S80 Tire Question

I own a 99 S80 T-6 with 17 inch wheels. I currently have Michelin XGT
ZR's on it and love them. Michelin says it was replaced with the Sport
A/S. The cheapest I've found them in Denver is at Costco for $935 for
four (tax and everything included). Researching tires online I have
noticed a much cheaper tire from Falken (ZE512). Their price seems so
cheap it makes me wonder. Does anyone have an opinion on these tires
or other ultra high performance all season tires? I flat out love my
Michelin's and got 30,000 out of them easily which I consider good for
a Z rated tire. But I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks,
Don

 

Also I forgot to ask one other question. My current tire size is 225
50 17. The tire stores here in Denver are saying I can go to a plus
one tire (235 45 17) and have a better selection at a better price.
Any opinions on the plus one tire size and how it might affect
performance of my car?

Don

 

I've driven cars using both Michelin Sport A/S (basically their best tire
for consumers)... It's an incredible tire - tons of grip, even when it's
really wet, and apparantly they are not half bad in snow either! Felt nice
and solid - this was on a 2003 Golf TDI GLS (dealer installed 17" VW rims,
stock suspension)... Another car was a 2003 Hyundai Tiburon, Tuscani (stock
suspension, stock rims), also running 17" wheels with the Falkens... great
tire, but they are wearing out noticibly more then the Michlens - he
commutes in this car, they don't seem suited to it - but tons of grip too...
tho the Michelins seem better, but considering the price, it's up to you...
if cash isn't really a big deal I would take the Michelins, for the name
alone.

I've also driven a 1993 Dodge Stealth... With Fuzion tires, about the same
price as the Falkens, about the same performance, about the same wear (ie -
not as good as the Michelins by far... I'm thinking the Michelins might be
twice the price, but you'll have to buy two sets of these cheaper tires)...
The Stealth had 17" rims as well (aftermarket), the suspension system had
been replaced with lowering springs and stiffer shocks (factory setup has
computer controlled 2-mode ride comfort setting shocks Touring/Sport)

.... The Fuzions seem to have much less grip at initial startup, it's very
easy to spin up the front wheels on the Stealth... but even with all its low
end torque, the TDI can't break the grip of the Michelins... barely a
chirp - with stock Goodyears you can get them spinning pretty damn good....
Don't know about the Falkens, no comments from the car owner about initial
starts.... and I don't think he would appreciate me burning up his tires
while driving his car (the other two car owners encouraged it...)

I like Michelin tires.... they are more money, but I think they're worth it,
they last very long and they have great grip... this is true for all their
tires it seems.

 

I have now run 2 seasons ( in Sweden we change to snow tires nov-april) on
Goodyear eagle F1 on my -99 s80 2,9. I am very happy with them, sticky on
dry asphalt and good draining in rainy weather. Gas mileage got worse
though, because the increased friction compared to the original continental
eco-contact.

 

Rob,
Thanks for the information. I'm leaning towards the Michelin Sport
A/S. I've had two sets of Z rated Pilots on this car and have gotten
about 30,000 miles out of each set. For a Z rated high performance
tire I'm more than happy with that. I let a tire dealer talk me into
putting a Dunlap H rated tire on my wife's Saab after she had been
driving on Z's. He said the tire would last much longer and I wouldn't
notice the difference. Huge mistake on my part. Her Saab felt like it
was driving in mud. Major road noise and the tires had to be replaced
at 30,000 miles. I won't make that mistake again. My gut tells me that
if the Falkens are half the price of the Michelin's then they simply
can't be the tire the Michelin's are. Yes I'm sure some of the $935
for a set of Michelin's is their name and massive advertising budget
but I also know how well those tires drive. Thanks again for your
feedback. Too bad Michelin is a French company.

Don

 

French company... well people from all nationalities, even those who
typically don't care for the French seem to be life-long Michelin drivers,
without a worry... So I look past their country of origin.

Its true about the Falkens tho.... they just don't seem as good as those
Michelins... Michelin has a lot more money to spend on R&D, so why not go
with the company that's making the new designs, and not copying them.

 

I faced exactly the same choice not too long ago.

We have a 2002.5 S80 2.9 with the 17" wheels.

When I was looking for a replacement set it came down to a) going to a 235/45
to get a broader selection, or sticking with the 225/50.

I had a friend who had done the same thing with an Acura (gone to a wider tread
width and a lower aspect ratio) and had experienced some uneven wear and a few
other problems.

We decided to stick with the 225/50s, which left us with either the Pilot Sport
A/S at over $800, or a Bridgestone Potenza RE92. I had the exact same size
Potenzas on my 2002 Nissan Maxima, and was less than impressed with them, so we
went with the Pilot A/S.

So far,we have 8700 miles on them, and are quite impressed. Both the dry and
wet handling is slightly better than the OEM Michelines, and they also seem a
bit quieter. No undue signs of wear or anything unexpected.

We have not yet experienced any winter weather with them, don't get a lot of
that here in Texas. We do get some pretty serious thunderstorms, and the Pilots
did quite well in some very heavy rain, high wind, standing water type
conditions. No tendency to hydroplane or lose traction.

All in all we're very happy with the Pilot AS, yes they're pricey, but I
consider it money well spent.

BTW, when we priced them, Discount Tire actually beat CostCo by a few bucks, I
took a copy of a Road and Track magazine to them, which had a mail order price
the store manager matched. I later was told he wasn't supposed to do that, but
you might give it a try.

 

I find it interesting that the S80 uses the smaller size, because both
the S60 and V70 use 235/45/17 tires as the optional size, and they're
both slightly smaller versions of the same chassis.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

NOTE: new address!!
Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

 

No s80 is not the same chassi at all. Its volvo. s60 and v70 are shared by
ford.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong, all 3 are based on the same platform. Look
under the rear of the S80 and compare the suspension to a V70 or S60.
(Make sure they're both FWD or AWD.) You can do the same to the front
suspension, it's just harder to see. Most of the parts are identical.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

NOTE: new address!!
Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

 

Sorry Mike but I have to agree with Johan.

Just because a car has the same Suspension components front and rear does
not mean they are based on the same chassis.

If that were the case you could argue that 50% of the cars on the road use
the same chassis platform....

The chassis on a given car is very tailored to the specific application. For
example, the S80 crush resistance will be tailored to the specific crash
resistance of a larger vehicle, with a larger, heavier more powerful engine
than say the S60. (OK someone will doubtless point out the S60R is more
powerful than a S80 but the S80 powerplant and drivetrain will almost
certainly be heavier). Add to this the additional mass of the car, the
longer wheelbase and wider track and we see significant differences that
indicate they are indeed not the same chassis. They may have a common root
but in no way can they be considered the same! Minor differences are
allowable (for example a change in wheelbase of say 50mm or change in track
of 15mm) but major differences in the track and wheelbase of the magnitude
we are talking about here indicate they cannot be a common platform....

 

Chassis and platform are different things. AIUI, all three cars are
built on the same production line, using the same range of major
assemblies and a common design. Clearly there are differences, but
they are fundamentally three versions of the same thing. However, and
FWIW, I don't think it odd that they use different wheels - wheel spec
is one of the simplest ways to tune NVH and handling performance
between the vehicles.





--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

 

There is no such thing as a chassis on a unibody car.

These days auto makers talk about vehicle platform, which loosely means the
set of major components.

From that point of view, Volvo is using one platform for all of it's S60 and
larger vehicles, though the XC90 varies the most from the rest. All of
these are derived from the original 850.

The new S40 and V50 use a completely different platform, one which is the
same as that used to build the Ford Focus and some Mazdas.

Going the other way, the new Ford Five Hundred is supposedly derived from
the S80.

A wild and wonderful automotive world it is.

John

 

I think you are confusing frame and chassis.

Chassis \Chas"sis\, n.
the skeleton of a motor vehicle consisting of a steel frame or unibody
supported on springs fastened to the wheels and that holds the motor
and machinery.

Frame \Frame\, n.
A term applied, especially in England, to certain
machines built upon or within framework; as, a stocking
frame; lace frame; spinning frame, etc.

The frame or unibody is the main structural piece of the vehicle. Though
they provide similar functions, they have different designs and
purposes. When combined with all the braking, steering and suspension
systems, this is commonly referred to as the chassis, or undercarriage,
of the vehicle.

The frame or unibody provides the structural strength of the vehicle and
also a location and mounting points for other systems that make the
total chassis. The frame design is the oldest, made of steel and
designed so that the body of the vehicle is mounted on top. The unibody,
on the other hand, differs from the frame in that it is actually stamped
out as part of the body structure. Also referred to sometimes as
unitized construction, today¹s automobiles most commonly use the unibody
design because its inherent ability to absorb energy during a collision.
Most light trucks continue to use body-on-frame construction. Even
though a car or light truck is usually built one way or the other, there
are some vehicles that use a partial frame (sometimes called a
sub-frame) along with unibody construction.

 

You can agree with Johan all you want, you're both wrong. The point I
was trying to make is that if the major suspension is all the same, then
the strong points that the suspension transfers the road forces into the
unibody have to be in the same place. A different suspension design
would transfer the loads to a different place - the difference of even
an inch requires major redesign of the structure.

But you don't need to believe me. Go over to www.yahoo.com and punch
the following line in as it appears:
"volvo s60" "p2 platform"
Make sure you're searching the web, not for pictures or whatever else.
Read the articles, some from official Ford and Volvo sites.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

NOTE: new address!!
Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

 

The wheels are the same in every dimension. In some cases they are even
the same wheels. What I found interesting was that the larger, heavier,
more powerful, more expensive car uses tires a size smaller.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

NOTE: new address!!
Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

 

Well I am surprised! And apologies Mike.

It appears you are correct and that Volvo do indeed use the same 'platform'
across the larger vehicle range.

Normally my thinking would be correct as the differences in Track and
Wheelbase would require a different platform due to as you pointed out the
'the difference of an inch requiring a major redesign of the structure'.

It appears in this case however that Volvo have incorporated 'removable
slices' (Volvo 'configured P2 with two different slices that could be
removed from the center of the bodyinto the design of the platform to
accomplish what would normally not be possible') - very cunning thinking!

One interesting point however is that they do use different suspension
components across the range. It appears the S60 uses a different front lower
arm than the S80 to achieve the narrower front track whilst retaining the
same rear sub assembly. Quoting Lars Erik Lundlin ...
"There's no problem using the wide rear subframe and suspension from the S80
in the narrower cars," Lundlin asserts. "We simply stretched the wheel
openings and gave the body sides more Coke-bottle shape. That gives these
smaller cars a very nice, stable-looking stance, particularly in the rear
view." In front, the S60 team achieved a narrower track for the small models
by using shorter control arms to pull the suspension struts further inboard.

And there must be significant modifications to enable the use of the
platform for AWD variants as the suspension used at the rear is completely
different!

As someone from Volvo admitted, basing the platform on the company flagship
vehicle was not a good idea as it maens they end up using larger and heavier
components than is really necessary on the volume models. Good for us though
as it means the lower model ranges become nicely over engineered....

Refer to
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_12_180/ai_68535984 for
references.

 

I own the same yr and model. I have purchased two sets of Michelin
Pilot Sport A/S tires from www.tirerack.com and have been very
satisfied. Got almost 38K miles. Four tires, shipping, and road
hazard program was less than your Costco quote. They are located in
Indiana so your shipping may vary.

Ron

 

I own the same yr and model. I have purchased two sets of Michelin
Pilot Sport A/S tires from www.tirerack.com and have been very
satisfied. Got almost 38K miles. Four tires, shipping, and road
hazard program was less than your Costco quote. They are located in
Indiana so your shipping may vary.


Ron