will install even though they are not H rated.
Concord Costco ($630/4 OTD) will install, but will write a note on it, whereas Big O in Lafayette said no to installing them.
The Defender XLT M/S, even though, it has an H rating, was not recommended by Michelin.
Costco, here I come,
Ferenc
I have observed this on every front wheel drive car I've owned. The more power the car has, the more exaggerated this effect is.ph2 said:The rear tires have worn about 1/16th less than the front in about 10k miles, which is a testament to the stresses places on the front tires.
Enter your email address to join: