Looking to replacethe oem's Mich Pilot 215/50/R17 93V with the GeneralTire AltimaxHP from tirerack.com.The oem has a load/speed rating of 93V and the General's are 91H. My questions is doesitmake a big enough differance to not get the General's?? I have 2004 6 6cyl wagon.

Thanks for your help!

 

I suspect that they'd be perfectly fine as long as you're not autocrossing the car, carrying max loads frequently.......or live in Montana! (say "Montanabahn")

David

 

The difference between a 91 and a 93 load rating is 77lbs/tire, or 308 lbs total. That"s how much the vehicle"s gross weight capability will be reduced by.
An H rated tire is good for speeds up to 130mph, while the V is good to 149mph.
What does this mean? Well if I were a true engineer I could explain it in more technical and mathematical terms sure to confuse every other body on here.However in the more simple terms thatmostof us are familiar with, it means you would be limiting the intended capabilities of the vehicle.
An H tire is likely to wear better and ride a little better than a V, but not handle quite as well. You may also lose some braking capability (re: a longer stopping distance may be required.)
To me, 308lbs is a big difference. If your vehicle"s gross weightis 3600lbs, and the road-ready vehicle (w/o driver/passengers/cargo) weighs 2850lbs already, your maximum safe driver, passenger and cargo load is another 750lbs. Subtract 308lbs.and you're already down to the ability to carry a total load of 442lbs.If you"re a big guy, that may mean that you can be the driver, carry a cup of coffee with you, and one small passenger or a heavy brief case, but that"s it.
See what I mean?
They say it"s never a good idea to downgrade tire specs from the original. I believe w/tire technologywhatit is today, and what tires mean to a vehicles suspension, steering, brakes and overall ability to do it"s job (carry weight, carry the stress of high lateral and longitudinal loads, heat, deflect and deform when needed to, in other words, "always") I would stick with that at all costs.
Upgrade if you will, but downgrading might be dangerous.

 

Thanks for your responses guys! I emailed this same question to tirerack and the response back was "this vehicle is rate as an H anyway so you would be fine". So, I have no idea who to believe.. I am not an not an aggressive drive by any means and with the customer reviews on the GeneralAltimaxHP'sI had to order them.I'll post back after they are installed if I notice any difference.

 

As the dissentionist here, let me say thatyou should notbelieve everything the Tire Rack has to tell you either. They are there to sell tires.
During one conversation I had w/themabout the Kumhos that I run,I was told to increase the rear tire pressure in my FWD car to improve cornering. That goes against everything I've learned about FWD in the years I've driven and raced them. The fronts that carry 90% of the load should be pumped up to help decrease understeer and improve turn-in. Needless to say, I did not take that advice.
The 6 wagon came w/H rated tires?? I'd want to check on that. You should be able to confirm that from the owner's manual or door tire/MGVW sticker.
Frankly the speed ratingwasn't my biggest concern for you anyway. It was the weight rating.
Ihave also been following the reviews of the Generals and they do seem to be liked by many. I'd even consider them for my car, and I am a spirited driver. (<<< Distinguished from aggressive.) But they would have to offer them in a 91V rating.

 

Uh, you can decrease understeer by increasing rear tire pressure...you just have to increase it a **** ton. I do it on a regular basis when i autocross my 6 and i have tried plenty of pressure setups. my standard set up has the rear tires about 2 psi higher than the front (which are higher than you would normally drive on as well) *shrugs* it seems to work for the way i drive so I'm reluctant to say one way is "wrong" and another is right in this situation.

-Cameron Keffer

 

I haven't AutoXed in years myself Cameron, 'bout 25 of 'em , but for my daily driving w/this car (and w/the Kumhos that are a bit softer than the other 2 setsI've had on it)I do run them much higher than normal for the street.I havenever liked factory recommendedpressures though and have usuallygone over them by @ least 2-3psi.My current setup for my 3is 38-40F/33-34R.
I may giveyour idea a try too. What could it hurt to try, right? But it was always my experience that RWD worked best when pressures were higher in the rear, and the reverse in a FWD car. I discovered thatwhen runningmy RWD Volvo sedan andFWD '80 Civic in both AutoX and Street/Road Rallies. Have you ever tried higher pressures in the front?

 

Yeah, i have, and when the car was in stock form it worked ok, I still prefered the oposite setup i still use, but i think it comes down to personal preference on handling dynamics. However, now with the racingbeat sway bars i have installed (29mm front, 27mm rear up from 17mm front and 15mm rear) this pressure set up seems to give the car a pretty much 100% neutral attitude. And for what it's worth i had always heard the oposite in regards to set up, slightly lower pressures (only about 1-2 psi) in the driven wheels is what i've typically seen as a general rule. Though i have heard that Civics respond really well to the setup you propose, I'm pretty sure the Hollises (the #1 rated STS drivers in the country) run with that set up, but i know several Mazda3 guys that run with similar setups as me so it seems to come down to an individual thing, some of which may depend on the surface ur running on as well as the suspension setup of the car as well as the driver's personal style. Our next event is gonna be on a concrete surface rather than our usual unsealed asphalt so i may try ur setup for a couple runs there to see if it is the surface that makes a difference.

-Cameron Keffer