Reviews of MICHELIN tires

PR Score ?

Based on 2747 reviews and 8504 votes

8504 votes

Average rating ?

4.2

Grip:

4.3

Noise:

3.6

Ride comfort:

4.0

2256

266

224

2747 reviews

Description

MICHELIN

France

No.1 in the rating

among 66 manufacturers

Share on social networks:

Part:

Back

Manufacturer:

Back

Make:

Back

Model:

Back

Generation:

Review tone

Positive Negative Neutral

Reviews found: 0

Reviews

Relevant

New

Helpful

MICHELIN › Tires

Sheep 17 May 2004, 14:21

Rating 3.0

Noise:

It is an EXTREMELY common problem on Mk4's to show cupping on inside of rear tires even with everything at spec. After you rotate them, the \"good front\" tires on rear will then begin cupping also, and the noise problem will increase as they wear more... the rears will \"sing\" with the cupped fronts (formerly on rear) and you can get some pretty loud droning at low speeds, only becoming less noticable at high speeds.

Cons: cupping on inside, noise problem

Vehicle: Volkswagen Golf

MICHELIN › Tires

Imola Yellow GTi 23 Feb 2004, 01:18

Rating 3.5

Grip:
Ride comfort:

from observation running these pilot sports low under 35 psi will create wear on the outter edge of the tire if you have it around 38-37 front and 37-36 rear, your wear will be even

Pros: even wear at 38-37 psi

Cons: uneven wear under 35 psi

MICHELIN › Tires

RainDriver 4 Dec 2003, 05:30

Rating 3.0

Grip:

I run Michelin XLT 'all-seaon mud and snow' tires, which are great in rain and ok in light snow, but frankly in real winter-y conditions are not good enough.

Pros: great in rain

Cons: not good in winter

MICHELIN › Tires

reeston 17 Feb 2003, 06:49

Rating 2.0

Grip:

My old 15" Conti's where great in the snow but these 17" Michelins really break traction easy.

Pros: great in the snow

Cons: break traction easy

MICHELIN › Tires

Blueprint 12 Feb 2003, 13:37

Rating 3.0

Noise:

My wife's CR-V has Michelin Artic Alpins, they work OK but they emit a really loud "whistle" on wet asphalt.

Pros: work OK

Cons: loud whistle on asphalt

Vehicle: Honda

MICHELIN › Tires

Zim 3 Feb 2003, 14:44

Rating 3.0

Grip:

I've had both now (99 with Michelins, 03 with Contis). I agree, I think the Michelins \"look\" more sporty (for lack of a better term), but for driving performance, so far I find them fairly equivalent (which is not suprising since they get extremely similar ratings at tirerack.com). Both suck in comparison to the Bridgestones I had put on my 99 tho. (IMO)

Pros: look more sporty

Cons: suck in comparison

Mileage: 643 km

MICHELIN › Tires

E36BMW 3 Feb 2003, 14:28

Rating 4.0

Grip:

We have Michelins on our 02 and Continentals on our 03. Performance wise (both wet, dry, snow & ice) they are pretty close to equals. We just don't have enough miles to compare wear yet.

Pros: close to equals

Vehicle: BMW

MICHELIN › Tires

Zim 20 Jan 2003, 03:31

Rating 1.0

Grip:

Honestly, the Michelins are generally more recommended here over the Conti's... and after 35k on my 99, the best thing I ever did was get rid of the frickin Michelins, and replaced 'em with Bridgestone Potenza's... SOOOO much better wet traction

Pros: better wet traction

Cons: mediocre wet traction

Mileage: 56310 km

MICHELIN › Tires

mauslick 20 Jan 2003, 03:14

Rating 2.0

one of the michelins on my car blew at about 14,000 mi. it had a slash/crack on the sidewall not covered by any warrenty......It could have been a slasher or road hazard but I had driven out of my driveway and down the road a couple of miles and then it blew.......if someone knifed it it seems it would have been flat before I left..........I don't recall any debris on the road that could've caused the cut........other than that they seemed ok....

Pros: seemed ok

Cons: blew out, sidewall crack

Mileage: 22530 km