So I've searched and gone through a few threads, including this heated one here.

From that, I know that two sets are better than one. I know that I won't get the best performance from any one set of tires. But, for a casual driver who's looking to just get best bang for buck, anyone have recommendations for 16"? We're up to 60k miles on our 2003 6s, and we've ran the original tires that came with it to the end of its life basically.

I'm looking for something with great traction in rain (will not hydroplane), and in dry conditions, it does its job. As far as snow, we don't drive in snow at all. The hills around our neighborhood makes it treacherous to even consider it.

A bunch of people like running the Goodyear Eagle GT. A good place for Portland/Seattle questions is mazdasnw.com

That was going to be my suggestion as well. I would also recommend looking at the Yokohama YK520 and the Falken 912. Let us know if we can help Dopke.

For Seattle? Where it rains 150 days or more per year, and very rarely snows? Surely, you are making a cruel joke. Like recommending roller skates for rock climbing.

Within the Discount Tire Direct inventory, a good recommendation for a tire suited for Seattle conditions would be the Falken FK 452 in the 225/55R16 size.

Actually, the 452 is an excellent tire but it's an ultra high performance summer tire. Both the YK520 and the Falken 912 are performance all season tires. These tires are better equipped everyday unpredictable seattle conditions due to the extra siping not found in UHP summer tires like the FK452.

The very worst tires for wet conditions are all-season tires, as shown in test after test. The siping is a band-aid to attempt to compensate for the inherent weakness of the chemical composition of the tread compounds of all-season tires which are formulated to retain water on the tread (in order to grant some snow traction), in contrast to the tread compounds of other tires which inherently shed water from the tread. On wet pavement, the FK 452 will stop several car lengths shorter from highway speeds than the 912 will.

Let me clarify. First, any tire can and will hydroplane at some point. If you don't want to hydroplane, slow down.

Here's some factual information you may find interesting about siping. Tire Siping

I base my recommendation on a number of things for the OP, rain being one of them. I considering His/Her wants, the miles they drive per year and the year round road conditions where they live. Seattle gets plenty of rain, some may say too much, they have plenty of days where temperatures fall below 45 degrees and they get freak weather bursts from the ocean to the west and mountains to the east almost daily. Seattle also has plenty of hills and uneven roads.

Based on the OP's diverse wants and number of miles he drives, I recommend an All Season but not just any all season. The two all season tires I recommend have wide circumferential groves for channeling water, nice siping for extra biting edges and excellent tread wear ratings for life. This combination of tread design and rubber compound would be a great balance for an everyday Seattle driver. (except in temps below 45 degrees) These two tires are also very comfortable on the road and were both designed with performance in mind.

Hydroplaning comprises a very small part of the obstacles to good wet traction. You are absolutely correct that the complete solution to hydroplaning is to slow down, but hydroplaning -- as commonly described -- is nonexistent when there is no standing water on (or flowing water running across) the pavement. But the traction of all season tires is significantly compromised even when there is no standing or flowing water on the pavement, when the road is just wet.


Having worked as a professional consultant to the tire industry for three and a half decades, I am well aware of the pluses (and minuses, also) of siping. Siping cannot completely make up for a bad tread compound.


Yes, the conditions in Seattle are very similar to the conditions in Portland (Oregon), where we have lived most of our lives. And if you consider the specific needs and desires of the OP, then maybe you should consider this that he wrote:



In that case, you owe it to yourself and to your customers to take the initiative to educate yourself further -- and not just by reading promotional materials of your employers or of the tire companies' advertising departments -- about the different properties of different kinds of tires; because the recommendation above is about the worst possible recommendation for conditions in Seattle.

I appreciate the recommendations on both ends and will do a little more hw on these tires and see what I come up with. And yes, when it snows, I don't drive at all.

So my question for Discount Direct Tire is, based on that, does posttosh's recommendation, Falken FK 452, make more sense for my case?

Also, back to the snow thing. As mentioned above, sometimes Seattle weather can be tricky-- for those days where you commute to work and nothing is happening, but while at work, it starts snowing. How will an all-season fair against the summer tire in that light snow, where it isn't packed in yet, and isn't ice, just basically cold temps with snow that quickly turns water on the ground.

In that specific situation, a car fitted with three-season tires will have almost zero motive traction, and will just sit there spinning its wheels, whereas a car fitted with all-season tires will have some motive traction. The all-season tire operates on the physical property of snow that it sticks together when compacted, and the all-season tire needs the sticking-together to work; if the substance on the ground will not make a snowball, at the very least a slushy snowball, then the advantage of the all-season tire is gone. The preceding two sentences are about "go," the ability to start the car moving and propel it forward; there also would be a slight difference, here much less of a difference, in the stopping performance between the two (assuming that the three-season tire has been made somehow to get the car moving) in light compactable snow, with the advantage to all-season tires; for adequate stopping in snow, both three season tires and all-season tires are contraindicated; you need winter tires. (You probably know all too well about the macho guys in their SUVs who bound about in the snow proclaiming that they have all-wheel-drive and can go anywhere, only to learn that all-wheel-drive contributes diddly-squat when the foot is on the brake pedal; the same principle pretty much applies to all-season tires.) When the pavement conditions turn to non-snow plain wet (i.e., you cannot make a snowball out of the stuff on the pavement) the advantage goes back to the three-season tire vs. the all-season tire; true winter tires are superior in cold wet, though they wear rapidly in moderate temperatures.

The two recommendations have their pros and cons. Neither will be an end all solution for you for year round driving. I think we are both in agreement that you need a set of winter tires. A lot of people think that you have to have snow or have to drive in physical snow to need a snow tire but the trueth is having snow is only part of the issue that causes lack of traction. Yes, an all season will do better than a summer tire in these conditions but it is no match for even a moderate winter tire. Temperature is the biggest thing. If you frequently drive in temperatures below 45 degrees you need a winter tire. In temperatures below 45 degrees all seasons and summer performance tires harden and significantly loose traction. The added siping of an all season can help give you some traction but it won't be enough.

My best recommendation for you would be to run two sets. Invest in a set of winter tires or a winter wheel and tire package (a package may save you some labor costs in the long run) for the winter months and second set of tires with wide groves for the rest of the year. The Falken 452 may be a good option for you, the new Hankook Evo 12 and the Goodyear GSD3 are all great options to consider.

Agree with having two sets, but not necessarily the choices. I've worn out more than a few sets of tires over the years and for winter ice/snow I recommend the Bridgestone Blizzak and for summer the Dunlop Z1 Star Spec or Hankook R-S3. As always, YMMV

posttosh and Discount Tire, you guys make it sound like the OP could die if he doesn't do what you say.

I've run Kumho Ecsta SPT's for the past two years (year round) in Portland and I haven't had a single issue. The first year was on my prior Mazda6s and this current year was on my Mazdaspeed6. When it snowed I just stayed at home. Just like the OP, this car is my daily driver and I don't drive on the street like I would on the track. There are times when I drive more aggressively, such as when I'm on the twist hill/mountain roads, but even then these tires have been fine.

Common sense says that when it's raining or cold and dry, that I just dial it back a notch, but the Mazda6 is good at giving feedback to the driver.

Now, what you buy also depends on your budget. If you can afford to buy two sets of tires, the SPT is a very good inexpensive tire for the spring/summer/fall and the Blizzak would be good for the winter. If you only have the budget for one set of tires, you can either do what I currently do and run SPT's year round and stay home in the snow, or get a good all season tire such as the Goodyear Eagle GT.

Or somebody else that he ran into because he could not stop in time. Death does happen as a result of misestimates of tires' capabilities: (overconfidence in all season tires' traction in snow leads to death, clickable link),




Living in the same city, we take the same approach. Given the infrequency of snow here in Portland (and in Seattle) -- the freakish December 2008 weather to the contrary notwithstanding -- maintaining a set of winter tires does not pencil out economically, and we leave our car in the garage on snowy days. And we leave it there not only because we do not have winter tires fitted: on snowy days we see a lot of drivers out on the road who have drunk the "all season" Kool-Aid and think that they have adequate traction when they do not. On our hill, we see at least one bashed-in vehicle per block -- often more -- by noon on any day that dawns with snow; many of those dented cars were just innocent bystanders, standing still at a stop sign or parked when they were run into by drivers who overestimated their vehicles' stopping capability.


That is where we disagree, due to the oxymoronic nature of the premise.

I mentioned "common sense". Stupid people will do stupid things, not to mention you quoted isolated incidents that are by no means the norm.

1) Lady talking on her cell phone on a bridge (which is typically the iciest during a winter event) while driving a craptastic Isuzu Rodeo.

2) CNET editor (tech/gadget review web site) gets lost when trying to drive over the Oregon coast range in the winter. He somehow drove off the highway, down a closed forest service road (where was his GPS and paper maps on a road trip?) in a Saab 9-2x "Saabaru" wagon (Impreza/WRX in Saab clothing). That wagon has AWD and not 4WD high or low, and the best winter tires couldn't have helped out. Hell, there's a good chance that most 4WD vehicles would have gotten stuck in that situation.

3) People who drink the Kool-Aid about "all-season" giving adequate traction to drive normally in the snow would most likely be the same ones who think that AWD/4WD and/or snow tires will let them drive like Lewis Hamilton in the snow.

4) Don't manipulating my words. I said the Goodyear Eagle GT is a good all season tire, which means it is a good all season tire. It has more than adequate dry and wet traction (meaning it's not unsafe) and can get a driver home in light snow assuming the driver uses common sense.

It seems like although all of the suggestions might carry some merit, if you dont drive like an asshole you're practically safe from incident.

I agree, but in Portland/Seattle, even with snow tires, it's best to stay home on snow days unless you have to drive due to idiots without common sense that may hit your car. I prefer to stay home either way, hence why I run summer tires year round.

Greg, Ive lived in a few places with horrible icey and snowy winters and have never had an issue. There is no measurement for the 'other person' variable but I dont lock myself away because of it, here in NJ we get feet of snow, same in Michigan and other places. I had the blizzaks on my speed6 and they helped a lot, never had issues with slippage etc... but I kept my all-seasons on my 6s and never had an issue either.

I equate the 'other person' variable to everything in life, you never know what the other guy is doing or thinking in any matter whether you're crossing the street or driving your car, so its an accepted variable regardless of the conditions.

I'll also add that the 'other person' variable happens REGARDLESS of whether or not they're driving on all-seasons, winter, or summer tires.

Proof? The fact that 90% of all vehicles on the road here in Upstate NY are on all-seasons year-round, and it's not a 250-car pile-up/bloodbath on the highways EVERY time it rains or snows...

Exactly, because those drivers are used to driving in snow/ice and have more common sense than Portland/Seattle drivers, many of whom are California transplants who struggle in the rain.

That echoes a certain sadness.

Edited for TRUTH

Haha, we've joked about this before. San Jose in the rain is full of fail drivers.

We don't get much practice out here. Drought, FTMFW.

A sea of Camry and Sienna minivan drivers with a cell phone and driving blinders FTMFL.

= bad here in Phoenix. It's ridiculous how many accidents happen here when it rains.

I lived in Florida for 18 years and it isn't any better where it actually does rain on a frequent basis.

People are fucking stupid no matter where you go nor what weather you're driving in.

FWIW, the article stated plainly that it was a hands-free cell phone, and, as you know, March 27 here in Portland is not winter. I assume, as you do, that the woman was an idiot. It is a given that her Isuzu Rodeo was fitted with all season tires; they all are.


And I called that an oxymoron, because, however the Goodyear Eagle GT may rank within the category of all season tires, the phrase "good all season tire" is a phrase similar to "excellent Isuzu Rodeo."


Exactly as an "excellent Isuzu Rodeo" can.

If you agree that she was probably being an idiot, then why did you originally try blaming it on an all-season tire?

The Goodyear Eagle GT is a good all season tire. The stock Michelin tires on the regular Mazda6 is a shitty all season tire. Saying "excellent Isuzu Rodeo" isn't the same example as "good all season tire". I think you meant to say the Isuzu Rodeo is an "excellent SUV", however that would be grossly incorrect, as there's plenty evidence to prove otherwise. Now, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the Goodyear Eagle GT is a "good all season tire" in that segment and plenty good to be a good daily driver.

Do you work for a national tire retailer or a manufacturer of tires?

I am independent.


You have misread.

Like I said, I do not plan on running 2 sets of tires. I have driven our Mazda6s since 2003 on the same set of tires up to this point (and I just checked, it's at about 55,000 miles, not 60,000). These same set of Michelin all-season tires (that some of you say are not that great at all) have gotten me zero accidents in rain, shine, and even a few days of snow where we got caught with our pants down.

ooooohh! Frostbite in the wrong places!

LOL. That taint good to have.

But seriously, it is in the nature of safety systems that you hope that you never need to use them. We have been fastening our seat belts every time we get into the car since before the use of seat belts became mandatory decades ago, but so far we have never had to "use" the seat belts to save us from flying into the windshield -- thankfully; similarly, we test the smoke detectors in our house regularly, and change the smoke detector batteries at least once a year, but none of our smoke detectors has ever been called into duty for the purpose that we installed them -- that's a good situation. The extra margin of safety in being able to stop in an emergency two or three car lengths shorter on wet pavement from 55 mph may never be needed, but -- if you ever need it -- don't you want the capability?

Actually dynamic hydroplaning is non existent with no standing water. Viscous hydroplaning on the other hand can (and does) occur on 'wet' road surfaces (water film .01-.1mm (thickness of film is less then height of asperity peaks of road surface)) and does constitute a significant obstacle to 'good' wet friction coefficients for all types of tires (major reason why overall wet friction levels are lower than dry).

As far as all seasons not braking as well as summer tires, I have never seen any data from a peer reviewed source to indicate that 'all seasons' cannot compete with 'summer' tires in terms of wet braking.

I’ve compiled all the tires for the mazda 6 test data available in 215/50 R17 UTQG 550 and down from tire rack and plotted tread wear against braking distance while grouping 'all-seasons' and 'summer' tires into their respective groups. I took the mean average of each test.

The results are similar for lateral force (skid pad).

Unless the testing done at tire rack is severely flawed this should be a pretty good indication that good passenger all seasons develop wet fiction coefficients that are comparable to passenger summer tires. You can see that what one doesnt ‘lose’ wet friction, one loses dry friction. In fact if these tests were conducted at near freezing I would not be surprised to see the all-seasons ahead of the summer compounds in the wet and significant gains in the dry tests.

Its also interesting to note that the hydrophilic tire compounds used on all seasons and winter tires, which you seem to think hurts wet friction coef., are in fact used in many wet only racing tires and summer tires (the primary filler that is added is usually some type of silica). The reasons for why silica helps wet braking on passenger cars are many and complex but there is a lot of research literature on the topic. Some of the reasons are thing like the high complex modulus of silica (much higher than carbon black rubber) is known to reduce micro water film thickness which reduces viscous hydroplaning and at the same time increases the ‘dry’contact zone of the tire. It is also known that increasing hysteresis of the tire at high frequencies (which silica filler does) improves wet friction coef. There are a lot of other reasons.


I find that extremely unlikely since the mazda6 is approximately 16ft in length and the best to worst wet braking distance tests shown above is approximately 20ft, with the majority within 10ft.


Actually the all season will probably still have a large advantage in both acceleration and deceleration for a number of reasons. For one the void ratio on all seasons treads tend to be significantly larger than summer tires which means that the all seasons is much more likely to make contact with the road surface than the summer tire (more volume for the snow to displace to and also higher pressure a unit area ‘drives’ the tread deeper and places more load onto the road surface than the snow). The tread geometries on all seasons also tend to be non-circumferential which would aid in displacing the snow out of the contact patch when the tire is slipping. Also because the situation is not static, some energy will transfer to the snow as heat and will change the properties of the snow in favor of the all season.


Actually this depends on the AWD system; some setups increase stability under braking.


In michigan.. it snows a lot and we have a lot of hills and yet we don't experience the dramatic world-is-going-to-end driving experience you are describing with all seasons (vast majority of people drive all seasons here). The situation you are describing is due to bad drivers (inexperience in snow) and not all-season tires.

Now why would you post something like that in a tire thread? It's simply too intelligent and truthful to be included...

I cannot argue with your point, and so I'll simply say, you're most likely right. While we can never put a price on safety and our lives, I believe finding a reasonable tire for year-round use is an acceptable price for me to pay. Although I am on this forum, I am by no means a huge car enthusiast, nor any kind of tire expert. I simply come on here to get a slightly better idea of what's "good" out there, rather than going to my nearest local tire dealer and just taking their first recommendation as my next set of tires. And, I hope I have achieved this at the very least. The fact that I felt the urge to ask you tire experts on here should at least give off an impression that I do care about the extra margin of safety I may gain from one set of tire to another. But it's all relative- from what I see/read, any of the tires recommended here are a step up from the OEM Michelins on the 03 Mazda 6s, and that was my goal.

I believe I will be going with the Goodyear Eagle GT. Thanks for your input, everyone.

You may want to look at the Michelins again. Your original tires, which you don't name, may not be representative of current production. A recent Car & Driver test of winter tires looked at four Michelins: two all-season, one winter performance, and one dedicated snow tire. Very interesting results regarding the last generation OEM tires on the Mazda 6, up to the 2009 redesign of the car. The HX MXM4 did very well in the wet, which I cannot argue with.

It's actually rainier here in Pittsburgh than Seattle, and we have hills galore. My 17" MXM4 were excellent in the wet, but not good enough for me in the snow.

The thing is, the tires that come on the 6 as OEM are almost certainly not the same tires that scored very well. They do make a similar tire with a similar name, the MXV4 which is a tire that is leaps and bounds better. I never had any real complaints with the stock tires for what they were, but pretty much any tire represents an upgrade.

My OEM tires on my 2008 Mazda 6i Touring were the Pilot HX MXM4. The tires tested by Car & Driver were exactly the same tires, the Pilot HX MXM4. Same name, same tire pattern, same tires. These were/are also OEM tires on many similar cars. Mine were OK, but lasted only 27,000 miles (I think PA roads are very abrasive). I thought they were not very good in snow, but were fine for OEM all-season in the dry and wet conditions. But I just got a set of Michelin Pilot Alpin PA3 winter performance tires. In the dry and wet, I like them better than the MXM4. Quieter, smoother riding, superb steering feel, and great grip in the dry; at least as good as the MXM4 in the wet, and probably better (although we haven't had downpours yet, the new PA3 was far better than my worn MXM4 in light rain; the MXM4 wore rapidly and lost wet weather performance as they wore down). We've not had any snow yet, but when it was in the high 30 and low 40 degree range last month, the PA3 were really, really great on dry and wet roads. Pretty much what C & D reported, and for highway winter driving at high speed they're better than the X-Ice (we don't get deep sustained snow here, but plenty of snow showers). The PA3 are super for high speed highway driving in cool/cold weather. But I have learned the benefits of a set of winter tires from having two sets of Blizzaks on my other car, and will get a set of dedicated summer tires this spring, on new rims.

I was surprised at the MXM4 showing in the C & D test. They compared them to the Pilot Sport A/S, the Pilot Alpin PA3, and the X-Ice Xi2.



Michelin & Tire Rack has these listed. My understanding of the names is that the "Energy" are low rolling resistance tires for mileage, the "Pilot" are the performance tires for handling, and the "Primacy" are touring tires for comfort. The Primacy HX MXM4 tires have different tread patterns and are totally different tires; you may be thinking of those.

Energy MXV4 Plus
Energy MXV4 S8

Pilot HX MXM4
Pilot HX MXM4 ZP

Primacy MXM4
Primacy MXV4

The MXM4 tires that came stock on my old 6s were garbage in dry and wet.

I believe they are the Pilot MXM4.

If they were, and they didn't perform well for you, then forget what I said about the C&D test and look for something else.