[TSiWRX]

Throughout the day I kept looking at tires on SUVs just to see what other people in my area bought. While I saw a wide range of tires, I did see more SUVs using Primacy Touring. Not one person in my area used CC2. I think I'll go with the locals and get the Primacy. Thanks for everyone's feed back!

That's likely because the CC2 isn't an OE application, whereas the Primacy Tour A/S happens to be OE for several different manufacturers/vehicles.

It's like looking at every Ascent's tires you can find in your area: the vast majority will be the Falken ZIEX ZE001 A/S.

 

[TSiWRX]

I had the Primacy tire on our 300S AWD in 2017. While they were better than the OEM Falken in snow..I am certainly hoping for better than them with the CC2s next month when the snow starts up.

Your '17 300S AWD was fitted, OE, with the Falken ZIEX ZE001 A/S ?

 

[TSiWRX]

^ Ah, I just wanted to clarify the vehicle fitment.

The problem with cross-vehicle comparisons is that there's often noticeable -and more importantly, quantifiable- differences in the performance of the tires, based on differences in the vehicle on which they are tested as well as the specifics of the fitment.

In the late-90s to early-oughts, overseas testers were among the first to quantify these differences, after which they started to get really specific when they published tire tests: detailing not only the actual sizing/fitment tested but also the vehicle to which the tires were shod during the comparisons.

Personally, while my driving skills fall far below that of any such test-driver and my impressions are further compounded by both the lack of objective instrumentation as well as consistency-in-testing-conditions, my impressions from cross-fitting the same tire/wheel setup from my wife's '05 WRX 4AT to my '05 Legacy 2.5GT 5MT (highlighting transmissions because with Subarus, there's mechanical drivetrain differences in the AWD system based on not just vehicle model, but also transmission type) and my wife's '09 Forester XT (cross-tested with the Legacy only, as that XT and that WRX did not co-exist in our garage), as well as my '13 Tribeca when compared to my '16 Outback (this one's comparison was less biased versus the XT-comparison, as my possession of these two vehicles were separated only minimally in time, with the lease-cycle actually having been due up during our winter months, so the vehicles were fitted nearly simultaneously with my winter setup at the time).

Despite holding wheel specs and tire specs the same each time (I did not make suspension adjustments, although the Legacy's setup changed three times within the 7-year period that I had her, spanning 5 different sets of tires), there were noticeable (but again, I will highlight that I did not take the time to quantify these differences, nor was my driving performed in controlled scenarios suitable for a true comparison) simple objective performance differences (straight-line braking/acceleration in wintry weather as well as in the clear) as well as easily noticeable differences in vehicle NVH. I was able to cross-sample factory OE as well as aftermarket UHPAS, Max Performance Summer, Performance Winter, Studless Ice & Snow, as well as studded winters through these comparisons.

Overall, my humble opinion -based both on my limited personal experience as well as the reasons that various testing authorities have stated towards the subject- is to avoid cross-vehicle and/or cross-fitment comparisons whenever possible as it introduces into the equation too many unknowns.

On the flip side, achieving this ideal may not always be possible. It's a rare day when the vehicle/fitment details match exactly - but still, I try to start my research for my own purchases with same-vehicle-type (i.e. SUV, high-performance sports car, family sedan, sub-compact, etc.) and drivetrain in-mind. From there, I'll hope to see similar fitments (or try to understand what the fitment differences may imply - i.e. different sidewall heights, footprint differences, etc.).

In the end, in terms of the real-world, most times all that we can do is to call upon our past experiences, even if they are mismatched with respect to vehicle-type or fitment. But when I do, I really try to make a note of that in my mind, so that I can tell myself that hey, I might not get exactly what I had thought I'd be getting. 😅

 

[TSiWRX]

I aim to please.

 

[TSiWRX]

Edit: uh oh, just noticed BJs has Michelin CC2s. Everyone seems to love them but I’m worried about road noise with that tread pattern.

NVH is highly subjective, based on the particular sensitivities of every unique individual. This is why you'll see some who have posted that they do hear more - while others proclaim that they're whisper-quiet. No-one is lying: it's just that different people perceive these things differently.

To illustrate this point, my wife sometimes proclaims that my breathing bothers her. Those of you reading the thread not yet married probably have not noticed (yet) your significant other's annoying intake of life-giving oxygen and exhalation of deadly carbon dioxide, but rest assured that such a day will come. Anyway, she hated my modified 2005 Legacy (mainly because it had a 5MT that I skilllessly rowed and pretended to be good at, but also for a host of other reasons) - so much so that one day, while riding in it, she accused me of having changed the tires (yet again: I had 5 sets of tires on that car in the span of 7 years) and made the ride rougher and louder, even though I had not. On the flip side, we took a CLE-to-DC trip a few years ago in my Outback, shod in studded tires: she didn't complain. Similarly, we traveled extensively this past summer in my '21 Touring, shod with the noticeably-louder-than-stock Falken Wildpeaks...again, not a peep.

This is further compounded by the fact that certain NVH factors are either enhanced or muted due to vehicle-to-vehicle variances in how NVH isolation are addressed. Even when the same make/model is seen in reviews and even when objective data is available, keep in mind that even small differences between unique vehicles (perhaps yours is better sealed in one area or perhaps the test vehicle has an unseen defect) can cause some variability.

My example-from-personal-experience here is that as I have noted elsewhere in these Forums, I have at times been able to cross-fit the same wheel-tire combos from one of our Subarus to another (we're a leasing family, and we're currently on our 12th Subaru since 2005). The same tire -same fitment, at the same inflation pressure and even mounted on the same wheels- fitted to one vehicle can produce significantly more noise in one vehicle than another: the Falken ZIEX ZE-512s fitted to my '05 Legacy were practically silent versus when fitted to my wife's '05 WRX.

Finally, the on-road habits of those in the vehicle can affect perceptions, too. Those who cruise with the windows open or listen to music/programming at higher volumes (or simply have a cabin-full of joyfully [or otherwise] screaming kids 😅 ) may not perceive some differences even as their "last mile" is free of such noises.

We put a set of CC2s on my daughter's '19 Legacy a bit over a year ago as her 3-seasons tire (she's on Michelin X-Ice Snows for the winter).

She drives extensively during the school-week, managing an hour commute from the suburbs to downtown to row, through some of the most pothole-ravaged streets that CLE-proper has to offer. 🤪 An atypical teen, she doesn't listen to her music at eardrum popping levels - however, with the roads being as rough as they are, tire-noise just isn't a thing. Sure, on some of the just-repaved/renewed roads in the suburbs, if we're going at just the right speed and not listening to music, yes, the CC2s are louder, but that's honestly not a realistic scenario in our lives.

Sadly, because of the subjective "I feel" unique-individual assessments that are part-and-parcel to this kind of evaluation as well as the fact that there are vehicle-to-vehicle differences, it's virtually impossible for any one of us to come to a definitive conclusion when NVH is being addressed. The best that you can do is to screen reviews for those who drive the same vehicle as you do, and hope that an acquaintance or friend -anyone- who may have the same setup in the same vehicle can offer you a ride-along for an in-person assessment.

 

[TSiWRX]

Are they quieter than the OEM factory tires?

^ well......... --->

NVH is highly subjective, based on the particular sensitivities of every unique individual. This is why you'll see some who have posted that they do hear more - while others proclaim that they're whisper-quiet. No-one is lying: it's just that different people perceive these things differently.

To illustrate this point, my wife sometimes proclaims that my breathing bothers her. Those of you reading the thread not yet married probably have not noticed (yet) your significant other's annoying intake of life-giving oxygen and exhalation of deadly carbon dioxide, but rest assured that such a day will come. Anyway, she hated my modified 2005 Legacy (mainly because it had a 5MT that I skilllessly rowed and pretended to be good at, but also for a host of other reasons) - so much so that one day, while riding in it, she accused me of having changed the tires (yet again: I had 5 sets of tires on that car in the span of 7 years) and made the ride rougher and louder, even though I had not. On the flip side, we took a CLE-to-DC trip a few years ago in my Outback, shod in studded tires: she didn't complain. Similarly, we traveled extensively this past summer in my '21 Touring, shod with the noticeably-louder-than-stock Falken Wildpeaks...again, not a peep.

This is further compounded by the fact that certain NVH factors are either enhanced or muted due to vehicle-to-vehicle variances in how NVH isolation are addressed. Even when the same make/model is seen in reviews and even when objective data is available, keep in mind that even small differences between unique vehicles (perhaps yours is better sealed in one area or perhaps the test vehicle has an unseen defect) can cause some variability.

My example-from-personal-experience here is that as I have noted elsewhere in these Forums, I have at times been able to cross-fit the same wheel-tire combos from one of our Subarus to another (we're a leasing family, and we're currently on our 12th Subaru since 2005). The same tire -same fitment, at the same inflation pressure and even mounted on the same wheels- fitted to one vehicle can produce significantly more noise in one vehicle than another: the Falken ZIEX ZE-512s fitted to my '05 Legacy were practically silent versus when fitted to my wife's '05 WRX.

Finally, the on-road habits of those in the vehicle can affect perceptions, too. Those who cruise with the windows open or listen to music/programming at higher volumes (or simply have a cabin-full of joyfully [or otherwise] screaming kids 😅 ) may not perceive some differences even as their "last mile" is free of such noises.

We put a set of CC2s on my daughter's '19 Legacy a bit over a year ago as her 3-seasons tire (she's on Michelin X-Ice Snows for the winter).

View attachment 22723

She drives extensively during the school-week, managing an hour commute from the suburbs to downtown to row, through some of the most pothole-ravaged streets that CLE-proper has to offer. 🤪 An atypical teen, she doesn't listen to her music at eardrum popping levels - however, with the roads being as rough as they are, tire-noise just isn't a thing. Sure, on some of the just-repaved/renewed roads in the suburbs, if we're going at just the right speed and not listening to music, yes, the CC2s are louder, but that's honestly not a realistic scenario in our lives.

Sadly, because of the subjective "I feel" unique-individual assessments that are part-and-parcel to this kind of evaluation as well as the fact that there are vehicle-to-vehicle differences, it's virtually impossible for any one of us to come to a definitive conclusion when NVH is being addressed. The best that you can do is to screen reviews for those who drive the same vehicle as you do, and hope that an acquaintance or friend -anyone- who may have the same setup in the same vehicle can offer you a ride-along for an in-person assessment.

 

[TSiWRX]

I'd be curious to know how metering equipment measures the disparity found here on noise? I think the tire (CC2) rides a tad rougher, but is distinctly quieter. My wife thought the same.

Absolute cabin noise can be measured, but my humble two cents is that any objective difference is only half the story. The other half of the problem is person-to-person differences in how we pick up various NVH factors - I detest cabin resonance, my wife is bothered by sounds at the lower frequency ranges, while my daughter is bothered by higher frequency noises.

And towards that individualized perception of things, we also have to factor in what we're willing to simply overlook. This can come in the form of being prejudiced/having preconceived notions of something supposing to be one way or another: colored perhaps by what we might read or hear (turn back the clock to when Michelin introduced the X-ICE Xi2 here in North America, and you'll see that virtually every consumer survey "review" of that tire on Tire Rack was bad - fast forward a month, after the first objective test scores came out overseas and it was clear that the Xi2s were just heads-and-shoulders above everything else at the time, and almost instantaneously those same consumer reviews started being stellar) - all the way to simply voluntarily deciding not to pay attention to what's actually there (like my wife during her test-drive of the VA-chassis WRX: the factory exhaust drones a bit at around 25 to 35 MPH and she immediately said that it bothered her, which was a huge problem, as it's almost all 25 and 35 MPH PSLs around us, locally - but she decided that she loved the car so much, that she was just going to not pay any attention to it 🤪).

I'm a nerdy benchtop basic scientist by trade, so I tend to approach pretty much everything by looking at both the positives and negatives, and I try to be objective...or at least put forward my personal biases. 😅

-----

Being a dedicated snow tire guy since 1994, I'm looking forward to trying the CC2s out in the snow. Last year we had a 2 footer in mid October that the poorly shod (OEM) Ascent got stuck in. I will say this forum was my exposure to a new hybrid type of tire that will hopefully cover the 8-10 weeks (100") of snow we see before we leave after Christmas.

Modern "All Weather" tires truly are a wonderful compromise. Michelin, however, doesn't use this description for any of their tires, and instead prefers to simply lump the CC2s under their "All Season" category. However, they do highlight the fact that it carries the 3PMSF designation. So even though Michelin doesn't play that "All Weather" game, it's really pretty much what the CC2s happen to be.

Just remember to temper your expectations with what the 3PMSF designation actually tests for: it's for straight line acceleration in "medium packed" snow only. Braking and turning are not measured. Nor is any type of ice traction.

The General Altimax has also been mentioned above. I had the first iteration of them back around 2008 when they were rebranded here from Norway or Sweden? They weren't close to Blizzaks, but worked well enough in snow and wore like iron.

Yup, they were -and are still- the Gislaved NordFrost variants. There's speculations about its precise compounding, but overall, it's virtually impossible to not see the similarities between the tires on a gross scale.

Generally, "studdable" winters will offer longer treadwear versus comparable "Studless Ice & Snow" tires as the need to physically support studding requires a heartier compounding. That said, the way studded tires and "Studless Ice & Snows" attack the ice-traction equation is itself different, with comparable-quality studded tires actually offering better ice traction on the warmer end of the temperature scale, while "Studless Ice & Snows" offer traction on ice as temperatures drop even colder (think of this as the ice being so cold that studs start to have trouble actually "chipping in," and instead the softer compound of the "Studless Ice & Snows" continuing to be pliable at such temperature extremes, allowing the "micro" aspects of the tread design to whisk-away the water evolved at the contact patch [with ice, free of any water at the contact surface, offering nearly the same coefficient-of-friction as concrete]). So it's not surprising that you -and so many others- report such excellent treadwear longevity from the Altimax Arctics.

 

[TSiWRX]

^ It's interesting to see the tire makers going back to the "V" shaped tread, after all this time from the Goodyear Aquatread, and are targeting specifically to be a more light-winter-capable "All Weather/All Season" goal.

It's too bad there's not been more testing about these newer V-treaded tires. The Bridgestone Touranza AS6, the WeatherActive, and the now venerable CC2 would make for an interesting shootout.

 

[TSiWRX]

According to Tirerack, nothing appears to beat the CC2. Now, with that being said, the Pirelli Weather Active and Goodyear Aquatread were not listed. The Goodyear Assurance Weather Ready were. The Pirelli looks like a nice tire. However, based on its tread pattern, I'd bet money the CC2 would outperform it but it would be close IMPO. The General RT45 is a very good tire, it just cannot compare to the CC2 at all.

Have the Auqatreads been revived? I thought they went the way of the do-do somewhere in the 2000-2002 years, domestically to North America?

----

I agree - It'll be interesting to see what happens with the CC2 as they evolve for the next season. This season, there are already tires -including with traditional tread-patterns- that are knocking it off the tip of the pyramid, if not even further back. It'll be interesting to see if Michelin responds immediately, or waits another season or half-season to do so, given the fact that it's still typically a top-tier finisher, or otherwise edges the competition based on overall performance.

 

[TSiWRX]

^ Ah, gotcha.

I remember the Aquatread from when I first started driving, back in the early 90s. This blog (not mine) traces its history and marketing pretty reasonably, I thought:

Goodyear’s Aquatred Tire

Goodyear’s Aquatred Tire Introduction This case study tends to look into Goodyear’s past and future achievements, particularly directi...

rudiana-marketingplan.blogspot.com

To the best of my knowledge, the line was discontinued in the early oughts with, I believe, the Aquatread 3. During the peak of the Aquatread fever, there were shoes that carried that sole design, licensed through Goodyear.

I'm a quantitative data kind of guy 😅 - but what I have trouble with is three-fold:

• That a lot of the European/Scandinavian testing use domestic-market offerings that are not available here.
• That even if we do get those top-tested tires here, it's often lagging by one (more currently) or more seasons (in the past), and furthermore, we are not privy to nor assured of potential updates in "micro" changes, such as compounding updates.
• And, of-course, the catch-all: that it's far from unheard of that even top-tier manufacturers may "cheat" to varying degrees driven precisely by the fact that so many enthusiasts world-wide are so fixated on test results (I do confess that I fall prey to this weakness, myself 🤪; and this data-worship is in stark contrast to what one of Continental's higher ups let-slip one day, that North American consumers seem less concerned about quantifiable data, and instead are more easily lured by marketing and how they "feel" about certain tires/brads, implying that, quite literally, we are too dumb to know better.....).

Alas, it's not easy being even an "educated" shopper!