Regularly on this forum we discuss the merits of Michelin tyres on an ALPINA as opposed to other makes - primarily because Michelin developed the particular tyres with ALPINA in the first place
Generally there is a bit of a reaction to the price premium to be paid for Pilot Sports (originals or 2s) over the other brands which is, perhaps, understandable until you put it all into context.
With fuel costing what it is today, two tanks of V-Power in my B3S is the equivalent of a rear tyre for my car. Given the number of miles I do, in about 6 weeks, I have paid for a full set of Pilot Sports.
By comparison, a cheaper set of tyres would be covered by the fuel I use in about 4-5 weeks.
In other words, a full set of tyres costs the same as about 1400 miles of driving, whilst lasting for at least 20k miles on the rear and 40k miles on the front.
Putting it this way and the premium for Michelin tyres pales into insignificance ...
A bit of perspective
A bit of perspective
Charles
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
I know there is a Michelin reference tyre for Porsche and there are some * marked tyres relating to a BMW approval.
Do the Michelin tyres you put on your car carry a special Alpina developed symbol or are they just PS or PS2's off the shelf, that cater for any other car using that size ?
Are you sure that the standard PS or PS2 used on car XYZ has been developed with Alpina in mind ?
Not sure if the initially factory fitted Michelins are different, but certainly not the ones bought off the shelf.
1400 miles on V-power at 23-25 mpg equal around 320-350 quid on my calculator. I guess you'd struggle to find a full set of PS or PS2 for that money.
If I run a tyre, I am equally happy with in terms of performance, that theoretically only lasts half your estimate of Michelins (10k rear and 15 front) and cost half the price, then, yes, the difference is insignificant.
If they last 13k on the rear and 20 on the front, they're already a price winner and it's easier for many people to take less cash in hand come changing time than forking out a big lump at once, although they might last longer. Especially taking our momentary price rise market on standard living expenses into consideration.
Unless the Michelins are proven to use less fuel, I don't see anyway where the money you spend on fuel relates to the tyre price.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Michelins are amongst the best available, as well as Castrol most certainly makes excellent lubricants.
I just don't see the sense in your calculations, as you have to pay for your fuel anyway, no matter what you paid for your tyres, sorry.
And then add the factor of nicely money spinning partnerships between Alpina, BMW, Castrol, Michelin etc. to put it into perspective even more.
Again, they are excellent tyres (and on my rear wheels), but it doesn't make me shut my eyes, if new developments come into play.
Do the Michelin tyres you put on your car carry a special Alpina developed symbol or are they just PS or PS2's off the shelf, that cater for any other car using that size ?
Are you sure that the standard PS or PS2 used on car XYZ has been developed with Alpina in mind ?
Not sure if the initially factory fitted Michelins are different, but certainly not the ones bought off the shelf.
1400 miles on V-power at 23-25 mpg equal around 320-350 quid on my calculator. I guess you'd struggle to find a full set of PS or PS2 for that money.
If I run a tyre, I am equally happy with in terms of performance, that theoretically only lasts half your estimate of Michelins (10k rear and 15 front) and cost half the price, then, yes, the difference is insignificant.
If they last 13k on the rear and 20 on the front, they're already a price winner and it's easier for many people to take less cash in hand come changing time than forking out a big lump at once, although they might last longer. Especially taking our momentary price rise market on standard living expenses into consideration.
Unless the Michelins are proven to use less fuel, I don't see anyway where the money you spend on fuel relates to the tyre price.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Michelins are amongst the best available, as well as Castrol most certainly makes excellent lubricants.
I just don't see the sense in your calculations, as you have to pay for your fuel anyway, no matter what you paid for your tyres, sorry.
And then add the factor of nicely money spinning partnerships between Alpina, BMW, Castrol, Michelin etc. to put it into perspective even more.
Again, they are excellent tyres (and on my rear wheels), but it doesn't make me shut my eyes, if new developments come into play.
Olli,
Thank you for correctly identifying my mathematical error inasmuch that the mileage over 6 weeks should be 2800 miles and not 1400 as originally written.
However, my point is this - we are prepared to put £75 of fuel in the car to travel 350 miles (admittedly we have no choice about this apart from shopping around for the odd 1p difference per litre). Over 20,000 miles (the lifetime of an original PS tyre - BMW fitment - which is still equivalent to the original design unlike those marked for Porsche use which were developed after Michelin developed the original design with ALPINA in the first place), my fuel bill will be approximately £4300. Over the same period, my tyre bill for a set of rears will be £300 and the usage cost of the fronts (half worn) will be £130. Therefore, total tyre cost = £430.
As such, tyre costs are about 1/10th of the fuel costs for the same period. Therefore, a saving of a few quid on the tyres (assuming I get the same mileage out of them as the Michelins) is a very small part of the overall running costs for the period.
I think the issue could perhaps be more a psychological one - such that being faced with (say) a £480 bill for a full set of tyres compared to £550 is more manageable. Just like something being marked at £99.99 rather than £100.
But when one factors in the price relative to the cost per mile for fuel and/or the cost per mile for a cheaper tyre lasting less miles than a more expensive tyre lasting longer, then the actual saving at the till may actually be a false economy in the long run.
Don't get me wrong, I am feeling the squeeze as much as the next person, but I tend to make purchasing decisions based on value rather than price - unlike my wife (the accountant) who looks at the price today rather than the cost over time.
As such, this forms the basis of my original comments about "perspective". It certainly doesn't ignore the fact that someone may not actually have £550 in their pocket today and so can only afford the £480 tyres, but I hope it does offer an alternative value based buying decision which would work out cheaper in the long run.
And this is coming from someone who bought a £45k car from new and has lost at least £30k in depreciation on it. However, because I have run the car for over 5 years the total cost (for all costs including insurance, fuel and depreciation) is a shade over 50p per mile - which I think is an absolute bargain.
Thank you for correctly identifying my mathematical error inasmuch that the mileage over 6 weeks should be 2800 miles and not 1400 as originally written.
However, my point is this - we are prepared to put £75 of fuel in the car to travel 350 miles (admittedly we have no choice about this apart from shopping around for the odd 1p difference per litre). Over 20,000 miles (the lifetime of an original PS tyre - BMW fitment - which is still equivalent to the original design unlike those marked for Porsche use which were developed after Michelin developed the original design with ALPINA in the first place), my fuel bill will be approximately £4300. Over the same period, my tyre bill for a set of rears will be £300 and the usage cost of the fronts (half worn) will be £130. Therefore, total tyre cost = £430.
As such, tyre costs are about 1/10th of the fuel costs for the same period. Therefore, a saving of a few quid on the tyres (assuming I get the same mileage out of them as the Michelins) is a very small part of the overall running costs for the period.
I think the issue could perhaps be more a psychological one - such that being faced with (say) a £480 bill for a full set of tyres compared to £550 is more manageable. Just like something being marked at £99.99 rather than £100.
But when one factors in the price relative to the cost per mile for fuel and/or the cost per mile for a cheaper tyre lasting less miles than a more expensive tyre lasting longer, then the actual saving at the till may actually be a false economy in the long run.
Don't get me wrong, I am feeling the squeeze as much as the next person, but I tend to make purchasing decisions based on value rather than price - unlike my wife (the accountant) who looks at the price today rather than the cost over time.
As such, this forms the basis of my original comments about "perspective". It certainly doesn't ignore the fact that someone may not actually have £550 in their pocket today and so can only afford the £480 tyres, but I hope it does offer an alternative value based buying decision which would work out cheaper in the long run.
And this is coming from someone who bought a £45k car from new and has lost at least £30k in depreciation on it. However, because I have run the car for over 5 years the total cost (for all costs including insurance, fuel and depreciation) is a shade over 50p per mile - which I think is an absolute bargain.
Charles
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
you also have to think some of the owners (like me ) have the car but can only just afford to run them
i use mine as my every day car & most months my bank balance is £0
so when it comes time for tyre replce ment we get the best we can afford at the time
i had dunlops last year as i only needed rears this year it needed all 4 so i had to drop down the scale a bit
next time things might have picked up a bit & i might be able to afford better tyres
i use mine as my every day car & most months my bank balance is £0
so when it comes time for tyre replce ment we get the best we can afford at the time
i had dunlops last year as i only needed rears this year it needed all 4 so i had to drop down the scale a bit
next time things might have picked up a bit & i might be able to afford better tyres
the start of something good
Blacky,blacky wrote:you also have to think some of the owners (like me ) have the car but can only just afford to run them
i use mine as my every day car & most months my bank balance is £0
so when it comes time for tyre replce ment we get the best we can afford at the time
I completely agree - hence my comment:
Charles wrote:It certainly doesn't ignore the fact that someone may not actually have £550 in their pocket today and so can only afford the £480 tyres ...
Charles
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
Charles, if it would only be between 480 and 550, I'd probably not bat an eyelid to go for the PS2.
Compare them to the excellent FK452 Falken (which many of my buds run on M-cars and rave about them), you are talking half the price. That was what I was comparing it with.
And what Blacky, you and me agree on, in times where every other cost in life seems to squueze us to the edge of affordability, it even makes sense.
The GY Eagle asymetric I run on the front are on, because they were a steal. 230 a tyre for PS2 (245/35/19) and normally 200 a tyre for the GY. Wouldn't have been much difference, but I got them for 180 quid for both, delivered, meaning 90 quid a tyre. I don't hesitate with these kind of deals
In general I agree, special cars deserve the best possible, but it's not always the most expensive which is the best possible.
Honestly curious to see if I also manage 20k out my PS2 rears.
One very good point made, a lot of people don't take into consideration is the pence per mile argument set into perspective.
Compare them to the excellent FK452 Falken (which many of my buds run on M-cars and rave about them), you are talking half the price. That was what I was comparing it with.
And what Blacky, you and me agree on, in times where every other cost in life seems to squueze us to the edge of affordability, it even makes sense.
The GY Eagle asymetric I run on the front are on, because they were a steal. 230 a tyre for PS2 (245/35/19) and normally 200 a tyre for the GY. Wouldn't have been much difference, but I got them for 180 quid for both, delivered, meaning 90 quid a tyre. I don't hesitate with these kind of deals
In general I agree, special cars deserve the best possible, but it's not always the most expensive which is the best possible.
Honestly curious to see if I also manage 20k out my PS2 rears.
One very good point made, a lot of people don't take into consideration is the pence per mile argument set into perspective.
i was out giving the B10 some greef last night on the way to my mates garage
on the dunlops that i have just took off i hardly ever seen the traction control light flash
the new fedrals
had the light on in third they are still new so need to be scrubbed in a bit so they will probably get a bit more grip as they scrub in
they still feel planted im putting it down to the lowered ride hight causing a bit more - camber that normal
the post van wears yocahama parada's that i can get 4 for £200 on the van it really is a must to have grip with 450 angry ponys trying to get away
luckly its 4x4 so dosent wear them out like the B10 dose
on the dunlops that i have just took off i hardly ever seen the traction control light flash
the new fedrals
had the light on in third they are still new so need to be scrubbed in a bit so they will probably get a bit more grip as they scrub in they still feel planted im putting it down to the lowered ride hight causing a bit more - camber that normal
the post van wears yocahama parada's that i can get 4 for £200 on the van it really is a must to have grip with 450 angry ponys trying to get away
luckly its 4x4 so dosent wear them out like the B10 dose
Last edited by blacky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the start of something good
Olli,
Don't forget that I am basing my specific prices on 18" wheels as per my B3S. I fully appreciate that the price differential between 18" and 19" Michelins is substantial - not sure why).
As for getting 20k miles out of PS2s on the rear - good luck. I have only had PS2s on the rear once - for 14k miles. Before and since then I have run original PS tyres because I reckon the extra 6k miles for the same price is worth far more to me than the slight improvement in grip.
Thank you also for recognising that my point is based around overall value (whether it is compared with a tank of fuel or pence per mile). At the end of the day, this is why I will always try to run original PS all round and V-Power in the tank ( 5% more expensive but 10% better economy).
All in all, its a tough call between what you can afford NOW and what offers best value for money - hence the original post
Don't forget that I am basing my specific prices on 18" wheels as per my B3S. I fully appreciate that the price differential between 18" and 19" Michelins is substantial - not sure why).
As for getting 20k miles out of PS2s on the rear - good luck. I have only had PS2s on the rear once - for 14k miles. Before and since then I have run original PS tyres because I reckon the extra 6k miles for the same price is worth far more to me than the slight improvement in grip.
Thank you also for recognising that my point is based around overall value (whether it is compared with a tank of fuel or pence per mile). At the end of the day, this is why I will always try to run original PS all round and V-Power in the tank ( 5% more expensive but 10% better economy).
All in all, its a tough call between what you can afford NOW and what offers best value for money - hence the original post
Charles
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
I've tried them all but have been using Shell exclusively (unless I misjudge and then only £10 of good quality unleaded till I reach a Shell station) for the last 3 years - first Optimax and then V-Power.
My experience with V-Power is that I get better economy which outweighs the more expensive fuel price.
I stick with Shell because I believe that it is a cleaner burning fuel than BP Ultimate and so is kinder to my engine.
Other than that, I wouldn't use supermarket fuels because I don't believe that their additives are as good as top branded fuel and so the savings are outweighed by my desire to protect the engine.
I could, of course, be wrong on any or all of these points though ...
My experience with V-Power is that I get better economy which outweighs the more expensive fuel price.
I stick with Shell because I believe that it is a cleaner burning fuel than BP Ultimate and so is kinder to my engine.
Other than that, I wouldn't use supermarket fuels because I don't believe that their additives are as good as top branded fuel and so the savings are outweighed by my desire to protect the engine.
I could, of course, be wrong on any or all of these points though ...
Charles
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!
with you on the Shell stuff, Charles.
Looking forward to my 3 and a half weeks in Germany from next Thursday, where the V-Power is 100 RON
Not looking forward to the actual price of Euro 1.60, though ( 1.32 UK)
Don't you hate that ugly Euro exchange rate at the moment.
Got about 1.46 last summer, down to about 1.21 now.
Looking forward to my 3 and a half weeks in Germany from next Thursday, where the V-Power is 100 RON
Not looking forward to the actual price of Euro 1.60, though ( 1.32 UK)
Don't you hate that ugly Euro exchange rate at the moment.
Got about 1.46 last summer, down to about 1.21 now.