Wet roads and tires with a Crown Victoria
Richard Pavelle
I have a 92 Crown Victoria with a large engine. Since I bought
the car I have had difficulties when accelerating on wet roads.
The rear tires usually spin and it has taken some conscious
effort to prevent this. Last week, however, I got into an
uncontrollable skid on a wet road that frightened me. I then
decided to replace the tires even though they only have 25K
miles. The car came with Michelin XW4 but I have been
considering the Dunlop D65 or the Aqua Tread. Safety is the
issue for me.
Can anyone comment on my problem and the resolution? Should I
be considering other kinds of tires?
I spoke to Ford Customer Service and my local dealership and
they have no suggestions other than to speak with tire
manufacturers.
Stephen D'Amelio
: The rear tires usually spin and it has taken some conscious
: effort to prevent this. Last week, however, I got into an
: uncontrollable skid on a wet road that frightened me.
: Can anyone comment on my problem and the resolution? Should I
: be considering other kinds of tires?
I have seen GoodYear GT+4 tires on the Police Crown Vics around
here. (Massachusetts). I see very few in accidents and the
weather around here, well, you know. Does your car have the
police package suspension? You should see a rear anti sway bar
if it does. If not, you may want to look into getting one from
a junkyard.
-Steve
Bob Blackshaw
>I have a 92 Crown Victoria with a large engine. Since I bought
>the car I have had difficulties when accelerating on wet roads.
>The rear tires usually spin and it has taken some conscious
>effort to prevent this. Last week, however, I got into an
>uncontrollable skid on a wet road that frightened me. I then
>decided to replace the tires even though they only have 25K
>miles. The car came with Michelin XW4 but I have been
>considering the Dunlop D65 or the Aqua Tread. Safety is the
>issue for me.
I currently run Goodyear Invictas on my Ford Probe and get about
32 to 34k miles per set (because I get rid of tires when there
is only 1/8 inch of tread left). They have been good in the wet
and I am satisfied with them, but will try the Aqua Tread this
fall. If I'm not mistaken, the Michelin is a high mileage tire.
To get high mileage they use harder compound in the tread which
affects traction adversely.
It's either mileage or traction, seems you can't have both. I
remember a set of G'year Custom Polysteel or Steel Belted (some
such name) tires I had on a Buick Century. They would last forever
but were only suitable for dry pavement at about 40 mph to my mind.
One thing I noted about the Aqua Tread - in my tire size they put
more tread on the road than the Invicta, about 1/2 to 3/4 inch,
which should give better traction. Of course, if you go too wide
you reduce the pounds per square inch per tire and may get less
traction. I agree with you on the safety aspect which is why I
dump tires as early as I do. My car's contact with the road is
in four places, each one about the size of one of my feet. Think
of stopping fro 80 mph by you and a passenger dragging your feet :-)
>Can anyone comment on my problem and the resolution? Should I
>be considering other kinds of tires?
Look at the traction rating marked on the side of the tire. I
don't remember the code, but any reputable tire dealer will
explain it to you. Then get the highest traction you can find.
>I spoke to Ford Customer Service and my local dealership and
>they have no suggestions other than to speak with tire
>manufacturers.
I've found my local G'year folks to be honest and straightforward,
your mileage may vary. (no pun intended)
REB
Al Chang
Richard Pavelle (r...@llex.ll.mit.edu) wrote:
-Steve
GT+4 is a good high performance all season tire. It is not the best
rain tire. I slip mine all the time if I hit the gas too much on my
car in the rain.
Rear anti sway bar does not have any effect on straight driving. If
the tire slips from hitting the gas/brake too hard, it won't do any
good. It will help on the turn in any road condition.
Traction control and ABS really helps alot, but you can't add it on
after the fact.
Aamir Hafeez Qazi
>
> I have a 92 Crown Victoria with a large engine. Since I bought
> the car I have had difficulties when accelerating on wet roads.
> The rear tires usually spin and it has taken some conscious
> effort to prevent this. Last week, however, I got into an
> uncontrollable skid on a wet road that frightened me. I then
> decided to replace the tires even though they only have 25K
> miles. The car came with Michelin XW4 but I have been
> considering the Dunlop D65 or the Aqua Tread. Safety is the
> issue for me.
>
> Can anyone comment on my problem and the resolution? Should I
> be considering other kinds of tires?
--What you should have done was buy a Crown Vic with the traction
control. But it's probably too late to do that now, unless you
want to sell/trade your car for a new one. Other than that, maybe
the Aquatreads are the best bet.
--Aamir Qazi
qa...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
--
--I've become a social creature...but I don't
know if it's a blessing or a curse.
doy...@vnet.ibm.com
>From article <1993Jun15.1...@ll.mit.edu>, by r...@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Richard Pavelle):
>>
>> I have a 92 Crown Victoria with a large engine. Since I bought
>> the car I have had difficulties when accelerating on wet roads.
>> The rear tires usually spin and it has taken some conscious
>> effort to prevent this. Last week, however, I got into an
>> uncontrollable skid on a wet road that frightened me. I then
>> decided to replace the tires even though they only have 25K
>> miles. The car came with Michelin XW4 but I have been
>> considering the Dunlop D65 or the Aqua Tread. Safety is the
>> issue for me.
>>
>> Can anyone comment on my problem and the resolution? Should I
>> be considering other kinds of tires?
>
people who run them and are VERY happy w/ the tires. I personally run the
GT+4 on a Bonneville SSE. It has ABS, which helps tremendously. However,
the GT+4 is still a soft tire. It grips well on dry pavement, and does pretty
well in the water.
If it were my choice, I'd opt for the aquatreds. I don't think you're going to
push the car enough to benefit from the GT+4. Ask your G'year dealer for
recommendations/references of folks who recently purchsed the tires. That
may help you.
The problem w/ the traction rating (A is best), is that it is not granular
enough (my opinion). Just take a notice of all the tires rated traction A,
and their price range.
Best Regards! John P. Doyle
Opinions are my own, not necessarily IBM's
Craig Boyle
>>
> I think your most realistic option is the Aquatread. I know a couple of
>people who run them and are VERY happy w/ the tires. I personally run the
The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. For the first 5k miles or so it works as
described, after that the "aquatred" is worn down (depending on your
driving habits) and you just have a normal M+S tire for the next 60k miles.
[Source: Tire dealer (friend) with no reason for bias]
Another datapoint on this is General's advertising. They market a tire
like the Aquatred and point out it's superior performance after 15k miles.
The General is still working, the Goodyear is worn out. Look in any
recent C+D, MT, RT for the ad.
Craig
Ken Buck
>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
>[Source: Tire dealer (friend) with no reason for bias]
>
>Another datapoint on this is General's advertising. They market a tire
>like the Aquatred and point out it's superior performance after 15k miles.
>The General is still working, the Goodyear is worn out. Look in any
>recent C+D, MT, RT for the ad.
uh, in my opinion, 'advertisements' cannot realistically be considered
either 'unbiased' OR 'datapoints'.
doy...@vnet.ibm.com
after 15K. If you go into a store and actually look at the tire you'll find
the groove is quite pronounced, and part of the tire structure. It does not
appear to be 'cut into' the tread, superficially.
I think the best approach is to follow the old Packard Motor Co slogan, and
"ask the man who owns one."
Does anyone know if Consumer Reports evaluated the Aquatreads yet?
Mark Dean
I take it your friend doesn't sell Goodyear!
If any tire is worn out after 5k miles the problem isn't the tire!
MD
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Jun17....@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jun16....@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> doy...@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>|> >>
>|> > I think your most realistic option is the Aquatread. I know a couple of
>|> >people who run them and are VERY happy w/ the tires. I personally run the
>|>
>|> The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. For the first 5k miles or so it works as
>|> described, after that the "aquatred" is worn down (depending on your
>|> driving habits) and you just have a normal M+S tire for the next 60k miles.
>|>
>|>
>|> [Source: Tire dealer (friend) with no reason for bias]
>|>
>|> Another datapoint on this is General's advertising. They market a tire
>|> like the Aquatred and point out it's superior performance after 15k miles.
>|> The General is still working, the Goodyear is worn out. Look in any
>|> recent C+D, MT, RT for the ad.
>|>
>|> Craig
>
>I take it your friend doesn't sell Goodyear!
He works for a national chain that sells Goodyears among others. As I
said he had no reason to be biased.
>If any tire is worn out after 5k miles the problem isn't the tire!
Read my previous post. The Aquatred is not worn out in the sense of
being on the wear bars, it has just lost its pronounced groove.
Craig
>
Craig Boyle
>In <buck.740317415@granite> bu...@granite.ma30.bull.com (Ken Buck) writes:
>>bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>>>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
>>>[Source: Tire dealer (friend) with no reason for bias]
>>>
>>>Another datapoint on this is General's advertising. They market a tire
>>>like the Aquatred and point out it's superior performance after 15k miles.
>>>The General is still working, the Goodyear is worn out. Look in any
>>>recent C+D, MT, RT for the ad.
>>
>>uh, in my opinion, 'advertisements' cannot realistically be considered
>>either 'unbiased' OR 'datapoints'.
>
Who said ad's were unbiased?? General quotes and 3d party (trade magazine)
source for its data.
Craig
> I agree. I find it a little hard to believe the Aquatread groove is worn out
> after 15K. If you go into a store and actually look at the tire you'll find
They show significant wear by 5k, not 15k.
> the groove is quite pronounced, and part of the tire structure. It does not
> appear to be 'cut into' the tread, superficially.
Feel free to buy a set and report your experiences to the net... :-)
Craig
Bob Tufts
>If any tire is worn out after 5k miles the problem isn't the tire!
>
> MD
That's a generalization! Race car tires are gone in under a few hundred
miles. I know that Goodyear Euro NCTs (as used on Lotus Esprit) typically
last owners 8-10K(with even wear). There's something you left out of the
equation, it's called tire compound. Depending on the car/driving one might
just want to sacrifice wear for "stickiness". I know for me I'd rather a
tire that lasts 20K and "sticks like glue" than one that's hard as a rock
and lasts 100k.
I have no idea what the Aquatread compound is though, and if the wear referred
to is "even".
-Bob T.
Mark Crafts
Yes, I think they did in their last tire review, and to my shock and
surprise, it came out on top!
General came out on the bottom of the heap in almost every test.
Mark
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Mark Crafts :: mcrafts%co...@kssib.ksc.nasa.gov
Harris Space Systems :: Melbourne, FL
The Devil Reincarnate
>>bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>>>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
>>>
May 1993.
BAR...@maine.maine.edu
both wet and dry driving. My question is: how do they do in snow????
Does anyone know?
Bill Campbell
:In article <1993Jun17.1...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> doy...@vnet.ibm.com writes:
:>In <buck.740317415@granite> bu...@granite.ma30.bull.com (Ken Buck) writes:
:>>bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
:>>>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
:>>>
:> Does anyone know if Consumer Reports evaluated the Aquatreads yet?
: May 1993.
My experience with the Aquatreads has been excellent (and we
don't know about rain in Seattle :-). My first reaction when I
saw them was that they looked like the rain tires I ran on
Formula Fords. My experience includes driving at Seattle
International Raceway on a wet track, and they were great!
Ford Crown Victorias are a scam. Avoid them!
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 8545 SE 68th Street
uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
David Early
|> >In <buck.740317415@granite> bu...@granite.ma30.bull.com (Ken Buck) writes:
|> >>bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
|> >>>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
|> >>>[Source: Tire dealer (friend) with no reason for bias]
|> >>>
|> >>>Another datapoint on this is General's advertising. They market a tire
|> >>>like the Aquatred and point out it's superior performance after 15k miles.
|> >>>The General is still working, the Goodyear is worn out. Look in any
|> >>>recent C+D, MT, RT for the ad.
|> >>
|> >>uh, in my opinion, 'advertisements' cannot realistically be considered
|> >>either 'unbiased' OR 'datapoints'.
|> >
|>
|>
|> Who said ad's were unbiased?? General quotes and 3d party (trade magazine)
|> source for its data.
|>
|> Craig
So do Slick-50 ads; most people may be wary of the '3rd' party quoted in any
ad. Which 'trade' magazine??
|>
|> > I agree. I find it a little hard to believe the Aquatread groove is worn out
|> > after 15K. If you go into a store and actually look at the tire you'll find
|>
|> They show significant wear by 5k, not 15k.
I have a hard time believing this. Hasn't this tire won a bunch of awards
in the last year? If it was really this bad I think we would have heard
about it in the news, etc. Besides, I could handle Goodyear replacing my
tire every 5K.
|>
|> > the groove is quite pronounced, and part of the tire structure. It does not
|> > appear to be 'cut into' the tread, superficially.
|>
|> Feel free to buy a set and report your experiences to the net... :-)
|>
|> Craig
Well, I don't have a set but a friend of mine does. He bought a set last fall(?) when they
first came out. Put them on a Dodge minivan. Drove them coast to coast from New York to Utah
(well not quite coast to caost), and wintered over here. No significant wear, still have the
groove, and he still loves them. I have seen and examined the tires and I am not sure
you know what you're talking about.
Anyone else with postitive/negative experience?
Dave Early
Steve Elias
Now that says one of two things (or maybe a little of both): the Aquatread
is an outstanding wet-weather tire, and/or the Ameritech really, really
sucks. ^^^^^^
^^^^^^
AND
/eli
Jeff Goss
>
> [attributions deleted for aesthetic purposes]
>
> > :>>>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
> > :> Does anyone know if Consumer Reports evaluated the Aquatreads yet?
> > : May 1993.
>
> I hate Consumer Reports' auto testing and ratings, but I read the
> tire article and they seemed to do a decent job on the evaluation.
> Here's an interesting datapoint for anyone considering Aquatreads,
> which was the top rated tire in the test: the Aquatreads stopped in
> a shorter distance on wet pavement in a non-ABS equipped car than
> the last place tire (General Ameritech) did on a DRY surface.
>
> Now that says one of two things (or maybe a little of both): the Aquatread
> is an outstanding wet-weather tire, and/or the Ameritech really, really
> sucks.
Didn't someone on here allude to the Aquatred not maintaining this ability
in the wet for very long? Does anyone have any info on the long term
performance of this tire?
Jeff Goss
Gregory P. Siemens
: [attributions deleted for aesthetic purposes]
: > :>>>The Aquatred is a scam. Avoid it. [...]
: > :> Does anyone know if Consumer Reports evaluated the Aquatreads yet?
: > : May 1993.
: I hate Consumer Reports' auto testing and ratings, but I read the
: tire article and they seemed to do a decent job on the evaluation.
: Here's an interesting datapoint for anyone considering Aquatreads,
: which was the top rated tire in the test: the Aquatreads stopped in
: a shorter distance on wet pavement in a non-ABS equipped car than
: the last place tire (General Ameritech) did on a DRY surface.
: Now that says one of two things (or maybe a little of both): the Aquatread
: is an outstanding wet-weather tire, and/or the Ameritech really, really
: sucks.
: Kenneth
: finn...@nrlssc.navy.mil
Why do you Hate their tests/ratings? Just curious.
G...
Stephen Crook
GPS> : which was the top rated tire in the test: the Aquatreads stopped in
GPS> : a shorter distance on wet pavement in a non-ABS equipped car than
GPS> : the last place tire (General Ameritech) did on a DRY surface.
GPS> : Now that says one of two things (or maybe a little of both): the Aquatre
GPS> : is an outstanding wet-weather tire, and/or the Ameritech really, really
GPS> : sucks.
My experience with Generals on the the front of my Dodge Caravan says
they are not anything to write home about - noisy, and mediocre wet
traction.
Any experience with either Pirelli P-300's or Yokohama's in this
application (run of the mill P195/75-R14's)? Other suggestions perhaps?
* SLMR 2.1a * stephe...@cottage.brookline.ma.us RIME #1464
----
The Electronic Cottage BBS 617-738-5196/617-738-4879
Brookline,MA -- Support For S.G. Systems Software
Usenet/Internet/Rime Message Bases
Larry Rogers
In article <finnegan-2...@invader.nrlssc.navy.mil> finn...@nrlssc.navy.mil (Kenneth M. Finnegan) writes:
Kenneth> Because in their little dotted ratings world, a failed
Kenneth> windshield wiper switch carries the same statistical
Kenneth> significance as an alternator that caught fire and burned
Kenneth> the car to the ground. The statistics are plain
Kenneth> misleading in many cases, and people tend to take their
Kenneth> word as gospel.
Kenneth> Also, would you buy a power tool based on a postive
Kenneth> rating from Vogue magazine?
This is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard. Consumer
reports has been testing and rating cars for years, regardless of what
you think of their ratings. Vogue has never attempted to rate a power
tool or anything else.
This statistical stuff you state sounds like complete nonsense as
well. They break down things into categories. In the survey they
take they ask for problems that are critical (show stoppers, lost the
car for a week or more), and minor and weight them accordingly.
Before you criticize a publication, I suggest you read it. Glancing
at it and making assumptions about the content is one thing, but
telling others that the magazine is inadequate because of your
misinterpretations is another.
I did not like their most recent change to the format though. I was a
bit confused when all the cars started showing up with red dots
because the ratings were no longer relative to other cars, but to
fixed dollar amounts for repairs. I thought it made it a little
tougher to compare and made some cars look much better than they
should. I also personally did not like their recommended list for
used cars because they occasionally exclude a car because of a single
feature (like my 5 speed legend 1990, even though it is not on the
not-recommended list). The price ranges for the cars are high and
they say not to buy private sale used autos when I find those from
dealers more suspect.
While there are things I do not like, for the most part I find CR
right on the money and well worth the $2.00 a magazine.
Cheers, Larry
--
@@ Larry Rogers *
@@@ larry_...@dg.com * Big Brother
@@@ &&& la...@boris.webo.dg.com * is Watching
@@ && Data General 508-870-8441 *
The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.
"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
Dire Straits
Kenneth M. Finnegan
(Larry Rogers) wrote:
> Kenneth> Also, would you buy a power tool based on a postive
> Kenneth> rating from Vogue magazine?
>
> This is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard. Consumer
> reports has been testing and rating cars for years, regardless of what
> you think of their ratings. Vogue has never attempted to rate a power
> tool or anything else.
Sorry, couldn't resist the mental image.. ;-)
> This statistical stuff you state sounds like complete nonsense as
> well. They break down things into categories. In the survey they
> take they ask for problems that are critical (show stoppers, lost the
> car for a week or more), and minor and weight them accordingly.
No, they ask for problems that the owner FEELS are critical. You
must admit that criticality of a problem will vary SIGNIFICANTLY
according to the individual.
> Before you criticize a publication, I suggest you read it. Glancing
> at it and making assumptions about the content is one thing, but
> telling others that the magazine is inadequate because of your
> misinterpretations is another.
Before you shoot your mouth off, I suggest you gather more facts. I
have subscribed to Consumer Reports for the past 7 years. I use it
actively for information on purchases other than cars. I even intend
to use their tire advice, as I mentioned in the previous article.
Somehow that part was edited out. ;-)
> I did not like their most recent change to the format though. I was a
> bit confused when all the cars started showing up with red dots
> because the ratings were no longer relative to other cars, but to
> fixed dollar amounts for repairs. I thought it made it a little
> tougher to compare and made some cars look much better than they
> should. I also personally did not like their recommended list for
> used cars because they occasionally exclude a car because of a single
> feature (like my 5 speed legend 1990, even though it is not on the
> not-recommended list). The price ranges for the cars are high and
> they say not to buy private sale used autos when I find those from
> dealers more suspect.
Agreed. I don't know that I like the new system, either. What I
REALLY wish they would do is to give us absolute numbers on the
responses they received. Such as, 278 1990 Acura Legend owners
responded to the survey, 7 of them noted problems with the manual
transmission....the reader is supposed to take their word that
their statistics are meaningful and correct. Most of us are not
statisticians, but we have an inate distrust of those who are. ;-)
>
> While there are things I do not like, for the most part I find CR
> right on the money and well worth the $2.00 a magazine.
Agreed. If you re-read my original post, I did not criticize the
magazine as a whole, just their auto ratings. I use information
from that magazine to buy all kinds of items. It just so happens
that automobiles aren't one of them.
>Larry
> "Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
> Dire Straits
Kenneth
finn...@nrlssc.navy.mil
"We are fools to make war, all my brothers in arms...."
Dire Straits
Ralph Durham
However, my newspaper article on the J.D. Power listings stated that
they donot, they lump all complaints. This is also a first 90 days
survey. Consumer Reports lists over a several year span (3?).
rgd