Hot pensioner cars

8

85Fuego

Well-known member
VIP Paid Subscriber
Fellow Frogger
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,012
Location
vic
"There’s a chance Renault will pursue hot Captur and Kadjar models, as rival brands are beginning to embrace hot crossover variants......."

here

Excellent - let's see how these stack up against 1990's Renaults in the safety equation.......

Bound to be more 'sighs'...................................
 
Hmm :)
If they want the pensioners market they will have to improve the ride markedly better than my Captur. Faster just means rougher on the suburban roads around here. It is hard to believe they made a car with such a bad ride. Marketing over practicality IMHO.
Jaahn
 
Jaahn,

Gone are the days of the supple Cits and R16.
Everything is 295/15R22 with no compliance in the wall, however, proceed at a reasonable clip and go round corners.....
 
Hmm! well, the current Captur is Clio 4 based & is considered improved on the original in all ways so it's a plausible path to go down.
 
Well as I need new tires soon I am going to change the wheels and tires to a more sensible comfort oriented size to see if it is a big improvement. I did a half hearted change a couple of years ago for a trial and noticed a good difference. Looked crap though so I will address that now. Tossing up 205/70R15 or 215/65R15 and a good brand tire that includes comfort in the specs.:cool:Those sizes give the correct diameter to match the existing low profile rubber bands.
And of course being a tight arse pensioner I want a reasonable price. Not $300 each. :eek:
This might be a suitable spec;

Key Tyre Features​

  • Reduced braking distances in wet and dry
  • Improves wet cornering stability
  • Ensures a smooth and comfortable ride
Jaahn
 
Last edited:
jaahn said:
Well as I need new tires soon I am going to change the wheels and tires to a more sensible comfort oriented size to see if it is a big improvement. I did a half hearted change a couple of years ago for a trial and noticed a good difference. Looked crap though so I will address that now. Tossing up 205/70R15 or 215/65R15 and a good brand tire that includes comfort in the specs.:cool:Those sizes give the correct diameter to match the existing low profile rubber bands.
And of course being a tight arse pensioner I want a reasonable price. Not $300 each. :eek:
This might be a suitable spec;

Key Tyre Features​

  • Reduced braking distances in wet and dry
  • Improves wet cornering stability
  • Ensures a smooth and comfortable ride
Jaahn
Click to expand...
I'll be interested in how you get on. You could find a good R16 of course, and add the Dutch-built power steering!

Why have so many forgotten about "ride"?
 
jaahn said:
Well as I need new tires soon I am going to change the wheels and tires to a more sensible comfort oriented size to see if it is a big improvement. I did a half hearted change a couple of years ago for a trial and noticed a good difference. Looked crap though so I will address that now. Tossing up 205/70R15 or 215/65R15 and a good brand tire that includes comfort in the specs.:cool:Those sizes give the correct diameter to match the existing low profile rubber bands.
And of course being a tight arse pensioner I want a reasonable price. Not $300 each. :eek:
This might be a suitable spec;

Key Tyre Features​

  • Reduced braking distances in wet and dry
  • Improves wet cornering stability
  • Ensures a smooth and comfortable ride
Jaahn
Click to expand...
Hmm! Nothing very good is available in either size. Excluding the more dubious gives the following medium lists by reference to your criteria:

205/70-15
Hankook Kinergy Eco 2
Kumho EcoWing ES 01 KH27
Michelin Energy XM2+
Michelin Primacy SUV

The first 3 are all similar in performance profile & are more or less in my order of preference. The wild card is the Primacy SUV. Like many SUV tyres, it's heavily siped (an attempt to restore wet grip given that the compound is usually harder to resist being chopped up by a lumpen object resisting being moved around). A result of that siping would be some tread instability & squirm on turn-in. The Primacy is a class above the rest of the tyres (Premium, not Eco) but that might not mean much. I know of no tests of it. The Primacy range is of very mixed quality & I am tentative in short-listing the SUV but that is what I shall do. At the moment, it has a $100 cash back deal operating.

The Eco 2 also has a deal on (4 for the price of 3). It is my other short-listed tyre.

215/65-15
Hankook Kinergy Eco 2
Falken ZE 914
Kumho EcoWing ES31
Kumho EcoWing ES 01 KH27 (replaced by the ES31)
Michelin Energy XM2+

All roughly similar in performance profile &, again, roughly in my order of preference.
My choice would be the Eco 2 on the grounds that it has a deal on now. I have no grounds for thinking that extra money would gain a better tyre.

So, not a lot of difference in tyre choice connected to size. The mass of the 205/70 would be a bit less, favouring ride the extra width of the 215 would give a bit more grip all round. But you might not even notice such minor differences.

Given your concern about price, the Eco 2 in 205/70 is $137 per tyre (164 for the Primacy SUV). The Eco 2 is 147 for 215/65.

None of these medium listed tyres are rubbish but nor are any of them wonderful. However, by reference to your criteria, I think that you might be best served by the Eco 2 in 205/70.

cheers! Peter
 
JohnW said:
I'll be interested in how you get on. You could find a good R16 of course, and add the Dutch-built power steering!

Why have so many forgotten about "ride"?
Click to expand...
I haven't forgotten about ride; I just don't value it as it comes at the cost of handling tautness.

No tyre can be first class in each one of conflicting parameters of performance thus my first question to anyone who asks my advice on tyres is: 'what are your performance parameter priorities?'.

cheers! Peter
 
Last edited:
Thanks Peter for your input. :cool:
I will hopefully get my rims this week and move on the project. On mature consideration I am tending to go for the 215/65 r15 as a more modern size and now commonly fitted albeit in 16". Any thoughts ?? I will look at those suggestions.
My thinking is that we are a bit sick of the ride around the 'burbs but mostly happy with rest of the car and out on the highway is ok mostly. This is cheaper than getting another car. It does the normal motoring OK and has plenty of power really if needed. We do not drive looking for thrills any more ! Must be getting old !! :rolleyes: But not going back to shit tire brands either !
Jaahn
 
Last edited:
jaahn said:
Hmm :)
If they want the pensioners market they will have to improve the ride markedly better than my Captur. Faster just means rougher on the suburban roads around here. It is hard to believe they made a car with such a bad ride. Marketing over practicality IMHO.
Jaahn
Click to expand...

Yet the twin under the skin clio IV rode quite well ;) But if you jack them up you need to ramp up the spring rates to stop them falling over around corners...
 
Jaahn,
I am another person that likes a tyre to give a quiet, smooth ride. They have to be safe and reasonable grip in all conditions, but not a super grip/fast wearing sports car/track tyre.
After some consideration (of tyre choice) I replaced all 4 tyres on my 2wd Territory last year, and was extremely happy with them. The car immediately felt quieter and definitely a softer, less harsh ride with less tyre/road noise. These tyres are not for full off road driving, they have a fairly smooth car type tread. Wear rate was going well, but unfortunately the car was "written off" financially in an accident last May, so I only had about 10000kms on them.
They were Continental UC6 (Ultra Contact 6) SUV, 102V load rating. The size I got was 235/60/17 for the Territory. Keeping in mind that car weighs much more than the Captur, so in my opinion, the ride improves with the heavier car, then you are less likely to get similar results with any tyre. But of all the tyres I have had for the last 20 years, these have been the least noisy on the road, and noticeably softer.
I got 4 tyres for $700 which was reasonable.
I came across this website at the time, it is quite good I think to get an overall view. Note these UC6 SUV Contis rate well for noise and comfort, and less for off-road performance, which is also what I found.
https://www.tyrereview.com.au/continental-ultracontact-uc6-suv-reviews

(Edit: Don't expect your Continentals or Michelins to be made in Germany or France).

(Edit 2: The tyres on my recently purchased 2019 Koleos are Nexen NPriz RH7 size 225/60/18. At about 32000 kms I have not had any reason to complain about these tyres, in fact, the car rides very smoothly. Had never heard of them, and they get mixed reviews but are OK as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.tyrereview.com.au/nexen-npriz-rh7-reviews. Maybe the 60 profile is a good target?).

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Having had my Koleos now for over 12 years and having fitted the same brand of tyre it was supplied with as replacements every time, Hankook Dynapro, 225/60 R17, I'm still getting 65,000 km out of a set in mixed suburban/highway driving. Every now and then but rarely, I have the feeling that all the suspension bushes have suddenly carked it and the car feels like the bump stops have been replaced by cast iron blocks. It is only then that checking the tyre pressures all round with a pencil guage will reveal one or more corners has dropped a mere one psi. Re-inflating the tyres to the correct pressures produces a limousine ride immediately. Front 33 psi, rear 31 psi, anything different over or under makes the car ride like a dray
 
Last edited:
Fordman said:
They were Continental UC6 (Ultra Contact 6) SUV,
I came across this website at the time, it is quite good I think to get an overall view. Note these UC6 SUV Contis rate well for noise and comfort, and less for off-road performance, which is also what I found.
https://www.tyrereview.com.au/continental-ultracontact-uc6-suv-reviews

(Edit:

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I bought the uc6 and have been very disappointed with them on the Koleos.
Within 10k km the outside of the tread wore down so much they are virtually illegal.
There is still heaps of tread in the middle of the tyre.
In an attempt to save my hard earned from lasting just 20k km I now pump them up to uncomfortably hard, 42 psi in the front.
The concept of regular rotation has long gone.
For all the wear, I cant say the performance is anything special, the ABS still kicks in at times in the wet. They don't give much confidence cornering in the wet either. I wouldn't say they are bad, but I don't have a lot of confidence after a few twitchy moments when pushing moderately.
I suppose they are quiet and if they weren't so heavily inflated, they might be comfortable. That is one modest plus in a longer list of minuses.
Whilst I don't do any off-road driving, one of the sidewalls took a nasty hit the other day when it got pinched on a rather slight gutter/driveway protrusion. I was shocked at how much damage occurred at only a very slow parking speed.
I don't think I have ever been this disappointed in a name brand tyre that cost so much coin.
Jo
 
Interesting Jo, and relevant to the Koleos. I guess tyres perform differently on different cars, it is what makes the choice so difficult. Good information.
 
On 215/65 vs 205/70-15: neither is a mainstream size anymore & I'd choose on what's available now relative to your priorities. If you still have the Captur come next tyre buy & 205/70 is then a denuded size, you could then move to 215/65 if you wish.

On the UC6: this is a regional tyre type (not, that is, part of the core European range). Wet grip has clearly not been prioritised &, though not appalling, is mediocre according to the few tests I've seen (Australian magazines & Choice). It's not a tyre which I recommend purchase of (unless the alternatives in the size in question are worse). It illustrates the point that one can't just say: 'buy Michelins (or whatever); mine were beaut'. Tyres vary within a brand according to the traits prioritised for the market in question.

Nexen's range tend to test as mediocre wet tyres.

Tyres can vary in relative performance according to both application & size.
Perceptions of tyre performance are, I suggest, of more relevance concerning anecdotal reporting by users. People vary a lot in the standards used in reporting on tyres & the experience of their use which informs that reporting. Generally, the best guide to a tyre's worth is a spread of tests by different folk using different test protocols. Of especial significance for relative appraisals are tests which feature more than one of one's medium-listed tyres.

cheers! Peter
 
Last edited:
Haakon said:
Yet the twin under the skin clio IV rode quite well ;) But if you jack them up you need to ramp up the spring rates to stop them falling over around corners...
Click to expand...
Hmm :) well yes in theory but the old Renaults from the '70s-80s were 'jacked up' as high as my Captur because that was a suitable sensible height and they handled OK with a great ride as we all remember even with the body roll.
My R20 would rub the mud flaps on the road when driving briskly on a winding road and not being silly. Gees what a great car looking back. :cool: Renault dropped the ball as far as ride/handling goes after that time !
Jaahn
PS the guy up the road often used to say he saw my R20 out the front and always thought what a handsome car it looked (y)
 
Further on UC6 - I have the standard (non-SUV) variety on my XM (205x65R15). I bought them because my tyre placard specifies 'V' rated (yes I know 'H' is good enough for the highest speed I'll ever do in Australia) and I hoped they would have equivalent wet grip to Dunlop's 'H' rated FM800. In short, they don't. They have only covered just over 3,000 km, but that should be enough to get rid of any outer slippery coating.

OK, a very different kettle of fish to the rubber bands you're discussing, but the rubber compound etc. must be similar, as my experience matches jo proffi's - the ABS gets a thorough workout if I try and stop quickly on a wet road, and it's not as if my current front disk pads have a lot of "bite".
 
jaahn said:
Hmm :) well yes in theory but the old Renaults from the '70s-80s were 'jacked up' as high as my Captur because that was a suitable sensible height and they handled OK with a great ride as we all remember even with the body roll.
My R20 would rub the mud flaps on the road when driving briskly on a winding road and not being silly. Gees what a great car looking back. :cool: Renault dropped the ball as far as ride/handling goes after that time !
Jaahn
PS the guy up the road often used to say he saw my R20 out the front and always thought what a handsome car it looked (y)
Click to expand...
I agree, but body roll is not acceptable to the market anymore.
 
You're right, I'm sure! The average Aussie absolutely adores the boneshaking level ride provided by minimum travel suspensions and ultra low profile tyres.
 
One thing occurred to me going to a much cushier tyre size is the stability control software - even if out of curiosity, go find a nice quiet wide gravel road or carpark somewhere and see if the extra movement on taller tyres introduces any funny behaviour from the ESP system.

These systems are designed around the car's overall set up. I think it will be fine given there are at least two tyre sizes factory fitted to them, but something to consider with modern cars - a modern take on french car being set up around the then new radial technology tyres from michelin and being scary as hell on "conventional" crossply tyres
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top