What Tyres Do You Recommend Or Run?

[Mica]

My 2009 Yaris came with two Dunlop Sp01s and two dodgy Sunny "power touring" tyres from China - left over from the previous owner.

On motorways I can hardly hear the radio due, I think, to road noise from the Chinese specials.

So what tyres do you recommend for the Yaris, and particularly which ones are really quiet?

[Cyker]

I had some Conti Eco 3's fitted last year - They were noticeably quieter than what I had on before (I think it was a mix of Bridgestone and firestones?) and were much better in the wet!

[Mistermena]

Take a look at the new Conti 5 that are now out there for the same price as the Conti 3. You wont get better in my view.

[sceh]

The quietest will be the Michelin Energy tyres by definition. Tyres make more noise if they are for mud and snow or mixed use. Having said that, the Yaris is pretty tinny at the back and any tyres will make noise anyway.

[Adam C]

Mine came with Continental ContiPremiumContact 2s all round (as new). I've been that impressed by them that I'm keeping to these. Changed the fronts like for like. Great tyres, fantastic in the rain AND snow.

My old one had Wanlis on the front & original Dunlops at the rear. Had to change the Dunlops so went like for like - the newer ones were great but let down by the Wanlis which were rubbish, especially in the rain. Changed the car before we had the worst winter weather (09 and 10) and can't remember it ever facing horrid snowy conditions.

Best keep to the top brand of tyres, they're better for noise, grip and the shortest stopping distances.

[Madasafish]

I run 4 x Michelin Energy tyres- fitted last year when a 20% offer was on at ATS. They are quiet, grip well and work well in the winter's snow and ice.

My wife's Matiz was due two new tyres - it had Chinese Wanlis (ditchfinders) on the front. We replaced then with Uniroyal RainExperts - which have dramatically improved grip and steering feel. Not noisy and should be good in snow..

I can recommend both ( we live approx 150 metres above sea level and have had two harsh winters in a row.. hence comments above)

[MsB]

I've been running on the same set of Toyo T1R's for nearly 3 years, they are low noise, good in the dry, wet & snow and have even used them on track a couple of times when it's been wet and I can't fault them in any way at all

[cabcurtains]

Conti's only whatever the car

Not the cheapest though

[cbzcbz]

I'm running Kumho Ectsa Spts on the front, and original Yokahama tyres at the rear. The Kumhos are quiet and seem more grippy than the old Yokohamas and are a lot cheaper at £60 for 17s :) (Yokes would have been £120!). Goodyears also used to be very good for any of my previous cars, but expensive :$

[Red diesel]

Another vote for Continentals here - they were original factory fit tyres on our Nissan. Good tyres - and fitted to a lot of makes as standard

fit from the factory from what i can see.

Michelins are pretty good too mind you, and also a common choice going back many years as OE fitment to cars from the factory.

Red diesel

[sceh]

If the truth be known, there is very little difference between the tyres from all the manufacturers. It is all a question of marketing - the rubber is all the same for practical purposes. The tread pattern is a marketing gimmick too. Apart from winter rubber versus ordinary, choose the cheapest and put the best ones on the back of course. There was a time when Michelin X, for example, would last longer than others by a long way - this is no longer true and all tyres last the same time roughly.

[Madasafish]

If the truth be known, there is very little difference between the tyres from all the manufacturers. It is all a question of marketing - the rubber is all the same for practical purposes. The tread pattern is a marketing gimmick too. Apart from winter rubber versus ordinary, choose the cheapest and put the best ones on the back of course. There was a time when Michelin X, for example, would last longer than others by a long way - this is no longer true and all tyres last the same time roughly.

Sorry but the above is plain incorrect.

Read the Autoexpress tyre tests .

I expect my Michelin Energy tyres to last 50k mile based on my wear to date and the experience of others...

[sceh]

I would expect the energy tyres to run slightly longer because they get their name from reduced friction (and reduced grip too). I haven't read the Autoexpress reports but anyone in the tyre industry will tell you that the tread pattern is driven by marketing image and little else - they could certainly make tyres that get rid of loads of water (the purpose of the tread) but they don't look sexy enough apparently. As for the rubber, years ago Michelin even had its own weights and measures system so that no-one in the factory knew the proportions. I am not sure if they still have it but I would guess so. Tyre manufacture is a fine art and a balance between great performance and lifetime. The actual rubber compounds are less relevant than they used to be because there is little difference between manufacturers unlike in the past when it was flagrant. So, whilst a report may say the inverse, and I am sure it has some objectivity, in practice the difference is moot. In the report, note that the top four tyres are all above 99% and the 'worst', Hankook, still gets 96.5% - hardly earth shattering and supporting my basic point that the difference is negligible in practice. Note too, that the tests are a combination of many things - some relevant to mortals and some not. This is a long way of what used to be the case when you could get 80k out of Michelin X or XZX but only 25k out of Pirelli.

[t-spiritpete]

I would expect the energy tyres to run slightly longer because they get their name from reduced friction (and reduced grip too). I haven't read the Autoexpress reports but anyone in the tyre industry will tell you that the tread pattern is driven by marketing image and little else - they could certainly make tyres that get rid of loads of water (the purpose of the tread) but they don't look sexy enough apparently. As for the rubber, years ago Michelin even had its own weights and measures system so that no-one in the factory knew the proportions. I am not sure if they still have it but I would guess so. Tyre manufacture is a fine art and a balance between great performance and lifetime. The actual rubber compounds are less relevant than they used to be because there is little difference between manufacturers unlike in the past when it was flagrant. So, whilst a report may say the inverse, and I am sure it has some objectivity, in practice the difference is moot. In the report, note that the top four tyres are all above 99% and the 'worst', Hankook, still gets 96.5% - hardly earth shattering and supporting my basic point that the difference is negligible in practice. Note too, that the tests are a combination of many things - some relevant to mortals and some not. This is a long way of what used to be the case when you could get 80k out of Michelin X or XZX but only 25k out of Pirelli.

WOW!!

it seems we have a tyre expert on the forum .

[Cyker]

Well sometimes those few percent are the difference between controlled understeer and a tree :D