Author Topic: Do you get what you pay for? Brands vs. brands. (Read 2701 times)

oversteer · « **on:** July 12, 2005, 09:51:44 am »

Kumho, Sumitomo, Falken and Hankook are way less expensive than (for example) Dunlop, Michelin, Bridgestone, Toyo, Pirelli, etc. Yet those less expensive brands seem to get very good or excellent reviews for summer and winter tires alike. So what gives?

Snowman · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:59:10 am »

Hyundai vs. Honda

random006 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2005, 01:50:43 pm »

Uh oh, Snowy said the magic words. Here we go again?

FWIW, this could be a good thread if we stick to the concept of perceived value vs real value in a recognized name.

As far as the names you mention, there is even a cost difference amongst the "expensive" ones on your list. Compare Michelin or Bridgestone with Toyo, for example.

safristi · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2005, 02:40:18 pm »

But...there's always a but.....is NOT the percentage difference in (hyundai,typed )tyres Kumho,Falken Hankook et al much less than the difference in (Honda typed..as in type cast) tyres Michelin,Dunlop Pirelli etc.....sometimes half the price...hell who wouldn't take a Sonata at half the price of an Accord..........Dollars to "DONUTS!!!"...

tortoise · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2005, 03:37:59 pm »

Keep in mind that the large tire companies also have large advertising budgets.

How may Michelin and Goodyear TV commercials have you seen?

How many Toyo, Kumho & Falken commercials?

So while the brand name tires may be more expensive, keep in mind that all of your extra money isn’t going into tire production, but into marketing.

That said, I love my current Toyos, and loved the Michelins on my B2500.

oversteer · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2005, 04:32:15 pm »

Agreed, larger companies have more overhead spending, and that certainly helps explain pricing differences. The real question in this thread though is this - as a buyer, are you actually getting a better product, and more specifically is the "betterness" propotional to the extra money? Even more specifically, let's also restrict it to normal driving i.e. non-track, non-competition.

Example, I did a search for Y-and-Z rated 225/45/17 tires. The prices range from $166 (Cdn) for Hankook K102 up to $379 for Michelin Pilot Sport Cup. The T1-R's are $257, which is comparable to the Pilot Sport at $291 (that's why I put Toyo in the second category). Now, it's one thing if you're at the track and the high end Michelins hold up better than the Hankooks. In that case you're definitely getting value for money because the performance requirements dictate your needs, and you'll hit the limit of the tires before you hit the limit of the car or your courage. It's a completely different thing if you never go to the track and your car is a daily driver, albeit with really nice tires. In that situation you quickly get to a point where any one of many, many tires is good enough, because you'll never reach the limit of the tires. This is the situation I'm focusing on. Are Kumhos and Hankooks more likely to blow a sidewall? Is there something in the rubber compounds or other materials or construction that is inferior?

tortoise · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2005, 04:50:12 pm »

When I was looking for tires, the Toyo Proxes 4 was significantly cheaper than the comparable Michelins and Pirellis, that's why I put them into the "cheaper" group.

Within the context of your question, i highly doubt the consumer will be benefiting from more expensive tires.

However, I presume that tread compounds of the cheaper tires aren't as advanced (say the CTC tires that are based on "Older" designs) as the more expensive ones. This means that emergency maneuvers in the rain may not be as sure-footed. That can mean all the difference to a few. The majority won't be in this scenario, and thus won't benefit.

tpl · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2005, 06:31:01 pm »

A diagram of cross ownership amongst tire companys would be instructive... like that Car co. one in the general forum.

vz64 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2005, 07:57:49 pm »

I used to have Kumho Ecsta MX (max performance summer tire) and Hankook W300 (winter tire). My current summer tire is Pilot Sport PS2 and I used to have Pirelli WinterSpot 210.

OK, winter-to-winter tires:
W300 is a decent tire, but Pirelli were better in almost all categories - dry/wet road performance, slush/snow/ice. W300s is a bit quieter.

Max-to-max performance:
Kumhos had as much grip as PS2s. That's it; in all other categories - steering response, high-speed stability, cornering stability, transitions, comfort, tramlining, wear - PS2 beats Ecsta.

Are big brands worth extra 50%-100%? Maybe not, because the gain in performance is much less than two-fold. It is like buying a $20 bottle of wine vs $10 bottle. Don't forget that this $20 wine is still a mass-product - there are $1000 wines...

morty · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2005, 01:59:19 am »

Great thread. Advertising definitely plays a huge part in cost. However, dont forget R&D. This can be a huge expense. When companies are investing a good part of their profit to develop new products the price has to be passed on to the consumer. Michelin and Bridgestone are involved in Formula1 for example. This is a substantial expense and if you want to drive the tire Michael Schumacher does then you need to pay him. If you dont care to have the latest greatest then, no the extra expense is not worth it. I call this perceived value. If you perceive it to be more valuable then you will pay more to have what you perceive to be better.

Analogy I used in another thread...Is a Rolex worth more than a Timex? Depends who is buying it. Both tell the time, but some people have no problem with the extra price because it is presumed to be the best. It still tells time like the timex. In a manner; same goes for tires.

TireTrends - A Life Less Ordinary!

84im · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:35:17 am »

It's hard to compare tires. People will say that their new 'X' brand of tire performs so much better than their old 'Y' brand. The problem is they're comparing their OLD, worn 'Y' tires to their NEW, full tread 'X' tires, and that's an unfair comparison.

The Mighty Duck · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:39:22 am »

Something to keep in mind, too: people who buy cheaper tires are impressed with them and review them well. So do people who buy expensive tires. Those people who buy the cheaper tires have likely not bought expensive tires and can't compare them directly to a 'better' tire. So customer reviews can be misleading in that regard...

I think it's simply a matter of preference though. A Michelin Pilot will probably perform better than a cheapie tire. It's also a lot more money. If I get adequete performance from an inexpensive tire, I'll be impressed and review it well. Good value, and all that, right?

capriracer · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2005, 06:49:31 am »

OK - My 2 cents:

I disagree with Morty about advertising being a huge expense. I think it's a much smaller than the raw material, labor, shipping costs. Put another way - the average consumer would not be able to tell the difference if advertising costs were eliminated. My experience says R&D costs are much higher than advertising costs.

I think expectation also plays a large role in how people react - regardless of what we are talking about. If someone buys something inexpensive, he is not expecting much. So he tends to overcompensate if it turns out to be better than he expected.

Oz · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2005, 07:51:12 am »

Mmmm Pirellis...

oversteer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:19:01 pm »

Thanks for the responses so far. Slight twist on the question - is there any reason to suspect that the 'cheaper' brands are a safety risk in terms of construction and/or structural integrity? Let's take 'high performance' out of the equation and assume the tires are being used for normal, everyday driving. What I'm talking about now is quality control and the likelihood of tire failure, similar to what happened with the Firestones on the Explorers (and yes I agree a large part of that problem was the inherent design flaws in the Explorer).

Speaking of which, as an aside what's the general feeling on the faith in Firestone tires these days? Would you buy them?

vz64 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:52:20 pm »

Actually, my Kumho and Hankook were pretty much defect-free. On the other hand, I had a problem with my Pirelli P6000 (long time ago!) - one of the tires got a bubble on its sidewall. There are also some folks complained about a similar problem with a GS-D3 (one of the reasons I did not consider them).

davidm · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2005, 05:54:50 pm »

Keep the Firestone thing out of this as most tire and driving people actually tend to blame Ford, and poor drivers/maintenance. Ford spec'd tires to be at a very low 26 psi, a stat given at a BMW Driver Training event cited 90% of cars are currently running on underinflated tires, and, lets face it, most people don't know how to react to a blowout at speed.

That said, this is likely the same as anything in any industry - name brands cost more for all the usual reasons (1) because they can, (2) they spend a boatload on advertising, (3) they are the product leaders that do all the inital R&D, (4) because price is not part of their stated value proposition. If Kumho, Hankook, Falken, etc. weren't cheaper than the others, would you buy them? Price is part of their value proposition, prestige, ultimate performance, etc. are not. The question is do you care, or which value proposition appeals to you.

Just remember, no one is ripping you off - ever - you pay or do not pay whatever you choose. If you pay too much, you paid too much (you were not overcharged). Also remember, no one MUST sell you anything, they choose to sell you something (up to them whether they wish to stay in business).

On the tire topic, been happy with Toyos, Falkens, Michelins, Dunlops and Pirellis. Been unhappy, with Nittos, Toyos, Michelins, Dunlops and Pirellis. It's the tire model, not the make in generality

(Message edited by davidm on July 14, 2005)

tortoise · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2005, 06:27:24 pm »

" It's the tire model, not the make in generality "

DING DING DING!!!

Excellent point.

morty · « **Reply #18 on:** July 20, 2005, 04:58:04 pm »

Advertising does play a good part. Simply compare how much Michelin spends globally on advertising against a company like Falken. A good example is Nike(obviously not a tire company); they spend more on advertising then they do on producing the product. That being said the raw materials, production costs, quality control, and R&D are a big part of the cost.

Every tire line has had a dog or two over the years. A big factor is choosing the right tire for the right application. If this is done; the chances of having a happy experience is much higher.

With the P6000/GS D3 sidewall scenario. This is more common with performance tires. Generally isnt a defect with the tires. Usually caused by impact...pot holes or curbs and can happen with any tire brand. Impact breaks a cord in the sidewall. The cord was holding the sidewall integrity. Once it is broken the air in the tire begins to push on the rubber and it expands much like a ballon.

TireTrends - 205/40R17 Ecsta MX $99 each until Noon July 22nd!

johngenx · « **Reply #19 on:** July 30, 2005, 03:54:52 pm »

I was a tire-brand snob once. I still think Bridgestone makes some incredible tires and their Blizzaks were revolutionary and the UNI-T technology is excellent. I have had many sets of various Bridgestone tires (RE930/RE950/S-02) and all were very good tires. They are in the "expensive" category, but I feel they are good value as they are almost always priced lower than a comparable Michelin.

Ahh, Michelin. Having had a series of Mercedes' I am familar with Michelin. They are a very common OE tire for MB and I wished that they were not. Set after set of MXV4's were just junk. Replaced with Bridgestones almost every time and it resulted in a huge improvement in tire performance and quality control.

Recently I decided to try Falken and Kumho tires. Well, they're not quite as competent as the Bridgestones I'm used to. But, we're talking about a very, very small gap. The gap is much smaller than the huge price gap! My current Falken 512 set on the C230 has about 10K on them, and they're unbelievable for the price. The wet performance is very good and dry is predicatable and limits are high enough for any street driving. Braking is stable and stops are short with braking traction only being lost at very low speed.

I've also run a set of Kumho KW-11 snow tires, and they're also pretty impressive, and incredible whent he price is factored in. Without studs, they are not the equal of the Blizzak, but they're half the price. Stud them and they're still much less expensive and will exceed the Blizzak's ice and snow performance and match it's dry-pavement performance.

This winter I'll probably put Blizzaks on the Forester as I'll run 15" steel wheels and the Kumho price advantage is much less on smaller sizes. The Forester does not have near the noise insulation the MB has (can't hear the studs at all in the MB) and I am suspicious the noise in the Forester will be very annoying.

I used to be a tire-brand snob, but companies like Kuhmo and Falken have done much to cure me...