Porsche Enthusiasts Club Forum

This has been covered before, however I am starting it again as it's an interesting subject - and I need to know the answers urgently!

In November 2006 I paid £319 for four Michelin Pilots on one of Costco's offers (25% off). They've now done 25000 miles and need changing this week. I have been getting prices for new Michelins, from over £650 from Kwik Fit (I don't know why I asked as I never ever use them out of principle) to £444 at Costco.

Most of the people I call also try and push Continentals to me as they are cheaper - but do they last as long? are they as good?

The car (1991 S2) is just about to cross 180000 miles - and still on the original clutch. I am the second owner, have had it since November 2005, have done 40000 almost trouble free miles in it, and the last set of tyres were the biggest single expense. It is my everday car, I'm not a boy racer (my wife says I drive like a vicar), I average 28 mpg - which also shows how I drive. I want tyres that will perform properly (as the Michelins have done) and will also last like the Michelins have done. However, please don't just say "buy Michelins", as I am interested to see what peoples' opinions are of the Continentals or other suitable quality tyres - I'm not interested in budget 10000 mile super sticky tyres - it's not my style, and I made a similar mistake with my 2.7 Lux in the past.

Thank you for your help.

Continentals IMHO are next to useless in the wet, some will disagree I am sure.

If you are on 16 x 7 & 8 D90's why not try Bridgestone Touranza E300's W rated £320 ish a set. That's what I have on mine and I am very happy with them.

You see, it's so difficult. I've looked on other forums and there are many opinions. My trusted very good friend car mechanic told me this morning that Continentals are very good tyres, but won't last as long. Now Sean says they're no good in the wet (only his view - which he's entitled to). Tyre stores tell you that most of the premium brands are 'there or there abouts' on wear, and try to push you away from Michelins because our sizes are hard to find (quote).

I've got the Michelins down to £440 all inclusive, which is cheaper than Costco. I have now got the Continentals are down to £360 all inclusive. My neighbour's Boxter is on Continentals (same size as our S2s by the way) and he seems happy with them. I think that the £400 mark is psychological, especially as last time it was only £319.

15 Minutes later....

Well then, the following puts the whole pettiness of 'how long will my tyres last?' into perspective. Following Sean's posting about Conti's being poor in the wet, I popped round to ask my neighbour with the Boxter, Mike, about his Conti's. His wife answered the door in her pyjamas. They're still in their pyjamas because Mike's twin brother has just died of a heart attack, age 47 - and I'm there because I'm worried about a few quid and an extra couple of thousand miles on the tyres.

I'm going to go for the Continentals, as £80 is a considerable saving over the Michelins and will probably work out financially in the long run.

I agree with sean, the contis can be a bit unpredictable in the wet

But the Michelins will last more than £80 longer and what price is safety if they are dodgey in the wet
After all it's the wet that is important.

Personally i'd pay the extra few quid

I've never been an advocate of either, the Conti's are quite an old fashioned tyre & I've never been a Michlin advocate. Virtually everything I've owned I've run on Goodyear. I think a GSD3 F1 is available in those sizes. Wear has never been too bad in my experience.
The other option is Bridgestone but expensive & may not wear to well.

At the moment nobody has come forward and said how long the Continentals have lasted, so with respect it is hard to justify the statement that 'they will last more than £80 longer'. I wouldn't risk safety for £80 either Jason, but if they were bad in the wet then they probably wouldn't make them. Also, I tend to drive according to conditions, so if it's wet I slow down - being covered up for dead after a car accident in the rain in 1987 wasn't my idea of fun, in fact it wasn't my fault but the white van man's in his Mercedes who hit me head-on, went over the top of my car, crushed the roof in, all because it was wet and he couldn't make the bend - maybe he was on Continentals, I didn't ask!

At the end of the day I just want some tyres that will work well, last well, have the obligatory 'N' on them (which in itself restricts availablity), and not cost a fortune.

So, can anybody say how long a set of Continentals have lasted?, and can anybody who has 'lost it' in the wet please come forward to support the other comments.

Thank you.

The N isn't a major issue with the 944, you need W rated or above for the speed rating to comply with insurance.

You asked a question, we share our knowledge based on our experiences.

I understand that Sean, and like everybody else I appreciate any help and advice that is offered. We also have to remember that this mode of communication does not convey emotion - meaning that this is not an argument. However, comments should be able to be justified and supported by fact. For example, there seems to be some confusion over the relevance of the 'N' mark with 944s, so let's sort that out first using facts. I will refer to and quote from the Porsche 944S2 Driver's Manual from my August 1991 'J' reg car.

Page 77 - There is no binding standard concerning permitted top speed for ZR tyres above 240 km/h. Therefore, use only makes and types of tyre tested by Porsche.

Page 102 - tells you the tyre sizes, and at the bottom of the page, in bold letters, states - Therefore, use only the makes and types of tyre which have been tested by Porsche. Obtain the latest information from your Official PORSCHE Centre

This makes the statement 'The N isn't a major issue with the 944' incorrect, although as has been previously mentioned elsewhere it could depend on the age of the cars, and when Porsche actually started doing the 'N' thing. Maybe somebody with a non-S2 Driver's Manual could verify that for us. To be fair to you, ten years ago I had a 1989 2.7 Lux, but I cannot remember having to have the 'N' mark when I bought new tyres for that car, I do remember that it had Fuldas on it.

Your statement, which obviously does cause me concern whilst trying to make a decision, was 'Continentals IMHO are next to useless in the wet'. On what 'experience' do you base the comment? This is a genuine question, not sarcasm. Finally, what did you do to remedy the problem - buy new tyres immediately, or just live with it?

Once again, thanks for your comments, like I said at the beginning - it's an interesting, and now emotive, subject!

I had a Celica as my company car and it went in for new tyres, they fitted Conti's.

When it rained the car handled very differently to what it had done before. So I made the lease company change the tyres and had Dunlop's SP's fitted.

I'm think Rich Simpson found the Conti's not so great in the wet on his Turbo Cab and he changed those pretty quickly afterwards as well. Hopefully he'll confirm if he reads this.

My car had Conti sport contact 2's on it when I got it. They had 6mm tread front & back. Even with my humble horsepower I could do full on tail out slides in 2rd gear. Do you get the picture. There not just useless they were dangerous. After some unexpected drifting & a sideways overtake past a dustcart. Fun but it wasn't intentional. I dumped then still with 4mm tread & fitted Avon ZZ3's (That everyone said were rubbish.) They are miles better than the conti's. (Impossible to spin wet or dry in first.) You have been warned.

Fair comment Sean, thanks for that. But I have to ask, after this little episode, remembering that I am after advice and am now seriously considering not having the Contis - JJ, why did you fit Avon ZZ3 tyres that everyone said were rubbish? If I followed your lead I'd have the Contis, ha ha (don't know how to make smiley faces etc).

My personal experience with tyres is very limited, however that said, only tyres I have ever had any problems with is a set of mitchellins on the diesel box. 2 of the 4 tyres - opposite corners, different batches, decided to blister.

Put a set of pirelli 3000s on all round - no problems and still good 25k later, Maybe another 5k on the fronts.

Mirrors my experience with the pirrellis on the pork. Amazed by the available grip made by both the car and tyre combo. I realise its only a 924, but still requires a deliberate effort to make it break away, even in wet.

I've had 4 sets of Contisports on My s2 , and to be honest not really had many problems with them.They are slippery in the wet when you are near the wear limit , but what tyres aren't?I get about 10 - 12k out of the rears and thats everyday use .I've tried P Zeros ( nice but only 10k out of a set ) Yokos ( very sticky but only 8k ) and currently have cheap Nokians , which arent too bad and are currently on 13k but need replacement.I have also tried Goodyear GSD3 , which wwere OK , but took a 1000 miles to bed in and felt distinctly unstable whilst this was happening.I couldnt get front tyres ( 205/50/17 ) in goodyears when I had them , but may be different now.I'm told Falkens are the mid range tyre to get now , so may give it a whirl with these.

There you go John clear as mud.

You can get Bridgestone S02's N rated in our size, I have those on my 911 no idea how good they are in the wet as the Speedster doesn't come out unless the sky is cloudless