[Barrichello]

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light !
With all you prayers answered, here I am gentlemen .. a newbie petrol head amongst the veterans!

I have the same confusion since eternity:XM 1+ or Turanza ER60 for my 175/70 R13 Accent. I'll stick to the stock configuration & rims.The existing tubed S322s have around 1mm of tread depth left post clocking 42K,but now they suck in wet braking & are extremely noisy on average tarmac.

What I want now is a reasonably quiet tire vs S322,tubeless,excellent braking & cornering capability,good (if not excellent) wet braking. Given my experience with S322, I'll be happy if the new set lasts for 35-40k. You may take my S322s mileage and remaining tread depth as an indicator of Delhi roads & my driving style.

Fire away vulcanisers & help me make a decision !

[finneyp]

Originally Posted by Barrichello

What I want now is a reasonably quiet tire vs S322,tubeless,excellent braking & cornering capability,good (if not excellent) wet braking. Given my experience with S322, I'll be happy if the new set lasts for 35-40k. You may take my S322s mileage and remaining tread depth as an indicator of Delhi roads & my driving style.

Except cornering, Michelin XM1+ will offer everything else you are looking for!

[Barrichello]

Thanks finneyp - Added you vote too !

Guys - I finally bought the Michelin XM 1+ for my Hyundai Accent (175/70 R13) from Reliance Autozone today : (Turanza ER60 was a close second)

1. Cost : Rs. 3450 x 4
2. Michelin 4 tyre purchase offer - Free Samsung cellphone worth Rs. 1900
3. Buy back value for 4 Old tubed S322s = Rs. 1100

Final dent to the Piggy bank = Rs.12,700 (+free sissy phone)

Immediate observations:

a. It is not a super quiet tire,probably just a placebo effect for some! Comparison
to my S322s,the sound has died down considerably but lets not forget that those
old shoes had run for 40,000 kms and then started mumbling.

b. I know that these new tires need to be run in and so I won't comment on the grip
& cornering too harshly. For now, the S322 felt more planted than these XM1+
comparing when I drove the new car home from the showroom.

c. Ride is now definitely softer & better.But is it just that the tires are new +
tubeless vs. the old + tubed Bridgestones?

I must say I am unimpressed with the XM 1+ ,based on the immense hype across forums on its quiet & silent performance.There is definitely a (marginal) difference in the in-cabin noise,but I would expect that noise reduction from any new tubeless tire from a competitive brand after changing 40k old tires. Michelin XM1+ is not a phenomenal outright winner.

Having said that..

a. There is no problem with the XM1+ in isolation (minus the epic praises).
b. The tire does feel soft 7 comfortable while driving.
c. Tread depth appears to be deeper than its cousin XM1(- the +).
d. Pretty happy with the tire overall.

Will post an ownership review after 1000 kms.

[lohithrao]

Barrichello, am one disappointed user of the XM1, i feel Turanza is a better allrounder. xm1+ feels ine on good roads but the moment you ener rough streth then you will hate it.

16+ k kms and the tyres are ready to be replaced with lots of cuts and Bruce...meanwhile turanza id 25k+ kms on th similar usage and roads and was ready for more...

As you meantioned this is one over hyped tyre!

[AWD]

How does Turanza 195/60/15 fare & whats the price?

I think XM1+ is not available in this size!

[finneyp]

Originally Posted by lohithrao

Barrichello, am one disappointed user of the XM1, i feel Turanza is a better allrounder. xm1+ feels ine on good roads but the moment you ener rough streth then you will hate it.

Lohith, I wanted to say this many times, you have put wrong tyres in the wrong car!
Michelin XM1+ is not suitable for SUV kinda car like Fiat Adventure!
The weight & suspension set-up of Adventure demands specialized tyres, not a general comfort based tyres like Michelin XM1+.
If you have used XM1+ and ER-60 on the same car, then comparison makes sense, not otherwise!

[lohithrao]

Finneyp, well firstly for the size/profile i was looking at Turanaza was nt available then, I had used Turnza on my ohc whic had a stiffened suspension and was drivine in the simialr terrain/roads where am driving the adventure.. though i dont want to make comparison between the ride quality but the life ofthe tyre should have been similar, unfortunately which is not.

btw 14/195/70 is meant for Qualis and likes so am sure Mich guys wuld know how a Qualis is driven...

[finneyp]

Originally Posted by lohithrao

Finneyp, well firstly for the size/profile i was looking at Turanaza was nt available then, I had used Turnza on my ohc whic had a stiffened suspension and was drivine in the simialr terrain/roads where am driving the adventure.. though i dont want to make comparison between the ride quality but the life ofthe tyre should have been similar, unfortunately which is not.

There is significant difference in weights of OHC and Fiat Adventure.
The suspension set-up in OHC & Advy are also different.
These important factors affect the ride & longevity of the tyres!

[jkdas]

Having been hearing that Apollo Acclere doing good job from an Indian make and guess at a good price.

Guess we can call this also a good all rounder?

[AWD]

Apollo Accelere is priced high, high for comfort! It is too close to the International brands. I enquired about size 195/60/15 & it was shocking to learn that the tyre was priced ~4k. While one can get a similar size tyre from International maker for ~4.3k.
Atleast I won't invest in Apollo at this price point.

[lohithrao]

Well in that case every tyre manufacturer should educate the buyer on how much of life/performance can be expected on every different model/make of the car!

Also when we talk about the "weight" of the car, what if the OHC was drivinen with 5 passengers most of the time compared to Adventure which might have had just the driver?

bottomline is this tyre is not made for indian highway or the once who intend to drive a lot on highway....

Originally Posted by finneyp

There is significant difference in weights of OHC and Fiat Adventure.
The suspension set-up in OHC & Advy are also different.
These important factors affect the ride & longevity of the tyres!

[rajeshsundaram]

Having used XM1+ in my Alto for nearly 4K kms, I'd say the tyres are

1. Softer and offers comfort ride to some extent
2. Bit less noise compared to indian makes
3. Grip is good in dry roads, and very good in wet roads (upto 110 on Chennai Bangalore highway in rain, that too in an alto)
4. Steering feels a bit lighter, compared with previous tyre
5. Withstands normal city driving abuse. Potholes, manholes, rubber speedbumps, gravel roads etc.
6. Braking is fine. It takes 10 to 15% extra distance compared to my previous JK Ultimas.

Overall XM1+ is a decent all rounder, and a notable alternative to Indian makes. It does not provide any class-outstanding features or "wow" performance, but it wont disappoint you.

My score : 6.5 / 10

[Barrichello]

Originally Posted by rajeshsundaram

Overall XM1+ is a decent all rounder, and a notable alternative to Indian makes. It does not provide any class-outstanding features or "wow" performance, but it won't disappoint you.

@ Rajesh-

+1
Exactly my point. However, I am amused to see how several people
have opined about XM1+ in divine ways.

@ Finny-

I couldn't concur with your view that "Adventure 1.6 is an SUV kind of car, with different weight -suspension set-up & therefore any 'comfort' category tire (XM1+) is a strict no-no for it."

Have put together a basic comparison vs. my car. Your inputs are keenly sought.

@ Lolith-

I agree with you on questioning as to why is Adventure 1.6 is so different, that it does not qualify for comfort tires. Per my assumption:

Comparison : Your car - Adventure 1.6 vs. my car - Accent GLE

Weight:

Both cars have a (kerb) weight difference of only 200 kgs. Accent which weighs less, comes with stock rims of 13 inch & usually carries tires with a load index of 82 vs. the Adventure which 14 inch stock rims and hence generally gets tires with load index of 86.This would accommodate for the additional weight concern (if any), rather easily.

Suspension:

Adventure 1.6 vs. Accent GLE - Both have similar all wheel independent suspension where Front axle has Mcphersun struts & stabiliser bar and rear axle has coil springs,hydraulic dampers,gas shocks & anti-roll bar (prewtty standard package nowadays).

The only key difference is that the adventure has a higher ground clearance of 190mm vs. 172 mm. of the Accent.

So why is it that Michelin XM1+ is a wrong tire for a wrong car (reference to Finny's view),when it is so similar to a common sedan like Accent GLE?

[finneyp]

^^ You should ask Fiat why they put Pirellis tyres in Adventure as stock tyres, instead of Bridgestone S322 or Goodyear GPS2 put in normal cars?

[lohithrao]

Barrichello, i guess you got a bit wrong. i was comparing Adventure to my OHC which i had got the suspension stiffened and even Adventure comes with a stiffened suspesion system.

As far as i know, Adventure is a car built for tough conditions knw many who owned one and used it in real hard conditions and swear by it.

but i drove the car in the same kind of terrain where i used to drive the OHC, now the Adventure dint complain but the tyres did...

Now on claiming on XM1+ is a comfort tyre i dont know on what basis that claim is made? as most of them who shift to this tyre would have changed after the old tyres have worn out so i really dont get how can one know if this tyre gives better comfort?

Lastly, my name is Lohith