What tires did you replace your stock Conti's with???

Kenn, I agree with you that many consumer reviews aren't that useful, but some of us here (me included) are comparing nearly new Contis with other new tires. The Contis came off my Golf with less than 2K on them, ultimately replaced by new Michelins. I don't think you could call that comparing worn with new.

i have some COOPER ZEON's (225/45-17) i've put 10k on them and still riding smoothly

Kenn JSW said:

I also don't particularly trust tire ratings by consumers (such as on tire rack), as, again, they are comparing apples and oranges (their new tires versus their old ones), plus consumers typically just don't have the experience with lots and lots of tires in the same time period.

Click to expand...

I think it is interesting to read the comments from consumers, but it is primarily the Tirerack testing results I look to for helping me make my buying decisions. In the tests, they use new tires in the same size on the same car. Based on the test results, I think there is no question the new Primacy MXM4 is a very good tire.

My favorite line from the Tirerack test for the new Primacy MXM4, "What We'd Improve: There's not much that needs improvement"

Is it really THAT good? I don't know for sure how it compares to every tire out there, but it does seem pretty darn quiet and comfortable to me. I have owned a lot of new tires in this same category, but of course I can't help but compare directly to the original tires what just came off of the car with 40K miles on them.

For mpg, I think I may have lost one or two, but I also went up to 235/45/17 size and I run my tires at 32 psi. With the same size and higher pressure I suspect they would be the same or maybe even a hair better than what came on the car. They are considered a "LRR" tire.

Varying tire pressures will also affect impressions. I tend to run lower pressures than a lot of folks here, but 32 PSI seems pretty low. I did see a pretty big difference in ride in the 17" Contis when I lowered the pressures to 34/32, but I was also a bit uncomfortable running them at that pressure given the short sidewalls. I tend to run 2 PSI more in the front than the rear to account for the weight difference. VW unfortunately no longer posts pressures for loaded and unloaded cars: on the Golf they only show 38/38.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I tend to run lower pressures than a lot of folks here, but 32 PSI seems pretty low.

Click to expand...

I know you have a W124 E-Class Mercedes like I had. On that bigger heavier car the recommended pressure was only 27 psi for normal driving, but they also provided different higher recommended pressures for higher speeds or heavier loads. That older car only had 15" rims, but on other newer similar cars with bigger wheels they recommended 32 psi.

Actually, I've had this conversation with knowledgeable folks that have owned a number of VW cars. They told me that on previous cars with similar weight and tire fitment, 32 psi was actually the recommended pressure for normal driving. That was back when VW still provided different psi recommendations for different situations.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I did see a pretty big difference in ride in the 17" Contis when I lowered the pressures to 34/32, but I was also a bit uncomfortable running them at that pressure given the short sidewalls.

Click to expand...

I did the same thing with the Contis, but it is true I feel more comfortable about running the lower psi with my new fatter and taller 235/45/17 tires.

How are they taller? Both are 45s. Maybe a bit because of the wider section width, but it can't be much.

But I agree with you on lower pressures. My 300D says run 27/29 with the 15s, and increase them for sustained speeds over 100 MPH. My '02 wagon has recommended pressures of 27/29 as well, 34/44 fully loaded. But it's a lighter car with 65 series tires, not 45s.

I run 32/34 in the M-B which is rarely fully loaded, and certainly doesn't spend any time at over 100 MPH, and 36/34 in the wagon.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

How are they taller? Both are 45s. Maybe a bit because of the wider section width, but it can't be much.

Click to expand...

It is true it isn't much taller, but the 235/45/17 is definitely taller than the 225/45/17. You can actually see it on the car, that there is a little more sidewall on the tire and a little less gap under the fender lip. I'd say it is a subtle but noticeable difference in appearance and in ride characteristics, although the quality of the tire, the type of tire, and the pressure are all probably bigger factors for the ride characteristics.

Based on the Tirerack measurements
225/45/17 - Diameter: 25.0", Revs Per Mile: 833
235/45/17 - Diameter: 25.4", Revs Per Mile: 821

So, 0.2 inches taller sidewall.

or by Aspect ratio (% tread width)
225 x 0.45 = 101.25 mm
235 x 0.45 = 105.75 mm
105.75 - 101.25 = 4.5 mm
4.5 mm = 0.18 inches taller sidewall

Or you could say the sidewall of the 235 is 4.4% taller than the 225.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

How are they taller? Both are 45s. Maybe a bit because of the wider section width, but it can't be much.

But I agree with you on lower pressures. My 300D says run 27/29 with the 15s, and increase them for sustained speeds over 100 MPH. My '02 wagon has recommended pressures of 27/29 as well, 34/44 fully loaded. But it's a lighter car with 65 series tires, not 45s.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if we still got different pressure recommendations for different conditions I suspect normal load and normal speed might be 32 psi in the Golf. But if someone wants to run higher psi, good for them. I guess it does help a little with mpg. I just didn't like the ride and I think they were noisier too at the higher pressure.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I run 32/34 in the M-B which is rarely fully loaded, and certainly doesn't spend any time at over 100 MPH, and 36/34 in the wagon.

Click to expand...

I ran my E320 at 29 or 30 psi and I also upgraded to 16" wheels with 205/55/16 tires on that car. The E320 was quite a bit heavier than the Golf too, so I think I'm fine. I did think about it a little when I had the 225/45/17 Contis when I'd encounter some kind of road imperfection, but I don't give it a second thought now with my bigger tires.

No More Buffalo said:

So, I have to ask - what is different the DWS/DW and the (no offense) crappy ContiProContact OEMs?

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm weird, but the Contis seem OK. I can't say I've noticed any real problems with grip or handling, or maybe I just can't push the car hard enough to tell?

So, I think I have a ways to go before I'm going to replace tires, but I'm curious to know what's out there before I have to buy another set.

I looked at TireRack and the Pilot Exalto A/S didn't seem to come in the stock size?

What about the Pilot Sport Plus A/S? Kind of an odd tread pattern.

The Bridgestone Potenza 960AS or 970AS seem more interesting to me, though. Anyone try either of those?

Those are more performance-oriented....

Or is the Primacy MXM4 a better fit for the car? If I'm happy enough with the Contis, maybe I don't need a higher-performance tire....

In the past, I had sportier cars, and was in the habit of getting summer tires that lasted 20,000 miles. I am enjoying not needing to replace so often.

Hi got General Tire G-Max and they are really great. Better than contis I had. BTW 225/40/18.

I also thought the Contis that came on this car were OK, but in general I think the Michelin Grand Touring tires are more supple and thus more comfortable and guiet than the Continentals. In fact, even though both tire brands have changed over the years, I think this has been true for more than a decade, maybe two decades. Continentals were the OEM tires that came on my 1995 E320 Mercedes when it was new. When I needed tires on the E320, I switched those to Michelins too and it was a similar kind of improvement.

Over the years, I've had at least 4 or 5 different versions of the top of the line Michelin Grand Touring All Season tires and I also tried some Bridgestones. The Bridgestones were pretty good too, but I think not quite as comfortable and quiet as the Michelins. To me, this Michelin Primacy MXM4 is the best so far. That said, I'm not racing my car. I'm a commuter.

Vidgamer said:

Maybe I'm weird, but the Contis seem OK. I can't say I've noticed any real problems with grip or handling, or maybe I just can't push the car hard enough to tell?

Click to expand...

The grip is ok, not great, but acceptable. But the noise, omg the noise. Any road that isn't perfectly smooth and off ti goes...

Once I switched to the Primacy MXM4's I noticed a great improvement in ride noise. Very please. About 10,000 mi on the tires so far. Love em.

BarnyardsTDI said:

Once I switched to the Primacy MXM4's I noticed a great improvement in ride noise. Very please. About 10,000 mi on the tires so far. Love em.

Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to this when I buy mine. I'm at 38,000 miles on my original Continentals and they'll probably be ready for replacement after this winter.

It seems like the MXM4s are the fan favorite here so I'm trusting everyone and going with those when the time comes. I'll probably have around 45,000 miles on the original Continentals when I replace them. I'm relatively satisfied with the Continentals but I'm sure the MXM4s will be an improvement.

I bought my JSW used and they have Hankook's on them. I have almost 58K and there is still tread left. I can't afford to just replace tires so I'll hang on to these (rotate again) until it's time to buy Michelin's. I like Michelin's because their quality control is so much better than other tire manufacturers. Also I use Tire Rack.com website and read all of the customer comments on tires...that usually confirms my selections.

hamilton7550 said:

I bought my JSW used and they have Hankook's on them. I have almost 58K and there is still tread left.

Click to expand...

Wow, 58K! Maybe you should get another set of those Hankooks!

New Continental tire just released...

Hi everyone...
I'm new to this forum as of today, and I've really appreciated this thread since my Conti ProContacts which came with the car are wearing fast and I don't want to run them through the winter even though they only have 25K on them. I was all set to buy the MXM4s, but they are very hard to find and may actually be getting discontinued or at least not manufactured until sometime after the winter tire season. So, I just ordered the brand new
Continental PureContact with the H rating. They are so new that there are no reviews to be found online from what I can tell! I'll keep you posted on what I think. They do have a 70K warranty which is much higher than others in the same category, and Discount matched the TireRack price of $147 each. That's quite a bit better than the MXM4 price. Any thoughts on what to expect?

Denverdavo..first off, welcome to the forum! Regarding the Michelin MXM4's....it is the MXV's that are about to be discontinued, not the fairly new MXM4's. Availibility is actually very good, at least online, and there are good prices to be found, but it is a premium quality tire and is priced accordingly. As to the conti PureContact's, as you say, very new offering, so you can be the one to keep us advised about how they work for you!

RNDDUDE said:

Regarding the Michelin MXM4's....it is the MXV's that are about to be discontinued, not the fairly new MXM4's. Availibility is actually very good, at least online....

Click to expand...

You know what is funny? I tried to buy MXM4 tires for my son. I was doing it over the phone since he is away at college with his car. When I was talking to the shop I repeated it over and over again that I wanted the MXM4, not the MXV4. My son got the car back and he was happy as could be since the car had something else fixed that he had destroyed and I paid the bill. When he came home a couple of weeks later for a visit, I found they had installed MXV4 tires.

Even more amazing, they had a little note stapled to the receipt that included notes from some of my phone conversations. Clear as could be, it said MXM4 on the little notes. I guess their supplier still had MXV4s and the guys in the shop didn’t know the difference. My son is out in a rural area of Pennsylvania north of Pittsburg, so maybe maybe it isn't a surprise that they are a little behind the times.

No matter really I suppose. The MXV4 is a good tire. I think the MXM4 is better, an improvement, but the MXV4 isn’t bad either. They also didn’t gouge me on the price, so maybe it was a good deal on the MXV4. I did call to just let them know that they goofed, but I didn't press the issue. I'm happy I have them to help my son if he needs help again in the next few years.

Thanks for the welcome! Discount claims the MXM4s are no where to be found from their suppliers. I begged him to look harder, but only 3 tires in the 225/45 R17s were found in the entire country, he said. Big O and a couple independents had a few in their warehouses, but they wanted substantially more than the TireRack price which Discount agreed to match.
I'll let you know how the Conti PureContacts work out. I'm sure I'll love them compared to the rapidly balding tires that are on the car now.

A quick question....I see that many of you have put somewhat larger diameter tires (235 vs. 225, for example) on your TDIs. If, as one person suggested, they are 4% greater in diameter, would you not expect that your speedometers will be reading under what your actual speed is? Perhaps also 4% or so? If speedometers still work based on RPMs, it would follow that some of you guys may get an extra speeding ticket or two if you're not careful! That is, if you drive like I do! LOL

Davo, speedo/odo errors will occur with taller tires, but can be corrected by using VCDS to change the impulse number. There is also a 5% snow tire correction available via the MDS.

Denverdavo said:

A quick question....I see that many of you have put somewhat larger diameter tires (235 vs. 225, for example) on your TDIs. If, as one person suggested, they are 4% greater in diameter, would you not expect that your speedometers will be reading under what your actual speed is? Perhaps also 4% or so?

Click to expand...

The 4% number was in relationship to just the sidewall, not the entire diameter of the wheel and tire. The change to 235/45/17 tires only makes about a 1 mph difference at 70 mph. It is a very small change in mph. In fact there is a chance our speedometers are off by that much anyway, although I do take it into account in my head when I'm cruising down the highway.

Based on the Tirerack measurements
225/45/17 - Diameter: 25.0", Revs Per Mile: 833
235/45/17 - Diameter: 25.4", Revs Per Mile: 821
So, 0.2 inches taller sidewall.

or by Aspect ratio (% tread width)
225 x 0.45 = 101.25 mm
235 x 0.45 = 105.75 mm
105.75 - 101.25 = 4.5 mm
4.5 mm = 0.18 inches taller sidewall

I just purchased a 2011 TDI that came with Continental Extreme Contact DWS (all seasons) on all four corners. I'm a little confused because the full size spare in the trunk is a Hankook tire, not a Continental. This makes me wonder if the original owner (whom I did not get a chance to meet as the car was sold through a dealership) replaced whatever came original on the TDI with the Conti Extreme Contact DWS. They are mounted on the stock 10 spoke 17 inch wheels. Maybe someone here can shed some light on the matter?

I've already put a few hundred miles in city and highway driving. The Extreme Contact DWS (when inflated properly) offers quite a responsive ride, albeit a little rough. They perform very well in the rain with zero slippage. The car, and I assume the tires, have 7200 miles on them and show no signs of wear. We'll see how long they last and how they perform long term on the Northern California roads.

In regards to the other tire that was mentioned often earlier, I am on a second set of Conti Extreme Contact DW (summer tire, not all season like the DWS) on a Lexus coupe and those seem to have a softer sidewall, but a more comfortable ride. The grip seems similar on both tires. The DW lasted me 25k miles with average spirited driving, but offer excellent grip on a heavier vehicle. I am very pleased with the DW and may buy them for the MK6 Golf TDI depending on what the options will be when the time comes to replace the tires.

I don't think what you have as a spare and what's on the car are necessarily related. I noticed on my Golf that the spare, although also a Conti, is a different model with a lower speed rating.

Just replaced my stock Conti Pro Contacts with a new Conti Pure Contact tire in the stock 17inch size 225/45-17 they are a All season tire with a higher wear coeficient than the stock tires or the also considered DWS so far they are fine 3K miles. Pro contact did not offer enough traction in ice and snow.

Tire Rack Special on Michelin MXM4 ZP

Stock 17" Conti's are worn out with 29,700 miles. Just ordered Michelin MXM4 ZP for $129 per tire from Tire Rack, plus about $57 shipping, no tax. Seems realy cheap. In fact cheaper than replacing Conti's, or Yokohoma 580's, or anything else I was considering.

Stopped using Run Flats on my Corvette, and M3 doesn't have them, but figured for this price I would try them. Time will tell if this turns out to be a good decision.

Cheers,
James

Last Mango said:

Stock 17" Conti's are worn out with 29,700 miles. Just ordered Michelin MXM4 ZP for $129 per tire from Tire Rack, plus about $57 shipping, no tax. Seems realy cheap. In fact cheaper than replacing Conti's, or Yokohoma 580's, or anything else I was considering.

Stopped using Run Flats on my Corvette, and M3 doesn't have them, but figured for this price I would try them. Time will tell if this turns out to be a good decision.

Cheers,
James

Click to expand...

I can't imagine choosing run flats when we have a spare. I'd think the ride would not be what I was looking for. That was why I liked the Michelin Primacy MXM4. They are smooth, comfortable, and quiet. Run flats are notorius for not being smooth, comfortable or quiet.

I just replaced my OE ContiProContact's at 36k miles with a set of Bridgestone RE970AS and they have been a big improvement. I have noticed a drop in fuel economy compared with the junk LRR tires, but I think its mostly due to a combination of winter diesel, low temps, and varying road conditions. The Potenzas are quieter and smoother on the highway, have stiffer sidewalls for better turn in, offer a ton more grip in the rain, and are adequate in the snow. You can feel the increased grip and stiffer sidewalls, while managing to be less jarring than the ProContacts when you hit a pothole. We got 8" last week and I couldn't even get out of my parking space at work, so the ProContact's had to go. I had to drive about 7 hours the day after I got my Bridgestones in 2-4" of snow and they were so much more confident in snow and slush.

Our Michelin's HX MXM4's are still on the car with 46k miles. I thought I would of had to change them already, but they are still pretty good. These are from 2 different tires. Most of our miles are city also, but I would say a good 10k are pure highway miles from a trip to NY, Texas and GA. The top tire pic looks a little more worn out (worse of all tires), but the rest look like they still have decent tread left. We are planning on going to Atlanta in April, so hopefully the tires are still good. I know my nails are dirty, but I do roofing for a living, so cut me some slack.







Sorry if the pics are too big. I'll resize them if I can.

To the OP, I also replaced my stock Contis with the ProContact Eco plus tires. Obviously, they are LRR tires. They were significantly cheaper than the Michelins I was considering. They are quiet and have good road feel in dry and wet conditions. So far, I am quite satisfied with them. I took a 650 mile trip on them (1 tank of fuel!). On the trip home it snowed, but didn't stick to the road much, so I can't really say how they do in snow. I have a set of dedicated snow tires anyway. I think you'll be pleased. I hope they last longer than the stock Contis.

Michelin Primacy MXM4 ZP

Michelin Primacy MXM4 ZP (Run Flat) installed. Did alignment, have 300 miles on them. Ride, handling, road noise etc is fine.

I wouldn't have bought these for $200 + each, but for $129 on Tire Rack I figured it was worth a try, and so far I'm happy. If they last 30K, I'll call it a win.

Keep everyone posted as I get more miles, or if my opinion changes.

Cheers,
James