[hokiefyd]

We had pretty good experience with the Falkens at about 7/32" of tread last winter, in up to 6-8" of snow. I think their performance was probably propped up by Subaru's excellent AWD system. I couldn't seem to get the car stuck (on reasonably deep snow) and couldn't spin it out, even when trying. All weather tires will almost certainly be an upgrade, but the Falkens, especially when new, did pretty well for us.

 

[Steve70]

It's not a great snow/winter tire by its nature of being an "all season" rather than an "all weather" tire. Brand new it's probably "ok" for non-extreme winter conditions, but the colder and snowier it is, the less effective they will be.

Agree, but why wouldn't Subaru put a little better snow all season tire on a product that only comes in AWD? You don't really need AWD unless you live where it snows or you want do a little off roading. Our Ridgelines came OEM with Michelin LTX tires in 2009 and the next one with Firestone Destination LE2s in 2017. Both would appear to be a little better in snow than the Falken. I might add the LTX was the better of the two, but when they got to 6-7 32nds and about 30,000 miles it was time for Blizzaks in the winter.

I'm quite interested to try these out for steering and stopping which are the most important attributes of snow going safety. I'm also looking forward to the Subaru AWD system compared to others we've had. I'll add that by the time we leave here in very early January, we'll have had somewhere in the 100" to 120" range of snow. A 12" snow drop here is considered a dusting

 

[Jim_in_PA]

Agree, but why wouldn't Subaru put a little better snow all season tire on a product that only comes in AWD?

Because they are the same as any other vehicle manufacturer...they choose the OEM tires for a variety of reasons that are "middle of the road" including driving comfort and fleet cost. All Weather tires instead of average All Season tires would raise cost substantially for any vehicle manufacturer. AWD is also not specifically for winter driving. It's also excellent for wet conditions, non-paved travel and so much more. For the record, folks have similar complaints with OEM tires on Jeeps and other "capable" rides...it's the way the industry works.

I'm a fan of the LTXs, BTW...surprised they were OEM on those vehicles. I've only seen them OEM on F150, but I don't pay much attention to that, either.

 

[hokiefyd]

The 2006-2014 Ridgeline had a specific version of the original LTX M/S as OE tires and they were excellent tires, by far the best OE tires I've ever encountered. They lasted 80-100k miles for many people. Our 2009 Ridgeline had its original LTXes replaced at about 85k (with the same) and the replacements were on track to last about the same, but I replaced them early due to sidewall rot (truck was originally from AZ). I replaced them with Defender LTX M/Ses and wear rate is on track for at least 80k miles. I'd probably use the Defender LTX M/S on our Ascent it was available in the 245/50R20 size.

 

[Steve70]

Because they are the same as any other vehicle manufacturer...they choose the OEM tires for a variety of reasons that are "middle of the road" including driving comfort and fleet cost. All Weather tires instead of average All Season tires would raise cost substantially for any vehicle manufacturer. AWD is also not specifically for winter driving. It's also excellent for wet conditions, non-paved travel and so much more. For the record, folks have similar complaints with OEM tires on Jeeps and other "capable" rides...it's the way the industry works.

I'm a fan of the LTXs, BTW...surprised they were OEM on those vehicles. I've only seen them OEM on F150, but I don't pay much attention to that, either.

I respect your take, but think they could have done a little better. A quick look shows the Destination LE3 tire is $25 bucks less with almost twice th treadwear rating. I'm sure the manufacturer's wholesale pen could be just as sharp with a little better tire.

You are absolutely correct about wet running being a big plus for AWD. My mistake. Back in the late 90s when I was buying Big 3 trucks, GMC came out with a Auto 4WD drive button option. It allowed you to use 4WD for wet conditions without damage to the system. I switched from having had three Dodge pick ups in a row to the GMC for this reason only. My daily work commute routinely went from one climate system to another over the 80 mile commute

That said, let's see what winter brings in the handling department. I may be speaking out of turn with my opinion before the rubber meets the snow A friend from here that bought an Ascent a couple years ago automatically just bought a winter tire/wheel package (Blizzaks) which I have also done several times over the years

 

[hokiefyd]

The retail price of any given tire is likely not a good indicator of its contract cost to a vehicle manufacturer. Our Falken Ziex ZE001 tires are not generally sold as aftermarket tires and they're generally not part of Falken's retail distribution network. I think those factors probably drive the price of our Falken tires up in the retail market. Yes, it is possible to buy them, but their price isn't very competitive with other offerings. Subaru very likely doesn't pay NEAR what we would pay for these tires, shipped directly to their manufacturing facilities.

Additionally, Subaru, as an Asian brand, has established relationships with Asian suppliers. Falken and Yokohama are examples of that. Many Subaru models right now come with either of these two brands and it's likely they have very good (even loss leading, perhaps) pricing...perhaps pricing that a brand like Firestone or Goodyear may not have a lot of interest in trying to match or beat, given their otherwise very strong market position with their other OEM customers (Ford, GM, etc.) and their very strong aftermarket business in North America.

I don't at all disagree that a better tire is out there -- even one potentially available at similar contract pricing to what Falken is giving Subaru on these. I'm just saying that I imagine that industry is a fair bit more nuanced than meets the eye, and there are likely a lot of factors that contributed to Subaru's choosing of the specific tire they did.

 

[Jim_in_PA]

BTW, Steve, I'd have the LTX on my Ascent "as we speak" if it was available in 245/50R20...but alas, it is not.

 

[Steve70]

Just for the heck of it @hokiefyd I checked Tirerack to see if Subaru any used any other brands for their OEM tire. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the car is 'tuned' to the OEM tire for EPA and safety testing. I think that is industry wide.

I believe you can buy the OEM tire on the Ascent pretty much anywhere. From my local shop to any of the online distributors.

I used 2020 Limiteds to do this checking

3 use the Falken (Ascent, Forester, Crosstrek)
2 use The Yokohama (Outback and Legacy)
1 uses Firestone...Impreza
1 uses Michelin....BRX
1 uses Dunlop...WRX

 

[hokiefyd]

Just for the heck of it @hokiefyd I checked Tirerack to see if Subaru any used any other brands for their OEM tire. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the car is 'tuned' to the OEM tire for EPA and safety testing. I think that is industry wide.

Yes, it's very common for OE tires to be "tuned" to the very specific performance characteristics for a specific car. In fact, rubber compounds and even tread designs can vary between two different tire sizes of the exact same tire model, because one particular size may be OE on a specific car and the contract requirements for that specific size may have required a slight tweak to what the tire manufacturer would have otherwise applied to the tire.

I suspect one of the primary performance specifications for the OE contract tire (our Falken tire) is low rolling resistance. The low treadwear rating (380) and the low traction rating (B) are hints of that. Long-wearing tire compounds are traditionally in a higher rolling resistance category than short-wearing compounds are. This is why the earlier generations of energy-saving tires generally did not last long. Modern formulations have improved on this tremendously, but I imagine Falken's using a relatively "conventional" low rolling resistance compound in these tires (low cost).

Semi-related anecdote: there are sometimes several SKUs of one tire model in one size -- each SKU being a contract tire for a specific manufacturer or vehicle. At one point in the late '90s, there were four different SKUs for the Michelin Symmetry in 225/60R16 size...one OE for GM/Cadillac, one OE for Ford/Lincoln, one for the aftermarket in blackwall and one for the aftermarket in whitewall. You could specifically order any one of the SKUs from a tire dealer. If you buy from a wholesaler or warehouse club, you may or may not be getting of the OE SKUs or the aftermarket SKU.

I believe you can buy the OEM tire on the Ascent pretty much anywhere. From my local shop to any of the online distributors.

You can, yes. Any Falken dealer would be able to order them. They're not likely to keep them in stock, as demand for an OE tire is usually pretty low, but you can get them. This is what I mean about not generally being part of their retail distribution. Falken likely schedules the manufacturing quantities of this tire to pretty much meet what Subaru needs for its Ascents (in these tire sizes). Aftermarket purchase of OE-focused tires like these is not the main focus of their manufacturing and production, which is (I believe) why OE tires are typically more expensive at point of sale, even if they're materially less expensive to produce than "better" competitors that are focused on the aftermarket.

I used 2020 Limiteds to do this checking

3 use the Falken (Ascent, Forester, Crosstrek)
2 use The Yokohama (Outback and Legacy)
1 uses Firestone...Impreza
1 uses Michelin....BRX
1 uses Dunlop...WRX

Yep. Of the eight models noted there, six use Asian brand tires (the Dunlop brand is owned/operated by Sumitomo in Asia). It'll be interesting to see if Subaru sticks with Falken in the future or moves to a different tire supplier.

 

[Steve70]

@hokiefyd You're making me work a little now I don't see where tread life is necessarily connected to rolling resistance. I do see many factors contributing to the low rolling resistance cause. I also see where an 'A' traction rating is good to have for low rolling resistance. The Falken has a B traction rating. Like the Dunlop, the Firestone tire I referenced above is owned by the largest Asian company....Bridgestone. It has an A traction rating and much better tread life than the OEM Falken tire. It's also carries a good snow rating

I totally accept what I have received on the car, but I'm still much more inclined to think they worked the pen and Subaru decided to put a lesser tire on the vehicle because they could. I just find it a little disappointing for a company who has touted their AWD system and off road capabilities for decades. Subaru may be the biggest name in the Rally world. I'm sure for most, they could care less. I just happen to be the car guy who takes note of stuff like this and wishes they had gone a notch or two up the tire ladder.

I guess the rolling resistance converstion is similar to how we ended with 0W oils. ..More emission and MPG related than anything else from what I've been told by people in the field

As for different SKU numbers...I'm a little familiar. The original Michelin Pilot Sport made for Viper was stamped with a 'C' carcass designation. I had lots of them for the back end

 

[fred becker]

My "chief mileage competitor" in the Facebook Ascent group is finally changing hers, at 60 miles shy of 44,000 miles. She regularly rotates, and has them properly inflated. So, by the time she gets in to change them, she'll have broken 44,000 miles, and closed the mileage gap to under 1,300 miles from me.

Wait, what am I doing online?!?? I've got to get out and rack up some miles!!!! ?

View attachment 2371

Three key things that have earned me more than rated treadwear for my last three sets of tires:

1. Proper alignment
2. Proper inflation (or no more than plus 1 or 2)
3. Regular tire rotation

Many people neglect rotation, and some think it does not matter for the Ascent (they are incorrect).

The Ascent has a different front and rear toe-in, and the rear has a slight camber that becomes more pronounced when the rear is heavily loaded. I've got the specs someplace (helped an aftermarket performance shop with their first alignment, before the specs were easily available), and the rotation schedule makes sense.

So, following the 6,000 mile rotation schedule ensures even wear on all four tires.

A service station I went to rotated them side to side, keeping the fronts on the front etc. However, I just changed back to my winter tires. I should have asked Les Schwab what they did, but I had my snow tires marked with where they came off and they seemed to switch them around and put them wherever...is random mounting ok or not??

 

[Robert.Mauro]

A service station I went to rotated them side to side, keeping the fronts on the front etc. However, I just changed back to my winter tires. I should have asked Les Schwab what they did, but I had my snow tires marked with where they came off and they seemed to switch them around and put them wherever...is random mounting ok or not??

Hi Fred

Front to rear rotation on the Ascent (on any Subie) is very important. AWD Subarus are never left->right rotation without moving forward. The reason is suspension geometry and how it affects tire wear.

Front tires move directly to the rear. If NOT directional tires, the rear tires criss-cross to the front (Rear left becomes front right, rear right becomes front left). If directional, they just move forward on the same side. RR->RF, LR->LF).

Reinstall position of the snow tires potentially matters for up to three reasons:

1. for proper position in a rotation cycle (eg: they had 500 miles in the previous rotation cycle, so you should be using them for 5,500 more miles in the previous positions for proper wear.
2. if they're directional (left must go back on left, at the least)
3. if you have cloned sensors and don't have the ability to re-register tire positions (2019, 2020).

 

[hokiefyd]

I don't see where tread life is necessarily connected to rolling resistance.

Yes; this factor is probably less relevant today than it used to be. As I alluded to earlier, "energy saving" tires from a decade or two ago where typically not long life tires. I think, though I'm definitely not a tire engineer and don't know for sure, that the more durable compounds and tire construction types present more resistance to deformation and less rebound once it is compressed, returning less energy back to the tire as it rolls. In other words, the more durable compounds absorb more energy when rolling than the less resistant compounds do. This definitely has correlation to bicycle tires -- the light and supple tires that are typically the fastest and least energy consuming also typically wear the quickest. The long-wearing tires are usually also the ones that sap the most energy...at least unless you throw a ton of money at R&D to create a wonder compound (as some tire makers have indeed done).

These early generation eco tires often did not deliver good wet traction, either (thus, the B traction rating). The OE tire on our 2007 Town & Country was the Bridgestone Turanza EL42. Its UTQG ratings were a dismal 320/B/B, even worse than our OE Falkens (380/B/B as I recall). The OE Yokohama Avid GTs on the Outback and Legacy also have rather poor UTQG ratings: 400/B/A for both 17" and 18" sizes. It's relatively uncommon for H-rated tires to have only a B rating for traction, but these do. Again, I believe this is owing to their relatively conventional/old school low rolling resistance compound.

I think this can be contrasted with modern "eco" tires today where that tradeoff is not nearly as apparent, with newer compounds that use silica and orange peels and all sorts of other novel additives. Yokohama's modern BluEarth branded eco-friendly tires (like the Avid Ascend GT) all feature A/A ratings for traction and temperature.

I do think the conventional tradeoff between rolling resistance, tread life, and wet traction, is much less dramatic than it used to be, at least in the aftermarket, where tire makers are more or less free to set their own retail pricing. I think this tradeoff is more applicable still to the OE market, where volume contract pricing more or less forces tire makers into using less expensive materials and compounds to get the desired outcome.

I totally accept what I have received on the car, but I'm still much more inclined to think they worked the pen and Subaru decided to put a lesser tire on the vehicle because they could.

I agree 100%. They almost certainly could have paid up a little more to put a nicer tire on the car. Did Falken entice Subaru with a loss-leading price just to get Falken tires on the car? Did Subaru put out a request for proposal with a set of design specs and Falken won the contract as either low bidder or best value offering? Did Subaru actually like the tire enough to specifically choose it for the Ascent? I certainly couldn't say for sure. I am surprised at the choice, based only on the prevalence of Yokohama tires on their most popular models. I might have thought they'd have gone first to Yokohama for something for the Ascent.

 

[Jim_in_PA]

s I alluded to earlier, "energy saving" tires from a decade or two ago where typically not long life tires.

I agree with that...the OEM tires that came on the two Prii we owned had short lives and were also horrible in bad weather. They were low rolling resistance tires, but a much earlier generation.

 

[hokiefyd]

I agree with that...the OEM tires that came on the two Prii we owned had short lives and were also horrible in bad weather. They were low rolling resistance tires, but a much earlier generation.

They were probably the Goodyear Integrity -- tires almost universally panned for poor wet traction and low tread life. Tire Rack did a pretty comprehensive test of some of these eco tires back in the day. Some of the results were pretty interesting...like the Integrity having the poorest wet traction of the bunch (by far), but also delivering the best dry traction (cornering and braking)!

 

[hokiefyd]

I replaced the Bridgestone Turanza EL42s on our Town & Country prior to 10k miles because their wet traction was just so poor. You could feel the front of the van plowing a bit cornering in wet intersections. Fortunately, I've been pretty pleased with the Falkens on our Ascent. I haven't had any issues with wet traction and snow performance has been "fine" for us. Certainly not unsurpassed by better tires, but they've done pretty well. We have 18k on ours and they look about half worn. I expect 30k before I give up on 'em and try something else.

 

[IndySubieFan]

I replaced the Bridgestone Turanza EL42s on our Town & Country prior to 10k miles because their wet traction was just so poor. You could feel the front of the van plowing a bit cornering in wet intersections. Fortunately, I've been pretty pleased with the Falkens on our Ascent. I haven't had any issues with wet traction and snow performance has been "fine" for us. Certainly not unsurpassed by better tires, but they've done pretty well. We have 18k on ours and they look about half worn. I expect 30k before I give up on 'em and try something else.

We have 24K miles on our 2019 Ascent Limited. At a service visit a few weeks ago our Subaru dealer recorded 6/32" tread on the vehicle inspection checklist for all four of the original Falken tires. So I would estimate we should get 30 to 35K or more miles on the Falkens.

 

[Steve70]

I always like to learn some on car forums. I have in this thread too. Good input 👍

I'm ready for the rubber to meet the snow now! I'm also very interested in the Subaru AWD performance.. Namely which end gets a little extra bias.. or not. We've had them both ways.

 

[pdxeca]

I replaced the Bridgestone Turanza EL42s on our Town & Country prior to 10k miles because their wet traction was just so poor. You could feel the front of the van plowing a bit cornering in wet intersections. Fortunately, I've been pretty pleased with the Falkens on our Ascent. I haven't had any issues with wet traction and snow performance has been "fine" for us. Certainly not unsurpassed by better tires, but they've done pretty well. We have 18k on ours and they look about half worn. I expect 30k before I give up on 'em and try something else.

I got ~25K (I honestly don't remember what the actual mileage was, but that's close) before I swapped mine for Conti VikingContacts on 18s. Never had an issue with them on dry or wet pavement, or in the snow. I suspect any decent tire with reasonable tread left will be perform well with Subaru AWD.

I actually bought the tires and wheels as a package from a former forum member, for the 18" wheels alone. The tires were a bonus. I swapped them out for A/Ts this spring and we'll see if I even bother to mount them this year (our 2 forays to the snow so far have been problem free).

 

[mljohn11]

I got a measly 13k miles out of them.