Potenzas to Go (Bridgestone)

Member Name: grahamt

Product:	Bridgestone
Date:	01/10/06 (1707 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Excellent performance

Disadvantages: Distinctly average wear and still quite pricey

Car: MG ZT 1.8 Turbo
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza RE040 225/45R18 91W 18”

It hardly seems to have been just about a year ago that I was telling you about why I was changing the tyres on my car to a new brand. For those of you new to my love/hate affair with the MG let me just recap.

I bought the MG around four years ago and it came wearing Michelin Pilot Sports tyres. I really didn’t think very much about the performance of the tyres. If you have read my review of my relationship with the MG you will know that the tyres were not the first thing that concerned me. There were far more serious things that occupied my attention.

But, all things must pass and eventually I had to replace the Michelins. At that time 18” tyres were not common and the range of choice wasn’t great. Basically it was Michelins or Continentals. I stuck with the Michelins because I found a tyre dealer (Roadwheel in Fleet) who could supply them much cheaper than anywhere else.

My third refit became the first time when a wider range of choice became available. This time Bridgestones were a possibility. I decided to opt for them, not because I was especially dissatisfied with the Michelins but because Roadwheel could supply them at £50 a tyre less than the Michelins. They cost £135 each.

I had managed to eke out 20,000 miles from each of the Michelin sets. It’s a strange characteristic of the MG that all four tyres wear out at the same rate even thought this is a front-wheel drive vehicle, where you would expect the fronts to wear out quicker than the rears! I reckoned that even if I got less than 20,000 out of the Bridgestones I would probably still be in pocket, unless they wore out really quickly.

The Potenzas clearly haven’t had the Marketing Machine influence. Ever wondered why the tread patterns on tyres are the way they are? Think it’s got everything to do with performance; water shifting capabilities; road gripping ability? Think again. Mostly it’s down to the marketing guys. They usually demand a tread pattern that shouts “speed”. You can see how that influences the Michelins. Not so the Potenzas.

The tyre pattern is a very boring block design. Four circumferential grooves separate the individual contact areas. Other than that there really isn’t very much you can say. Of course, the grooves have the wear tell-tale indicators deep in their recesses, to give you a clue as to when it’s about time to get the wallet out again.

From the start (well almost) I noticed that the Potenzas appeared to give better grip than the Michelins, especially when turning out of a junction and pulling away. The MG on Michelins suffered from axle-tramp in these circumstances, something that always suggested to me that the MG could really have benefited from a limited-slip differential.

I say almost because one thing I have noticed is that the Potenzas are very much more temperature sensitive than the Michelins. The Michelins appear quite unaffected by temperature. The Potenzas definitely need to warm up and in Winter this can take quite a long time. However, once they do they noticeably outperform the Michelins, though the difference is not dramatic.

In the wet I noticed no significant difference although, if pushed, I think I would give the nod to the Potenzas. On neither set of tyres did I ever get into any difficulties no matter how awful the conditions. What I did notice was that, although initially I noticed less road noise from the Potenzas than the Michelins, as time went on I feel that there is in fact little if any difference. Both can be very noisy on some road surfaces and in general are more so than on most other cars I have driven, though whether this a factor of the MG or the tyres I can’t say.

But now, the time has come to replace the Potenzas and I have discovered that my concerns regarding the durability of these tyres has been realised. I have only managed to get 15,000 miles out of them. In fact, even more bizarrely, the rear pair have worn out faster than the fronts! Explain that? However, bearing in mind the difference in price this still works out better than the Michelins, just. I have got 75% of the lifespan for 73% of the price!

So, what am I going to go for next? Well, I could go back to the Michelins. Roadwheel can now get them for £165 each, a reduction of £20 a tyre. However, I still feel that these are overpriced despite the fact that they give good wear. Their F1 pedigree (and also that of Bridgestone) does not influence me.

Now there is a much wider range available in this previously very restricted tyre size. Apart from Michelin, Bridgestone and Continental there are now available models from Avon, Dunlop, Pirelli, Kankang and Kumho. The last two are new names to me, I must admit. Both are Far East manufacturers, Taiwan and South Korea respectively.

Most especially, Trade Tyres in Sandhurst can get the Kumhos at £98 a tyre. That’s a hell of a saving. At 60% of the price of the Michelins, so long as can get at least 12,000 miles out of them I’m still ahead. The only concern will be how good they are in action. There’s only one way to find out.

Guess what I’m going for next?

Summary: A good performance tyre but with an unimpressive lifespan and at a price

Processing/Quality:
Noise: