Author Topic: T/A or 512?  (Read 4004 times)

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
T/A or 512?
« on: April 16, 2006, 03:42:14 pm »
Hi again.  This time I’m replacing the OEM Michelin XGTV4s on my 2000 Acura EL (V-rated 195/55/15).  I’m deciding between the BF Goodrich Traction T/A and the Falken ZIEX512.  The Falkens are a bit cheaper, but that’s not really a concern.  I’ve heard, though, that the blocky treads of the T/A make it a bit harsh, but that the 512s won’t last as long.  I also believe the Falkens have an “A” traction rating, and the T/A’s an “AA,” but I’m not sure if this is a concern. The Michelin’s were pretty slippery in the rain, so I would like to improve on that front.  As well, since I live in Edmonton, they must be able to withstand some cold temps even when there is no snow.  The EL is a fun car, but it’s not driven very hard.  I run snows in the winter, so they will be a 3 season tire.   

Any thoughts would be appreciated.  I find the reviews on various amusing, but not always helpful.  People saying that their tires are the best they’ve ever tried, and they’ve had them on one day! 

Phil

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2006, 04:43:42 pm »
I apologize for posting a potentially redundant topic.  I accidentally misspelled a word in the search, so I didn't get any hits.  Now I see that the T/A has been examined in some detail. 

Nevertheless, I would like to hear some input on a comparison of these two tires for this particular vehicle.  I am, though, leaning toward the T/A's. 

By the way, Nokian now offers a V-rated all season called the i3.  It is new, though, so there are no reviews, and only Kal-Tire sells it (for $147 plus installation).  Out of my price range, but they are probably very good tires.

Phil

Offline curls

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Location: Ottawa, ON
  • Posts: 828
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2006, 06:01:58 pm »
I have had the Falken Ziex ZE-512 on my cars, TWICE.  They are excellent tires and IMO, are hard to beat at twice the price.

I can't speak for the Traction T/A's, as I've never used them, but as I said, my two experiences (6 hard-driving years) and experiences from my friends w/ the same tire, say go with the Falken's.
2004 TSX. Lovin' every minute of it!

Offline 84im

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Location: Chilliwack, B.C.
  • Posts: 1463
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2006, 06:26:55 pm »
It's hard to beat the Falkens at $99.95 (Tiretrends price).
Two other good choices are Kumho's ASX at $102.95 and SPT at $107.95.(one of them is an all-seasons and the other is a summer).
1997 track/street Miata - I need a turbo!

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2006, 06:32:14 pm »
Thanks for the advice so far.  What has me concerned about the Falkens is that although most reviews are very positive, the negative ones are predominately from Civic and older Integra owners, cars almost identical to the EL.

Offline Craig

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Location: Scarborough, Ontario
  • Posts: 2148
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2006, 10:40:45 pm »
I have the same car, and will need new rubber next year.  I figure on getting Falkens, perhaps in 205/50/15, as they are 20% cheaper than the same tire in a 195/55/15.  Go figure.

My mechanic suggested the Kumho 712, which look kinda cool.

I put the Falken 512's on my brother-in-law's Integra, and he seems to like them.

Offline morty

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Life Less Ordinary!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.tiretrends.com
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2006, 02:09:55 am »
Both tires are very good in the rain. So, will be improvements over your existing Michelin. The Traction T/A is a little harsher, but will last longer and is still not an overly stiff tire. Falken ZE512 is cheaper and not quite as long treadlife.

Offline initial_D

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Deer Red Green Lodge, Ab
  • Posts: 12378
  • Carma: +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2006, 01:23:39 pm »
I have the same car, and will need new rubber next year.  I figure on getting Falkens, perhaps in 205/50/15, as they are 20% cheaper than the same tire in a 195/55/15.  Go figure.

My mechanic suggested the Kumho 712, which look kinda cool.

I put the Falken 512's on my brother-in-law's Integra, and he seems to like them.

The 205/50/15 is an H-rated tire, the 195/55/15 is an V-rated tire, that is the difference. I found it odd the 50-series is less stiff than  a 55-series.


The Falkin 512s on the wife's Millenia will  be entering its 4th season of service, they still got 80% of  the treads left. We like the wet traction of the tires, (relatively) quiet enough on the highway for us. If you are looking for performance, they are just so-so in that category. The traction limit for hard cornering is very easily reached, and the sidewall is NOT very stiff when pushed, the tires have a "floating" kinda feel during mid-corner. But at $145 a corner for 225/50/17, can't beat that price.

I put the 512s on both of my dad's cars, 2000 Corolla and 2002 I35, for  summer usage. I might get a set for one of my cars if I can find  a set of cheap used alloy wheels, for daily driving in the summer. Save the treads of the performance tires.

Offline curls

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Location: Ottawa, ON
  • Posts: 828
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2006, 04:40:22 pm »
Thanks for the advice so far.  What has me concerned about the Falkens is that although most reviews are very positive, the negative ones are predominately from Civic and older Integra owners, cars almost identical to the EL.

Mine were on a 1991 Integra, twice. :)

And my friends with these tires had them on Civics and new and older Integra's.  If treadlife was an issue on the Civics/Integra's that you've been reading about, it could be alignment issues and not the "type of car" itself.  Older cars = higher chance for alignment out of spec = easier to blame the new tires. ;)

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2006, 09:51:10 pm »
That's a good point, curls.  It's easier to let repairs slide the older the car gets--take the minor ding on my rear bumper, for instance.

Confusing my comparison is that Canadian Tire this week has the T/A on sale for $121 a tire, $569 installed.  There's nowhere I can get the T/A that cheap, including Tiretrends, and is cheaper than some of the estimates for the Falkens.  I'm not a fan of Canadian Tire, but I may be willing to forgo my distaste to save over $100.  I've heard, though, that BFG makes a "different" T/A for Canadian Tire, although that may be sour grapes on a few stores that I spoke to.  Anyone heard this theory?  I know other manufacturers make the Motomaster brand, but this is different. 

Offline initial_D

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Deer Red Green Lodge, Ab
  • Posts: 12378
  • Carma: +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2006, 02:12:20 am »
That's a good point, curls.  It's easier to let repairs slide the older the car gets--take the minor ding on my rear bumper, for instance.

Confusing my comparison is that Canadian Tire this week has the T/A on sale for $121 a tire, $569 installed.  There's nowhere I can get the T/A that cheap, including Tiretrends, and is cheaper than some of the estimates for the Falkens.  I'm not a fan of Canadian Tire, but I may be willing to forgo my distaste to save over $100.  I've heard, though, that BFG makes a "different" T/A for Canadian Tire, although that may be sour grapes on a few stores that I spoke to.  Anyone heard this theory?  I know other manufacturers make the Motomaster brand, but this is different. 

There might  be  different OEM tire makers for Canadian Tires'  in-house, Motormaster, but I highly doubt that BF Goodrich will have different tires in the same model & spec for Canadian Tire only. That said, there are lots of different T/A tires out there, kind of confusing, for me anyway. Canadian Tire might of buy a load of tires that is for new car makers only.  Not too sure tho. I would  check the specs a bit more closely, $121 does sound like a very good price, but if you look at the savings over the life of the tires, over a period of 4 years, and the importance of safety, it is really not that substantial.

Offline canadianexpress

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: GTA
  • Posts: 185
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2006, 03:53:41 pm »
That's a good point, curls.  It's easier to let repairs slide the older the car gets--take the minor ding on my rear bumper, for instance.

Confusing my comparison is that Canadian Tire this week has the T/A on sale for $121 a tire, $569 installed.  There's nowhere I can get the T/A that cheap, including Tiretrends, and is cheaper than some of the estimates for the Falkens.  I'm not a fan of Canadian Tire, but I may be willing to forgo my distaste to save over $100.  I've heard, though, that BFG makes a "different" T/A for Canadian Tire, although that may be sour grapes on a few stores that I spoke to.  Anyone heard this theory?  I know other manufacturers make the Motomaster brand, but this is different. 

Does this price includes the balancing?  I know Canadian tire charge extra for that service and not included in the price of the tires.

Offline UmroAyyar

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Canuckistan
  • Posts: 7168
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2006, 03:59:07 pm »
Just to help the confusion, not entirely related.

Canadian Tire sells Michelin Destiny, its a clone of Michelin Harmony, same ratings, same specs, but its only for Canadian Tire.
Could that be the case for the BFG T/A phil is considering?
(Corolla Upgraded --> (Camry Sold | (Intrepid Taken Out))) --> 1999 Mazda 626 LX 2.5V6

"since the masses are always eager to believe something, for their benefit nothing is so easy to arrange as facts."

¡ʇnɥs ɥʇnoɯ ɹnoʎ dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝɔuɐɥɔ ɐ ssıɯ ɹǝʌǝu

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2006, 07:04:30 pm »
I did some investigating via BFG, and they said that the V-rated Traction T/A sold by Canadian Tire is the same tire as anywhere else, and were a bit miffed that some stores were attempting to say otherwise.   No big deal--I like urban legends.

The T/A are $486 + $12 per tire for installation, balance, + $4 environmental tire tax, + GST, so around $590 total. 

Phil

Offline UmroAyyar

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Canuckistan
  • Posts: 7168
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2006, 09:16:40 am »
I was going to buy Michelin Destiny from Canadian Tire, but inexplicably got a better deal on Michelin Harmony from the Toyota dealer.

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2006, 05:04:39 pm »
I had the T/As installed this morning--$600.  So far they don't seem any harsher or noiser than the XGTV4, but do have more traction.  Of course it is just one day.  I also recycled the Pilot Alpins after financial necessity unexpectedly forced me to use them again this past winter, despite their significant loss of grip.  I'm tempted to order the W300 Icebears while they are still on sale for $95, but I am reluctant to get H-rated winters again.  They were pretty average on ice and poor in deep snow.  I will mull it over, but like the Nokian RSI.   

Offline initial_D

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Deer Red Green Lodge, Ab
  • Posts: 12378
  • Carma: +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2006, 05:39:11 pm »
I had the T/As installed this morning--$600.  So far they don't seem any harsher or noiser than the XGTV4, but do have more traction.  Of course it is just one day.  I also recycled the Pilot Alpins after financial necessity unexpectedly forced me to use them again this past winter, despite their significant loss of grip.  I'm tempted to order the W300 Icebears while they are still on sale for $95, but I am reluctant to get H-rated winters again.  They were pretty average on ice and poor in deep snow.  I will mull it over, but like the Nokian RSI.   

The  T/A tires are NOT from Crappy Tire? Yes? We have the Alpins on one of our cars, even with more than 70% tread left, they are not nearly as good as when they were new.

Offline phil

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Edmonton
  • Posts: 59
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2006, 05:57:54 pm »
Yes.  The T/As were purchased and installed at Canadian Tire.  Was the best price anywhere by $80.

Offline tc.xmen

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: TdotO
  • Posts: 17
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • member
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2006, 03:51:04 pm »
I know this is a little late:  I have had the Traction T/A' s on my Accord for 2 years and they have been performing extremely well for me on dry and wet roads.  I even drove on them for 1 winter and they did well for an A/S tire (this past winter I decided to get winter tires to be safe).

For me I got them at Costco for $103+tax including installation, balancing, etc.  Sorry, I didn't get my comments in earlier.  I'm sure you won't regret your decision to go with the T/A's.

Offline weebl

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Location: Edmonton, AB
  • Posts: 984
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: T/A or 512?
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2006, 11:44:39 am »
I'm sure you won't regret your decision to go with the T/A's.

And who wouldn't like a good set of T/As?   :rofl2:
Suck, squeeze, bang, blow - who wouldn't love the internal combustion engine?  ;D