anyone NOT like the stock tires?

[Quantos]

I can't say I've noticed the tires being horrible, personally. That said, my previous car wasn't much of a handler, so it's a bit hard to judge that side. However, there's not been a moment where I noticed something blatantly wrong with the tires. Now, I don't doubt that a run with better tires would convince me to get different tires!

Anyway, it's soon time for winter tires :D

[Seriously Focused]

Originally Posted by Quantos

I can't say I've noticed the tires being horrible, personally. That said, my previous car wasn't much of a handler, so it's a bit hard to judge that side. However, there's not been a moment where I noticed something blatantly wrong with the tires. Now, I don't doubt that a run with better tires would convince me to get different tires!

Anyway, it's soon time for winter tires :D

You are correct, there is nothing wrong with the OEM supplied 16" Continentals that came on these cars. Ford could have put the best tires on the planet on these cars and there would be a host of complaints on this forum about those too.

It's the same thing over on the F-150 forum :)

[NCFocus12]

I read about 3 pages of this thread, and don't have a need to read the other 7 pages, because the answer is as I suspected.

For those of you looking to swap, Michelin is the only tire worth spending your hard-earned dollar on. Anything else is a waste of money. I should know, I've owned a dozen brands on a dozen cars in 2 dozen years.

First, I've always been biased against Contis, as I've had bad experiences with them, on VWs and MBs. That said, so far, these are the best ones I've owned (17" ContiPro). I thought the hydroplaning was due to the fact that this is the lightest car I've owned in a decade, and am used to MBs in the past few years. Apparently not. So, yes, they get poor marks in wet driving, but they are fairly quiet and grippy (so far).

One thing I did notice is they have a TON of counterweights from the factory. Bad sign. Michelins tend to take less weight than any brand out there. I've run Primacy and Pilot Sport AS Plus (5 sets in total) for about 8 years, and both tires are the best money can buy. On 16s, I believe Primacy is your only choice, but if you're like me and have 17s, you should go with the Pilots. I have never gotten less than 35k of even wear out of a set.

It goes without saying, on a small FWD car, 35PSI all around (which, lo and behold, is what Ford recommends for the 17s at least) is ideal. If you're running anything else, if you're getting 7500 miles out of a set of tires, you're doing it wrong. Way wrong.

DOn't waste your time with Kuhmo or Falken (total garbage, might as well buy used donuts if you need to save that much money, because you'll be replacing them in 10k miles), don't waste your time on "wannabe" Bridgestones, because the Pilot AS plus is the tire the RE950 wishes it was.

If you appreciate VALUE, if you like to drive and ENJOY the car you've spent so much money buying, and if you don' want to visit the tire store every 15k, buy a set of top-line Michelins and be done with it.

[pablo94sc]

I prefer Bridgestone and Firestone tires, and they have served me extremely well on all of my high performance sports cars in the past. It really depends on the car and your driving style as to which tires will serve you best. For me, that's ultra-high and max performance summer tires as wet and dry performance trumps all. Bridgestone and Firestone seem to be the reigning champs on Tirerack and other review sites, and my experience mimics those reviews. YMMV, literally, and if you want a quieter or more comfortable tire that perform well, or more mileage for your money, then Michelin may work better for you.

[RonMaiden]

The Conti DWS is a big step up over the Conti Pros which it should be especially in dry grip predictability and they did quite well in the 32F temps and rainy,slushy stuff last night. Best all season I've driven on and I expect good wear from them and with a 50k treadwear warranty I'm not concerned.

[Fresh1]

Originally Posted by Seriously Focused

You are correct, there is nothing wrong with the OEM supplied 16" Continentals that came on these cars. Ford could have put the best tires on the planet on these cars and there would be a host of complaints on this forum about those too.

All I can say is this is my experience ...

I started to dislike driving my car because the 16" ContiProContact tires felt like hard basketballs. Hard and bouncy is great on the court ... but not for a comfortable drive in a car!

When I got the Nokians installed and drove away from the shop, the ride felt so 'cushy' that I thought the technician had inflated them to ONLY 20 psi by mistake!
After getting over the shock, I thought realistically maybe they were at 30 or 32 psi like what used to be recommended years ago ... so I went to inflate them at a gas station, and the tire guage read 35 psi!

And BTW, the Nokians are not soft winter tires. They have lower rolling resistance than many all-seasons (verified by independent testers like Consumer Reports), and they handle and corner almost exactly like the ContiProContacts - *without* the discomfort ...

[Fresh1]

Originally Posted by Seriously Focused

You are correct, there is nothing wrong with the OEM supplied 16" Continentals that came on these cars. Ford could have put the best tires on the planet on these cars and there would be a host of complaints on this forum about those too.

Just curious ... have you tried other tires on the Focus for comparison purposes? If so, what models (and sizes)? ...

[Fresh1]

Originally Posted by RonMaiden

The Conti DWS is a big step up over the Conti Pros which it should be especially in dry grip predictability and they did quite well in the 32F temps and rainy,slushy stuff last night. Best all season I've driven on and I expect good wear from them and with a 50k treadwear warranty I'm not concerned.

How do you find the DWS compared to the ContiProContact in terms of ride, handling, noise etc.? How long have you had the DWS, and did you stick with the same size? 16"? 17"? ...

[RonMaiden]

Originally Posted by Fresh1

How do you find the DWS compared to the ContiProContact in terms of ride, handling, noise etc.? How long have you had the DWS, and did you stick with the same size? 16"? 17"? ...

I've had them on since the very beginning of July @1200miles on the car and now I'm just over 5000 and in that time I've felt the ride is slightly firmer but more controlled and they absorb speed bumps much better than the bouncy feeling I got from the OEM Contis.
Dry grip is much better with the DWS and with predictable breakaway when pushed past their grip limit but I doubt your average driver will be punishing them on a regular basis and are a perfect compromise for my wife's more sedate driving,my agressive style and the cold and wet weather we get across the front range.
The DWS also has a nice rim protector which has alrady paid for it self when I was the first to touch a curb and even the tire showed no sign of my "oops".

So far I'm very happy with these tires.

[spazzboy]

I find that for general commuting purposes, the ContiProContact tire is fine.
I must say that I found the ride harsher on the SE with sports pkg and 16" rims. On my SEL with the same rims, I find it smoother.

This above observation has not been noted in all 12 pages so far, so I just wanted to add that.

Also, during take off, I can easily spin the tires. Not pleasant, but it just forces me to take it easy (and save on gas too).

I can say without a doubt that All Season tires are a compromise solution. I would prefer to have dedicated summer and winter rubber. In a couple of weeks, I will get some Toyo Observe winter rubber, and in the spring, I may go for the Continental ExtremeContact DW summer rubber. (I've had both on my 2001 BMW 740i, and they were flawless).

Continental, like every other manufacturer out there, makes tires for various applications. Find the one that suits you best, but please refrain from boycotting an entire brand based on one model.