It's about time for me to replace my OEM tires on my 2016 EX.
I want to stay with the original factory size. 185/55/r16.
There are choices. Not never ending, but quite a few.

My problem is in the past? My approach to tire replacement has always been to simply get the best, or at least one of the best tires possible. To me, tires are a huge safety issue, and so I'm not looking for savings as much as overall quality. I'm willing to pay more, for a tire that is highly rated and a known good quality.

But maybe I've over researched?
Because my problem in making a decision for my Honda Fit is that the highest rated/reviewed tires, seem to have schizophrenic or really split reviews. There seems to be no Excalibur here, no simply the best.
With my research, the Michelin Premier A/S is one of the most expensive, but also highest rated replacement tires you can get. Usually? I'm content and happy with that choice, despite the cost. BUT....
Been reading a lot of the owners reviews, and finding a chasm of experience. Some simply say they love the tire, it's been great. But more than a few others, report disappointment with a reduction in MPG and also some report disappointment in tread wear life. For a "Best" tire, it has a lot of reported negatives at least at the sites and reviews I've been able to dig up.

Which really tempts me to try brands that I've never chosen before.
There are far less total reviews to find, but the Falken Sincera tire, has a great tire tread warranty, and is quite a bit cheaper than the Michelin. And from the smaller sample size pool of reviews, the reviews are very positive.
Also the Yokohama Avid Ascends....falling somewhat in the middle price wise, also seem to have a more balanced pool of reviews, most all generally good to great.

But since there seems to be no real Home Run choice to be made?
I'm more tempted than I have ever been try a sub $100 a tire, choice and go with Falken, Hankook, Cooper.
Or maybe the Yokohama choices that fall above $100 a tire, but less than the Michelins.

I'm really tempted to try the Falken Sincera SN 250S, but it's price is actually so much lower, it makes me nervous.

I feel I've probably worked against my own best interest here, over researching. But my logic at the moment is that I can get a set of Falkens, for quite a bit less than the Michelins or even the Yokohama's.
A bargain is no bargain if safety and durability doesn't exist. But what's the worst case scenario? If I find I really hate the tires, I can make a change either within the trial period available at the tire shop, or long term pro-rated against the tread warranty.
If I really like them? and they live up to the reviews and warranty? Then I'm just happy.

Has or is anyone running Falken Sincera?
I'd be curious as to a long term Honda Fit opinion.
I don't mind being the Pioneer in a tire choice....but history shows it's usually better to follow in the path of others than be the one trying to blaze the trail.

This has become a much harder decision than I projected it would become because IMO in the 2016 Honda Fit EX tire size, there seems to be no real clear cut overall choice.

 

I cant add any helpful info for the Falken's but I'll throw out my $0.02 where I can try to be helpful


For my prev car (lexus ct200h), I ran Michelin Premier for about 3/4 of its life over a 5 yr span. the 1 time I went away from it, I did notice less traction in icy conditions during the snowboard season. I went back to Michelin immediately. The tire performed as expected, I had to pay more for it of course.

For my GK5, last tires were Hankook Ventus V2's. For "cheap" tires, they were friggin amazing. They had great tread life, price was under $50 ea, did great in the rain. And best of all, they enabled me to hit 40 mpg consistently (16 lb tire, and low rolling resistant). As soon as my current tires (Achilles ATR Sport) wear out I will be going back w/o question.




NOTE:
I dont track the car/its just a dd, so my words will reflect cost effective (aka, cheap) choices

 

Thanks for the insight.
I forgot to mention them, but I have looked at reviews for the Hankook Ventus V2's, and yes, they seem pretty good.

That's kind of the problem here. The reviews for the "cheap" tires are very close to the tires 1/3rd to double the price. What bothers me about the Michelin, is several reviews citing quicker than expected tread wear, and also quite a few reviews citing a MPG hit.
In the past, the Michelin choice was easier, because they always were the nearly undisputed "Best Choice" you could make.

It's an easier decision when the expensive tire is hands down reviewed better.
When they all blur into a conglomerate of varying positive and negative opinion? That's tougher.

I'll post back, with what I do end up with.
I know at this point I've over thought it. I need to just make a decision, and then see what happens.
My feeling is as long as it's not some nearly generic, very bottom of the barrel budget choice, I'm probably at least going to be OK. Just don't know at this point if I drive away with Michelins, Yokohama's, Kumho's, Falkens or Hankooks.
I just usually don't feel like gambling....but in this case, I might go against my usual approach and try a tire that price wise, isn't near the top.

 

There's no "the best" when it comes to tires, primarily because there's a compromise built into the nature of it. To maintain firm grip, the sidewall has to be stiff. But stiffness affects comfort. You have to make it softer to make it more comfortable. But the softer you make it, the more it feels like it's not in control as that sidewall flexes from side to side.

Its also the same for tread life, rolling resistance/mpg and probably a few others. Higher tread life might mean less grippy treads. Lower rolling resistance also means less grip (due to the "contact patch" affecting both, in the opposite direction).

In the end, its a question of... what kind of compromise are you willing to settle for?

People's experiences (and bias) affects that compromise. If you drive it harder than its "intended" for... then tread life and grip won't hold up as much as it "appears" it does to someone that's gentler on it.

For myself, I use Continental EC DWS tires (which are NOT available in stock size) because I do value grip. Both in the way I drive for enjoyment and pure safety of it. My own enjoyment should be self explanatory. But, there have been too many times where I've been driving even slower than the flow of traffic and my brakes plus tires were to only thing preventing me from slamming into some idiot that ignored their stop or some other shit. I can't control other drivers, but I can do my best to avoid them. So that's my compromise (edit: without going with dedicated summer and winter tires)... less tread life, lower mpg, slightly harsh ride over bumps with better grip at a slightly higher than "recommended" PSI (36 or 38 as opposed Honda's recommended 33 psi).

 

No free lunch.
I know, a tire decision is based on some degree of desired traits and compromise. It always has been, and probably always will be. But I'm pretty much looking at All-Season choices, which are marketed as a overall "compromise"-jack of all trades choice. Hence..All Season.

I don't do any one thing specifically...it's a daily driver, all year long. So I'm not looking for a high performance tire, or a singular summer tire. All Season works for me.
The only attribute I specifically look for better than average return would be wet weather traction and stability, as RAIN is the biggest constant for the winter months for me.

I actually tried to look up Low Rolling Resistance...to get an understanding of exactly what it means and how it works. As every tire technician in the world will adamantly tell you Low Rolling Resistance doesn't mean "Traction".
There are several youtube videos trying to explain the science and physics between "Regular" tires and tires marketed as low rolling resistance.
I've watched most of them with only a questionable gain in comprehension. After 3 minutes of watching the German Engineer bounce two rubber balls on a table, and talk about the tires ability to simultaneously "deform" or adapt to the pavement, creating traction, while simultaneously being able to bounce back to round form, to create a lower rolling resistance, while resisting heat build up and conserving energy, I admit I'm no 3 eyed raven here.
Seems like the benefit is being created primarily by changes in the tread composition, and the phrase used most often is "added silica".

In the end?
I'm pretty sure the tire manufacturers are on to something. But exactly what that something is? Leaves me nostalgic for the days when Rolling Resistance was primarily measured by whether you had your emergency brake on, or had your tires blocked.
Ezekiel saw the wheel....doesn't mean he understood it.

 

Here's another option, the General Altimax RT43s. That's what I'm running in 205/50/16s but they make them in the 185/55/16s as well. Even though I'm using the larger tire, I still manage low/mid 40s MPG which was similar to what I was getting with the stock size Firestones. They come in cheaper than the Michelins with comparable reviews and still have a 6yr/65k warranty. The last time I measured them, I had about 40K on them and was still between 5/32 and 6/32 on the tires. I can see hitting 65K on them. Paid about $420 installed a few years ago and would buy again.



https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...omCompare1=yes

 

Those reviews you mention are spot on. The Michelin Premiers are great overall, but they are not the greatest in the wear dept. For grip though, they are wonderful. I dabbled a little bit with Michelin pilot sport, which made the Lexus Ct even more "fun", at the sacrifice of wear and mpg.

When I went Hankook Ventus v2, I sacrificed that grip in the name of mpg and a higher wear rating ... the right choice for that crazy person who commutes 1 hr each way, M-F.




Funny you mention "insight", in the honda insight world, if you stray away from oem tires (which are LRR, and light weight), you can easily lose 10 mpg ... and that is not an exaggeration.

 

My OEM's are Firestone FR740's. Which I don't thiink are marketed as LRR.
I would say they have performed OK...but they are literally the second most expensive tire on the list as far as replacement cost. I haven't been THAT impressed. Passable, no real big negatives, but also no real super positives. Just over 3 years use.

Even if I go budget, I'm hoping for some level of upgrade.

I have to admit, there's a psychological impetus to want change.
So I kind of want to try a different tire.
The Firestones cost, makes that decision easy to make.

 

Only had my Kumho Solus HA31's since June. Stock tire size and all weather design. I do not have space to store extra wheels/tires for winter use like I did in the past, hence I needed winter capable tires. Icing on the cake is that these are "V" rated. For winter, I've only ran "H" and have been happy, so I'm looking forwards to using this all weather tire in winter.

 

How's your MPG?
My only concern with using a "Year Round" highly aggressive winter traction tire, would be a gas mileage hit.

I know, it's hard or really nearly impossible to find the perfect tire BUT..here are my "Pie in the Sky" attributes, probably in the order I value most.....

#1. Wet Weather Traction
#2. Tread Durability-Durability overall-Quality.
#3. Support the economical nature of the vehicle. Doesn't have to be Low Rolling Resistance, BUT I don't want a tire that also lessens or kills my MPG.

 

To complicate the issue even more, people posting reviews might not know what they're talking about, and all of them are comparing their own tires (sample size of one) against their expectations of that particular tire, rather than against other tires on the same car in the same conditions.

Barring a large number of catastrophic failures, like sidewalls blowing out, you might see people buying cheap tires rating them well because they can't believe the deal they got, and people buying expensive tires rating them poorly because they paid three times the cost of their last set and can't understand why they don't get three times the grip and treadwear combined. Even a guy griping about poor wear might have terrible alignment causing the problem, and otherwise get a lot better performance.

Does Tire Rack have any comparison tests of your options? Even though they only test one set of each, you'd at least get side by side data, both wet and dry roads.

 

True, I agree.
You have to try to take reviews carefully.
And a lot of them are near worthless.
With tires it is hard, because of a lot of the reasons you site. Plus, you get a lot of highly rated reviews, 4 and 5 stars, from people who have just installed the tires and barely driven on them for a week or a month, and seemed to be thrilled or amazed their vehicle is still moving and running. Like...these tires are great! I bought them, installed them, and my vehicle still is driveable and running! .....??????

At this point, I've made a mistake I've made before. I've probably over researched and confused myself. At some point, you just have to make a decision and go with it.

I think I'm leaning towards the Yokohama Avid Ascend...the Falkens are interesting to me, but I noticed their temperature rating is "average'-B, while most of the competitors are A-Excellent.
The Yokohama's appeal because they aren't the cheapest...nor the most expensive. Tire Rack, and Tire Outlet reviews are good, as are individual consumer reviews.

I enjoy researching decisions like this. But I do sometimes have a tendency to ace myself out.
And tires are kind of a difficult product to evaluate because of all the factors involved and the all encompassing information available.
New consumers can be wrong about a tire, coupled by every manufacturer makes "no compromise" claims about their particular tire. The more you dig in this case, maybe the bigger the hole.

 

Back in 2015 I installed four Yokohama Avid Ascend GT 185/55R16 on my Fit. They've been running great for the past four years until one got damaged in an accident a couple of weeks ago. I replaced BOTH front tires with new Avid Ascends this week. My wife and I are both fairly conservative drivers, but we're not afraid to maintain the speed limit on interstate highways.

They run reasonably quiet and I have had no handling or stopping concerns (wet or dry). [Traction rating = A, Temperature rating = A.] When I drove north a few winters ago I don't remember any snow issues, but since we rarely drive in snow anymore, I would seek other's opinions.

Up until two years ago the Fit was primarily a commuter car. Highway mileage was consistently in the 31-34 mpg range. Local driving is more like 27-30 mpg. "Your mileage will vary."

I just went outside and checked my tire wear. The new (front) tires are measuring 11/32 tread depth. After four years and 36,000 miles my old (rear) tires measure 6/32 tread depth. I rotated the tires a year ago, so the front (damaged) tire might have had greater tread depth, but it's too late to measure it. This means that, technically, the rear tires have 44% of the tread left and I might expect to get a maximum of 64,000 miles out of these tires. [Tire tread wear rating = 740]

The only downside I noticed is that the front tires were beginning to crack around the sidewalls. The rear tires, purchased at the same time, seem to be ok. The car is never garaged but our driveway is pretty shady. However - average temperatures here in north Florida are probably a lot warmer than the rest of the country. I'm still not sure why only two of the tires showed the beginning of dry rot.

 

So far the wet weather traction is good. I haven't done my usual wet weather test (wet weather track days was my specialty).

Since my car is easily heavier by 100lbs of sound deadening, I am happy to get the same gas mileage that I did before.

 

I ran several sets of Yokohama S-Drive on an NSX, and they were great, I can't remember what all season Yokohama I had on a Jetta but they were great too. More predictable than other tires I've tried in the rain. But again, limited sample size.

 

Don't forget that tires, like batteries, have a pro-rated warranty for replacement only by the same manufacturer. If you are unhappy with a cheap set of Falkens you might get a pro-rated credit towards a set of "premium" Falkens. If you decide to trade your half-used Falkens for a set of Michelins, you'll likely be out of luck. Also - they only pro-rate the price of the tire, not the mounting, balancing, TPMS, tire disposal fees, shop consumables, sales tax etc.

Which brings up another point. If you buy tires that have extended tread life, you're only paying those installation fees once every four or five years instead of every two or three years. In my estimation, the additional cost of a long-life tire would probably offset the cost of more frequent installation charges which can easily run $20-$30 per tire.

 

General Altimax RT43s' H-rated . Very good reviews at Tirerack and Consumer Reports . We've been using these nearly 5 years . They do well on ice and snow , used one winter , but still prefer winter tires .

 

Had Falken Sincera tires from 2011 to 2017 on my wife's 2003 Toyota Celica. Slightly bigger, but very similar size tire. Wore well, rode nice, fine in the rain, not good in snow. I got dedicated winter rims and bought some snows (General Altimax Arctic).

Bought a new 2012 GE Fit Sport 5M for me. OEM Dunlops were OK, wore out at about 30K. OK in snow, but really a little scary for New Hampshire. Bought used Nokian Hakkapalitta RS-something tires on civic 4 lug rims. Fantastic snow tire. When I put them up in the spring next to my wife's General Altimax Arctic tires, I noticed the tread could have come out of the same freaking mold. (Later learned it very well may have...). When the Nokian's wore out I bought more Altimax Artics for winter for the Fit. I run without TPMS in the winter, so stability control is always on. I only had a problem this one time, when I was trying to drive up a 1 mile long hill in 6 inches of snow. Yea, I guess I pushed it too far, because the VSA wouldn't let a little tire spin happen.

Next summer (3-season) tires on the Fit in about 2015 were Yokohama Avid Ascends P185-55R16. I agonized over it just like you (I had had a bad prior Yokohama experience on another car). The Avid Ascends worked fine in the rain, OK in the dry, and wore like iron for me (but then again, I just put front brakes on the car at 75K miles, so your mileage may vary). I said OK in the dry. I had a number of quick stops where I thought the car slid more than I was happy with. Yes, the road was dry. Perfectly fine for most times. I lived with it. Did I mention they wore like iron (my previous problem with Yokos)?

Hit a big pothole last May, front tire got a bulge, rim was fine. Yokohama's had about 40K on them. I thought it was time to go big or go home. Bought a set of General Altimax RT43 tires in 205-50R16. Stock 2012 Fit aluminum rims, stock springs and shocks. They fit the rim, they balanced nice, they fit the car, they are quieter than the Yokohamas (older tires do get noisier so who knows). Fine in the rain. Seem better in the dry. Add just a little better look to the car. I don't notice a mileage hit. I like them, would do it again, and would recommend them to friends.

My friend swears by the RT43's for his wife's minivan that normally eats tires (yea, it is a Honda).

Good luck. No wrong answers. As said before by others, all tires are a compromise.

 

I agree, consumer reviews can often be nearly worthless. Reviews from magazines and web zines may really be paid advertisements disguised as reviews. Even Consumer Reports may be "our best hope," but even they can lead one astray as they sometimes neglect to test for important things. For example their tire reviews compare several tires for dry traction, wet traction, and handling, of serveral tires, all at nearly new tread depth. But tires get worse as the tread wears. Some tires have a more precipitous decline than others, so while tire A may be better than tire B at nearly full tread depth, tire B may turn out to be better than tire A when both are half-worn, which means they still have plenty of tread left. I've never seen Consumer Reports test tires when they are partly worn. I have also seen them test prepared food by giving them to taste-testers and having them rate how much they like the taste. Besides the fact that one person may like something that another person does not, there are other important factors that I didn't see them use in their rating,

 

These may be our next all season tires in the spring . Found these at BJs . They're $68 each for the 175/65-R15 . They're H rated , Treadwear 700 , Traction A and Temp A . There's plenty of deep siping close to the base for better traction along with the 4 channels . Tread depth is a decent 11.5 . These are getting 4.9 rating from 57 reviews at Tirebuyer . MICHELIN is the parent company of UNIROYAL . Pictures are right to left of the tire surface .