# Bye bye Pirelli - back to the FuelMax



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Why the <non-GM TPSEC> version?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Tomko said:


> Why the <non-GM TPSEC> version?


The non-GM spec version has better reviews at both Discount Tire and Tire Rack. Also the GM Spec version is slightly narrower, which reduces light snow and ice traction, but not enough narrower to appreciably change dry road handling. I'm hoping the extra width won't impact overall efficiency too much.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I've heard a lot of people say that they loved the P7's until they were nearly worn out and they got noisy. So far, I'm still pretty happy with them, but the handling has always felt pretty mushy at OEM pressures.

I guess I could say similar things about the FR710 that my car came with (very noisy at the end of their life).


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I had to run my P7s at a higher pressure to eliminate the mushy feeling. It was a fine line between too mushy and too harsh with them.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

I tried something other than the Fuel Max's, the triple treds on my eco a couple of years ago and after a few weeks I went back and traded the TTs for the fuel Max's with no complaints. I am now at 72 K and been considering various LRR tires but leary of the same results as the TTs. Been considering the Firestone Champions(fuel fighters) or the Conti Pure Contacts( I believe someone here has these also). I know the Eco seems rather particular with the tires put on it so that is why I am with the Fuel Max's.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

obermd said:


> The non-GM spec version has better reviews at both Discount Tire and Tire Rack. Also the GM Spec version is slightly narrower, which reduces light snow and ice traction, but not enough narrower to appreciably change dry road handling. I'm hoping the extra width won't impact overall efficiency too much.


I'm guessing that GM knows something that we don't know if they compelled Goodyear to make such a unique tire. 

Maybe better aerodynamics?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

About the only change Goodyear had to do was make the tread patch half an inch narrower for the GM TCP Spec version of this tire. This also lightened the tire by about three pounds.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> About the only change Goodyear had to do was make the tread patch half an inch narrower for the GM TCP Spec version of this tire. This also lightened the tire by about three pounds.


That, and the tread depth is actually slightly less (common for OEM tires - usually so you'll have to put another set on before your lease is up). That didn't seem to be the case with these though - most went an impressively long distance.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> That, and the tread depth is actually slightly less (common for OEM tires - usually so you'll have to put another set on before your lease is up). That didn't seem to be the case with these though - most went an impressively long distance.


Probably the rest of the weight savings - 9/32" for the OEM vs. 10/32" for the generic.

Sometimes I think car manufacturers force tire manufacturers to create OEM tires that are impossible to find aftermarket just to provide their dealerships with a small extra source of income.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Tomko said:


> I'm guessing that GM knows something that we don't know if they compelled Goodyear to make such a unique tire.


You should ALWAYS avoid the OEM version of a tire as they are always an inferior product to the real version and only typically saves a couple dollars a tire. Compare the specs on tirerack on two tires, you will typically see a lighter tire(not made as well) and in some cases even less tread depth with a OEM version. .


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

When I can buy the Fuel Maxs for @ 115 per at a Goodyear Store in Cinti and the next closest thing is the Champions or the Contis for @ 125 per since I have had good luck with the "Maxs" I see little reason to change. They seem to be good enough for Cinti weather and driving and this 2nd set I have seems to be wearing well so I think buying new tires would be something I would consider doing bc I was bored or felt the need for a change but I am thinking @ another 15-25 K on these. Don't know the first set was worn just afraid of a bad winter with OEMs with @35 K on them after hearing everyone talking about how bad they were in the wet/snow.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Discount Tire has the GM version of the Fuel Max - was no problem getting one when my wife got a flat in hers a month or so ago.

Winter traction with them is not a concern for us, as we have Xi3s for that time of year.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

spacedout said:


> You should ALWAYS avoid the OEM version of a tire as they are always an inferior product to the real version and only typically saves a couple dollars a tire. Compare the specs on tirerack on two tires, you will typically see a lighter tire(not made as well) and in some cases even less tread depth with a OEM version. .


I think that we can all agree that ALWAYS is a pretty absolute term. 

While I don't doubt that there may be merit to your argument - I do wonder how many cases you've examined to reach your unequivocal conclusion.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Tomko said:


> I think that we can all agree that ALWAYS is a pretty absolute term.
> 
> While I don't doubt that there may be merit to your argument - I do wonder how many cases you've examined to reach your unequivocal conclusion.


You're right. I hear the Bugatti Veyron comes with some pretty top-notch tires...GLUED to the rims, no less 

On a serious note, most "performance" cars probably have pretty legit tires with a good balance of handling/other characteristics. Maybe still not the *best* on the market, but certainly better than the bargain basement crap they tend to put on everyday mass-produced models.


----------



## BlueTopaz (Aug 25, 2012)

Just put a set of the P7's on our 2012 Cruze. To me a nice improvement over the F710's Got 38k out of the Firestones.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Tomko said:


> I think that we can all agree that ALWAYS is a pretty absolute term.
> 
> While I don't doubt that there may be merit to your argument - I do wonder how many cases you've examined to reach your unequivocal conclusion.


Feel free to take a look yourself, the numbers don't lie. Like I said go compare ANY retail vs OEM tire and you will see there is always some corner cutting going on. My father retired from GM and said its ALWAYS been this way, auto manufactures get the best deal on tires since even $10 difference in price adds up over 150,000+ cars a year.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Feel free to take a look yourself, the numbers don't lie. Like I said go compare ANY retail vs OEM tire and you will see there is always some corner cutting going on. My father retired from GM and said its ALWAYS been this way, auto manufactures get the best deal on tires since even $10 difference in price adds up over 150,000+ cars a year.


I'm sure your father is a great guy (just like you are) but I need to understand his expertise before I can assess his credibility. So for example, did your father work with the folks in the tire lab at GM who come up with the TPC Spec? If not, then what connection did he have with GM and tires?

You say ANY retail tire? So like some Walmart special will ALWAYS be superior to an OEM tire?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I think the days of assuming that OEM tires are inferior are pretty much over. At this point I think it's a crapshoot. I hated the OEM Goodyear Eagle GTs on my two Fieros - they were worthless with a heavy dew. My Transport, I don't remember so it's was obviously a wash. The Montana had outstanding tires that I never could find again to replace with - Bridgestone made the best tires for it. The OEM tires on my Mitsubishi lasted until I traded the car. The FRS710's on my son's LS MT didn't last very long but I seriously considered putting the OEM version of the Goodyear FuelMax Assurance back on my ECO. I didn't because I wanted the extra patch width when on ice. My wife's Intrepid had OEM Michelins that made the car an absolute danger in the winter - radio flyer sleds have more control. Her current Toyota Solara came with OEM Michelins that also had poor traction compared to the aftermarket tires I've put on for her.

And for those of you who want to reply that retail Michelins are a lot better - I have yet to find a set of Michelins that are worth the rubber they're made out of.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> And for those of you who want to reply that retail Michelins are a lot better - I have yet to find a set of Michelins that are worth the rubber they're made out of.


False.

Pilot Super Sport.
Pilot Sport Cup 2.

:wink:


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

obermd said:


> I think the days of assuming that OEM tires are inferior are pretty much over. At this point I think it's a crapshoot. I hated the OEM Goodyear Eagle GTs on my two Fieros - they were worthless with a heavy dew. My Transport, I don't remember so it's was obviously a wash. The Montana had outstanding tires that I never could find again to replace with - Bridgestone made the best tires for it. The OEM tires on my Mitsubishi lasted until I traded the car. The FRS710's on my son's LS MT didn't last very long but I seriously considered putting the OEM version of the Goodyear FuelMax Assurance back on my ECO. I didn't because I wanted the extra patch width when on ice. My wife's Intrepid had OEM Michelins that made the car an absolute danger in the winter - radio flyer sleds have more control. Her current Toyota Solara came with OEM Michelins that also had poor traction compared to the aftermarket tires I've put on for her.
> 
> And for those of you who want to reply that retail Michelins are a lot better - I have yet to find a set of Michelins that are worth the rubber they're made out of.


IIRC you run dedicated winter tires. So why would a larger contact patch be of interest for you on ice?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Tomko said:


> IIRC you run dedicated winter tires. So why would a larger contact patch be of interest for you on ice?


Nope. I don't do enough snow driving to justify them.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> Nope. I don't do enough snow driving to justify them.


Our winter tires (Michelin Xi3s) actually have a stiffer sidewall than the Fuel Maxes - and as a result, improve the handling of the car. At anything below 50*, they're going to have more grip than an all-season anyway, even without snow.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Tomko said:


> You say ANY retail tire? So like some Walmart special will ALWAYS be superior to an OEM tire?


Hey you don't want to beleive me that great, but the numbes don't lie. Follow these exact directions.... go to tirerack and compare the goodyear fuelmax, they sell both the retail and OEM versions and you will see that the OEM version of the tire is ALWAYS inferior when you compare the numbers. I would post a link to show you this comparison but last I knew you could not post tirerack links on cruzetalk. Either way there is only $1 difference in price per tire even though you get more tread depth and width and only 1LB difference in weight. 

You can also see the LS/1LT firestone FR710 has an OEM and retail version on tiretrack, compare those tires and you can see there is only 6 cents difference in price, however the retail version is 1lb heavier and the max sidewall PSi goes up from 44psi to 51psi. 

NEVER buy tires at walmart they have special models of tires made just for them that are basically the same crap like an OEM tire vs retail. That's besides their "trained" monkeys in the back aren't known to do that great of a job and I certainly wouldn't let them touch my car.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> I think the days of assuming that OEM tires are inferior are pretty much over.



Compare the numbers, OEM version of tires are made cheaper to save the manufacturer money, not designed to be better in any way at all. What do you think happens when you make a tire 1LB lighter? you compromise its structure with less belts or rubber to save money.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I bought a FR710 directly from Firestone when I had a flat, and realized that:
1) At 7000 miles, tread depth was MUCH more on the new tire than the other 3 on the car.
2) It didn't come in a "S" speed rating from them. They plain didn't sell it.
3) As mileage went on, that tire proceeded not to wear very much, while the others wore out significantly faster.

I think had I had non-OEM FR710s, I might have liked them more.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> Compare the numbers, OEM version of tires are made cheaper to save the manufacturer money, not designed to be better in any way at all. What do you think happens when you make a tire 1LB lighter? you compromise its structure with less belts or rubber to save money.


Lowering the tread depth 1/32" makes the tire **** near exactly 1lb lighter.

So, there's your weight savings, by math. *NOTHING* else.

This is for the 215/55R17 Fuel Max, by the way. The only difference between the tires is 1/32" of tread depth, which accounts completely for that decrease in weight.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

MP81 said:


> This is for the 215/55R17 Fuel Max, by the way. The only difference between the tires is 1/32" of tread depth, which accounts completely for that decrease in weight.


The tread is narrower as well.

EDIT: I should add though why would you want to buy a tire for almost the exact same price with less rubber? Also the FR710 1LT/LS tire shows no difference at all in tread depth, yet is also 1LB difference in the OEM vs retail, care to guess where its weight loss comes from?


----------



## jmlo96 (May 2, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> I bought a FR710 directly from Firestone when I had a flat, and realized that:
> 1) At 7000 miles, tread depth was MUCH more on the new tire than the other 3 on the car.
> 2) It didn't come in a "S" speed rating from them. They plain didn't sell it.
> 3) As mileage went on, that tire proceeded not to wear very much, while the others wore out significantly faster.
> ...


I have also noticed that the Cruze OEM FR710's have a different tread pattern than the aftermarket ones. Specifically the center rib design is very different.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

If you're going by what Tire Rack says, I am inclined _not_ to believe that. It says the tread width on the "normal" Fuel Max is 8.4" wide - on a tire that is only 8.5" wide. That is not possible. 

For the Fuel Max a 215/50R17 is 7.4" wide, and a 215/60R17 is 6.2" wide - somewhere in the mid-high 6" range for tread width on a 215/55R17 seems about right, and the OEM one is 6.5" - _quite_ close.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

jmlo96 said:


> I have also noticed that the Cruze OEM FR710's have a different tread pattern than the aftermarket ones. Specifically the center rib design is very different.


Hmm, I hadn't noticed that.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> I should add though why would you want to buy a tire for almost the exact same price with less rubber?/QUOTE]
> 
> Less weight - for the same reason why one purchases lighter wheels - less rotational mass.
> 
> When the OEM is trying to meet a fuel mileage target, they likely have to do every possible thing in their abilities in order to do so. 1/32" of tread depth is not a big deal in the least - plenty of people have had their OEM Fuel Maxes last an extremely long time.


----------



## jmlo96 (May 2, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Hmm, I hadn't noticed that.


First- Cruze OEM S rated FR710
Second- Aftermarket FR710 T rated


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

jmlo96 said:


> First- Cruze OEM S rated FR710
> Second- Aftermarket FR710 T rated
> 
> View attachment 201682
> ...


Interesting. Mine looked identical actually. I wonder if the tread pattern was revised for the tire in later years? 

Looks like it would be better in rain - they were crap tires in rain.


----------



## jmlo96 (May 2, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Interesting. Mine looked identical actually. I wonder if the tread pattern was revised for the tire in later years?
> 
> Looks like it would be better in rain - they were crap tires in rain.


OH yes they were crap in the rain. I nicknamed them the Firespins. The Cruze would just keep spinning in the rain with those tires, and sometimes the front end would start bouncing up and down because of it. It was almost funny, except for when I needed the car to get out of the way! Haha


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Ok, why would GM put S rated tires on the Cruze LT? The ECO MT can do in excess of 135 MPH and I suspect the LT is up there near it. S rating is 112 MPH. Yes, they're cheaper, but this makes me really wonder what brain trust at GM decided to save a couple of bucks at the expense of safety?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> Ok, why would GM put S rated tires on the Cruze LT? The ECO MT can do in excess of 135 MPH and I suspect the LT is up there near it. S rating is 112 MPH. Yes, they're cheaper, but this makes me really wonder what brain trust at GM decided to save a couple of bucks at the expense of safety?


Each trim has a speed limiter set to the speed rating on the tires respectively.

And...they're squishy? They did ride well, I guess.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Each trim has a speed limiter set to the speed rating on the tires respectively.
> 
> And...they're squishy? They did ride well, I guess.


I'd say Road & Track's 2011 ECO MT didn't have a speed limiter on it. They ran into aero-drag issues and basically couldn't make the car go any faster. The R&T testing may be why GM switched from H to V rated tires on the ECO MT as well.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> I'd say Road & Track's 2011 ECO MT didn't have a speed limiter on it. They ran into aero-drag issues and basically couldn't make the car go any faster. The R&T testing may be why GM switched from H to V rated tires on the ECO MT as well.


Driver probably got bored after it took 10 minutes to get it there. You'd have to ask a tuner to see if one is there or not on Eco trims. 

Regardless, the LS/1LT is set at 112 MPH, and 2LT at something higher (I think they are H-rated).


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Interesting thread. Thanks for the feedback. 

I got rid of the OEM fuelmax tires after having driven them for about 40,000 miles. Two had 4.5/32" of tread and two had 5/32". Wet traction got to the point where I did not feel safe in the vehicle on wet pavement, let alone heavy rain. I felt that this was unacceptable for a tire that had over 4/32" of tread remaining and chose the Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus on the basis of a 12/32" tread depth. They have been exceptional in wet conditions. 

I have about 11,500 miles on them now and they have uniform wear across all 4 tires but are down to 9/32". I'm not sure if my tread depth gauge is inaccurate or if that's the actual tread depth, but I definitely don't see myself getting their 75,000 rated mileage at this point. At that rate, I'll be down to the wear bars by the time they have 45,000 miles on them. That may be attributed to mostly aggressive city driving and a fair bit of towing. Still, I have a feeling Bridgestone will be refunding me a substantial amount when I go in for a replacement set.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Interesting thread. Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> I got rid of the OEM fuelmax tires after having driven them for about 40,000 miles. Two had 4.5/32" of tread and two had 5/32". Wet traction got to the point where I did not feel safe in the vehicle on wet pavement, let alone heavy rain. I felt that this was unacceptable for a tire that had over 4/32" of tread remaining and chose the Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus on the basis of a 12/32" tread depth. They have been exceptional in wet conditions.
> 
> I have about 11,500 miles on them now and they have uniform wear across all 4 tires but are down to 9/32". I'm not sure if my tread depth gauge is inaccurate or if that's the actual tread depth, but I definitely don't see myself getting their 75,000 rated mileage at this point. At that rate, I'll be down to the wear bars by the time they have 45,000 miles on them. That may be attributed to mostly aggressive city driving and a fair bit of towing. Still, I have a feeling Bridgestone will be refunding me a substantial amount when I go in for a replacement set.


Even when I did primarily highway driving, I've almost never gotten the rated mileage out of a set of tires. I did make the 45K lifetime once, but they were scary to drive on.

Plus I like to go around corners like an idiot...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Even when I did primarily highway driving, I've almost never gotten the rated mileage out of a set of tires. I did make the 45K lifetime once, but they were scary to drive on.
> 
> Plus I like to go around corners like an idiot...


So my towing, hard cornering, WOT-to-redline accelerating with a BNR tune all day, every day, probably isn't helping my tread life...

I'm not complaining though, since they have exceptionally good wet traction (which is invaluable on a drenched boat launch on a busy day) and the ride is very smooth and quiet.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Andrei,

How's the fuel economy on those Bridgestones. Bridgestone is my go-to tire company and I've always had at or beyond tread wear and no traction issues with them.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> Andrei,
> 
> How's the fuel economy on those Bridgestones. Bridgestone is my go-to tire company and I've always had at or beyond tread wear and no traction issues with them.


I stopped paying attention to fuel economy ever since I started working from home full time so I can't speak much to that effect. I also went with a wider tire, at 235/50/17, so that increased weight as well as drag by a substantial amount. With two kids in the car, I can't drive around with A/C off when it's 85 out or drive 55-60mph like I did before to reach my records. I'm also not running them at max sidewall anymore because the ride is a bit too stiff. That being said, I'd estimate a 3mpg drop since I switched to them. They weigh 28lbs each (new), compared to the OEM tires' 19lbs. 

As a side note, I called the nearest Firestone store and they said they could prorate the tire replacement once I get to 4/32" since I had concerns about wet traction below that tread depth.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

MacPherson suspension is the problem with the single wishbone suspension as opposed to the more desirable double wishbone suspension.

Former drastically changes the camber, essentially scrubbing the tire in and out causing severe wear. In particular on bumpy roads. Double wishbone keeps the tires vertical at all times.

Really necessary to rotate these tires, say every 7,500 miles, not sure where this number comes from, but it sure doesn't prevent excessive tire wear, just spreads it out between the four tires. 

ABS is another problem if worn tires, one has a blowout, to keep that ABS light off, have to replace two tires, if you want to rotate, have to replace all four. Limited slip really needed equal tires on both sides or else you would burn up your clutches.

Just put new tires on my now totaled Cruze, the deal with my tire dealer was life of the tires free rotations and alignment checks. They use to transfer this to a new vehicle, but don't do this anymore. Now I am wondering why I didn't ask for a refund, paid extra for this service. Will try this tomorrow, not even enough mileage on the to get the first tire rotation. Culprits insurance company doesn't car either about new tires, NADA doesn't mention this in their stupid books.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Never had an ABS system care what tire was where. They have to work with space savers somehow. 

Now AWD - that's when you want to make sure all your tires are worn evenly, especially the old Haldex systems.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Never had an ABS system care what tire was where. They have to work with space savers somehow.
> 
> Now AWD - that's when you want to make sure all your tires are worn evenly, especially the old Haldex systems.


Was driving my father in-laws '07 Acadia (AWD) a few winters ago, and we had a flat (conveniently happened at work, when I was in work clothing, and it was 7 degrees outside). Changed to the spare and ooh boy did it piss the vehicle off.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

MP81 said:


> Was driving my father in-laws '07 Acadia (AWD) a few winters ago, and we had a flat (conveniently happened at work, when I was in work clothing, and it was 7 degrees outside). Changed to the spare and ooh boy did it piss the vehicle off.


GM's Versatrak system absolutely hates having the donut spare on the car. The Cruze also doesn't like it. When I had to use my donut my ABS, Traction Control, and Stabilitrak systems all shut down.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> GM's Versatrak system absolutely hates having the donut spare on the car. The Cruze also doesn't like it. When I had to use my donut my ABS, Traction Control, and Stabilitrak systems all shut down.


Yep - that's exactly what happened. There was plenty of snow around, and traction with that donut was nonexistent and all those systems freaked out (and shut off, like you mentioned).


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Well I feel like an idiot. 

Went to Firestone and the guy checked my alignment and tires. Said tires were at 11/32" and some were even close to 12/32". Said they were practically new still. I have 11,500 miles on them and I barely wore down 1/32". He gave me a free tread depth gauge to keep on hand since I felt mine was broken. 

Got home and realized the fancy dial tread depth gauge that I bought after switching tires shows both SAE and metric, with the primary measurement being metric. 

I measured just under 9mm, not 9/32". I'm officially blown away by these tires. Alignment is fine as well. 

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

My fire stone fuel Max's are at 61k I figure they have to be replaced by 70k


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

mr overkill said:


> My fire stone fuel Max's are at 61k I figure they have to be replaced by 70k


You have Firestone tires on your CTD?


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

God dam proof reading Goodyear fuel max


----------

