Afternoon all,

I run a Yeti Monte Carlo, which has OEM spec tyres of 225/50/17 on a 94 load rating. The car needs new tyres soon.

For reasons I can’t fathom, it is £45 less for a 98 load rated tyre than a 94, so a saving of almost £200 a set. Everything else about the tyre is identical (Goodyear Efficientgrip Performance 2). 

I’m very tempted bu the 98s but also a bit nervous, particularly regarding ride comfort. My feeling is I will not really notice any difference compared with the 94s and I’ll have £180 in my back pocket. Am I overthinking this? Does anyone have any first hand experience of going to a higher load rating and regretting it for any reason?

 

I would add that the current tyres on the car are Pirelli Cinturatos, which based on reviews seem like they may be a bit firmer than the Goodyears anyway, so maybe going to a 98 with the latter would not feel dissimilar anyway. 
 

I would appreciate any thoughts / experience. 

Personally, I'd go for the higher speed rating if that price is correct. My money's on the difference in ride comfort being indistinguishable.

Are they both XL?

Even the fastest Yeti doesn't have a top speed of over 125mph, so even V speed rated tyres are over-specified.

 

Michelin do an OE 225/50R17 94H Primacy 3 that is an Audi specific tyre. However, this can also be used with other cars such as the Yeti.

 

So this 94H tyre doesn't have an over-specified load index or an over-specified speed rating. One benefit of using car specific tyres (ie. OE tyres) is that the specification is frozen, so if you purchase just one or two tyres at a later date they will still match exactly what's on the car. For example, you might get a non-repairable puncture and want an exact match to the other three tyres that are on the car.

 

Michelin are one of the best tyre brands for all life performance, ie. they still work well when they are worn...unlike many brands that quickly lose performance as they wear down.

 

Notice the excellent Euro label performance, including the low 68dB noise. Yes the noise is measured externally, but it would be silly to measure the noise internally because that wouldn't provide consistent data because each car will suppress the noise in different ways.

 

Michelin Primacy 3 225/50R17 94H (Euro label B A 68dB)

https://www.camskill.co.uk/m54b0s7818p139463/Michelin_Tyres_Car_Michelin_Primacy_3_225_50_R17_94H_(AO)_TL_Fuel_Eff_%3A_B_Wet_Grip%3A_A_NoiseClass%3A_A_Noise%3A_68dB

 

Edited 2 July, 20241 yr by Carlston

Yokohama Advan Fleva V701

225/50 R17 98W XL RPB look pretty decent. Think I'll try them next time I change. Also have rim protection.

32 minutes ago, Blue8793841 said:

Yokohama Advan Fleva V701

225/50R17... have rim protection.

 

A 225/50R17 fitted to a 7J rim doesn't need rim protection because the sidewalls bulge out about 15.6mm each side...and that's a lot.

 

For rim protection, it's much better to have sidewalls that bulge out a lot rather than solid rubber rim protection moulded into the sidewalls.

 

One disadvantage of rim protection moulded into the sidewalls is that it doesn't give like bulging sidewalls do, so many owners end up with the kerb taking chunks out of their rubber. Not only is this unsightly, but having a chunk of rubber taken out of the sidewall will leave the tyre unbalanced.

 

By comparison to a 225/50R17 fitted to a 7J rim, a 225/45R17 fitted to a 7J rim is about 14mm narrower, so the sidewalls will only bulge out by 8.6mm each side. However, often 225/45R17 are fitted to 7.5J rims where the sidewalls bulge out even less, ie. only 5.25mm...this is where you might want to consider tyres that have rim protection moulded into the sidewalls.

 

In general, once you get down to 45 aspect ratio and less the tyre's ssidewalls tend not to bulge out so much from the rim compared to tyre with an aspect ratio of 50 or more.

 

Edited 3 July, 20241 yr by Carlston