Re: Tire Brands: Good, Bad, Wretched

Robert Cohen wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:46 am, frijoli <crab...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Robert Cohen wrote:
>>> That's the kind of re****t I was hoping for.
>>> FALKEN is now for me.
>> How did you get Falken out of that re****t?
>>
>> Falken makes junk too, so does Kumho.
>>
>> The SPECIFIC tire he mentioned is a very good tire. It may not be for
>> you though.
>>
>> What do you want from the tire?
>>
>> Did you look at the General I mentioned?
>>
>> Clay
> 
> I'll look for the specific model number of the Falken, and request
> comments on it. I'm now unhappily betting you're probably on target,
> because its "around" only $65
> 
> I did read a flame against General, and that's why I did not mention
> your suggestion. I'll try to see if the complainer specified which
> model he was peed abot.
> 
> Trivia: I vaguely recall General (perhaps) was the sponsor of the NFL
> on radio in the 1950s and/or 60s. The announcer was...Harry Wismer.
> 

Go to Tirerack.com and read the reviews of the General I mentioned. They 
are not bad, and the tire is not ridicuously high.

The problem you are going to run into is that what you want from the 
tire is not the same as me. Michelins typically wear very well, and are 
quiet, but I wouldn't want to drive very quickly around a corner in 
them. They also tend to be pricey.
Continental has some very good tires, but not necessarily cheap. They 
also make a lot of junk, that may or may not be cheap.

I personally think that price is NOT indicative of the quality of a tire 
across brands. If you price 2 GoodYear tires, the more expensive will 
tend to be a better tire, but that doesn't make it better than the Kuhmo 
which costs less.

Clay