Fantine

I am dissatisfied with the original tires on my 07 Elantra SE (Kumho or
something like that). On a wet incline, they have an unfortunate tendency
to spin when I start up from a stop at a light, no matter how carefully and
gently I accelerate (a problem I only experienced once in the 11 years I had
my last car, a Saturn SL2). As I live in a hilly area, this is a major pain
in the butt when it rains. So, I decided to spend the cash to get better
tires. I went to tirerack.com to see what my options were and I was just
overwhelmed by the number of choices. I know this is not strictly a Hyundai
question, but you guys know your stuff. So, anybody have a suggestion for
replacement tires that have excellent wet traction? Thanks for any help!

Mike Marlow

"Fantine" <fantine@att.net> wrote in message
news:THgdj.86994$MJ6.66585@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I am dissatisfied with the original tires on my 07 Elantra SE (Kumho or
>something like that). On a wet incline, they have an unfortunate tendency
>to spin when I start up from a stop at a light, no matter how carefully and
>gently I accelerate (a problem I only experienced once in the 11 years I
>had my last car, a Saturn SL2). As I live in a hilly area, this is a major
>pain in the butt when it rains. So, I decided to spend the cash to get
>better tires. I went to tirerack.com to see what my options were and I was
>just overwhelmed by the number of choices. I know this is not strictly a
>Hyundai question, but you guys know your stuff. So, anybody have a
>suggestion for replacement tires that have excellent wet traction? Thanks
>for any help!
>

One of the best tires I've ever owned for both wet and snow traction was a
set of Sumitomo Srixon4's. Those tires just never let go. I recently took
them off and installed a set of Tiger Paw's and when we looked at the
remaining tread we were all amazed. There was little more than an
indication of where the tread was but these tires drove me through the first
two Central NY snow storms like they had a full tread depth. Very soft
rubber compound that just sucked up the road. The mileage was not terrific
out of them - I got around 40,000 out of them. Not horrible for a tire in
that class, but certainly not a long life tire. BTW - my tires were 225 50
16R. A set of skis vulcanized to be installed on a car, if ever there was
one. But - those suckers performed.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Edwin Pawlowski

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
> The mileage was not terrific out of them - I got around 40,000 out of
> them. Not horrible for a tire in that class, but certainly not a long
> life tire.

That would suit me just fine. After 40,000 miles it seems like most tires
have one or two that just don't wear perfect and you start to get thumps or
vibrations. There is a correlation between tread life and traction and I've
go for traction.

Of course, I recall tube tires that would only last 5000 miles and using
re-caps that got even less. I think they were about $10 at the time.

Mike Marlow

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:UHidj.3243$lo5.786@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>> The mileage was not terrific out of them - I got around 40,000 out of
>> them. Not horrible for a tire in that class, but certainly not a long
>> life tire.
>
> That would suit me just fine. After 40,000 miles it seems like most tires
> have one or two that just don't wear perfect and you start to get thumps
> or vibrations. There is a correlation between tread life and traction and
> I've go for traction.
>
> Of course, I recall tube tires that would only last 5000 miles and using
> re-caps that got even less. I think they were about $10 at the time.
>

These were actually pretty smooth rolling down the highway too. The new
tires were noticeably smoother as you would expect, but not hugely so.
Gotta say it again - those Summitomo's were great. Another set of those may
just end up on one of my cars in the future.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Brian Nystrom

Fantine wrote:
> I am dissatisfied with the original tires on my 07 Elantra SE (Kumho or
> something like that). On a wet incline, they have an unfortunate tendency
> to spin when I start up from a stop at a light, no matter how carefully and
> gently I accelerate (a problem I only experienced once in the 11 years I had
> my last car, a Saturn SL2).

Interesting. It must be a problem with the particular tire model, as
Kumho KH16s are a popular replacement tire for '06 and earlier Elantras
and are a considered to be a significant performance upgrade from the
lackluster Michelins they came with. I'll be putting KH16s on my own car
in the spring.

hyundaitech

I suspect your issue may have more to do with the particular vehicle and
the engine's power curve than the tires. As you're looking at the tires
on tirerack, note that beside each tire (except snow tires) is a UTQG
(Uniform Tire Quality Grading) evaluation. The first entry is a number
representing treadwear, with higher numbers representing longer treadwear.
Next is a letter designation for wet traction, with AA being best wet
traction. Last is a letter designation for temperature, with A being the
greatest ability to resist overheating.

If you look at the listing for the tires on your car-- Kumho Solus KH-16,
I believe-- you'll see that they already have the highest available rating
for wet traction. This means you're unlikely to remedy your problem simply
by changing the tire model.

If you're really serious about attempting to achieve better launch
traction, you'll probably need to move to a wider tire. If you have the
195/65R15 tires, you might try switching to 215/60R15. If you have
205/55R16, you might try switching to 225/50R16. In each case, using the
substitution I note will keep almost the same exact tire circumference.
But you'll also need to verify there's room on your car for the additional
tire width. In each case, the tires will be 20mm wider, so you'll need an
additional 10mm of room on each side of the tire. I doubt fender
clearance on your car will be an issue, but clearance between the tire and
strut may be an issue.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.hyundai/
More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html

Matt Whiting

hyundaitech wrote:
> I suspect your issue may have more to do with the particular vehicle and
> the engine's power curve than the tires. As you're looking at the tires
> on tirerack, note that beside each tire (except snow tires) is a UTQG
> (Uniform Tire Quality Grading) evaluation. The first entry is a number
> representing treadwear, with higher numbers representing longer treadwear.
> Next is a letter designation for wet traction, with AA being best wet
> traction. Last is a letter designation for temperature, with A being the
> greatest ability to resist overheating.
>
> If you look at the listing for the tires on your car-- Kumho Solus KH-16,
> I believe-- you'll see that they already have the highest available rating
> for wet traction. This means you're unlikely to remedy your problem simply
> by changing the tire model.
>
> If you're really serious about attempting to achieve better launch
> traction, you'll probably need to move to a wider tire. If you have the
> 195/65R15 tires, you might try switching to 215/60R15. If you have
> 205/55R16, you might try switching to 225/50R16. In each case, using the
> substitution I note will keep almost the same exact tire circumference.
> But you'll also need to verify there's room on your car for the additional
> tire width. In each case, the tires will be 20mm wider, so you'll need an
> additional 10mm of room on each side of the tire. I doubt fender
> clearance on your car will be an issue, but clearance between the tire and
> strut may be an issue.

It isn't often that I disagree with your advice, hyundaitech, but I must
in this case. For traction in water and snow, narrower tires with a
higher contact pressure are better than are wide tires. Run narrower
tires and a higher air pressure to minimize hydroplaning and maximize
traction in both wet and snowy conditions.

Matt

Rev. Tom Wenndt

Just for clarification - The Sumitomo Srixon4 is no longer available. It
has been replaced by the HTR H4,. another impressive tire.

I have it on my son's Elantra - an excellent choice.

And most of the time, you can get them from Sears Auto on a, "Buy 3, Get 1
Free" deal, which has the added benefit of both a local dealer and
nationwide service coverage if there ever is a problem.


"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:9aca3$477598cf$62107aeb$16108@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Fantine" <fantine@att.net> wrote in message
> news:THgdj.86994$MJ6.66585@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>I am dissatisfied with the original tires on my 07 Elantra SE (Kumho or
>>something like that). On a wet incline, they have an unfortunate tendency
>>to spin when I start up from a stop at a light, no matter how carefully
>>and gently I accelerate (a problem I only experienced once in the 11 years
>>I had my last car, a Saturn SL2). As I live in a hilly area, this is a
>>major pain in the butt when it rains. So, I decided to spend the cash to
>>get better tires. I went to tirerack.com to see what my options were and
>>I was just overwhelmed by the number of choices. I know this is not
>>strictly a Hyundai question, but you guys know your stuff. So, anybody
>>have a suggestion for replacement tires that have excellent wet traction?
>>Thanks for any help!
>>
>
> One of the best tires I've ever owned for both wet and snow traction was a
> set of Sumitomo Srixon4's. Those tires just never let go. I recently
> took them off and installed a set of Tiger Paw's and when we looked at the
> remaining tread we were all amazed. There was little more than an
> indication of where the tread was but these tires drove me through the
> first two Central NY snow storms like they had a full tread depth. Very
> soft rubber compound that just sucked up the road. The mileage was not
> terrific out of them - I got around 40,000 out of them. Not horrible for
> a tire in that class, but certainly not a long life tire. BTW - my tires
> were 225 50 16R. A set of skis vulcanized to be installed on a car, if
> ever there was one. But - those suckers performed.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>
>

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:%ezdj.1280$2n4.29783@news1.epix.net:

> It isn't often that I disagree with your advice, hyundaitech, but I
> must in this case. For traction in water and snow, narrower tires
> with a higher contact pressure are better than are wide tires. Run
> narrower tires and a higher air pressure to minimize hydroplaning and
> maximize traction in both wet and snowy conditions.
>
> Matt

Actually, in rain, a greater surface area (i.e., wider tire) is a better
option against hydroplaning. You are right about the snow and ice though.

Eric

Fantine

Thank you, this is very helpful. The Kumho tires that I currently have are
205/55-16, so I'll check about whether I could move to the 225/50R16
(although from what you say, I might be wasting my money to change the tires
earlier than necessary). Since I'm driving the exact same route as I did
when I have my Saturn, the difference in launch traction (I learned a new
term!) was immediately noticeable to me. One thing I also noticed in the
Elantra which was not present in my old Saturn is that Elantra tends to roll
back more quickly and further on an incline than my Saturn did when I move
my foot from the brake to the accelerator. My Saturn seemed to have more
"forward momentum" at a standstill than the Elantra. Would that something
to do with the problem I'm experiencing with the tires?

"hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
news:defdf3d9bcfbe5d7898b6c63684ea965@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
>I suspect your issue may have more to do with the particular vehicle and
> the engine's power curve than the tires. As you're looking at the tires
> on tirerack, note that beside each tire (except snow tires) is a UTQG
> (Uniform Tire Quality Grading) evaluation. The first entry is a number
> representing treadwear, with higher numbers representing longer treadwear.
> Next is a letter designation for wet traction, with AA being best wet
> traction. Last is a letter designation for temperature, with A being the
> greatest ability to resist overheating.
>
> If you look at the listing for the tires on your car-- Kumho Solus KH-16,
> I believe-- you'll see that they already have the highest available rating
> for wet traction. This means you're unlikely to remedy your problem
> simply
> by changing the tire model.
>
> If you're really serious about attempting to achieve better launch
> traction, you'll probably need to move to a wider tire. If you have the
> 195/65R15 tires, you might try switching to 215/60R15. If you have
> 205/55R16, you might try switching to 225/50R16. In each case, using the
> substitution I note will keep almost the same exact tire circumference.
> But you'll also need to verify there's room on your car for the additional
> tire width. In each case, the tires will be 20mm wider, so you'll need an
> additional 10mm of room on each side of the tire. I doubt fender
> clearance on your car will be an issue, but clearance between the tire and
> strut may be an issue.
>
> --
> Message posted using
> http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.hyundai/
> More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html
>

Edwin Pawlowski

"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
>
> Actually, in rain, a greater surface area (i.e., wider tire) is a better
> option against hydroplaning. You are right about the snow and ice though.
>
> Eric
>

Actually, no. Ever see race cars with wide slicks on a wet track? In
addition to wide tread, you need a tread pattern that moves the water away
from between the road and the tire surface. A narrow tire with the right
pattern is superior to a wide tire with the wrong pattern.

As for snow and ice, similar rules apply but a good snow tread is required.
There is much more to performance that a simple wide or narrow design. Most
tires are a compromise.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:%ezdj.1280$2n4.29783@news1.epix.net:
>
>> It isn't often that I disagree with your advice, hyundaitech, but I
>> must in this case. For traction in water and snow, narrower tires
>> with a higher contact pressure are better than are wide tires. Run
>> narrower tires and a higher air pressure to minimize hydroplaning and
>> maximize traction in both wet and snowy conditions.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Actually, in rain, a greater surface area (i.e., wider tire) is a better
> option against hydroplaning. You are right about the snow and ice though.

I am correct on all counts.

http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem...widetires.aspx

http://priuschat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39003

http://www.runtowin.net/Portals/0/CaseStudy1.pdf

I can post many more references if these aren't sufficiently convincing.

Matt

Brian Nystrom

Fantine wrote:
> "forward momentum" at a standstill

Have you discovered some new law of physics? The only thing a vehicle
has at a standstill is inertia, unless you're on a hill, in which case
it also has potential energy.

hyundaitech

If you have a manual transmission, it could be a symptom of the clutch and
accelerator coordination. I haven't liked the feel of the Elantra
clutches since about 2001, and I believe they take some familiarity before
they can be operated well.

On the other hand, if you have an automatic, I'd say that there may need
to be less uneasiness about how much the car will roll backward. A little
practicing in an empty area will help you learn how much and how fast the
car will move backward on an incline. This, too, is something that varies
from vehicle to vehicle, and is dependent on engine horsepower and torque
converter efficiency.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.hyundai/
More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:iyEdj.1284$2n4.29851@news1.epix.net:

> Eric G. wrote:
>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>> news:%ezdj.1280$2n4.29783@news1.epix.net:
>>
>>> It isn't often that I disagree with your advice, hyundaitech, but I
>>> must in this case. For traction in water and snow, narrower tires
>>> with a higher contact pressure are better than are wide tires. Run
>>> narrower tires and a higher air pressure to minimize hydroplaning
>>> and maximize traction in both wet and snowy conditions.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Actually, in rain, a greater surface area (i.e., wider tire) is a
>> better option against hydroplaning. You are right about the snow and
>> ice though.
>
> I am correct on all counts.
>
> http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem...ortofwidetires.
a
> spx
>
> http://priuschat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39003
>
> http://www.runtowin.net/Portals/0/CaseStudy1.pdf
>
> I can post many more references if these aren't sufficiently
> convincing.
>
> Matt

No, Matt, these are sufficient. My experience has always shown
otherwise, but I have a feeling that this was more due to the "escape
path" improving as tire design changes over the years rather than the
width of tire per se.

Eric