18" OEM Tire replacement choices?

[Knightshade]

Very interesting performance data... Sure wish we had real rolling resistance/efficiency data on these vs MXM4S

I agree that data would be interesting- but flat out the fact the PS4S or A/S 3+ will stop me ~20 feet shorter at highway speeds than the MXM4 is a lot more significant to me than impact it might have on range.

I never use all my range in normal use anyway, it costs me barely over $2 to charge from 0-100% at home, and an extra 5-10 minutes at a supercharger for the rare 300+ mile in one day trip is well worth the car stopping 20% shorter 100% of the time.

 

[9-Volt]

Really interesting facts/figures, thanks for posting!

The day after I bought the car, I swapped the OEM 18" wheels/tires for TSportline wheels and A/S 3+ tires (I knew 5 minutes into the test drive that the MXM4s would have to go--same for the wheels, but purely for aesthetics not performance). Since I wouldn't be tracking the SR+ (or even pushing it hard), I figured it wasn't worth swapping between summer and winter wheels/tires. That said, the A/S3s have been better than I thought they would be for an all-season (my last couple of cars came with PS4s), although there's no way I would have thought they could beat (objectively) the stopping distance of the PS4s in the rain, or matched/beat them in the corners (dry or rain!). That's impressive!!

Now I'm wondering whether to replace the tires on my wife's car with the crossclimates for when we see snow (we mostly get rain in the winter). I thought that decision would have been a no-brainer, but we'd be giving up a fair bit of stopping distance in the dry/rain. Going to see if I can find some similar comparisons of the A/S3s vs. the crossclimates in the snow/ice.

**Edited to add** Couldn't readily find any datapoints for snow performance between the two tires, but, from my local government:

Why Stopping Distances Matter More During the Winter | TranBC
​

Basically, a good way to slow down quicker is to not go so fast in the first place! But, if you want to travel the speed limit, then you want an all-season for rain/dry, and a winter for snow/ice. In that case, I feel like I'd be "going fast" more often in the rain than in the "snow". On that note, the red part of the answer below is interesting. Basically, if I'm only piddling around in "sometimes slushy" snow, which is the case for 95% of our travels, then all-seasons will give me better performance. I guess I have to decide how often we'll be going in the "real snow" (mountains) to tip the scales to a snowflake(crossclimates), which will cost me in all other conditions.

Nick Thomas on November 17, 2017 at 4:29 pm

How about showing stopping distances for all-season tires with 3.5 mm tread v.s. real winter tires with say 7 mm tread?

REPLY

tranbceditor on November 20, 2017 at 11:22 am

Hello Nick,

We strongly recommend that drivers who travel in winter conditions install winter rated mountain snowflake tires for the winter season. Allowing tires with the M+S logo is a nod to the millions of British Columbians who live in the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island, who never travel outside of these areas. In this more temperate climate (wet, sometimes slushy), M+S tires can actually perform better. And the minimum tread depth is just that – the absolute minimum legal depth allowable on BC highways. The better the tread depth, the better the performance of the tire on the road – regardless of tire type. Thanks for your comment!​

 

[KenC]

...I guess I have to decide how often we'll be going in the "real snow" (mountains) to tip the scales to a snowflake(crossclimates), which will cost me in all other conditions.

Nick Thomas on November 17, 2017 at 4:29 pm

How about showing stopping distances for all-season tires with 3.5 mm tread v.s. real winter tires with say 7 mm tread?

REPLY

tranbceditor on November 20, 2017 at 11:22 am

Hello Nick,

We strongly recommend that drivers who travel in winter conditions install winter rated mountain snowflake tires for the winter season. Allowing tires with the M+S logo is a nod to the millions of British Columbians who live in the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island, who never travel outside of these areas. In this more temperate climate (wet, sometimes slushy), M+S tires can actually perform better. And the minimum tread depth is just that – the absolute minimum legal depth allowable on BC highways. The better the tread depth, the better the performance of the tire on the road – regardless of tire type. Thanks for your comment!​

Both the Michelin X-Ice3 and the CrossClimate+ have the same 3Peak Mountain Snowflake symbol (3PMSF) indicating that they've passed the test to be considered severe snow service-rated.

 

[9-Volt]

Thanks Ken. I know a lot of folks locally run the X-ice3s if they're going "inland", as there are some serious snowstorms and mountain passes once you get away from the moderating effects of the ocean, but I'm only ever going up to our local mountains (or Whistler), which have plowed roads (at worst). I've always run Nokian WRG2s and 3s (now 4s) as my "winter" set (although they're really an all-weather tire with the snowflake), but the CrossClimate+ look more interesting as an all-year tire, because they seem to have been designed with a "summer tire" bias. That said, the dilemma with going with those is that they're going to perform worse in the dry/rain (95% of our driving) than the A/S3s, but will, I assume, perform better when it really counts (snow). I don't have a feel for how much better, but, I'm guessing "enough to count" when you need them.

Since we need at least M+S to travel where we want to go, I'll start by checking whether the A/S3+ have that symbol on them. I didn't think they did, but that would make for an easy decision to get the CrossClimates, as I don't want to get turned around (or have any issues with my insurer) for not having at least M+S tires on.

 

[insaneoctane]

I agree that data would be interesting- but flat out the fact the PS4S or A/S 3+ will stop me ~20 feet shorter at highway speeds than the MXM4 is a lot more significant to me than impact it might have on range.

I never use all my range in normal use anyway, it costs me barely over $2 to charge from 0-100% at home, and an extra 5-10 minutes at a supercharger for the rare 300+ mile in one day trip is well worth the car stopping 20% shorter 100% of the time.

i've seen you post this a few times now. Honestly, I haven't really felt the same way. Having re-read it again here I'm at least willing to admit that I don't think that need that reduced braking distance.....until I do. I agree that there is a trade here and while everybody has different needs, anyone who needs the ultimate braking performance even once will agree with your evaluation (although their realization may come after an accident). Data does matter. I wouldn't trade 30% worse range for 1 foot of reduced braking performance. Thanks for your view and I look forward to even more data.

 

[evannole]

Kinda surprised to see how much better the ratings on the Cross Climate+ are compared to the A/S 3+ which I'd thought was "the" Michelin to get if you wanted a PS4S but lived someplace it sometimes gets below 40 or might even see occasional light snow


Edit-

Hrm, yeah...

A/S 3+
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=241

50-0 braking dry 80.9 feet, wet 101.3 feet
Avg cornering Gs .92 dry, .80 wet
Slalom dry 5.21, wet 5.63
Lap time 30.69 dry, 33.79 wet

Cross Climate+
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=231

50-0 braking dry 92.6 feet, wet 122.10
Avg cornering Gs .89 dry .67 wet
Slalom dry 5.18 wet 5.71
Lap time 31.1 dry, 35.75 wet



So other than a near tie in slalom dry, the A/S 3+ seems to beat the Cross Climate pretty handily performance-wise.

(the cross climate+ is apparently significant better in heavy snow though)


And of course the PS4S-
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=223

50-0 braking dry 80.2 feet, 108.8 wet
Avg cornering Gs .92g dry, .78 wet
Slalom dry 4.91, 5.35 wet
Lap time 29.78 dry, 33.05 wet


PS4S and A/S3+ very close on the first 2 (with only wet braking being significantly different- and in favor of the A/S 3+)... the PS4S wins the second two wet and dry by a bit though.

For what it's worth, it does not appear that the A/S 3+ comes in the right size for the Model 3's 18" wheels.

 

[9-Volt]

For what it's worth, it does not appear that the A/S 3+ comes in the right size for the Model 3's 18" wheels.

Short Answer: I have them installed on my 18" wheels after confirming fitment (via chat) with Michelin (Canada).

Long answer: I forgot the A/S 3+ tires don't show up on most of the "do they fit my car" tools.

The OEM wheel size is: 235/45R18 98W.

The A/S 3+ is: 235/45R18/XL 98V.

So, no issues with the load rating, which is key because (reputable) tire shops won't install tires on cars where the tire is rated for less weight than the car, but the speed rating of the A/S 3+ is lower than the OEM tires--149 mph vs. 168 mph:

V 149 mph 240 km/h Sport Sedans, Coupes & Sports Cars
W 168 mph 270 km/h Exotic Sports Cars​

That said, I won't be taking the car past 149 mph--let alone close to that (does it even go that fast?!)--so I researched the drawbacks of going with an "underrated" tire for speed (and confirmed with my local shop, who also suggested that I don't upgrade to the 19" wheels, at least for intended performance gains--let alone the 20" staggered fitment--as the Teslas "chew threw tires"...they also discouraged me from getting summer tires for the same reason--unless I planned on pushing the car to the edge in the summer and then ran a separate set of winters). Blurb from the InterWeb below:

How Much Does It Matter for Your Driving & Tread Life?

Tires with higher speed ratings offer handling benefits that thrill some drivers, but there are tradeoffs. Since they’re usually made with softer rubber compounds and stiffer construction they offer better cornering, stopping power and steering response. But expect a little less ride comfort, lower performance in cold conditions and shorter tread life. Consumer Reports found that some H- and V-rated tires didn’t last as long as those rated for lower speeds, wearing out closer to 50,000 miles than 60,000 miles.​

All just FYI.

 

[lozza]

I just put PS4 (Not S's) on my car. I have P3D-. Huge improvement over MXM4s... Grip/feel is obviously night and day... But I would say comfort and noise are actually improved too... And efficiency seems to be very similar so far.

 

[9-Volt]

...I agree that there is a trade here and while everybody has different needs...I wouldn't trade 30% worse range for 1 foot of reduced braking performance...

Fair point. Personally, I'm 100% with Knightshade re: valuing (driving) performance over ("fuel") efficiency, but I have the luxury of not having to worry about range. In fact, driving performance is so important to me that I wouldn't have bought the car if someone told me I was stuck with the OEM tires (I was on the fence as it was).

Here's an interesting article on the potential impact of "stickier" tires:

Changing tires on Chevy Bolt EV electric car: your range, grip, and noise may vary​

To your point, while this part of the article is what I want to hear:

But the new tires delivered what was wanted: "Handling and the overall fun-to-drive factor have increased tenfold."​

This part is likely going to be a showstopper for you:

Then they strapped on some pricey testing equipment—and found to their shock that while the Real MPG gear calculated the Bolt EV's range on the original tires at 244 miles, that plummeted "by a staggering 27 percent" to 178 miles with the sticky high-performance summer tires.

That may have been due, the article suggests, to the more aggressive driving style the new tires permitted.
​

Because rolling resistance wasn't even a consideration for me when picking tires, I didn't research low rolling resistance tires, but here's an old TireRack article that might get you pointed in the right direction for the types of tires that will meet your needs:

https://blog.tirerack.com/blog/steves-tire-selections/best-tires-for-fuel-economy-v2​

All just FYI, as I have spent WAY too much time thinking about tires!!

 

[Knightshade]

For what it's worth, it does not appear that the A/S 3+ comes in the right size for the Model 3's 18" wheels.

9-Volt covered this pretty well, but yes, they are available in the OEM 18" size- tirerack link-


https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...SAS3PLXL&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

 

[evannole]

Short Answer: I have them installed on my 18" wheels after confirming fitment (via chat) with Michelin (Canada).

Long answer: I forgot the A/S 3+ tires don't show up on most of the "do they fit my car" tools.

The OEM wheel size is: 235/45R18 98W.

The A/S 3+ is: 235/45R18/XL 98V.

So, no issues with the load rating, which is key because (reputable) tire shops won't install tires on cars where the tire is rated for less weight than the car, but the speed rating of the A/S 3+ is lower than the OEM tires--149 mph vs. 168 mph:

V 149 mph 240 km/h Sport Sedans, Coupes & Sports Cars
W 168 mph 270 km/h Exotic Sports Cars​

That said, I won't be taking the car past 149 mph--let alone close to that (does it even go that fast?!)--so I researched the drawbacks of going with an "underrated" tire for speed (and confirmed with my local shop, who also suggested that I don't upgrade to the 19" wheels, at least for intended performance gains--let alone the 20" staggered fitment--as the Teslas "chew threw tires"...they also discouraged me from getting summer tires for the same reason--unless I planned on pushing the car to the edge in the summer and then ran a separate set of winters). Blurb from the InterWeb below:

How Much Does It Matter for Your Driving & Tread Life?

Tires with higher speed ratings offer handling benefits that thrill some drivers, but there are tradeoffs. Since they’re usually made with softer rubber compounds and stiffer construction they offer better cornering, stopping power and steering response. But expect a little less ride comfort, lower performance in cold conditions and shorter tread life. Consumer Reports found that some H- and V-rated tires didn’t last as long as those rated for lower speeds, wearing out closer to 50,000 miles than 60,000 miles.​

All just FYI.

Thanks for the detailed reply with good information! You're quite right, of course, that V-rated tires should be perfectly adequate. I don't think I have taken my car over 85 mph in the year I have owned it.

How are you finding the efficiency, noise and ride quality of these tires compared to the MXM4? I would certainly like to have improved performance (particularly braking performance) and don't mind giving up a tad of range (say, 3-5%) since my driving style typically yields better results than the car's rated range, though I wouldn't want to give up 20% or more, as in your example quote above, as we do make road trips in this car. I am especially interested in a quieter tire, however; I find the MXM4 really noisy on elevated concrete freeways, and probably half of my daily commute is on such a surface, with the rest on asphalt freeways or surface streets, where the noise isn't so noticeable.

I have already decided that I won't be getting the MXM4 again; between noise, treadwear and price, it just doesn't seem like a good choice. If I could swap a little range for better performance while achieving similar or lower noise levels, that would be ideal (but, admittedly, perhaps also an impossible ask).

 

[9-Volt]

How are you finding the efficiency, noise and ride quality of these tires compared to the MXM4?

I really like the ride quality of the A/S 3+ tires, but I think it boils down to personal preference. I like a more "sporty" feel, but not sure if that would be considered a "harsh" ride for others (depending on their preferences and local road conditions)? I couldn't stand the "mushy" feel of the MXM4, as it left me with a sense of too little control. The AS3s are WAY better, and I don't find them at all harsh, but that might just be my preference?

As for noise, I don't think they're any worse than the MXM4, and might be better (I didn't have the MXM4s very long though and upgraded the sound system of my SR+!). Here's an older Tesla forum thread that seems to support that: Michelin Pilot Sport a/s 3 PLUS ?'s | Tesla.

Tirerack has a good article that gets into your questions a bit: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=230. If you're looking for a "softer" ride, I think folks tend to go with the DWS06s, but it sounds (pun intended) like maybe some more road noise as a trade-off:

Michelin's Pilot Sport A/S 3+ relied upon best-in-test light handling to secure the second-place spot in our road test, with a ride that was quite firm and some pattern noise that made its way into the cabin, but wasn't distracting. The Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 exhibited all the characteristics we have come to expect, namely handling that was sporty, but just a little slower to respond than the rest of the group, and some light tread growl that could be heard over most surfaces. Ride quality for the Continental felt the most comfort-oriented in the test, with the softest damping of the four.
​

The Tirerack article also touches on efficiency (although it doesn't compare against the "grand touring" MXM4s), showing a less than 1/2% efficiency hit from the AS3s against the most efficient ultra high performance A/S they tested:

I don't have the numbers to support me, but I'm sure the bulk of the efficiency hit can be attributed to driving style!

 

[evannole]

I really like the ride quality of the A/S 3+ tires, but I think it boils down to personal preference. I like a more "sporty" feel, but not sure if that would be considered a "harsh" ride for others (depending on their preferences and local road conditions)? I couldn't stand the "mushy" feel of the MXM4, as it left me with a sense of too little control. The AS3s are WAY better, and I don't find them at all harsh, but that might just be my preference?

As for noise, I don't think they're any worse than the MXM4, and might be better (I didn't have the MXM4s very long though and upgraded the sound system of my SR+!). Here's an older Tesla forum thread that seems to support that: Michelin Pilot Sport a/s 3 PLUS ?'s | Tesla.

Tirerack has a good article that gets into your questions a bit: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=230. If you're looking for a "softer" ride, I think folks tend to go with the DWS06s, but it sounds (pun intended) like maybe some more road noise as a trade-off:

Michelin's Pilot Sport A/S 3+ relied upon best-in-test light handling to secure the second-place spot in our road test, with a ride that was quite firm and some pattern noise that made its way into the cabin, but wasn't distracting. The Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 exhibited all the characteristics we have come to expect, namely handling that was sporty, but just a little slower to respond than the rest of the group, and some light tread growl that could be heard over most surfaces. Ride quality for the Continental felt the most comfort-oriented in the test, with the softest damping of the four.
​

The Tirerack article also touches on efficiency (although it doesn't compare against the "grand touring" MXM4s), showing a less than 1/2% efficiency hit from the AS3s against the most efficient ultra high performance A/S they tested:

View attachment 444324

I don't have the numbers to support me, but I'm sure the bulk of the efficiency hit can be attributed to driving style!

Thanks for taking the time for such a thoughtful and insightful reply. I will definitely put the A/S3+ on my short list. Probably won't give much consideration to the Continental ExtremeContact DWS06; I put those on my old IS300 and while they had great treadlife, they also had a very numb on-center feel that I did not enjoy.

Looks like it's down to the A/S3+, CrossClimate+ and Quatrac 5 for me, plus whatever else might be available when I actually need the tires in 6-9 months!

 

[9-Volt]

Since we need at least M+S to travel where we want to go, I'll start by checking whether the A/S3+ have that symbol on them. I didn't think they did, but that would make for an easy decision to get the CrossClimates, as I don't want to get turned around (or have any issues with my insurer) for not having at least M+S tires on.

It's probably a little narcissistic to be quoting oneself, but, wanted to report back that the A/S 3+ tires DO, in fact, have the M+S designation. Don't know why I thought that would have been reserved for SUV type tires, but, after lying flat on my belly to read every inch of the tire, I found it. Makes for a tougher decision re: Crossclimate + vs. AS3s for my wife's car, at least for our climate (Lower Mainland of Vancouver, Canada, with the odd trip up the local mountains and the highway to Whistler), but I guess having more choices is better, no?

 

[rawrguthlaf]

I recently purchased:
Federal SS-595 235/45R18 94W BSW

Very affordable "performance" tire. Clearly not the greatest tires in the world, but a great value. A lot of people buy them for track use because of their price & wear rate. I also have SS-595 on my wife's car and I liked them, so thats why I went with them again for my LR RWD Model 3.

They are at 33 cold PSI so I'll probably increase them to 36 (max PSI is rated at 45). After driving 70 miles, on my commute, I had similar efficiency, maybe slightly less efficient overall. I bought them for their handling though, these are much better on back roads then the stock tires, they make much more confident turns. They aren't much louder either, different noise type I'd say. They make more of a thud sound, where the MXM4 makes more of a sticky/tacky sound due to the tread types. I'd also say my wife's car handled better in the snow, albeit it is a front wheel drive vehicle, but the traction seems better for wet/snow to me. Maybe that is just personal preference.

Keep in mind I'm not an expert here, but personally I'd say this is a great budget choice. I wish there was some detailed numbers out there for it to make better comparisons.

 

[pdx_m3s]

I recently purchased:
Federal SS-595 235/45R18 94W BSW

Very affordable "performance" tire. Clearly not the greatest tires in the world, but a great value. A lot of people buy them for track use because of their price & wear rate. I also have SS-595 on my wife's car and I liked them, so thats why I went with them again for my LR RWD Model 3.

They are at 33 cold PSI so I'll probably increase them to 36 (max PSI is rated at 45). After driving 70 miles, on my commute, I had similar efficiency, maybe slightly less efficient overall. I bought them for their handling though, these are much better on back roads then the stock tires, they make much more confident turns. They aren't much louder either, different noise type I'd say. They make more of a thud sound, where the MXM4 makes more of a sticky/tacky sound due to the tread types. I'd also say my wife's car handled better in the snow, albeit it is a front wheel drive vehicle, but the traction seems better for wet/snow to me. Maybe that is just personal preference.

Keep in mind I'm not an expert here, but personally I'd say this is a great budget choice. I wish there was some detailed numbers out there for it to make better comparisons.

These are bottom of the barrel tires. And they are not "XL" load rated, which the Model 3 requires. Very squishy sidewalls, they're an ice skating rink in the rain, and they're going to wear out very fast. These are what I use to run on my drift car because they were so cheap.

 

[rawrguthlaf]

These are bottom of the barrel tires. And they are not "XL" load rated, which the Model 3 requires. Very squishy sidewalls, they're an ice skating rink in the rain, and they're going to wear out very fast. These are what I use to run on my drift car because they were so cheap.

Yeah thanks I already said they are a budget tire. Good point on the load rating though.

These Federal SS have load index of 94 = 1477 lbs per tire.
Stock MXM4 have load index of 98, = 1653 lbs per tire.

I don't intend to haul or tow thousands of pounds of stuff, so I considered this close enough. But definitely something to consider.
I have not experienced what you state in the rain, and that is very dependent on driving habits. I consider "bottom of the barrel" to be some cheapo firestone primewell tires or something.

 

[Daniel in SD]

There are no performance requirements for M+S designation so many M+S tires are worthless in the snow. Winter tires and "all weather" tires have 3PMSF (3 peak mountain and snow flake) designation and actually have to meet performance criteria. The Crossclimate+ passes the 3PMSF tests so they will perform much better in the snow relative to the MXM4 or A/S3+.

 

[KenC]

It's probably a little narcissistic to be quoting oneself, but, wanted to report back that the A/S 3+ tires DO, in fact, have the M+S designation. Don't know why I thought that would have been reserved for SUV type tires, but, after lying flat on my belly to read every inch of the tire, I found it. Makes for a tougher decision re: Crossclimate + vs. AS3s for my wife's car, at least for our climate (Lower Mainland of Vancouver, Canada, with the odd trip up the local mountains and the highway to Whistler), but I guess having more choices is better, no?

View attachment 444683

Are there any all-season tires not designated as M+S?

 

[9-Volt]

I've never paid attention to the M+S designation. From a hobby site in my neck of the woods, it sounds like you're probably right...ALL all-seasons would likely be able to carry the M+S designation (red highlighting below is mine).

I think my wife is also right (as she always is) when she says for me to stop over-analyzing it. For the Tesla, where I'm driving 99% of the year in non-snowy conditions, get the AS3+ so I can have a little more fun. For her car, which she won't be driving "hard"--ever--get the Crossclimate+ (ie, snowflake) because we'll be counting on her car to get us around in the snow, and the loss of the non-snow driving characteristics won't matter as they won't typically be put to the test.

What Does M+S Mean?

Wed, 2010-12-29 21:41 - DriveSmartBC
One would expect that the markings M+S or Mud and Snow on a tire would mean that it was designed for proper winter traction in all conditions. You might be surprised to find that it only defines a tire whose treads:

• Have multiple pockets or slots in at least one tread edge that extend toward the tread center at least 1/2 inch from the footprint edge
• Measured perpendicularly to the tread centerline, have a mimimum cross-sectional width of 1/16 inch
• Have edges of pockets or slots at angles between 35 and 90 degrees from the direction of travel
• Have a contact surface void area will be a minimum of 25% based on mold dimensions

It says nothing about the tire's rubber compound and it's ability to stick to compact snow and ice. In fact, at temperatures below 7 C. it can be expected to perform just like a summer tire in these conditions.

If you are like most tire buyers, my guess is that you choose an all season tire based on the manufacturer's mileage durability claims. This means a rubber compound that stays hard and does a poorer job of sticking to compact snow and ice.

Tires with the mountain and snowflake design are rated for their ability to provide traction in winter conditions where the temperature is below 7 C. Think of them as low temperature tires and choose them over all season tires when you drive in BC's winter road environment.​