MexicoBlueTurboS

A set of 4 P-Zero Trofeos run close to $2000, Pilot Sport Cup 2's run $1500 going all the way down to the least expensive option at Tire Rack, a complete set of Z rated Generals can be had after rebate for just over $700.

We all know that the avg speed of most 911s ends up being around 25mph and while the cars are capable of speeds 150 and even 180+ mph, doing so with any tire is a risky and is typically straight line activity. In reality, for the non-track driver, a tire's highest demands might come from heavy swerving or braking during accident avoidance.

So the question is, do 911 tires really need to be that good and if not what's an affordably priced tire that gets 95-99% of the performance attributes and has longer tread life than the 12,000 miles or so one normally gets from the rears of most 911s?

PS I am not advocating the argument either way, just bought 2 rear P-Zeros this AM @ $350 per. I don't drive aggressively and for the most part can't tell the performance difference between Bridgestone Potenza RE050, Nitto Invo, Michelin Pilot Sports, and Pirelli P Zeros.

wjk_glynn

Michelin Pilot Sport 4S seems to be the sweet spot right now.

tomc_mets

One of the first things I did after getting my 911 was switching out the old Potenzas with MPSS, and getting an alignment. Like night and day. Same deal on my Cali, out with the old Pirellis, in with the new MPSS, and an alignment. Both cases, like night & day. Partly it was the alignment, and partly the new rubber.
T

Fined

It would depend entirely on the use case. I have a Cayman S and I've left the stock Bridgestone RE050A on it. They aren't all that sticky but I drive that car very casually and it isn't used for sporting purposes ever. I immediately put a set of PSS on my Carrera GTS when I got it though it also had RE050A on it when I purchased it. Different use case entirely, and it now has Pilot Sport 4S. I take the Carrera to the track and the mountains for spirited drives. Even while keeping it legal and in the lines I can approach the limits of grip on the PS4S in the twisties in the mountains.

From what I've gathered reading this forum over the years many posters here do not need that level of tire. So to the question "do 911 tires need to be that good?".. not all 911. Many don't. If you don't feel anywhere near approaching the limits of the tire then spending the money isn't worthwhile.

C4SDayton

The General tires are under 670 now on sale and Hankook Ventus V12s are under 850. If you exceed their capability on the road, than you must be doing something wrong or at least not smart. They may last the same as Michelins but probably not much more even with higher wear rating. If ego demands best, pay for it. Want the best track time, pay up. Want longer road life and still drive as fast as you want on the road, try some ultra high performance all seasons for around a grand or go to 18 inch where more and cheaper options live. Just don't get Nankangs or you'll get made fun of.

MexicoBlueTurboS

The trick will be to get the fronts and rears to wear out at the same time to make the switch from one brand to another. Looks like Michelin is the early favorite of those I haven't tried. What about punctures or getting caught in the cold? Are those tires no longer viable for high speed driving? IS cold damage apparent via cracked rubber or hidden until a catastrophic failure (or either/both)?

D1coach

Perhaps more important than performance to many of us is ride quality. My Michelin 4S’s ride considerably smoother than the Bridgestones that were on the car previously. I would imagine that the lower priced options may not have the ride quality of the Michelin’s, could be way off on that assumption though.

C4SDayton

You said you don't drive aggressively. So you don't need track worthy extreme performance tires. A good mushroom plug repaired tire should buy e good for any street driving even very aggressive. Get caught in the cold on occasion is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme. Daily driving in Minnesota all winter on summer tires? Not smart.

rap

Tires and brakes are some of the most important items on your car. These are also the most common parts that drivers need to choose. Why not choose that which provides the best safety.

MexicoBlueTurboS

Is there a 'safety' rating for tires? UTQG scores only rank temp, traction and treadwear.

When I first bought a motorcycle the helmet salesman asked if I had a $100 brain or a $500 brain. Either way, it seemed like he was undervaluing brains in general but I see how this ploy might have worked.

hatchetf15

Maybe look at stopping distances, performance ratings in different driving conditions, slalom...all safety related factors?

okbarnett

Ive never been able to tell differences except that the more expensive the tire, the faster they wear out. i dont race to shave 1/10th off my time. I drive to the mountains for adventerous driving. Ive never seen any difference in tires except how many trips I get before they are worn out.
I like bridgestone S04, Conti extremecontact.

MexicoBlueTurboS

To the best of my knowledge tread depth has the greatest impact on stopping distances so one could say that cheaper tires with more tread depth over the life of the car might be the 'safest'. One could even go further and state that threadbare tires that could blow out at anytime would be the safest. You wouldn't speed, tailgate or take corners aggressively.

Safety??? Too many factors to weigh in: contact patch size, coefficient of friction for given compounds, air pressure variances, tread depth, tread profile, braking bias, sidewall profiles, environmental conditions....

996AE

+1 Michelin

Budget Hankook.

hatchetf15

Well then, I guess you’ve completely answered your seemingly rhetorical question yourself, considering you are “not advocating the argument either way”: No.