This is why we need a tire review sticky with all the published tire reviews inside.

Personal testimony can be put side by side w/ a controlled/professional tire review

 

^^ agreed, that would be nice.

 

This is a nice chart, but we have no idea what their criteria were for ranking the tires the way they did. You can't use the various circle colors as a guide because we don't know the weight of each column. How can the Avon Tech M500 with 3 Half Reds and 2 Half Blacks be ranked ahead of the Nitto Invo with 3 Half Reds and 0 Half Blacks (Red is good BTW, this appears to be a chart from Consumer's Report). We also don't know what tire size they used, what car they used, if they used the same car for every tire, or if they even used a car. FWD vehicles are going to display different reactions to a set of tires than a RWD or AWD vehicle will. Some one said "professionals". How do we know what kind of tire/car professionals were used in these reviews. Was the same person reviewing all of them? If there were multiple people, did each one test each and every tire? There are just far too many variables in play.

Several other reviews I've read (not here) say the Nitto Invo is one of the quietest tires on the road, yet this chart shows 12 other tires having a better Noise rating. Many of these rankings are not the same as TireRack's test results. For example, this chart shows the BFG KDW2 ranked slightly ahead of the Michelin Exalto PE2, but TireRack shows the PE2 trouncing the KDW2. It's not even close. There are several other examples where TireRack has different results.

And this chart isn't really comparing comparable tires. The treadwear ratings range from 140 to 320, prices (per TireRack) range from $145 to over $300 (for 245/45-18), prices on the chart range from $81 to $234. The $81 Kumho is a 16" tire. Another inconsistency is their Treadwear column. The Kumho SPT has a UTQG of 320, but gets a Half Black rating, the Conti Contact 3 has a 280 and also gets a Half Black, while the Dunlop Sport Maxx has a UTQG of 240 and gets a Half Red! What, did they drive on the tires for a few hundred miles (maybe) and extrapolate for another 20-30,000 miles? Yep, sounds like good science to me.

In the end, this is just one of many sources you should use to make your tire selection. It is by no means the only source, and obviously has some serious flaws IMO. Presenting this as some sort of scientific test without knowing the methodology is as misleading as someone's personal review.

 

I guess you missed the part where I stated to take the chart with a grain of salt....
BTW, a 5 second google search would have found the tire testing procedures, and not made you look ignorant http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...e-tires-ov.htm
Everyone knows comparing UTQG ratings between brands is completely worthless.

Let me reiterate:
DO NOT BASE A DECISION ON A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. EVER!

 

Whatever criterion they used, they at least used it consistently accross all the tires.

It's too bad TR doesn't sell these tires. Their testing seems to be accepted by performance oriented guys.

 

Guilty of ignorance on parts of the testing. However, there are still major flaws in their methodology. We still have no idea how much weight each category was given or how those weights were derived. And we know next to nothing about the "contract laboratory" used for testing treadwear. Without knowing any of this, the CR list is basically useless.

I saw your "grain of salt" comment, but that was after reading "professional testers ranked them near the bottom when compared directly with their competition". You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the CR report was done by professionals and use it to negate the OP's review of the Nitto, and then back away saying "take it with a grain of salt". You didn't take it with a grain of salt, but you expect us to.

I trust Consumer Reports on a lot of things, but tires are definitely NOT one of them. I think there are just far too many variables to effectively compare so many different tires. That, and too many times my own experiences have directly contradicted the conclusions they came to.

We do agree that people should use multiple sources when making a purchase decision, including personal reviews posted on a car-specific forum.

 

Did I ever directly refute the OP's review? I posted contradictory information. When I included the "with a grain of salt", I should have been more clear to include take it [all] with a grain of salt. I thought it was implied. Taking it with a grain of salt, or being skeptical is what should be done when contradictory results are presented. I provided no conclusive argument whatsoever. I stated the contradictory findings were odd.

 

We agree on 99% of this, so lets focus on that.

Peace redlude.

 

Looking at that, those "professional testers" must be on crack to put the Kumhos that high and the Yokohama Advan Sports that low along with the INVO's that low. I have the Advan Sports and my buddy has the INVO's in his 420hp 135i and they plant that car to the ground. Everyone knows Kumhos are straight Garbage.