351CJ

"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5229-433ED1EC-517@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net...
>
> Re: Re: Tire Pressure
>
> Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2005, 6:15am (EDT+4) From:
> 351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
>
> "Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16594-433C8A50-315@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
>
> A big Ford truck. Bigger than the F150-250-350.
> Eric
>
> Eric,
> The cabs inside and out and front end sheet metal and grill on and the
> engines and transmissions in the F-450 and F-550 are the same as the
> F-250/F-350. The only differences are with the massively larger frame,
> springs, brakes, wheels/tires & axels, equaling much higher weight carry
> and towing weight limits, in a truck that is essentially the same size
> as its lighter duty Superduty siblings.
> Now the F-650/F-750, now those are a much Bigger Ford truck than the
> F150-250-350-450-550. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I just gave him a simlple answer. Yours is much more than I needed to
> know ;-)))
>
> Eric
>

Well frankly your answer was not in fact simpler, it was simply
inaccurate...
Since you were attempting to answer someone's question, seems you did indeed
need to know...

 

Eric Toline

Re: Re: Tire Pressure

Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sun, Oct 2, 2005, 2:08am (EDT+4) From:
351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5229-433ED1EC-517@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net...
Re: Re: Tire Pressure
Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2005, 6:15am (EDT+4) From:
351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16594-433C8A50-315@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
A big Ford truck. Bigger than the F150-250-350. Eric
Eric,
The cabs inside and out and front end sheet metal and grill on and the
engines and transmissions in the F-450 and F-550 are the same as the
F-250/F-350. The only differences are with the massively larger frame,
springs, brakes, wheels/tires & axels, equaling much higher weight carry
and towing weight limits, in a truck that is essentially the same size
as its lighter duty Superduty siblings.
Now the F-650/F-750, now those are a much Bigger Ford truck than the
F150-250-350-450-550. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I just gave him a simlple answer. Yours is much more than I needed to
know ;-)))
Eric

Well frankly your answer was not in fact simpler, it was simply
inaccurate...
Since you were attempting to answer someone's question, seems you did
indeed need to know...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Actually I don't need to know at all since you seem to be the know it
all and I don't give a damm one way or the other.

Eric

351CJ

"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11736-43405037-213@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
>
> Re: Re: Tire Pressure
>
> Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sun, Oct 2, 2005, 2:08am (EDT+4) From:
> 351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
> "Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:5229-433ED1EC-517@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net...
> Re: Re: Tire Pressure
> Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2005, 6:15am (EDT+4) From:
> 351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
> "Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16594-433C8A50-315@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
> A big Ford truck. Bigger than the F150-250-350. Eric
> Eric,
> The cabs inside and out and front end sheet metal and grill on and the
> engines and transmissions in the F-450 and F-550 are the same as the
> F-250/F-350. The only differences are with the massively larger frame,
> springs, brakes, wheels/tires & axels, equaling much higher weight carry
> and towing weight limits, in a truck that is essentially the same size
> as its lighter duty Superduty siblings.
> Now the F-650/F-750, now those are a much Bigger Ford truck than the
> F150-250-350-450-550. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> I just gave him a simlple answer. Yours is much more than I needed to
> know ;-)))
> Eric
>
> Well frankly your answer was not in fact simpler, it was simply
> inaccurate...
> Since you were attempting to answer someone's question, seems you did
> indeed need to know...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Actually I don't need to know at all since you seem to be the know it
> all and I don't give a damm one way or the other.
>
> Eric
>

If you truly don't give a damn, do everyone a favor, and stop feeding people
your misinformed bullshit when they ask a simple question...

C. E. White

"lugnut" <lugnut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:voeuj1t5vltlke2ctr1pdb7jqj2o5gvih1@4ax.com...

> Enjoy your Michelins. They are great tires.

You touched a sore point with me. For years I have been a Michelin drone.
Whenever I needed replacement tires, I always bought Michelins. Lately I
begun to think maybe I should look elsewhere. I have been less that thrilled
with the last few Michelin tires (or BFGoodrich tires - a Michelin
subsidiary) that I have purchased.

My 2003 Expedition came with Continental tires. They were OK for the first
50,000 miles, but began to get noisy, so I replaced them at around 55,000
miles with Michelin Cross-Terrains. I now wish I had the Continentals back
(at least the Continentals with less than 50k miles). The Michelins ride OK
and stay balanced, but they are noisy as heck - much noisier than the noisy
Continentals I replaced and seem to have worse wet traction (just a feeling,
no numbers to back it up).

My 2004 Thunderbird came with Michelins from Ford and the tires suck. I
cannot keep them balanced and they appear to me to be gripless.

I also have a 2003 Saturn Vue with Bridgestone tires. These tires are much
better than my other tires. Even at 37,000 miles they aren't noisy and I
have only had to have them balanced once (they seem to stay balanced). To
bad they are from Bridgestone / Firestone.

I do have an F150 with 8 year old Michelin LTX tires and those tires seem to
be just fine (well except for the one I just replaced because I put a spike
through the tread).

The last set of new BF Goodrich tires I had on an older Expedition (now long
gone) were horrible.

I also bought a set of Michelin Pilot Sports for a Mustang GT I no longer
own - they were not horrible, but at best they were no better than the
Goodyear's that came on the car and they were certainly more expensive.

And finally, for those that can stand Consumer Reports, Michelins have not
exactly shined in CR's recent tire comparisons. For instance the Cross
Terrains like the ones I now have on my Expedition were rated 19 out of 22
in a November 2004 CR test (the Continentals that came on the vehicle were
rated 20...). On the other hand Tire Rack Customers rank the Cross Terrains
pretty well (5 out of 62), but then the people doing the ranking might be
like me - Michelin drones.

So I guess the question is - Are Michelin still my best non-brainer option
for tires, or should I look elsewhere? And if I look elsewhere for my next
tire purchase (probably new tires for the Thunderbird), where should I look?
I will not buy Firestone tires (and because of guilt by association - no
Bridgestones either) no matter what rating may say (burn me once, shame on
you, burn me three or four times, damn I must be stupid).

Ed

Eric Toline

Re: Re: Tire Pressure

Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2005, 5:21am (EDT+4) From:
351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11736-43405037-213@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
Re: Re: Tire Pressure
Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sun, Oct 2, 2005, 2:08am (EDT+4) From:
351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5229-433ED1EC-517@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net... Re: Re: Tire
Pressure
Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2005, 6:15am (EDT+4) From:
351CJ@msn.com (351CJ)
"Eric Toline" <Audioetc@webtv.net> wrote in message

Actually I don't need to know at all since you seem to be the know it
all and I don't give a damm one way or the other.
Eric

If you truly don't give a damn, do everyone a favor, and stop feeding
people your misinformed bullshit when they ask a simple
question...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Testy aren't you? You seem to be one of those who just has to try to
impress everyone with how much they know. Remind me never to ask you the
time, you'll most likely explain how to build a watch.

clifto

C. E. White wrote:
> So I guess the question is - Are Michelin still my best non-brainer option
> for tires, or should I look elsewhere? And if I look elsewhere for my next
> tire purchase (probably new tires for the Thunderbird), where should I look?

I've been driving Goodyears for a lot of years now and haven't been
disappointed once. I'm impressed by the TripleTreds on my '91 Grand
Marquis.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Ad absurdum per aspera

[Contis] were OK for the first 50,000 miles, but began to get noisy

Somewhere around 40 or 50 thousand I start to wonder about the number
of potholes and pieces of road debris my tires have slammed through,
anyway. (Back when I did some off-roading I worried even earlier,
though freeways might be worse since the obstacles have squarer edges
and you're hitting them much harder.) This limits my desire to pay
extra for a tire that promises extreme life in a treadwear sense.

I wonder if any testing agency has published "autopsy reports" on tires
at various stages of a real-time or accelerated wear cycle that
includes such forms of violence. It'd be interesting to see either
cross sections or x-rays that show what is going on inside your tires
as they get experienced.

--Joe

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4341282b_3@news1.prserv.net...

> So I guess the question is - Are Michelin still my best non-brainer option
> for tires, or should I look elsewhere? And if I look elsewhere for my next
> tire purchase (probably new tires for the Thunderbird), where should I
look?
> I will not buy Firestone tires (and because of guilt by association - no
> Bridgestones either) no matter what rating may say (burn me once, shame on
> you, burn me three or four times, damn I must be stupid).
>
> Ed

I have had nothing but Michelin for many years. My most recent set now
have about 60,000 miles and still have decent tread left. They have also
been
very good in rain. We dont get much snow and ice here in Texas, so I can't
speak to their performance under those conditions.

I have never had a complaint about the tires themselves. Never any out of
round
or balance problems.

Still, things can change. There are some very good Japanese tires now,
and if I decided to change, I would review them carefully to be sure that
I am still getting the quality and performance I want.

C. E. White

<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:Kce0f.8494$oO2.2146@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

> Still, things can change. There are some very good Japanese tires now,
> and if I decided to change, I would review them carefully to be sure that
> I am still getting the quality and performance I want.

Sounds like a good plan. But what do you use for your source of information?
I really don't trust Consumer Reports (I clearly have different agenda than
CR when it comes to most things, particularly automitive related items). The
Tire Rack ratings are interesting, but it seems to me that the ratings are
little more than personal opinion based on a limited frame of reference (how
many people actually have driven more than a couple of the tires in any
category)?

One more thought comes to mind. Maybe Michelin tires are as good as they
ever were and it is the roads that are crap. It seems like the roads around
here are much worse than even 5 years ago.

Ed

SC Tom

>
> My 2003 Expedition came with Continental tires. They were OK for the first
> 50,000 miles, but began to get noisy, so I replaced them at around 55,000
> miles with Michelin Cross-Terrains. I now wish I had the Continentals back
> (at least the Continentals with less than 50k miles). The Michelins ride
> OK
> and stay balanced, but they are noisy as heck - much noisier than the
> noisy
> Continentals I replaced and seem to have worse wet traction (just a
> feeling,
> no numbers to back it up).
>
> I will not buy Firestone tires (and because of guilt by association - no
> Bridgestones either) no matter what rating may say (burn me once, shame on
> you, burn me three or four times, damn I must be stupid).
>
> Ed
>
>

I have a 2002 Escape that also came with Continentals, and mine were so
stiff-riding, noisy, and tractionless after 25,000 miles that I started
looking around for a suitable replacement. I first considered the Michelin
Cross Terrain SUV's, but the local shops didn't have any in stock, but could
order them at what I thought was an exorbitant price ($180 each!). I did
some "comparison" shopping through user reviews at Tire Rack and other
on-line places and decided to go with the Firestone Destination LE's. They
were less than 1/2 the price of the Mickey's, so I thought I'd give them a
try. Plus, they had a 30 day "if you don't like 'em, we'll take 'em back"
policy at the place I bought them. I have ~6,000 miles on them and I think
they're great. They're quiet on all kinds of road, grip like glue even in
the rain, and give a noticeably more comfortable ride than the Continentals
I replaced.

Happy with my 'stones,
SC Tom