"JM" <jmattis@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:de3b9c1b.0404140921.303efe94@posting.google.c om...
> The RE950's are no slouch either, even better at blending lots of good
> characteristics than the RE930's that they replaced. But,
> progressively noisy after the first half of tread is gone, so I just
> replaced them with Yokohama db's at 4/32". Well it's a quiet ride as
> Tirerack advertised, but responsiveness is much the poorer though not
> really unacceptable. Ride is much better too. The zoom has been
> taken out of the car. Though it still hangs on tenaciously around
> corners, it just isn't comfortable and reassuring. (a '96 I30t).
>
> I think the Yoko's can stand much more than the 29 psi factory
> recommended. But it is just compensation for the really soft
> sidewalls. Most tire companies will admit that the tire should be run
> at 2-3 psi more than the car company says. Car manufacturer is bias
> toward a good ride, tire company toward long tire life.
>
> As to the RE92's, keep in mind there are several variants of this tire
> all with the same name. Some are H rated, some T, some are OEM. My
> wife had OEM on a '96 Avalon when brand new. It was okay for a
> cruiser, but hardly a performance tire. (Nor did the handling tighten
> up much with RE930's later; the suspension just wasn't up to it.)
>
> JM

The RE 92 V rated on the Prelude were barely adequate. Lousy wet traction
and dry not much better. Transitional response OK, but given the weak
traction you could not trust them. Wore well though.