My car is in need of new tires, and my parents are looking at buying Michelins through Costco (currently there's a sale for $60 off a set of four). I'm not at home with the car right now, so I'm not 100% positive which tires they're considering, but I think that they're looking at installing Michelin X-Radial DT in the P185/70/R14 size. My dad's exact words were that they're considering "the ones that Michelin reconmends for your car."

First, does anyone have any experience with these tires?

Second, does anyone know where these are on TireRack? I've looked, but the only tires TireRack lists in this size are the Michelin X-Ice, Harmony, and HydroEdge tires. The Ice are $65 and the other two are $79 there, but I would think that Costco would specifically mention if the tires were some sort of "special" version. The Radial seems to be a different brand.

Third, would this be an overall improvement or step down from my current tires, BF Goodrich Control T/As? I can't find the exact page for those particular tires, but I can say that they were a definite improvement over whatever generic tires I had before (although that could possibly be because my old tires were simply worn out). It doesn't look like they're made anymore, but I was directed towards the BG Control line by the Brickboard before and relatively satisfied with that choice (I didn't get the top-of-the-line performance tires, but they were good nonetheless).

1) As far as I'm concerned Michelin is the best tire brand.
2) I used to get the X-Radial on all my Volvo's for many years.
They were great and lasted at least 60k-70k miles
3) A few months ago I needed new tires, but Sam's Club did not have
the X-Radial, so I picked up the Symmetry. They sacrifice logevity
but the road handling is better.
--
-Cool Volvo- 1982 240 4 Spd OD w/ 246K, 1989 240 5 Spd w/ 237K. Past proud owner of 1966 122, 1968 144, 1970 145, 1972 144, 1980 245

Kep,

I recently put a set of X-radials on my 95 944T. Not my first choice for the Turbo but I got them new at half the going price at Costco, 180 bucks for the set. While not the dry pavement performance tire of the Yoko H4s they replaced, they have much better wet and light snow traction than the Yokos. I ran a set of Mich X-One s on my 88 244DL a number of years ago, and these tires seem to be much like the Old X-Ones. The X-Ones were the best (IMO) all around tires I've run on any of my 240s. They handled well year round and I got an amazing 70K on them before they needed to be replaced. As far as tire size, my 88 244DL Volvo owner's manual calls for 185/70/14 as the recommended size for the sedan. My 86 245DL wagon came new from the factory with 195/70/14, which is the size I've run on the wagon for the past 20 years.

PS -

I agree with the other posts on size:

Stay with the stock size tire 185 R 14 if that is the size for your year - it was for mine. That size has a 78% aspect ratio, and running a 70 will throw off your speedo, also lower load capacity and worse mileage.

Running a 195/75 will worsen your snow traction.

imho

I drove a '79 245 for 11 years.

The first set of all seasons I bought were Dunlop SP4's. I highly recommend them, if they are available. I never needed snows with the Dunlops.

The next set I bought were Michelin "Rainforce". Althought they were M+S rated the SNOW AND ICE TRACTION WAS HORRIBLE, I MEAN RIDICULOUS.

DESPITE THE NARROW 185 FOOTPRINT AND UNDERPOWERED NATURE OF THE 245 I WAS FORCED TO RUN FOUR SNOWS. (ISHOULD HAVE SOLD THEM AND BOUGHT THE DUNLOPS)

IN MY EXPERIENCE THE MICHELINS M+S RATED TIRES


SUCK

just my opinion - 70% of my mileage is in the mountains of Colorado in the winter

I've used several variations of the Michelin XRX (I think that was the original equipment tire) going to the MXL, and then RainForce.

I like Michelin tires, the only problem I have is that the rear end spins easily in wet weather (I have to take off slow from a dead stop). One thing I have noticed with my last two sets of tires (all 4 X2) is that they were all used up before the 50,000 mileage rating. Discount Tire was good about giving me credit for the difference, about 8K-10K worth of tread life missing, and I had documentation that I rotated every 5K. I am about to replace the current Rainforce with something else, as I only have 38K on them and I am down to the wear indicators again...

One other note, is that tires only seem to be good for 4 years in Texas becasue of the heat, and I would not want to pay for an 80K mile tire if I am only driving 12K to 15K a year, down from about 20K to 22K 8 years ago. One other sneaky thing tire places do is sell tires that are 12-14 months old. Discount Tire tried to pull some crap on me that my tires were too old. I guess they plan on EVERY tire buyer to lose their original receipt, but they don't know who they are dealing with, as I have almost every receipt from day one on this car. I showed them the original purchase date on the receipt and they started to back peddle about not being able to warranty a tire that was 5 years old (because of the date stamp on the tire). With my receipt, I was able to document that my purchase was less than 4 years ago, and I wouldn't have these issues if they didn't sell 14 month old tires.

Next time I am going to ask to see the date codes on the tires before they are mounted. I think 3-5 months old is reasonable enought for shipping, warehousing & distribution.
--
If it needs to be maintained, repaired or replaced on a 1990 240, I've probably done it. '90 240DL, 245K looking forward to 300K badge. >>You haven't really worked on a car until you draw blood<< :-}

Go to tirerack.com
At left side of page select "search by tire size"
Enter your size and search.

It came up with 29 tires for 185/70-14.
I then prefer to use the "sort" button at far right to sort by price. I check the specs, then usually go for the least expensive tire with good specs and best price.

These cars are so old that you can't blindly trust lookup tables from retailers, especially for the wagons. I've had guys at tire retailers insist on all kinds of ridiculous sizes for 240 wagons. They probably get it right more often on the sedans, as the OEM size is still being manfactured.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock. 90 244 NA spare, runs.

One post in this thread stated that 185/70-14 is not the correct size for this car - however correct size is not known to us as we do not know if it is a sedan or wagon.

240 sedan's stock size is 185/70-14.
240 wagon takes 185/R-14 which equals 185/80-14 or maybe 185/82-14

There may have been some exceptions for turbos or other less common types, but I'm pretty sure that the 1989 year tire sizes were exactly as above.

The wagon's 185/R-14 is almost completely unavailable.
195/75-14 is a very close approximation in diameter and load capacity, and sligthly wider for improved traction. That is my choice for a tire for a 240 wagon, and my recommendation if you drive one.

For a wagon, 185/70-14 is quite small and will have you going 61 mph when the speedometer says 65. I consider that a significant error.

My preferred tire size calculator:
http://www.wickedbodies.net/Tire-Size-Calculator.htm
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock. 90 244 NA spare, runs.

Different rubber compounds might give you more traction, but a wider tire does not. In fact a wider tire does not even put more rubber on the road. A wide tire changes the shape (NOT the size) of the contact patch. Additionally, the wider size can (but not always) add lateral stability (what is sometimes felt as cornering stability).

Tire pressure and the weight of the vehicle (with typical automotive applications) are virtually the only factors in determining the size of the contact patch (hence, traction); not even tire size. Side wall flexibility can also be a minor factor (i.e. wrinkle wall drag slicks), but no one I know drives wrinkle wall tires on the road.

The scientific principal that governs this is simple physics, pressure and displacement.

Interestingly, the shape of the contact patch can help or hinder driving performance. Let’s say the tire is really wide. When turning, the speed of the inside and outside of the tire will be dramatically different, causing scuffing and reduced traction and tire life.

Yes, I stand corrected re. traction and tread width.

I still like 195/75-14 tires on 240 wagons. I drove probably over 100K miles on them and liked them. Couple that with the fact that you nearly can't get correct tires for the wagons in a 185 width, I'll go for 195s every time.

Or get the tallest 185s you can get for the front - 185/75-14 or 185/70-14 - and 195/75-14 in the back to keep the speedometer accurate.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock. 90 244 NA spare, runs.

Just my 2 cents here, but I have bought the Goodyear Viva 2 at Wal-Mart for one of our cars. For the price I'd have to say its a very good quality tire. Excellent handling, wear, and quietness. And I believe they are less expensive then Mich X. And they are still a good quality tire in my opinion. I am going to buy them again for my 240 soon.

hello,
i've used michelin-x and their quite good for down here in texas. no snow.

excellent tread life, very high quality, and they keep their air in a long time. i have a lot of confidence in this tire.

i buy my tires at sam's because they're everywhere, just in case i need a flat fixed or something.

matter of fact, i'm wanting new front tires but these michelins just last and last-- i drive about 20-22k miles a year. i can see a little tire rot on the side, but not a problem at all.

hope that helps.

regards,
byron golden
86 245
92 245

I had the X Radial years ago on a Merc Sable. I liked them and thought they stopped making them. As stated below, the name X is probably named for select high volume outlets as not to compete with Michelins other stores. Currently my 940s are using MX4V+. The X should be good tires and have a good speed rating. I have not had problems with Michelins other than a nail near the side wall and Costco replaced it for a few bucks under their warrantee. Costco has good service for a major outlet. Besides the Costco warrantee, two other features I like are the double checking of the lug torque and the nitrogen gas fill.

Want to know where they are made? It is part of the DOT code. http://www.harriger.com/exptire.htm

What to know where to find the DOT code? http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/TireSafety/ridesonit/brochure.html#dotcode
--
Tom, welcoming a new addition to the family. Its, well, a 944 with tilt steering.

In general I would take Michelin over Goodrich any day of the week.

This particular model does sound like some kind of low-line made for Costco. That in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Michelins tend to be way overpriced. I've had several sets of Rainforce MX4s (also considered a low-line) which gave very good results. Sadly, they are no longer available.

Plenty of good tires out there have a "B" temperature rating, which is entirely adequate for normal driving.

X-ice is a winter tire. The other two are premium all-season.

The Michelins that are scary in the wet are the high performance models, which are optimized for dry conditions. This is true of most brands, not just Michelin.

I thought 185/70 was the correct stock size for 240 sedans. Wagons are supposed to use 185 R 14, which is very hard to find. 195/75 is a fair approximation, though I prefer 205/70 for a little more rubber on the road.

Those are a Costco only model. They are built to economy specs for the purpose, and can only be warranty adjusted at Costco. If they are manufactured in western Europe (France, Spain, UK) or N. America, they are coming from the same factories as the retail tires. Eastern Europe or Asian build means they may be 3rd party built - leave 'em in the store.

Michelin tires have a very wide range of performance. Some of the newer hi-line series are very good in wet weather. Other X series, like MXM and MXV4, were absolute horrors.

Use country of origin and UTQG ratings to judge the quality. Don't focus on the number - long treadwear often means a tradeoff in traction. Look for A traction and A temperature ratings as a good minimum standard. Shy away from any B ratings.

But to add a little more anecdotal data -

I have had two sets of MXV4s on 328 BMWs. Wet/dry traction, ride, handling, all seemed fine to me. My complaints were that my wife seemed to pick up a lot of nails, and they didn't last as long as Michelin X tires. Very low rolling resistance, though, which helps with gas mileage. We replaced hers with Michelin X tires, though we had to carry the rims in to Costco, since the Xs are not speed rated for the BMW. We won't be driving over 100 mph anyway, so that doesn't matter to us.

I just toured my garage looking at three sets of Michelin Xs and one set of MXV4s that I still have on my BMW. All were made in USA except for a pair of Costco Michelin Xs that were made in Canada. All of them are Traction A Temperature B.

I once had a long conversation with a fellow who tests tires to rate them for load, temperature, etc. for NHTSA. Note that manufacturers are allowed to self-rate tires, but the name brands all send samples to the feds to test for confirmation that their ratings are valid, and NHTSA buys tires off the rack to test them.

He said that he has tested hundreds of tires to failure, and studied dozens of tire-related accidents. He is not allowed to endorse any brand or model of tire, but if asked, he can say what kind of tires he personally buys. Of course I asked. His answer: "Nothing but Michelin."

"X" is a series, not a model... at least not since the late 1970s. Michelin's only strong suit, IMO, is that they tend to have more uniformity in the body resulting in less external correction (weights) for balance.

Nails... rain is a factor (it lubricates the nail so it enters easier), so is tire position (RR most likely to take a hit). Wife's car was always getting slow leaks. One tire had 13 similar nails, another had five (different ones). Mom's car has the identical tires but has never had a flat. It's where they drive.

After my own numerous experiences with Michelin, it would take a lot of convincing to get me on another set. What I drive on now may not be as quiet as the MXV4+ that I got rid of, but dry breakaway and wet traction are sooooooooo totally different that I couldn't go back. ABS used to come on often with Michelin. After dumping them, I could state more than 70K travel without ever hearing ABS again unless I jab the brakes just to prove it still works. Two Volvos, two different models of Michelin, same sh***y wet traction.

I say to stick with the A-A rating because the cost difference has gotten so small between them and A-B rated tires. Even AA-A in normal sizes are not crazy expensive anymore, however they often don't wear well.

I have been driving that tire from Costco on my bricks and BMWs for a decade, and they are excellent tires. I noticed that they changed the tread pattern a little on this last set I bought, but the new pattern seems fine as well. Quiet, good wet and dry traction, long life (~90k miles).

BUT - Costco does not sell the size that came on your car, so they sell you the next size smaller. The '70' profile is lower profile than your OEM tires. Your speedometer will read about 4-5 mph faster than you are actually going.

I put 195/75 Michelns on my '90 sedan and '91 wagon now. They fill the wheel wells more and look better. Speedometer reads very close to correct. If you have a different year car, or other than standard steel wheels, you may have problems with rubbing, I don't know.

Costco will not install the 195/75 tires on your car. You have to take the rims off your car and take them in. I always do this anyway because I don't allow anyone with an impact wrench anywhere near any of my cars. Be sure to note the mileage on the car because they have to write it on the warrantee.

Even if you don't remove the rims and take them in, remove the hubcaps before taking the car in. Tire stores will trash Volvo hubcaps. The first time we took in our '87 with the old two-piece hubcaps, they made us remove the hubcaps. They didn't want to touch them.

You are slightly confused about tire sizes on 240s. The sedan came stock with 185/70-14 and the speedometer is calibrated for it. The wagon came stock with 185/80-14 tires and a speedo so calibrated. The taller tires on the wagon are for higher load carrying capacity. If you put 195/75-14 tires on a wagon your speedo will be very close to correct, but put them on a sedan and you are going to be travelling faster than the speedo says.

John

I have 195 70 14's on my 1984, and the speedo reads dead on; confirmed by a radar guy....

Me too. 195/70-14 Bridgestones now on the steel-rimmed 83 (it came from the factory with 175R14 Dunlops), and the speedo and ODO read within 1% of actual.
--
Bob (son's 81-244GL B21F/M46, dtr's 83-244DL B23F/M46, my 94-944 B230FD and 89 745 (LT-1 V8); hobbycar 77 MGB, and a few old motorcycles)

Makes sense to me if your Volvo is a 245, not if a 244 or 242.

Regards,

Bob

:>)

That particular type is a Costco-only version Michelin makes. The X-radial did very well in a recent Consumer Reports test. Many of the big tire makers are now making variations of their tires which are only sold in certain big box stores, mostly so every store can advertise that they will not be undersold .... well if there is only one place to buy a certain part number then there is no exact match price competition. You will not find the same tire listed on Tire Rack.

That said, it seems to be a good tire at a good price.

John