Soooo you haven't read any of this thread have you?

 

Thanks for the first hand experience running both tires.

The two tire rack surveys you linked are subjective consumer responses and while that has some value I would just be aware of where those numbers come from.

 

Yeah, subjective opinions from other drivers, I find, can be more useful than stats out of a car magazine with professional drivers. What I mean by that is 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, braking distance... are done by guys well above our driving skill (leaving ego at the door). And without real life scenarios involved. These times are when the drivers are fully alert, two hands on the wheel, and ready for the task at hand. Most of us (myself included) have distractions and other things going on (on going conversations, shifting with coffee, changing the pandora station...). These distraction are the equalizer over all tires.

All I'm saying is: Beware of where ALL numbers/ stats. Best way is trial and error. Some tire places will let you change tires with in set miles if you're not happy.

 

Depends what you want from your tire, performance or economy. There is a trade off, I'm personally running Hankook Ventus V2 concepts in 205 50 16 and they are cheap at $60 each, is very quiet and comfortable, great wet performance and have decent cornering grip. They are about 2.3lbs lighter then The stock dunlops 7000 and fuel economy has been great. It's not a low rolling resistance tire but I am getting great mpg, quiet and cushy ride out of them. These are my fav Vegas road trip tire as its a good all rounder.

 

completely agree. real world is quite different from controlled track testing.

 

I ran the WRGs also on my nissan and civic. Another great tire, comparable with the DWS.

 

If you want all out performance for a budget price nothing can touch the Federal Racing 595 RSR, that is a track tire at a all season price point. I have them on my MR2 and they are awesome. Wear isn't too bad for sticky rubber either. Plus side is they run wider then normal so a 205 50 16 looks like 225.

Side by side, my 205 50 against a 225 45 falken 452, the 205 is damn nearly almost wider then the 225.

 

Just decided to replace my OEM's with some 205/50/16 DWS's before winter. From What I hear, they are the best all season performance tire for the $$.

 

You thiunk drivers at CR are professional drivers ? I always find that actual comparative tests rather than 'opinions' are far more valid ! As any statistician will tell you buyers favor their purchase against all comers. Do check any negatives tho.
I guess you think all that subjective opinions by car mags are reason to buy a car? next time look at measured results and go drive one to get your opinion; don't be surprised if its different.

 

Show me the winners on the Federals.
BTW width is not a measure of cornering traction; the tread softness and contact area are; more surface area often means less traction unless the tread rubber is supersoft.
In short a little smaller contact area for the same tread softness is likely to get more penetration into the road surface because the pressure is greater to push the tread into the surface..

 

Any, yes. All, no, don't have time but sometimes its good to side with those that should be. And again, ignore TireRack's opinions and base your decision on track times, wet and dry, and UTOG ratings. Opinions only count if they are about safetry or severe differences from others.

 

I trust a scientific test of stopping distances a lot more than randomly-chosen, self-selecting people saying "I think my car stops better with my new tires."

Also, unless all the random people are driving the same type of car there's selection bias- for example if more people with one type of tire drive Accords and more with the other type of tire drive Buick Regals, the drivers are probably a lot different in age and driving style.

 

you quoted the wrong person or didn't read or understood my post correctly. i never even mentioned CR (consumer reports). i dont even like CR, they should stay in the kitchen and review microwaves and stoves.

tirerack's data is a good place to start, but at the end, i like trying the product to make my own review.

DWS is definitely good. probably the best all season tires ive tried. and ive tried many different types from pilot sport a/s down to the garbage falken 912's or watever they were called through the years.

 

I was making the point that measurable tests are always and absolutely more accurate than anyone's own opinion, including mine, about which snow tire, or performance tire is best.
Consumer Reports ran a number of different snow tires on identiucal cars up a snow covered hill and measured how far up hill each set of tires achieved. They also ran each set of tires around a circle til they lost traction, They also measured braking distances for those tires. That is a correct comparison of winter tires because no matter what the owner thinks, its the numbers that count. yes, I would prefer to see a stastistical evaluation for numerous runs but their testing was vasty superior to opinions. In the staistical tests we have run often there is not significant differences between tires to assure which is better and so you can choose either.Then on the other hand we havefound the single fastest timewas not the winner because the spead of data made the second fastest tire better by more consistently being the fastest tire.
You may want to know TireRacks testing tires for lap times in wet and dry are I think the fastest times recorded, not the statistical evaluation result. GrassRootsMotorsports provide the best comparison of ultimate performance tires but again they lack a statistical evaluation Still their tests are still measureable, not opinions. .
NOTHING BEATS STOPWATCHES AND YARDSTICKS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS AS LONG AS THE TEST IS ACCURATE.
BTW the same 'rule' applies to car mag tests; their butts never measure the same as mine and all too often thats the deciding factor in their choice of winners.
Cheers.

 

well dont quote me for something i didnt say or imply then...geez. no where did i say test data is wrong. i said test data is taken on a predetermined course on a test car, it's not real world. can't just rely on test data alone.

tirerack has test data to begin the search, i did my homework bought the DWS and tried it out in real world. and for these tires i agree with the data at tirerack. they are great a/s tires.

and who cares wat CR says. their reviews are garbage. they flip flop all the time and dont know wat cars are to begin with. i dont even remember the last time i even picked up a CR mag. lol

 

As another reference, take a look on this website

PMC Tire - Canada's Tire Ratings

Continental ‐ ExtremeContactDWS --- 4‐Season Performance Tires Passengers / Touring
Yokohama ‐ Avid Ascend --- 4‐Season Tires Passengers / Touring

Luis

 

Recently purchased 4 x 185/55/16 Yokohama Avid Ascend. They feel soft and comfortable yet provide good dry traction. Not too noisy and should increase mpg due to low rolling resistance.

 

At the risk of coming across as a Yokohama shill, the Avid Ascends are back on sale at Tire Rack. $40 off, I think, for a set of 4.

I'm still very happy with mine after 10 months and about 10k miles. But haven't yet really tried them in the snow.

 

I'm glad someone revisited this... So how have the DWS been?

 

I have the dws tires on my car. I like them. Good in thw snow!