Tyre Recommendations for IS250 2007 Petrol

[Sundance]

Found it ... here it is ... have fun ... 😉

 

[Linas.P]

30 minutes ago, Ozzay said:

What about this whole unleaded 95 and super unleaded business. I have a BP right near me shall I stick to Unleaded 97 or go 2 miles up all the time for a Shell 99? I swear the Shell does give better mileage but its too soon to tell. Does mixing fuels cause issues?

You literally creating "mega worms thread" where the worms are size of the dragons 😁 You have already picked-up 3 questions which are accidentally TOP3 in most controversial questions on this forum category. Tyre choice, oil choice and standard vs. premium fuel... what next!?

It is good I already have drafted responses for most of these questions based on countless previous threads!

To be fair I am not going to join strongly on this one, just say - when I bought my last IS250 (with 122k miles at the time) I used to alternate tanks of premium and standard. But later on just ended-up using standard. Car sold at 193k miles still running sweet (new owners opinion, not mine - but I agree)! I even ran it on E10 and E85 when Euro tripping.

You can check some stats from my ownership here:

 

 

[Mr Vlad]

Yes Castrol Magnatec is an excellent oil. I've used that on a lot of my cars and they were top of the range turbo cars. Before that it was Duckhams Q. If it was good enough for formula 1 cars then it was good enough for my cars. 

Of the past few years I just use the dealer to do my services as I can't be ****d anymore lol

[Ozzay]

23 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

You literally creating "mega worms thread" where the worms are size of the dragons 😁 You have already picked-up 3 questions which are accidentally TOP3 in most controversial questions on this forum category. Tyre choice, oil choice and standard vs. premium fuel... what next!?

It is good I already have drafted responses for most of these questions based on countless previous threads!

To be fair I am not going to join strongly on this one, just say - when I bought my last IS250 (with 122k miles at the time) I used to alternate tanks of premium and standard. But later on just ended-up using standard. Car sold at 193k miles still running sweet (new owners opinion, not mine - but I agree)! I even ran it on E10 and E85 when Euro tripping.

You can check some stats from my ownership here:

 

 

Thanks Linas very much appreciated and everyone else. Nice history mostly just suspension issues. Well I suppose if no one notices the difference between the fuels for the most part I will see how that goes as well lol.

[Linas.P]

I am not discouraging you to try, all it costs.. few extra £ per tank. The only thing to be careful about is not to get into placebo e.g. I almost fell for it myself - put in premium fuel to see if your MPG increases and before you know you driving like a nun and MPG indeed increases. Not because the fuel is better, but because you uncourteously driving more carefully.

So as it is not huge investment it is best to try it yourself and form your own opinion on this topic... I tried and I formed mine, but it only an opinion. 

[ColinBarber]

1 hour ago, Ozzay said:

What about this whole unleaded 95 and super unleaded business. I have a BP right near me shall I stick to Unleaded 97 or go 2 miles up all the time for a Shell 99? I swear the Shell does give better mileage but its too soon to tell. Does mixing fuels cause issues?

It is fine to mix 95, 97, 99 fuel. Not entirely sure how long the vehicle will take to adjust to make use of higher octane but you would probably want to run for a couple of tanks to see if you can notice the difference.

Personally on non high performance vehicles I only see something like a 5% mpg gain at best, but given that super unleaded is 10% more expensive in my area it doesn't cost out.

If you want to use the more expensive fuel for the cleaning additives then you wouldn't need to use it all the time - maybe 1 tank full in 5.

[Linas.P]

14 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

I only see something like a 5% mpg gain at best,

I actually experienced opposite in IS250... where MPG was lower on premium fuel. My theory is that car ECU adjust timing to premium fuel and uses more of it. But that is just a theory... I am not planning to prove either any time soon. Cleaning effect does not help much on DI engines... maybe injector and fuel likes at best, but for key issue of intake valves it doesn't help.

[Ozzay]

I quite like the suggestion of every 5th tank but its just weird how there is not proper data on this stuff from any car manufacturer.

[scudney]

Probably won't be to everyone's liking but I really don't see what difference 5 or 10p a litre makes,I  have always used momentum99 and occasionally v.power(if I am near a shell garage lol)in my 250 f sport and will continue to do so(my choice regardless) as long as it exists.I also did the same with my IS200 sport. I think its better fuel(rightly or wrongly) and made the choice to use it.if you think its worth a try go for it and if not just stick with the normal fuel.

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, scudney said:

 I really don't see what difference 5 or 10p a litre makes,

Exactly... if it makes no difference why pay extra 😁

8 hours ago, Ozzay said:

just weird how there is not proper data on this stuff from any car manufacturer.

There is - not by car manufacturers, but by oil companies (not biased at all you know). And they take 2 brand new cars, put them on the rolling road, run them for 200k miles, whilst carrying out all the required service in right intervals and then compare. They do same for engine oils and for fuels, if I found video I will post, but I have certainly seen that just browsing YouTube.

In the end of the day there is less carbon on the cars running premium fuel, but neither it eliminates all carbon, nor the test is realistic compared to real on road conditions, nor the engine running on regular fuel fails (just has a little bit more dirt).

As I said in other thread - if we would keep our cars from new to 500k miles (that is like 50 years of ownership) then probably it would make a difference. Now I just quickly assume average 30MPG and difference between premium and standard of 10p... that works out at the cost of £3920 over 500k. Thing is - you can get 120k IS250 for that price, or if we look other way around - by the time IS250 has 300k miles it will be worth less than the price difference of the premium fuel which was put into it. Economically it just doesn't make sense, nor we drive so much.

And further it is not like standard fuel hurts your engine either, difference between the two is very minor (if it exists at all).

In short - is premium fuel better than standard... yes... but does it matter? No!

[ahmed-abrar]

Hankook Kinergy 4S2 is the way to go costing £155 delivered  for a front set inc insurance from Delitcom Ltd

[Linas.P]

Any justification for that opinion, or any comparison of how it is better than anything else? 

[Ozzay]

Just got the Dunlops as suggested by Linas for £161 including fitting. Good tyre shop in Chingford called the Tyre Place matched BlackCircles. I did take the other posts seriously but if someone has had more tyres to try than I might have in a lifetime well I will just give that person the nod.

Well I suppose something was with the old tyres because the power steering now seems so lovely. But that difference could be noticed if any new tyres went on.

Will have to see how these lot are. Perfect rainy day to try em out.

What I desire is better MPG because performance wise I can't notice any major difference really except it does feel a little more planted. Let's see hey. Back tyres are still both 6mm so I am fine hopefully for at least 3-6K.

[Ozzay]

35 front 38 back. Good idea I hope.

[Ozzay]

On 3/3/2021 at 10:07 AM, Linas.P said:

Exactly... if it makes no difference why pay extra 😁

There is - not by car manufacturers, but by oil companies (not biased at all you know). And they take 2 brand new cars, put them on the rolling road, run them for 200k miles, whilst carrying out all the required service in right intervals and then compare. They do same for engine oils and for fuels, if I found video I will post, but I have certainly seen that just browsing YouTube.

In the end of the day there is less carbon on the cars running premium fuel, but neither it eliminates all carbon, nor the test is realistic compared to real on road conditions, nor the engine running on regular fuel fails (just has a little bit more dirt).

As I said in other thread - if we would keep our cars from new to 500k miles (that is like 50 years of ownership) then probably it would make a difference. Now I just quickly assume average 30MPG and difference between premium and standard of 10p... that works out at the cost of £3920 over 500k. Thing is - you can get 120k IS250 for that price, or if we look other way around - by the time IS250 has 300k miles it will be worth less than the price difference of the premium fuel which was put into it. Economically it just doesn't make sense, nor we drive so much.

And further it is not like standard fuel hurts your engine either, difference between the two is very minor (if it exists at all).

In short - is premium fuel better than standard... yes... but does it matter? No!

I had Shell Super V Power the first time. Second time BP Ultimate. Then Shell V Power again. Now BP Unleaded 95.

I can honestly say. There is a difference that is not placebo. The power is not the same. Car was fully warmed up in all occasions. For some reason it does not pull as quickly. I tried this a few times from stationary. Shell fuel definately does something to the car. I put BP in just now (95) and the tank average went from 30 - 19.  Don't know why. This is why I have been asking does mixing fuels matter?

I know I am talking on this thread about other things but just saying.

By the way the tyres seem good so far and they do seem to grip well on sharp corners under wet conditions but still early to tell.

[ahmed-abrar]

On 3/3/2021 at 5:48 PM, Linas.P said:

Any justification for that opinion, or any comparison of how it is better than anything else? 

its all about  compromise, nothing wrong with a decent brand, a decent price & decent performance in my opinion.

[scudney]

I think the tank average sort of resets everytime you fill up,this would explain why it dropped from 30 to 19

[Linas.P]

12 hours ago, Ozzay said:

By the way the tyres seem good so far and they do seem to grip well on sharp corners under wet conditions but still early to tell.

I did find them really "confidence inspiring" even in not ideal conditions. Obviously, they could slip if you try to do that, but never under normal driving conditions.

Regarding the fuel - it is never easy to compare tanks like for like, it is very difficult to say whenever conditions were the same every time etc. Mixing fuel is absolutely fine. My experience is based on around 130k miles in 3 different IS250s and  for last 70k I had excel spreadsheet and logged every refuel, price, mileage etc. I never refuel half-tank - as I said before "brim-to-brim" I never seen any difference and as far as mileage goes - my best ever was on "cheap" supermarket fuel and worst was on premium.

6 hours ago, ahmed-abrar said:

its all about  compromise, nothing wrong with a decent brand, a decent price & decent performance in my opinion.

Yes but "decent brand, a decent price & decent performance" is not enough to actually recommend something, question is whenever it is better than other tyres at the same price point, or cheaper then more expensive tyres. I am sure they are "okey" tyres because Hankook is relatively well known company, but to actually recommend it is little bit far fetched especially where price difference is £6.

[Mr Vlad]

What I'm about to state is actual fact where tyres are concerned with the same vehicle. 

Back in the halcyon days of biking in part of that era I had a Yamaha FJ1200. A best friend bought one soon after. I had Dunlops on mine he had Contis. We with others would ride hundreds of miles. Those times were brilliant. One one occasion we went to a show at I think Haydock race course. There was a carpark on the opposite side of the road which if viewed from above looked like a race track. So when the carpark was empty we indulged in some very fast riding. Ok I was always in front. We swapped bikes and again I'd get in front and stay there. Both of us were trying hard to bear each other. 

The moral of this story is it doesn't matter what the tyre is. Yakamoto XYZ2 might be the dogs danglies to some yet ruddy s**t to others.

There's too many tyre experts out here and there.

Basically trust to a brand and not what type.

[Linas.P]

I am not sure how to apply the moral of your story to this discussion 😁

Point is that tyre technology is one of the areas where quite a lot of breakthroughs are happening, it is very competitive market and tyres are quite generic goods. From the point of view of general ignorant motorist they are just black rubber circles. Point is - when it comes to your safety that is pretty much the only thing which keeps you on the road and I would not advise cheaping out on that.

Most tyres will keep you on the road when just cruising on motorway, however that is not where the benefits of premium tyres are most noticeable. It will only matter once in many years when you have dangerous situation... and we can all scoff at 2m difference in braking distance between premium tyres and no-name ones. But when that distance is equivalent of you crashing and not crashing I think it is worth the money. 

Besides as I mentioned tyre is consumable item, so if I can cover 37k miles on one and 16k miles on another this makes first one far cheaper per mile. Yes you can say having the tyre which can do mileage of over twice around the world is pointless, I can say that in ownership of my last IS250 I covered over 70k miles on basically 2 set's of tyres and second one isn't even finished yet. When I got the car it had nearly done Dunlop Sportmaxx SP Sport - not great tyres overall. After ~12k miles I replaced them with Dunlop Sportmaxx RT, for no particular reason, but at the time ~2016 - best on paper performance (A,B, 68db) and they were brilliant, did 37k miles. For last 21k miles I had Michelin PS4 and they were only partly worn by the time I got rind of the car. 

In comparison I probably would have had 4-5 sets of Hankooks, Falkens, Avons etc and even more sets of no-names, + probably would have had 3 serious accidents where the only saving was excellent tyres I had on the car. So not only premium tyres were better, not only they overall costed me less money, but they as well saved me few times. I think that is worth the price if you ask me.

[Ozzay]

I am little confused. The XL tyres are slightly higher in load rating then the normal required 91.

The tyre pressure for the car is meant to be 38 back and 35 front.

I saw that the new tyres (Dunlop on Front) were 37PSI plus yesterday and reduced them to 35PSI. I read people saying XL should be higher than the normal required amount. Is this true. I can feel a power steering difference (slightly heavier).

Let me know your opinion on the tyre pressures or shall I stick to what is recommended.

[Ozzay]

I got this from the other thread from your post Linas:

Quote

Pressure is very personal thing and varies from personal comfort and tires type. It should never be less than PSI 35F/38R. I personally run 38F/40R, because i found it has better wear on my tires (Dunlop) and makes car firmer and "nicer" to drive.

Does this affect mpg?

[Linas.P]

Yes I was driving on higher pressures. I found 35/38 to result in premature wear on tyre edges indicating underinflation ... on Dunlop tyres (Sportmaxx SP, S001, RT) so it is quite specific to specific tyres. And indeed running tyres at 38/38 or 38/40 resulted in completely flat wearing tyre in my case and generally optimal pressure for handling. Rear tyres were evenly worn to 2mm after 37k and front tyres evenly worn to 3.5mm. Fronts still had edges stripped, but not because of underinflation, but rather because of camber when cornering.

Yes at 38PSI they will be less comfortable, but steering will be lighter. I think for the fronts anywhere between 36-38 is ok. 

More PSI = more MPG... you can run it up all the way to 50PSI (RT2s are rated for 50), but this will destroy tyre very quickly and you will lose a lot of grip. Running such high PSI basically makes the tyre to "balloon" in the middle reducing contact patch, thus reducing rolling resistance. Obviously, I do not recommend overinflating tyres that much. The reason I overinflated my tyres by 2-3PSI was the reason I explained below - 38PSI resulted in improved tyre wear and as bonus it as well slightly improved MPG. 

 

[Ozzay]

You drive quite a lot it seems. You work somewhere far?

[Ozzay]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Yes I was driving on higher pressures. I found 35/38 to result in premature wear on tyre edges indicating underinflation ... on Dunlop tyres (Sportmaxx SP, S001, RT) so it is quite specific to specific tyres. And indeed running tyres at 38/38 or 38/40 resulted in completely flat wearing tyre in my case and generally optimal pressure for handling. Rear tyres were evenly worn to 2mm after 37k and front tyres evenly worn to 3.5mm. Fronts still had edges stripped, but not because of underinflation, but rather because of camber when cornering.

Yes at 38PSI they will be less comfortable, but steering will be lighter. I think for the fronts anywhere between 36-38 is ok. 

More PSI = more MPG... you can run it up all the way to 50PSI (RT2s are rated for 50), but this will destroy tyre very quickly and you will lose a lot of grip. Running such high PSI basically makes the tyre to "balloon" in the middle reducing contact patch, thus reducing rolling resistance. Obviously, I do not recommend overinflating tyres that much. The reason I overinflated my tyres by 2-3PSI was the reason I explained below - 38PSI resulted in improved tyre wear and as bonus it as well slightly improved MPG. 

 

I did not notice that 35 pressure makes the car go over the local bumps much more "soft".