字典哥, for the most part, I agree with what you are saying ga. If the price difference is small, why bother with the cheaper stuff, especially when safety is concerned, and the margin of error is small?
I generally don't like Michelin tires all that much not because they are bad tires (although a good number of them, esp in OE applications, are crap), but because they are vastly overpriced. Quite a few years ago when I was tire shopping, I was considering the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S because of its very positive review. The moment I started looking at prices, however, my jaw just dropped -- the Pilot Sport A/S in my size was around $240, while the Falken ZE-512 was a mere $125. Was the Michelin a better tire? Most probably. But was it almost 100% better? I wouldn't think so.
Another consideration I had at the time was, the Pilot Sport had a longer tread life than the ZE-512 did. However, since I don't usually drive that much, the longer tread life of the Pilot Sport probably means it'll last me more than 6 years' worth of driving. Given that rubber hardens and lose grip over time, I'd rather buy something with less tread life and replace it in the 4th or 5th year at most. So for me, one benefit of the more expensive Pilot Sport didn't really matter.
On the other hand, when I was winter tire shopping last year, I went ahead with the Michelin X-Ice Xi2 even though it was more expensive than many of the other models available. My rationale here is that in the dry (even in an emergency), the safety margin of an above average tire (as opposed to a higher end tire) is still sufficiently large. In poor road conditions -- and especially in the winter -- that margin becomes much smaller, so I'd rather pay more to maximize it.
We all know the benefits of multi-pot brakes la. As good as the massive single piston system I have on my car, I totally wish it was something more, even if it were only a dual piston setup in front!
-Lik |
發表於 2009-8-29 17:43
| 
