Best tires for the C-Max??

[Zathrus]

P3G, how are the General Altimax RT43 tires wearing?  Are you still happy with them? 

 

My OEM tires on my 2013 CMax SE have 48K miles on them and dealer says the road noise I am hearing is due to uneven wear on all of my OEM tires (even after they just replaced my transmission under warranty for grinding/thumping noise, along with new wheel bearings).

 

Car rides much quieter with new transmission and wheel bearings, but there is still a thumping/rotational road noise in front. I would like to eliminate the tires as a factor in the rotational noises I am still hearing (before I go back to dealer). I'm thinking of replacing OEM's with the General Altimax RT43, and just wanted to get an update from you (and anyone else) who has the Altimax TR43 tires. Thanks.

 

Just an update on above. I replaced all four OEM Michelin tires with the General Altimax RT43, and all thumping/rotational road noise is gone! The car rides as smooth and as quiet as the day I drove it off the dealers lot new.

 

Now for the interesting part...I had the tire installer check alignment, and all measurements were well within manufacturer's specs (including rear camber). I thought for sure it would be out of alignment, given the significant amount of tire/road noise I has hearing (even with rotating my OEM Michelin's every 9K miles and running them at about 45 PSI). My guess is that all the miles I had driven with bad transmission and/or wheel bearings contributed to the abnormal tire wear.

 

On this new set, I plan to rotate every 5K miles, and make sure they are crossed as recommended in Owners Manuals.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Zathrus

[ptjones]

Just an update on above. I replaced all four OEM Michelin tires with the General Altimax RT43, and all thumping/rotational road noise is gone! The car rides as smooth and as quiet as the day I drove it off the dealers lot new.

 

Now for the interesting part...I had the tire installer check alignment, and all measurements were well within manufacturer's specs (including rear camber). I thought for sure it would be out of alignment, given the significant amount of tire/road noise I has hearing (even with rotating my OEM Michelin's every 9K miles and running them at about 45 PSI). My guess is that all the miles I had driven with bad transmission and/or wheel bearings contributed to the abnormal tire wear.

 

On this new set, I plan to rotate every 5K miles, and make sure they are crossed as recommended in Owners Manuals.

Let us know what your MPG's are. :) Paul

[plus 3 golfer]

Just an update on above. I replaced all four OEM Michelin tires with the General Altimax RT43, and all thumping/rotational road noise is gone! The car rides as smooth and as quiet as the day I drove it off the dealers lot new.

 

Now for the interesting part...I had the tire installer check alignment, and all measurements were well within manufacturer's specs (including rear camber). I thought for sure it would be out of alignment, given the significant amount of tire/road noise I has hearing (even with rotating my OEM Michelin's every 9K miles and running them at about 45 PSI). My guess is that all the miles I had driven with bad transmission and/or wheel bearings contributed to the abnormal tire wear.

 

On this new set, I plan to rotate every 5K miles, and make sure they are crossed as recommended in Owners Manuals.

What was the rear camber?  IIRC, the spec allows camber to be -2.4 degrees.  Many performance cars will not have near that much negative rear camber.  The closer one gets to zero, the less inside wear one will have on the tires. One member put a kit on to reduce their negative camber.  IIRC, when I was researching camber, the Prius spec was less than -1.5 degrees.

 

I believe the high C-Max negative camber is for the rear of the C-Max to handle better given the extra weight of the HVB over the rear wheels. But tire noise is the tradeoff.

[Zathrus]

What was the rear camber?  IIRC, the spec allows camber to be -2.4 degrees.  Many performance cars will not have near that much negative rear camber.  The closer one gets to zero, the less inside wear one will have on the tires. One member put a kit on to reduce their negative camber.  IIRC, when I was researching camber, the Prius spec was less than -1.5 degrees.

 

I believe the high C-Max negative camber is for the rear of the C-Max to handle better given the extra weight of the HVB over the rear wheels. But tire noise is the tradeoff.

 

Yes, the rear camber spec range is -0.9 to -2.4 degrees. I agree that -2.4 degrees seems high. (Updated post: Attached alignment results and specs):

2013 CMax Hybrid SE Alignment Specs.pdf

 

Let us know what your MPG's are. :) Paul

 

My current Year-to-Date MPG is 45.1 MPG (and most of that was with bad front wheel bearings and transmission). Also, keep in mind us "Northerners" take an MPG hit due to temperature, which was 13F this morning :(

 

I fully expect to take an FE hit of about 5% with the General Altimax RT43 tires, but I only drive about 12K miles a year, so it is not as big a hit for me as it would be for someone who drives many more miles. I'm OK losing 5% FE for an increase in driving comfort and better handling in the snow (which I'm afraid is not far off).

Edited November 11, 2017 by Zathrus

[plus 3 golfer]

Click on "More Reply Options" at the bottom right of the reply screen.  Then use the "Attach Files" at the bottom left of the more reply options screen.  Make sure you add the File to your post.

 

Here's my alignment when I put on the RT43s showing -1.9 and -1.7.   My previous alignment had camber at -2.0. and -1.8 IIRC.

 

img022.pdf

[ptjones]

Here is one of mine.

 

I got my New Lug Nuts so I flipped tires side to side to reverse the rotation after Dealer did front to back.  Even with 50 psi in my tires the center has more rubber than the outside which has a little more than the inside. :headscratch:

 

Paul

 

[SnowStorm]

Here's the results of my first alignment; -2.3 / -1.9 for rear camber.  See rest of the topic to read about putting on adjustable arms.  My latest alignment in Sept 2016 had the rear camber at -0.6 / -0.9.  My second set of Michelins are now just shy of 70k miles and have worn much better.  There is still some inside edge wear but nothing like before.  For the new tires I think I'll have the right side brought to -0.6.  Any real danger in pushing the camber too close to zero??  I don't see why a car should insist on wearing off the inside edges.  Good grief, this is the 21st century!

[ptjones]

Here's the results of my first alignment; -2.3 / -1.9 for rear camber.  See rest of the topic to read about putting on adjustable arms.  My latest alignment in Sept 2016 had the rear camber at -0.6 / -0.9.  My second set of Michelins are now just shy of 70k miles and have worn much better.  There is still some inside edge wear but nothing like before.  For the new tires I think I'll have the right side brought to -0.6.  Any real danger in pushing the camber too close to zero??  I don't see why a car should insist on wearing off the inside edges.  Good grief, this is the 21st century!

Did you notice any improvement in mpg's being able to adjust down the camber? :) 

 

Paul

[NRGTi]

I have 58k on the OEMS and it's time, wear indicators are level with the tread.

 

My 2 cents re the V rating/ie; 100 MPH+; coming back from Vegas I had to get my wife to Firestone to pick up her car before like 4-5 o'clock, and so I probably AVERAGED a hundred miles an hour over the course of 4 to 5 hours, with speeds maxing out at 120-140mph... I have done the math and the extra couple hundred dollars a year I would spend to drive the car in a fun way is worth it to me...

 

 

You, Sir, are a disreputable person, a cad and a bounder! To have the temerity to drive a "slow car" fast? And, hey, can your C-Max (or mine) really do 140? You may be my only chance to know. And thank you for the most entertaining, contrary and over-the-top response I've ever read on this forum! Nice to hear that the C-Max can please other kinds of folks, for whatever reason.

[NRGTi]

I put Michelin X-ice Xi3 winter tires on my C-max last Friday, using the factory rims.  OEM tires from 2013 were down to 3/32 to 4/32 tread left.

I bought size 215/60R17.  These are 1.2" larger diameter than the OEMs.  That raises the car .6".  I don't believe it could take larger diam tires, but please post if you have run this size or larger on your C-max.

 

For some reason at the time I was looking the 215/60R17 size was cheaper than any other 17 inch X-ice: $113.50 at Amazon or Walmart.  The Ford dealer was quoting me $180 for the same tire in OEM size.  I ordered the tires from Amazon, a first for me.  They appeared neatly stacked on my front porch a week later.  Cost was reduced by a $15 "first time Amazon tire order" offer that appeared on the Amazon page for the tires, and 5% back for using an Amazon credit cost, so net was about $104 a tire shipped (plus tax).

Local mounting and balancing cost $62.50.  The 4 tires (two on rear seat, two in way back) pretty much filled up the car on the way to local shop.

 

So far they are pleasantly quieter than the well-worm OEM tires.  Ride is softer.  OK in first snow here end of last week.  Curious what the mpg hit will be. I haven't had winter tires on the C-max before so I am looking forward to improved and safer winter driving this year. 

Very interesting! Did you have any clearance issues with bumps or tight turns? You make me wish I'd done this, but I just picked up new wheels and snows today in the standard size.

[SnowStorm]

Did you notice any improvement in mpg's being able to adjust down the camber? :)

 

Paul

No, I took a quick look at my spreadsheet for several months before and after - can't see any difference.

[ptjones]

My Michelin tire noise is more annoying at 20mph than 65-70mph and I'm running 50 psi. :)

 

Paul

[djc]

Very interesting! Did you have any clearance issues with bumps or tight turns? You make me wish I'd done this, but I just picked up new wheels and snows today in the standard size.

 

No problems so far, knock on wood(-grained plastic laminate).   It is a pretty stiff suspension so wheels don't bounce around a lot.

Worse case scenario is probably hitting a bump during a sharp turn while hard braking - I'll try to avoid that.

[ptjones]

It will be interesting to see how you do in the snow. :)

 

Paul

[NRGTi]

Most FWD cars wear out their front tires twice as fast as the rears. Is the C-Max that way? All this talk about rear tire wear/cupping makes me wonder.

 

I was planning a strategy that embraces uneven tire wear. My daughter's C-Max Hybrid was bought used with a mismatched set, two Kumho performance tires and two Michelin OEMs. I plan to buy her a matched set of snow/rain tires and dismount hers for my future use (they have lots of tread). So I could replace two of my Michelins when they get worn. Once I wear out those six Michelins -- in 50K miles or so? -- I could use the Kumhos as half of a summer performance set.

[ptjones]

The fronts wear out some faster than the backs, but crisscross rotating the tires does the job. I got 64k mi. on first set, 60k mi. second set, they weren't worn out, but I was going on long trips in the snow so I wasn't going to take a chance. I have almost 50k mi. on third set and easily make 60+k mi. :)  BTW these were OEM Michelin's.

 

Paul    

[fbov]

... I plan to buy her a matched set of snow/rain tires ...

Is she in Denver, too? Michelin's got a new design, Crosscliimate+, that claims good all-season tire wear, but carries the "3-peak snowflake" symbol found on snow tires. We bought a set for the wife's car, but so far, they're really good warm weather performance tires. Give it a month and I'll let you know about the snow performance. Not cheap...

Frank

[obob]

About 4k miles ago (8 weeks ago), I put on my 3rd set of tires.  My previous sets of tires (Original Michelin Energy Saver and Ecopia 422 Plus) both began getting "noisy" at 25 - 30 k miles.  The Michelins were so noisy at 40+ k miles that I changed them after coming home from a long road trip at around 48 k miles even though they would have likely gone 60k+ miles.  The Ecopia weren't quite as noisy as the Michelins at 40 k miles but I decided to change them at 42 k miles as I was planning several longer road trips including moving back to AZ.  The Ecopias would have easily reached 50 - 60 k miles based on treadwear.

 

So, my thought process was do I spend around $180 per tire for Michelins, $160 for Ecopias, or try something less expensive knowing that I'd like take a hit in FE but perhaps improve performance.  BTW, my estimation is that my FE took a hit of about 2-3 % with the Ecopias over the Michelins (say 1 mpg at 40 mpg).  IMO, the issue with the noisy tires is due to the "unadjustable" camber causing excessive rear inner tire wear and some feathering and cupping. 

 

After much research, I bought the General AltiMAX RT43.  IMO after nearly 4 k miles of driving, the General's are hands down better than the Michelins and Ecopias with respect to performance, noise and ride comfort (especially if you like a stiffer feeling tire).  The drawback with the General's is FE.  I'd say that the Generals are 2-3 % worse than the Ecopias and 4-6% worse than the Michelins (2 mpg at 40 mpg).  I know that those that value FE more than performance won't be able to live with the FE hit over the Michelins.  But the performance of the Generals, IMO, runs circles around the Michelins. BTW, I'm running 45-46 psi in the Generals as they are a lot firmer feeling tire than the Michelins.  I ran about 48 psi in the Michelins and Ecopias. 

 

IMO, the worst case scenario for me would be that I would use about 100 gallons more gas with the Generals than the Michelins or spend an extra say $225 in fuel.  But the Generals are only about $110 a tire.  Even after the $70 rebates for the Michelins, the Generals and Michelins should cost about the same over the life of the tire.  

 

I'll let the reader go to TireRack and read their test report on the General.  I've attached several snips showing a comparison of the three tires from TireRack.  Time will tell how the noise issue progresses with the Generals.

Compare Tires 1.JPGCompare Tires 2.JPGCompare Tires 3.JPG

 

I see from your attachments that you got the 98V load version rather than the 94T version.  I figure that has something to do with the stiffer feeling.  The 98V has max pressure of 51.  The 94V has max pressure of 44.     I am leaning toward the 98V tires like you have. (They are only like 5 more dollars each.)  Any thoughts ?  Thanks.

 

 

 

Perhaps the fact that you run 50+ psi lessens the inside tread wear and feathering. 

 

 

 

I strongly agree.  My first 12K miles  (first rotation) did far more damage than the next 28K miles.  I did a reverse mount at 12K.  I started to use 48-50 lbs in the tires around 8K.  (I have stopped rotating the tires for evening the tires out for is too noisy for me.  I am also concerned the vibration may exasperate the transmission bearing problem - though only a suspicion.)  I still have plenty of tread on the back but the noise is bothersome.

 

I may move the OEM Michelins to the back and get the RT43s for the front.  Perhaps that way my mileage hit will be half yours.

 

 

 

By the way.  I have been following the vulnerability of computer processors, with Intel processors being especially vulnerable.  I don't recall ever seeing the word "mitigate" so frequently.   (rather than fix)

 

Mitigate seems to apply so well to this camber cupping thing.

Edited January 12, 2018 by obob

[plus 3 golfer]

I see from your attachments that you got the 98V load version rather than the 94T version.  I figure that has something to do with the stiffer feeling.  The 98V has max pressure of 51.  The 94V has max pressure of 44.     I am leaning toward the 98V tires like you have. (They are only like 5 more dollars each.)  Any thoughts ?  Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly agree.  My first 12K miles  (first rotation) did far more damage than the next 28K miles.  I did a reverse mount at 12K.  I started to use 48-50 lbs in the tires around 8K.  (I have stopped rotating the tires for evening the tires out for is too noisy for me.  I am also concerned the vibration may exasperate the transmission bearing problem - though only a suspicion.)  I still have plenty of tread on the back but the noise is bothersome.

 

I may move the OEM Michelins to the back and get the RT43s for the front.  Perhaps that way my mileage hit will be half yours.

 

 

 

By the way.  I have been following the vulnerability of computer processors, with Intel processors being especially vulnerable.  I don't recall ever seeing the word "mitigate" so frequently.   (rather than fix)

 

Mitigate seems to apply so well to this camber cupping thing.

I got the 98V for the speed rating as we do a lot of interstate driving at 75 - 80 + mph with the car heavily loaded wirh stuff. 

 

I recently had the tires rotated at about 8400 miles.  Tread depth was virtually the same in each grove across a tire.  The backs (which are now on the front) measured a shade over 9/32" deep while the fronts (now on the back) measure a shade under 9/32".  So, based on 1/32" tread wear per 8k miles, I could get around the mileage rating of 65k miles if I run them down near the wear bars and the tires stay quiet.  But I usually begin looking for tires at about 3.5/32" tread depth or when the tires become too noisy.

 

Now that I have been back in the Phoenix area for 4+ months, it's very apparent that my FE with the Altimax tires is around 5-6% lower than the Michelins. But with a price difference of around $300 a set including sales tax, one can buy a lot of fuel to offset the FE hit of the Altimax tires.  And, like I said before, the Altimax IMO is simply a better performing tire than the Michelin.  FE isn't everything. :)

[SnowStorm]

So +3, you've got me rethinking my next tire purchase (due soon).  I had thought to continue with the OEM Michelins for FE but would sure like to save the money.  Even with a $70 rebate on Michelin you still come out ahead after 65k miles and a 3 mpg loss (6%).  Now my question: what about the new General G-MAX AS-05?  It is cheaper yet, has 94W rating, 50k warranty, otherwise very similar specs to Altimax but no reviews yet.  Any idea if it might be similar to the Altimax on FE?  I don't push tires very hard - just want lowest over all cost with high quality and performance at least as good as the OEMs.

[plus 3 golfer]

So +3, you've got me rethinking my next tire purchase (due soon).  I had thought to continue with the OEM Michelins for FE but would sure like to save the money.  Even with a $70 rebate on Michelin you still come out ahead after 65k miles and a 3 mpg loss (6%).  Now my question: what about the new General G-MAX AS-05?  It is cheaper yet, has 94W rating, 50k warranty, otherwise very similar specs to Altimax but no reviews yet.  Any idea if it might be similar to the Altimax on FE?  I don't push tires very hard - just want lowest over all cost with high quality and performance at least as good as the OEMs.

For me (assuming I'm going to keep the car for the life of the tire) is getting the "best bang" for the $.  At current and projected gas prices, paying significantly more for "green" tires especially when performance is less than alternatives makes little sense to me especially if I can't get the rated mileage due to the noisy tire / camber issue on the C-Max and I always replace tires prior to reaching 2/32".  So, my mileage payback period is shorter in the 40-50 k mile range.  So, the Michelins likely wound never return an economic payback to me.

 

I look at tires like I look at solar PV.  I didn't put solar PV on two previous homes just to be "green."  I added solar because of the simple payback of 3.3 years for the first system and 6.9 years for the second home.  Solar PV makes no economic sense on my current home as payback is around 12 years.  I know there are some that will add PV without regard to economics as there will be those that want the "greenest" tire for their vehicle regardless of economics or performance.

 

Yes, I saw that General has this new tire.  Since I don't need tires, I haven't done any research on it.  General makes a GMax AS-03 (may be similar to the 05) which gets poor ratings by CR for noise and ride quality. Also, rolling resistance is rated fair. The Altimax is rated very good in the noise, ride quality, and RR. So, I'd not buy the AS-05s until reviews and data are available.

[SnowStorm]

No idea where they get the numbers but SullivanTire gives a "Fuel Efficiency Rating" of 10 for the Michelins, 8 for General Altimax and 7 for the General G-Max AS-05.  So expect its better to stay with Altimax over G-Max.  The longer tread warranty more than makes up for the price difference - and the G-Max is asymmetric so I guess it couldn't be reverse mounted (if one ever wanted to).  Then there's the Altimax RT43 (94T version) with 75k warranty and lower price.  I don't plan to go 118 mph and edge wear and noise (cupping) seem to be under control with my adjustable rear camber and frequent rotations.  I'm at 75k on this second set of Michelins (55k warranty) so should be able to get that out of the Altimax 94T version with its 75k warranty.  Have I talked myself into it?  Not sure. 

[ptjones]

Michelin's Energy Savers have worked fine for me and I'm probably going to get 70k mi on my third set. :)

 

Paul

[captainkey]

I really am only interested in the quietest tire for my 2017 Cmax.  I have some junk Kelly's that the dealer put on there when he was trying to sell it.

 

Since I don't want to take out a second mortgage to afford, any suggestions on affordable quiet tires?  Not interested in super long thread life, whether they drive in the snow, just quiet.

 

Thanks!

Eddie

[fbov]

Take a look at Tire Rack's test reports. I looked at their cheapest 225/50-17s, and find the Kumho Ecsta PS31 rated as: "Noise quality was good as well, with ...no significant tread noise." The Riken Raptor is the cheapest option, but rated as "... just a touch louder" in the same test. 

 

Hard to find noise comparison data. Easier to find cheap tire reviews.