If the Michelin's are so bad, then why...

...is the wet braking only 3' longer than the dry braking on the CR tests? Granted the dry braking for 60-0 (142 ft) wasn't great compared to the Camry, Altima, and Fusion. But its wet braking was only 3' more (145 ft) and compared very well to the other 3, even beating the Camry by 4'.

Just curious what all the problems are with the Michelins. Seems like many folks on here don't like them. I personally haven't had any issues with them....they seem to ride and handle just fine to me. But then I'm not a so-called "performance buff" either.

I think they are a good tire, however in the wet, compared to my work car (07 Impala) they are not a good tire. I have Good Year Assurance Triple Treads on the work car, and there is no comparing the two in the wet. They seemed really bad in the snow also when we had some here, they just spun and spun. The work tire is quite a bit better in the snow also. (Same setup front engine / front drive).

The michelins are best at providing a good balance of long-lasting wear and better than average grip, all with a smooth ride. I think they are just plain boring and unattractive tires, but they are sensible. When mine wear out in 50k miles or so I'll probably go with the KDWs.

They're not bad tires per se. But for the price, you can get much better tires.

I find them to be decent tires, but are nowhere near as good as the Bridgestone's I had on my old car (Camry). The Bridgestone's (can't remember which ones.... D'Oh!) had better road feedback and handling than these OEM Michelins do.

The only real plus the Michelin's have is its high tread wear. In wet, they're okay. In dry, they're good. I just wish they gave better steering/road feedback.

I don't recall the month (maybe Fall 2006), but consumer reports tested numerous "performance all-season" tires, and our stock MXM XH Michelins came out on top, baby! I think it was their balance of noise, grip, and treadwear that made the difference.

Interestingly, one of the Tire Rack's top sellers, and classified as a "Ultra-high-performance" tire, the Continental Conti-Extreme Contact, came in nearly last place. Puzzling too was how the Michelins could have won with such relatively meager numbers as 300 A A ratings, when there are others that it beat that had 400 AA A ratings. I know Michelins are great as a brand and I usually favor them, but that's a bit hard to believe...

The michelins are best at providing a good balance of long-lasting wear and better than average grip, all with a smooth ride. I think they are just plain boring and unattractive tires, but they are sensible. When mine wear out in 50k miles or so I'll probably go with the KDWs.

I guess that's why I like them...seem to be a good balance of wear, grip, and ride. Performance? Don't know, but for a FWD car, probably adequate.

As for being boring and unattractive, how so? I'm not trying to be smart and don't mean any disrespect whatsoever, but how do you rate a tire for being boring/non-boring or attractive/unattractive. They're so low-profile anymore that there's not much rubber to see! :wave:

I do know that after I've Armor-All'ed them, I think they look pretty spiffy...that's good enough for me. :yes:

Personally I would NOT own another tire. Michellins have always been the smoothest, longest lasting tire Ive ever ridden on.

Yall can do or say what you want.....but, Michellins are always rated near the top in every category for tires. They are usually near the top in price.....and what do they say??? You usually pay for what you get.

Also......Did you all know that the Bugatti Veyron runs on Michellin tires???? So in saying they are boring and not sporty.....LOL. :lmao:

I don't recall the month (maybe Fall 2006), but consumer reports tested numerous "performance all-season" tires, and our stock MXM XH Michelins came out on top, baby! I think it was their balance of noise, grip, and treadwear that made the difference.

Yes, it was the November 2006 issue. In the V-rated class, they were tops. Here was that particular list from highest- to lowest-rated:

Michelin Pilot HX MXM4
Yokohama Avid V4s
Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S
Continental ContiProContact
Falken Ziex ZE 512
Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus
Bridgestone Potenza RE950
BFGoodrich Traction T/A
Hankook Ventus V4 ES H105
Sumitomo HTR+
Pirelli P6 Four Seasons
Continental ContiExtremeContact
Cooper Lifeliner Touring SLE

This is how they rated the HX-MXM4 in each of their categories:
Dry Braking - Very Good
Wet Braking - Excellent
Handling - Very Good
Hydroplaning - Very Good
Rolling Resistance - Very Good
Snow Traction - Good
Ice Braking - Very Good
Ride - Good
Noise - Very Good
Tread Life - Very Good

Michelins are good in dry conditions. In the wet braking they are ok. Their durability seems better than what their rating suggests. The problem starts in wet turning when they, at some situations, become aweful. There are turns in my commute that feel as bad as ice when wet with these tires. The snow traction is also nothing to write home about.

Michelins are good in dry conditions. In the wet braking they are ok.
Kabong just pointed out in the above that Consumer Reports rated our OEM Michelins “very good” in dry braking, yet “Excellent” in wet braking, which is the exact opposite of your observation. Maybe Consumer Reports got a “ringer” set of Michelins? WTF? :scratch:

Almost every time I’ve strayed from the Michelin brand, I’ve been sorry. I’ve been told that Michelin invests more than double the amount of money on research & development than any other brand, but since I cannot quote a source, it’s just hearsay at this point.

I'm a Michelin-bigot. :thmsup: I won't run anyting else on my Pilots but the LTX M/S, and I also thought their X-One tires were outstanding on passenger cars. When I first got our '05 Accord LX, I really liked the 15" MXV4 S8's, but after they've worn a bit, their handling characteristcs have gone downhill. For some reason, they're getting hard and rounded on the edges (even with proper rotation and inflation), and tend to oversteer a lot more than I'd like. i think part of the issue, at least with the 15" size, is their overall profile in respect to the tread width. If you compare the stock 15" S8 size to (say) the Michelin Harmony in the same size, the tread width and proportion to the profile is much better - more road patch, more squared corners. So while the S8's still have tons of tread left, I may opt for a new set for the Accord this summer, just so the handling is better. Not sure - but just thinking. And, for those keeping score on the speed ratings, I know that the Harmony isn't in the H and V ratings area - but for my usage, it's everyday handling and ride quality that matters, and my tire place doesn't complain about comparative speed ratings....

andy

Michelin makes a good tire, it's just the compound that Honda traditionally used was better for long wear and low rolling resistance instead of grip.

The MXM4s on my 2006 Accord are pretty good, but the MXV4s on my 2000 Accord were terrible. A replacement MXV4, not OEM Honda spec, I bought was a pretty good tire too. However, I wasn't too fond of the rounded shoulder. :thumbsdow

I probably wouldn't buy Michelins when I have to replace the MXM4s. For the price of two of those, I could buy four Kuhmo MX high performance summer tires. Don't have to worry about snow where I'm at... :)

Here was that particular list from highest- to lowest-rated:



A. Michelin Pilot HX MXM4
B. Yokohama Avid V4s
C. Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S


Currently A OEM/30k calc's out 7/32. These motorscooters wear lak arn.

Considered B. (TireRack loves 'em)

Prob go with C. (yeah, they're pricey)

All bets are off if the new coupe has both VCM/<.29 cd/good clutch takeup.


..looks like a great summer/fall for coupes.......

..best, ez..

Kabong just pointed out in the above that Consumer Reports rated our OEM Michelins “very good” in dry braking, yet “Excellent” in wet braking, which is the exact opposite of your observation. Maybe Consumer Reports got a “ringer” set of Michelins? WTF? :scratch:

Almost every time I’ve strayed from the Michelin brand, I’ve been sorry. I’ve been told that Michelin invests more than double the amount of money on research & development than any other brand, but since I cannot quote a source, it’s just hearsay at this point.

I used to work for Michelin, and before that, I worked for a supplier to them, so some may call me biased. But I did see, hear, and read a lot inside the tire industry and feel pretty comfortable in saying that Michelin puts more into their tires R&D wise than anyone. As a supplier to Michelin (steel cord), we could sell product to Goodyear, General, and Uniroyal/Goodrich (which is owned by Michelin), that we could NOT sell to Michelin because it did not meet their specs. Not saying they always have the best, but they are probably the most diligent about quality and performance. Of course they have the deepest pockets, too.

Acc6MT, regarding the snow traction, seems like you're right. That was the lowest of their ratings ("good") compared to all the others.

But overall, in general, and in the long run, I'll pay 25-30% more for a Michelin than I will for comparable other mainline tire. I've seen their criteria and specifications from a supplier's perspective, so I'm okay with it.

I won't run anyting else on my Pilots but the LTX M/S,
andy


A resounding "Ditto!" on that one. I replaced the OEM Toyos on the Pathfinder last year with the LTXs and I am very satisfied. I almost went with the CrossTerrains, but the LTXs were a more rugged tire rated a tiny bit below the CTs. They look more off-road than passenger car-like. The ride improved exponentially. If they ever wear out (lots of deep tread), I will replace them with LTXs again... if they still make 'em. I guess the LTX is older technology... but who cares.

The Toyos were highly rated too, but they did not hold up well for us.

The MXV4s on my Accord are okay, but I don't see the long wear characteristics at all. Only 30K of easy driving and they are about 2/3 spent. I would go with a BFG Touring (softer, less harsh ride) before buying the MXV4s again. Heck, BFG is part of Michelin!

Lastly, maybe it's my imagination (I don't think so) but the Michelins seem to hold air pressure alot better than others I've owned. Better made? Most definitely. :yes:

On my 95 Accord coupe.....I ran the OEM Michellins to 75K miles. They were smooth the entire life of the tire. :thmsup:

As for being boring and unattractive, how so? I'm not trying to be smart and don't mean any disrespect whatsoever, but how do you rate a tire for being boring/non-boring or attractive/unattractive. They're so low-profile anymore that there's not much rubber to see! :wave: :

It's the same reason people think accord sedans are boring... the car does everything so well that it makes the cars almost invisible ;). Look at the reviews of honda motorcycles against other manufacturer and they earn the same comment... hondas typically do everything so well that it doesn't leave an impression.

For me, I think they just uninspire in dry lateral grip, and the sidewall design is made more the mass market (bland). My favorite tire on a budget is the Nitto Neogen but they don't make sizes that fit the accord, and most nittos seem to ****. Next tires for me will be the KDWS.

I have had some good experiences with michelin tires, and while they are expensive relative to some other manufacturers, I would still consider buying a michelin tire again.

Usually, when I lived in Indiana, I would buy a cheap all-season highway tire. I went through a number of brands, none of which were horrible, but none of whih were great either. With that said, The MXM4's are, by far, the very worst all-season tires that I have ever owned. Their performance on dry ground is only very slightly better than my snow-tires (bridgestone ws-50 blizzaks). The blizzaks are also only very slightly more prone to track along uneven highways than the mxm4's. Also, the blizzaks are no more noisy (and in some cases much less noisy) or uncomfortable in any other dry condition than the MXM4's. In the snow, the mxm4's are the very worst tire that I have ever driven on, and I would consider them borderline unsafe. I will mount them on my other set of wheels and use them in the summer untill I feel that I have gotten what I paid for (probably only one or two more summers), but thats only because I would feel wasteful springing for tires when these are safe to drive on in the summer.

Considering my past experiences with michelin tires, and my current experience with the mxm4's, I would by no means generalize and say that michelin tires **** simply because the mxm4's are bad tires. Of course, I also wouldn't say that michelin tires are all generally good tires as that is blatantly untrue.

Kabong just pointed out in the above that Consumer Reports rated our OEM Michelins “very good” in dry braking, yet “Excellent” in wet braking, which is the exact opposite of your observation. Maybe Consumer Reports got a “ringer” set of Michelins? WTF? :scratch:

Almost every time I’ve strayed from the Michelin brand, I’ve been sorry. I’ve been told that Michelin invests more than double the amount of money on research & development than any other brand, but since I cannot quote a source, it’s just hearsay at this point.

But Kabong pointed out CR ratings for Michelin Pilot HX-MXM4's. I thought the Accord's came with the lower grade Michelin Energy MXV4's? At least that's what I have on. I'd gladly trade my MXV4's for the Pilot HX-MXM4's if they're that much better tires.

I believe the I4 models come with the MXV's, and the V6's come with the MXM4's. Either way, i definately have the MXM4's as my oem equipment. Consumer reports is full of it. I would go check tirerack.com and see how they actually stack up. It is less than impressive.

My '07 V6 came with the Pilot HX-MXM4' 215-70R15's. I'm very pleased with them so far. Didn't have enough snow and ice this winter to really get a feel for them in that regard, though.

My '07 V6 came with the Pilot HX-MXM4' 215-70R15's. I'm very pleased with them so far. Didn't have enough snow and ice this winter to really get a feel for them in that regard, though.
you got seriously gypped if your car came with 15" wheels.....

I believe the I4 models come with the MXV's, and the V6's come with the MXM4's. Either way, i definately have the MXM4's as my oem equipment. Consumer reports is full of it. I would go check tirerack.com and see how they actually stack up. It is less than impressive.
the 16" wheels have the Michelin Energy MXV4's or Bridgestone Turanza EL41's. the 17" wheels come with the Pilot MXM4's.

Quick note, my mxm4's only really started to **** horribly after the 6k or 7k mile mark. They were ok (though still average) before that and when they were new. When I first drove them in the snow when I had only a couple thousand miles on them, they were as good as any other all-season I've run. Driving in the snow again at 7k miles was a rude awakening.

My 6 speeds Michelins were ok NEW. Pilot MXM V4.

By about 10,000 miles they started what every set of Mich's have done to me, plow horribly when the road is even damp. This occurs at taking corners at speeds I consider SLOW, usually 25 and under. They have no acceleration grip when damp/wet.

Braking is borderline as they do allow abs operation fairly easily dry or wet.

The only thing I really like about them is that they are quiet on the highway.

I don't use them in snow so I can't say about that. My dunlop winter sport M3 tires are so much better. But are unsuitable in temps above about 55 for the driving I do. These have about 14k on them and are barely worn.

BTW, lifespan of them ****ed too, 24k miles to bald. (and no, I don't spin the front tires at every start, either) The wear is just about as bad as the XGT-V4s my GSR came with and those were downright dangerous at 10k miles.

you got seriously gypped if your car came with 15" wheels.....

Typo...of course they are 17".

BTW, lifespan of them ****ed too, 24k miles to bald. (and no, I don't spin the front tires at every start, either) The wear is just about as bad as the XGT-V4s my GSR came with and those were downright dangerous at 10k miles.

I've owned a gazillion tires and haver never owned a set, even el-cheapos, that were anywhere near bald at 24K. All I can say it you either got a really bad set, or you are SERIOUSLY hard on tires, whether it's the roads, your driving style, curves, spinning (not every start), alignment, or other factors. There is just no way under normal circumstances you should wear the MXM4's or any other all-season tire down to bald in 24K.

:dunno:

...is the wet braking only 3' longer than the dry braking on the CR tests? Granted the dry braking for 60-0 (142 ft) wasn't great compared to the Camry, Altima, and Fusion. But its wet braking was only 3' more (145 ft) and compared very well to the other 3, even beating the Camry by 4'.

I don't think it's the tires that have given the Accord such mediocore braking numbers. It's the crummy brakes period. Our Volvo (Brembo) could avoid an Accident 10x quicker than our 96 Accord, OR our previous 03 Accord. I already have the brembo rotors and pads for my car when the Honda ones wear out, I can't wait to see if they make a difference or not.

I don't think it's the tires that have given the Accord such mediocore braking numbers. It's the crummy brakes period. Our Volvo (Brembo) could avoid an Accident 10x quicker than our 96 Accord, OR our previous 03 Accord. I already have the brembo rotors and pads for my car when the Honda ones wear out, I can't wait to see if they make a difference or not.


i cant believe you have such low mileage on your 96 accord. my 94 is at 230K!!!!!! Im a road warrior. I switched that reliable accord with my new v6 2003 accord just recently.

i cant believe you have such low mileage on your 96 accord. my 94 is at 230K!!!!!! Im a road warrior. I switched that reliable accord with my new v6 2003 accord just recently.

Yep. She looks and runs like new basically, aside from a transmission hiccup, that I think resolved itself.

Well my Michelins on have 37K and already the wear indicators are showing in fact I just had my oil changed and the honda Tech brought it to my attention and suggested buying new tires since I don't have much tread left so I'm going with the goodyear tripletread from the reviews on tirerack they seem to be a much better tire. My Mich's were okay in Wet pavement but I wasn't really all that impressed when I was in NY and it snowed.

Well my Michelins on have 37K and already the wear indicators are showing in fact I just had my oil changed and the honda Tech brought it to my attention and suggested buying new tires since I don't have much tread left so I'm going with the goodyear tripletread from the reviews on tirerack they seem to be a much better tire. My Mich's were okay in Wet pavement but I wasn't really all that impressed when I was in NY and it snowed.

Damn, that is crazy! 37K and need replacing? How hard do you drive??? I live in South Texas........extreme temps (heat mainly) and my OEM Michelins have always lasted over 70K miles. :dunno:

My 2 cents worth here...another long post from me...read at will

I ran Michelins exclusively (usually the MXV's from Sam's) from the mid 80s until just last year. I always got over 75k miles on them...in fact, I actually put 97k on one set (although, the last couple of thousand miles on those were like driving on triangles LOL). I swore by them and they were always consistent, right down to some less than spectacular wet performance.

After dirving some other vehicles for work, I really got into the reducing all that road noise in my Honda. I came across the reviews for the Bridgestone Turanza's and was impressed. So on went a set about 25k miles ago and they've been great. Very little wear so far and ultra quiet and smooth. I've been pleased.

I also run the Michelin LTX on my Isuzu Trooper and I think they're about the best for the money. Great toughness on high profile sidewalls, smooth, and well controlled (for an SUV).

Working in a laboratory that assists with research for lots of different companies, I interacted with one of the Michelin plants in South Carolina back around '02. First, the plant was spotless...which is quite a feat for a tire manufacturing plant. Second, the plant manager described to me that Michelin is very good at putting a "focus" on their tire lines. THe MXV was built for long life...so it has harder rubber compounds and thus the downside of some wet performance. We didn't cover a lot of the different lines but I remember he also mentioned how some of the high speed rated Mich's had some incredibly low rolling resistance at high speeds, etc. and that Michelin was just now considering offering some lower cost tire products which they had never done before...see new Walmart Michelin line...part of an expansion of the market for them.
Thirdly: THis was during the big FIrestone/Ford debacle and we talked at length at how the tire design is first designated by the manufacturer in their OEM bid reqests (which is what Firestone was saying made Ford at fault for rollovers...Firestone made them to specs provided by Ford). Like someone else mentioned already, the better companies have higher standards. He said Honda and Toyota had the highest rejection rates for tires (and much of the supplier lines) where they would look at 10x more tires (and products) vs most others before accepting.

So the manufacturer wants to keep the costs down and domestics traditionally really cut the tire costs here...see Chevy traditionally using like a low grade Uniroyal only good for 20k miles (this has changed). But, you don't wanna cut to the point you've got your new cars sliding off the roads, etc...so you find a compromise. He said Honda always factored heavily on low resistance at moderate speed averages vs handling or performance. THat started changing with the 7th gen that had then just come out but only on certain models.

Last thing (whew): Michelin was closing one of the two huge plants there in SC at the time. THey lengthened the closing process to 2 years to assure they found all employees either a relocation package to another Michelin locale or assisted with transfer to a new job...very impressive.

So I'm a big fan of the company. I've enjoyed the products. I've found at least one good alternative. I'll always keep them in the running when getting new tires.

Man, hope all that helped someone if you made it through...sorry for the wordiness.

I don't have a big issue with the OEM Michelins, but once they are ready to be replaced, I will go with a different tire.

The tire was primarily selected by Honda because it offers low rolling resistance (increase gas mileage). This also translates to good longevity with "normal" driving. If that is your priority and you are happy with the OEM tire, then you should probably stick with them.

My priority is snow traction because of where I live. I don't want to buy dedicated snow tires, so I need my tires to get me through four seasons. There are definitely less expensive tires available that will perform better under these conditions.

As far as the Consumer Reports reviews, you have to realize that they only test one size tire. The same exact tire model will perform differently depending on the size... wider, lower-profile sizes will be worse in the snow. In addition, I believe they test the tires when they are new. It would be nice if they tested them after they are half worn. Brand new, the OEM tires perform well in the snow (esp with VSA), but as they wear, they will get worse because the tread pattern is very close.

Hi,

I have the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S. I like them so far.
Rain, Cornering, I cant tell it is raining, except for the sound. Braking, maybe slightly. I usually don't slow below the speed limit, during rain. Dry is no problem.
My only compliant is that under extreme (dry) cornering they start to loose grip.
I use the stock L4 size, 195HR 65 X 15. I may try the V6 size next time...

Hi,

I have the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S. I like them so far.
Rain, Cornering, I cant tell it is raining, except for the sound. Braking, maybe slightly. I usually don't slow below the speed limit, during rain. Dry is no problem.
My only compliant is that under extreme (dry) cornering they start to loose grip.
I use the stock L4 size, 195HR 65 X 15. I may try the V6 size next time...

I went with the V6 size (205 vs 195 I believe) on my 99 I4...good upgrade. :yes:

Any negative effects on the speedo, etc?

Any negative effects on the speedo, etc?

Now that I think back, I had the FIrestone/Bridgestone guy match the width of the V6 specs and maintain the same height. I'll get the actual size when my wife returns after current business trip.

So, I basically just slightly increased width and I believe it made a significant improvement on an already good handling car. Noise levels, which would have increased in comparison on same tires, went down with the Turanza's compared to the Mich MXV's.

Sorry for the too quickly posted and misleading info there...

I noticed that Sam's Club has begun carrying the Goodyear F1 All-Season tires (420 AA A) in the 7.5 gen V6's size of 215/50-17. I think the price is something like $154 each, via special order only (which means they're usually delivered to your local Sam's Club within 3 to 5 business days). Their installation is generally $10.50 per tire, but that includes lifetime balance/rotation and road hazard warranty(which they definitely honor, because we've had to use it). I'm prolly gonna order me a set in the next couple of weeks, just in time for winter to be over around here. Oh well. With these newly-added TL sway bars I am easily probing the limits of the tired (32,000-mile) stock Michelins (300 A A)....:yes:

Any negative effects on the speedo, etc?

I'm not familiar with the two tire sizes, but if you want to know the affect on the speedometer, use one of these websites...

http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculator.asp
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html

I had Michelin OEMs on my 04 Accord EX-L V6 and had to replace them around 38K. I've had Xs on my wife's Aerostar and on my Ranger, both from Sam's Club (only they sold that particular tire - no one else would work on them for free) and I got over 80K on the Aerostar but they dry rotted on my Ranger and I had to replace them to pass inspection. They had about 5/32 left. They were put on at 35K and I have 91K on the Ranger now. I replaced the Aerostar tires with Aquatred 3s (replaced by TriplTred) and have never had a tire improve handling as much.

On my Accord I got tired of the tires squealing going around corners with proper inflation. The on center feeling was also somewhat numb. I switched to Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge for handling because it was cheaper than the OEM Michelin and a good bit cheaper than the Pilot. Since then the on center numbness is less and the cornering has improved both in the lack of oversteer (pushing in NASCAR terms) and no squealing. They handle great in wet or dry conditions.

Michelin does make some good tires, but the OEMs I had weren't them.

I recently put a set of the MXV4 Primacy (replacement for the MXV4 Plus) on my SAAB 9-5 and they transformed the car. The road noise was cut in half along with an improvement in ride quality and handling is still very predictable. I'm very happy since it is my long trip road car and the feel at high cruise speeds is excellent. Will put a set on the Accord when the stock MXV4's wear out which will hopefully cut the noise a bit, and I will also go to 215/55-16 as I have on the SAAB - a bit nicer road feel, roughly same height.

Thread from the dead. Shouldn't there be a rule against resurrecting a one year old thread?

The Michelin's on the Accord ****, period. They are fine if you drive like an old person, but for any kind of spirited driving they stink. I thought they were okay too when I first got my Accord, but it got real old listening to them squeal out every time I launched hard. Things won't hook up worth a damn. Take a corner a little too fast and it's squeal city. Not only do they **** for performance driving, but they are the most plain, boring looking tire on the road. Not attractive in the least. And they're damn noisy over anything but glass smooth roads. I can't believe tire stores are asking $200 plus a wheel for these things. They're worth about half that.

Honda should have at least fitted the 6-speed Accords with a performance tire of some sort. Especially considering the 6-speed models are supposed to be for the enthusiast drivers. The Michelin's are a total contradiction to that.

Thread from the dead. Shouldn't there be a rule against resurrecting a one year old thread?


Me thinks it's much better than having a dozen threads on the exact same subject where many people say the same things over & over. It helps tremendously with searching as well.

my 07 i4 coupe came with bridgestone tires and imo i think they are pretty weak, my 96 camry handles better than my car... wtf?

Sorry, I will proably go with the Bridgestone 960 AS Pole Position or the Goodyear Eagle F-1. I also was told that the Michilen Exalto A/S was being discontinued. By the way are not the Exalto A/S an H rated tire? From my passed experience I replaced my Michelins on my 2004 with Bridgestone LSV (Another tire discontinued)

Sorry, I will proably go with the Bridgestone 960 AS Pole Position or the Goodyear Eagle F-1. I also was told that the Michilen Exalto A/S was being discontinued. By the way are not the Exalto A/S an H rated tire? From my passed experience I replaced my Michelins on my 2004 with Bridgestone LSV (Another tire discontinued)

The Exalto comes both H and V rated... depending on the size.
If you're talking about the OEM tire size, then it is H-rated.

The size and load index are more important than the speed rating when you're choosing a tire. The speed rating indicate the maximum speed that the tire was tested at. H-rated indicates 130 mph, while V-rated indicates 149 mph.

The top speed of the 7th-gen Accord I4 is 125 mph, while the V6 is 135 mph. Car manufacturers select tires that match the top speed of the vehicle. Unless you're driving at those speeds regularly, you'll have no problems using an H-rated tire. Plus, an H-rated tire will generally cost less and give you better all season traction.