Photo by Demond Henderson.
Any discussion about octane invariably leads to statements from some cars' owners that their engine performs better when they use the 91 or 93 (or higher) fuel blends in their vehicles.
For most modern, computer-controlled cars on the road today, this perception is more mental than it is factual. For classic car owners, octane can make a difference from an engine-efficiency standpoint; however, the octane rating of your gasoline has very little to do with the horsepower or torque output of your classic engine as is often alluded to in these conversations.
Octane is simply a measure of the fuel makeup, and its tendency or resistance to cause engine knock or ping when used under duress (higher RPM). The octane index rating is not based on a quantity of a chemical in the fuel mixture, but is a measure of the efficiency of the fuel blend, expressed as a ratio, relative to the efficiency of a pure hydrocarbon, which would have an octane index rating of 100 (or 100 percent). Because gasoline is made up of many different hydrocarbons, the octane rating is a comparison of the anti-knock characteristics of the blend relative to the anti-knock characteristics of a pure hydrocarbon with a 100 percent rating. Aircraft or racing fuels have a rating above 100 because the additives in the fuel raise the efficiency beyond that of a pure hydrocarbon.
Engine knock is caused when the fuel mixture ignites too early, often before the spark plug has fired. Knock often presents itself when there is an increase in engine RPM and cylinder combustion chamber pressures are also increased. The higher the cylinder pressure, the more likely the engine will knock.
Octane is measured by operating an engine under two different conditions and averaged to result in the rating you see displayed on the pump. The first method (R) is to test the fuel mixture for its anti-knock characteristics (as a percentage of efficiency to pure hydrocarbon) when the test engine is under load, the second test (M) measures the anti-knock tendencies when the engine is free-wheeling. The average of the two results is the percentage that is shown on the pump (R+M/2).
Fuel is required to meet minimum octane efficiency standards of 87 percent to be sold at the pump, with more efficient blends having an efficiency rating of 88 percent to 90 percent considered mid-range gas. Efficiency ratings above 91 percent get the "Premium" designation. Premium gas must be, by law, at or above 91 percent, although you do also see 93 percent octane ultra-premium at many stations.Although higher octane can cost substantially more per gallon, it does not necessarily mean it is better for your car. Higher octane gas is processed through additional steps that further refine the blend and cause it to burn more slowly than lower octanes. These additional processes are what contribute to the higher pricing, but that does not mean the higher octane will offer any advantage over other blends in many engines. Octane does not offer any better fuel mileage, increase engine horsepower, or make the engine start quicker. Higher octane only reduces the likelihood of engine knock or ping.
On modern computer-controlled cars with fuel injection, the computer is constantly monitoring fuel trim and detonation and making appropriate adjustments in the timing and fuel air mixture to compensate for engine knock. Most of these late-model engines have a sonic knock sensor installed in the cylinder block for just this reason.
As you go back in time to earlier fuel and ignition systems, the octane content becomes more important because the old point distributors and early electronic ignition distributors had only a vacuum advance to correct for engine knock. Exhaust gas recirculation systems were also in their infancy and were not as efficient as modern systems, so they had less effect on reducing knock as well.
Because higher octane gas burns slower, it is more resistant to knock when subjected to higher RPM and cylinder pressures. Compression ratios also factor into cylinder pressures. Higher ratios cause higher cylinder pressures and therefore cause the engine to be more susceptible to pre-detonation or knock.
The introduction of ethanol in fuels further complicates the octane debate. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than hydrocarbons and also ignites at much higher temperatures. Blending ethanol into pump gas will slow the combustion process and reduce the likelihood of engine knock. The delay in the ignition of the mixture, caused by the addition of ethanol, allows the fuel burn to occur while the engine piston is in the down stroke, when there is less cylinder pressure, and this reduces the likelihood of engine knock.
Ethanol can also be used as a method of increasing the octane of a fuel blend by lacing lower octane hydrocarbon-based fuels with higher octane-rated ethanol to arrive at the required octane index rating.
In summary, most modern vehicles do not require higher octane fuels, unless specifically expressed in your owner's manual (read carefully, because there is a difference between higher octane being "recommended" and "required" in the manual). There are a few high-performance engines that were built with higher compression ratings or use higher RPM camshafts where 91 octane may be needed, but your average Subaru or V-6 Explorer will see no noticeable benefit from using the more expensive blends.
In classic V-8 muscle cars and vintage engines, a higher octane fuel is probably a good idea, but we recommend that you not buy more than you can use quickly. The disadvantages of ethanol-laced fuels are most prevalent when stored inside your gas tank over longer periods of time. The higher octane fuels are slightly less efficient than the lower grades because the retarded ignition will lead to a little less overall power and a scant fewer miles per gallon, but the reduction of wear and tear on your engine should outweigh the extra cost of the higher-rated blends.
In August 2023, Ford pulled the wraps off a new performance Mustang GTD, designed to fit global GT3 racing categories. It would pit the famed nameplate squarely against other storied performance cars: BMW M4, Chevrolet Corvette Z06R, Ferrari 296, Porsche’s 911 R, Aston Martin Vantage AMR Evo, Mercedes-AMG GT3 Evo, Lamborghini Huracán Evo 2, McLaren 720S Evo, Acura NSX Evo22, and Lexus RC F. And just like its contemporaries, as well as the previous second-gen Ford GT racing program, the GT3 Mustang GTD would later be bolstered by street versions.
The announcement annihilated the notion that gasoline-fed factory muscle cars would cease to be, and simultaneously fed high-octane fuel into the pony car’s popularity. As of this writing, the first factory effort to win in sports car racing’s top series - WeatherTech International Motor Sports Association in the States, and the FIA’s World Endurance Championship in Europe - has already taken to the high banks of Daytona International Speedway for 24 grueling hours and is preparing for the 12 Hours of Sebring. Meanwhile, diehard enthusiasts still wait for the yet-to-materialize street-legal editions. Annual production promises to be limited, and costly, which likely popped many dreamy balloons.
Rest easy though, for Mustang’s 60 years of production has generated millions of opportunities to reconsider and purchase a vintage example, including one of those that virtually singlehandedly created an entire automotive market segment while becoming a pop culture icon: the 1965-’66 models.
When introduced on April 17, 1964, as early ’65s (none received a 1964 VIN tag), the Mustang was met by some backlash from the motoring press, referring to it as an underpowered,rebodied Falcon. That has since been debunked by the car’s design–save for the shock towers, it shares no structural metal–and the ample option list that accompanied the car’s unveiling. The styling, initial $2,368 price, and aforementioned optionslist produced rabid public enthusiasm.As Ford promised, the Mustang was “The car designed to be designed by you!”
Ford projected it would sell 100,000 the first model year. It sold over a half million in hardtop, convertible and fastback guise. At the time of this writing 378 first-gen Mustangs were listed for sale on Hemmings.com. Whether the original Mustang is catching your attention for the first time, or you’re finally answering years of ownership yearning, here’s a few things to keep in mind while shopping…
The Mustang may have received some criticism for being underpowered when introduced to the automotive media; however, it’s important not to lose sight of whatthe car was intended to be: an adaptable platform for the masses. To that point, economical to purchase and operate was one of its stylish hallmarks, and thus the Mustang’sinitial base engine was the hardy 170-cu.in. inline six that was rated for a fuel-sipping 105 hp.Of course, a vast sect of the buying population wanted more, so Ford made the 164-hp 260-cu.in. V-8 available as an option. So, too, was a 210-hp 289-cu.in. V-8 that, unlike the 260, was equipped with four-barrel carburetion.
Savvy buyers might have noticed another V-8 on the Mustang’s option sheet in June 1964: the 289 High-Performance variant. Known by its K-Code designation and highly coveted today, its mechanical tappets, a hot cam, cast-iron exhaust headers, and dual-exhaust system all contributed to the engine’s then-noteworthy rating of 271 hp. Keep in mind that the “Hi-Po” 289 mandated the installation of Ford’s near-bulletproof 9-inch differential.
Running changes that help differentiate early 1965 models from later examples were the August ’64 shift to a larger-yet-economical 200-cu.in. straight-six (standard), and a two-barrel carbureted 289-cu.in. V-8 (optional) that was rated for 200 hp. In addition, the base four-barrel 289 received mild tweaks that boosted output to 225 hp, while the K-code 289 remained unchanged (see the engine chart for more output details).
Transmission selection through the 1966 model year was much simpler. The six-cylinder engines were paired with an unsynchronized 2.77 three-speed manual as standard equipment; however, it could have been upgraded to an optional all-synchronized “Synchro-Smooth Drive” 3.03 three-speed manual, British-built Dagenham four-speed manual, or C4 Cruise-O-Matic automatic.
Mustangs powered by either V-8 received the “Synchro-Smooth Drive” three-speed manual as standard equipment, or the optional Cruise-O-Matic automatic. A heavier-duty four-speed manual (initially the Borg-Warner T-10, later the Ford Toploader) was also optional on 289 cars. Selecting the Hi-Po 289 mandated the four-speed manual through the end of 1965 production, after which it could have been optioned with the Cruise-O-Matic.
At first blush, the Mustang looked like basic, utilitarian transportation, albeit one with visual pizzazz. However, Ford had a proverbial ace up its sleeve by allowing customers to personalize a new pony car with more than 40 options available at or shortly after the car’s introduction. By the time later-1965 examples began rolling from assembly lines, that list had grown to 70. Aside from the previously discussed engine/transmission choices, two option packages provided instant sporty flair, both of which rank high in collectability among enthusiasts.
In the spirit of “Ford’s GT racing car,” the “GT Equipment Group” was introduced in the spring, though the first production units with the option came off the assembly line in February. The package included lower body GT stripes, GT emblems, five-dial instrumentation (later standard on all 1966 Mustangs), the 225-hp 289, fog lamps in a blacked-out grille, a true dual exhaust system with trumpets protruding through the rear valance, front disc brakes, special handling package (heavy-duty suspension) with a 22:1 quick-ratio steering, bright hood leading edge accent molding, and the new low-profile Rally-Pac tachometer and clock.
Another package introduced for 1965 was the “Interior Décor Group,” also known as the Pony Interior or Deluxe Interior. It started with a three-spoke woodgrain deluxe steering wheel and simulated walnut surrounding a five-dial instrument panel and glovebox door. Front bucket seats were finished in “leather-soft” vinyl with pony-embossed seat backs, while door panels featured integrated door handles and dual-lens courtesy lamps. A final touch was the inclusion of chrome-trimmed floor pedals.
Despite the Mustang’s immediate popularity, the wayit was engineered and built, over time, lent itself to allowing problem areas to develop.The bodies were acid washed before the seams were sealed, and primer and enamel paint were applied. However, not every area received sufficient corrosion protection, specifically the cowl vent assemblies where dust, leaves, and other debris can get trapped.That debris, in turn, trapped moistureand in time it would rot through the metal, permitting moisture to migrate to cabin floorboards and kick panel risers, unbeknownst to owners.
The front suspension was initially not excluded from the potential problem list, either. Factory upper control arms didn’t feature grease fittings, which caused them to seize up and “oil can” the shock towers, which eventually could crack and fail. And while it wasn’t a problem mechanically, early Mustangs were equipped with a generator charging system. In August of 1964, another of Ford’s running changes was the switch to alternator charging.
Conversely, Ford did address other potential problem areas. For instance, sound deadening (little more than tar) was sprayed inside doors and on the backside of each quarter panel to help ward off corrosion and achieve a quieter ride. Also, as was the case with the Falcon, galvanized rocker panels were used; a preventative anti-corrosion step that helped maintain structural integrity.
Mechanical serviceability of Mustang’s varied engines has never been a concern over the decades, either. Much of that has to do with the simple fact that each straight-six and V-8 saw prolonged use in various Ford and Mercury models from the early 1960s to the 1980s. Case in point is the 289, which can easily be rebuilt to stock specifications, or upgraded with an array of aftermarket internal or bolt-on external components to help boost output. Similarly, each of the transmission options were known for reliable durability, provided they were not thrashed unmercifully. Do note that the 260 and early production 289s use a different, five-bolt bellhousing attachment from later 289s and other post-1964 Windsor small blocks.
Further, the continued popularity of first-gen Mustangs has resulted in a vast network of OE-style and aftermarket parts suppliers for enthusiasts who are looking to perform concours restorations, revive a driver-condition example, or administer road-ready upgrades, whether it be mild brake upgrades, or wild suspension mods. This is where the true adaptability of the Mustang’s original design shines; a be-all car for the masses six decades on.
1965-1966 Ford Mustangs in the Marketplace
Photo courtesy of Jim Smart
What Should You Expect To Pay For A1965-1966 Ford Mustang?
Resources available online state that over the last five years 1,609 first-generation Mustangs, comprised of 670 hardtops, 609 convertibles, and 330 fastbacks, have been sold at public auction. Lumping all three body styles into a single round figure would provide an unrealistic answer, so let’s break things down by body type.
The current average sale price of hardtop Mustangs (often called “notchbacks” by enthusiasts) is roughly $23,400, although some examples have sold for as little as $3,850 and as high as $87,000. The causes behind high and low outliers vary: Presentation, type of engine installed, and trim options all play pivotal roles. For instance, desirable concours-condition, factory-stock K-Code examples and exquisitely-executed restomods will attain the highest prices. What’s interesting here is that over the last five years, the average value at auction for notchbacks has been relatively steady, increasing from $19,000 to the $23,400 figure stated above; however, factoring inflation, that $19,000 now has the same power as $23,300. The net gain here is virtually nil, which bodes well for those new to Mustang who are seeking a fun ride without breaking the bank.
The same parameters are at play while calculating the average sale price/value of convertibles and fastbacks. Beginning with the former, the average sale price has risen a scant 12.25 percent, from $33,563 to $37,676. Outliers are more dramatic: as low as $11,000 and as high as $175,000. Factoring inflation, however, the $33,563 average from five years ago has the same buying power as $41,123, making convertibles another good buy at the time of this writing. Fastbacks, meanwhile, have witnessed sale/value growth; from $34,000 to $51,000 (a 50 percent jump). Factoring inflation ($34,000 now has the same power as $41,659) the increase becomes a modest 22.4 percent. An aside, low and high sale outliers were $16,750 and $115,500, respectively.
1965-1966 Ford Mustang Engine Options
170 Inline Six (before 8/1964);1-barrel; 105hp @ 4,400 rpm;156 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm
200 Inline Six (8/1964 to 8/1966); 1-barrel; 120hp @ 4,400 rpm; 190 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm
260 V-8 (starting 8/1964); 2-barrel; 164hp @ 4,400 rpm; 258 lb-ft @ 2,200 rpm
289 V-8 (8/1964 to 8/1966); 2-barrel; 200hp @ 4,400 rpm; 282 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm
289 V-8 (before 8/1964); 4-barrel; 210hp @ 4,400 rpm; 300 lb-ft @ 2,800 rpm
289 V-8 (8/1964 to 8/1966); 4-barrel; 225hp @ 4,800 rpm; 305 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm
289 Hi-Po V-8 (6/1964 to 8/1966); 4-barrel; 271hp @ 6,000 rpm; 312 lb-ft @ 3,400 rpm
1965-1966 Ford Mustang Parts Pricing
Full Quarter Panel: $195.65
Windshield: $165.00
Lower Door Hinge: $44.67
Stripe Kit: $17.17
Power Brake Booster: $366.54
Lower Control Arm: $82.35
Front Seat Upholstery: $242.75
Sun Visors: $86.96
Center Console: $757.66
Woodgrain Steering Wheel: $255.57
Power Steering Control Valve: $500.43
Fuel Tank: $198.42
1965-1966 Ford Mustang Restoration Resources
National Parts Depot; npdlink.com; 800-874-8795
CJ Pony Parts; cjponyparts.com; 800-888-6473
Dennis Carpenter Reproductions; dennis-carpenter.com; 800-476-8139
Summit Racing Equipment; summitracing.com; 800-230-3030
Virginia Classic Mustang; virginiaclassicmustang.com; 540-896-2695
My lifelong obsession with Mopar muscle cars and keen interest in road course-focused performance are often at odds with one another. When I decided to pull the trigger on a manually-shifted Go Mango orange Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat back in late 2016, I had visions of the capturing the spirit of the Challenger T/As and Plymouth AAR ‘Cudas that competed in the SCCA’s Trans Am series in the late 60s and early 70s, roaring through the gears and bullying my way to apexes.
Over the past seven years, I’ve certainly put this machine through its paces on the street and at the track, as the vast array of rock chips on the fenders and windshield will attest. What I didn’t account for, though, was that most people who want to drive their cars like Porsches don’t buy Hellcats – they buy Porsches. And as a result, most tire companies have ignored the platform as a viable option for corner carving, so my high-performance tire choices outside of drag racing-focused designs have been fairly limited.
Goodyear took the overall win at this year’s One Lap of America, beating more than 77 other teams in the week-long competition. One Lap requires participants to use a tire with a UTQG rating of 200 or higher, so the team’s 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S was with outfitted with the Eagle F1 Supercar 3 for the event.
Photo: Goodyear
After chewing up several sets of moderately aggressive summer tires, I decided I wanted to get a tire that was more specifically designed for this kind of performance. And because I have the good fortune of being able to drive other vehicles whenever I need to and live in Southern California, I was willing to compromise on things like tread life, road noise, and foul weather capability. But when I began searching for something that fit the bill, I almost immediately ran into a significant problem.
Since I wanted to stick with the Challenger’s forged factory wheels, I used the OEM tire size – 275/40R20 – to peruse the available options on Tire Rack’s site. This revealed nearly a hundred different tires that were compatible, and I was able to reduce that number down to about 50 by narrowing things down to performance tires, specifically. Eliminating high-performance all-seasons from the mix also cut about a dozen more from the running. And that’s where things started to get a bit confusing.
The Performance Tire Pecking Order
Seeking a quantifiable improvement in dry handling capability over the outgoing set of summer tires, I chose the Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar 3 due in part to its lower UTQG rating. Goodyear says that while the UTQG rating can give you some sense of a tire’s performance potential, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Photo: Bradley Iger
After further thinning the herd by tossing out variants of the same tire – like run-flats and manufacturer-specific iterations, for example – I was left with about a dozen viable options and a very hazy picture of which one was the most earnestly developed for the type of driving that I’m interested in. Tire Rack divides summer tires into four ambiguously-named subcategories (High Performance Summer, Ultra High Performance Summer, Max Performance Summer, and Extreme Performance Summer, listed here from least to most dry handling focused), but there’s no clear indication of how a tire lands in a particular group.
Ultimately, I decided to use the tires’ UTQG rating (which is also often referred to as treadwear rating) as a guide, and I landed on the Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar 3 as a result.
Developed for the track-focused sixth-generation Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE and ZL1 models, the Supercar 3 was the only option listed in Tire Rack’s Extreme Performance Summer tire subcategory that’s available in this size, and its 220 UTQG rating is notably lower than the 300 treadwear tire it would replace, both of which seemed like good omens. The fact that Goodyear’s team recently took the overall win on this tire at this year’s One Lap of America – an event which pits teams against one another in autocross, time attack, and drag racing competitions as they embark on a 3500-mile road trip across the U.S. – was also encouraging.
Noting that many race classes have rules in place that limit competitors to tires that carry a 200 treadwear rating or higher, I figured it was safe to assume that treadwear rating could be used as a metric for comparing the dry handling performance of one tire to another’s. But as Dave Zanzig, Goodyear’s Senior Director of Tire Technology for North America later explained to me, that’s not necessarily the case.
“Uniform Tire Quality Grade, or UTQG standards were developed a number of years ago, and they haven’t evolved a lot in the time since. And it’s not recommended to compare different brands based on the UTQG wear rating because each tire company chooses their own reference tire as kind of ‘ground zero,’ and then they rate the rest of their tires as compared to that chosen reference tire.”
The modern Challenger certainly isn’t the last word when it comes to handling performance but reeling in a Porsche 911 on a canyon road with one provides a sense of accomplishment that you just can’t get from a traditional sports car.
Photo: Bradley Iger
Zanzig said that, generally speaking, the more performance-focused a tire is, the lower the expectation is for tire longevity, and thus the lower the treadwear rating. But the relationship between the two is happenstance more than anything else. The situation is compounded by the fact that other UTQG standards, like traction ratings, are also woefully out of date.
“Although this is a relevant metric for high-performance summer tires, it only looks at wet braking capability with the brakes locked – that’s all that is considered when a tire is given a traction rating.” He noted that heat resistance ratings should, in theory, also provide relevant guidelines when cross-shopping high-performance tires, but they too are stuck in the past.
“The rating goes up to an A grade, and the better the tire is at dissipating heat, the higher the speed ratings can be. The problem is that an A rating says that you can take the tire over 115 mph. All of today’s high-performance tires can do that.”
Even in a competition setting, dry pavement isn’t guaranteed. During this year’s One Lap of America event, racers mixed it up on Tire Rack’s wet handling course at the company’s headquarters in South Bend, Indiana, and faced torrential downpours during the drives between some of the racetracks. All teams were required to do the entirety of the event on one set of tires.
Photo: SCCA
Now curious about the logic behind race class treadwear rules, I reached out to Heyward Wagner at the Sports Car Club of America, who was kind enough to field my questions while in the midst of competing in that same One Lap of America event in the SCCA’s Club Spec Mustang development car. Club Spec represents a new racing category for the organization which, much like One Lap, focuses on multi-discipline competition in one street-legal car.
“We wanted to prove that this is a car that you can do ‘all the things’ with,” Wagner explained. “And we’re doing it on the Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar 3, so we’re also very familiar with this particular tire. To me, when you’re trying to learn about a tire and understand its performance, treadwear rating is kind of like a personality test. It’s going to give you a general idea of what this tire is intended to do and what the grip levels are going to be like, but it’s not going to provide the whole picture. So while we use 200 treadwear as kind of a delta, more than anything it’s about signifying that this is a class for street-drivable tires.”
He also pointed out that the SCCA has a list of tires that are excluded from these classes, despite meeting the treadwear rating limit, because of excessively fast wear characteristics, limited tire size availability, or other outlying factors. “OE tires can be a challenge for us. For example, a high-end performance car might come with a ‘manufacturer spec’ version of a tire with a treadwear rating that makes it eligible, but it’s truly a track tire. And that’s really the distinction we’re trying to make – these 200 treadwear rating classes are intended for mass production, commonly available cars competing on mass produced, commonly available tires.”
Zanzig said that a tire’s tread pattern can also give you a general sense of its design priorities and performance intent. He compared the Eagle F1 Supercar 3 to Goodyear’s Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5, the latter of which is also a high-performance summer tire, but falls under Tire Rack’s Max Performance subcategory rather than the Supercar 3’s Extreme Performance categorization.
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric all-season, Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 “Max Performance” summer tire, and Eagle F1 Supercar 3 “Extreme Performance” summer tire – seen here from left to right, respectively – illustrate how a tire’s tread design tends to “devolve” toward a race slick as the priorities shift away from inclement weather capability and toward dry handling.
Photo: Goodyear
“If you look at the Eagle F1 Supercar 3, you’ll notice that it has three primary grooves and a few sipes. Now compare that to the Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 – here you have this asymmetrical directional design that’s intended to evacuate water more efficiently. You have more grooves, and more sipes in the shoulder of the tire because there’s a greater focus on wet handling and braking. That’s something you can identify just by looking at the tire, and of course those differing priorities affect the tread compound and internal construction of the tire as well.” Those priorities also alter the balance between dry and wet handling performance, along with compliance, road noise, and mileage expectations.
Time will tell how that last one plays out, but I noticed during my initial shakedown of the new set that the switch from a 300 treadwear “Max Performance” tire to the Supercar 3 brought noticeable improvements in grip through high-speed sweepers, better steering feel, and more immediate turn-in response. Minor, but quantifiable, compromises in tire noise levels and ride quality were also present, but not unexpected. In other words, it’s exactly what I was hoping for.
Wagner said that while the performance tire subcategories on Tire Rack’s site were devised solely by Tire Rack, they are becoming an industry standard. “I think more and more tire manufacturers are being mindful of those categories when they’re designing a tire, and what category they want that tire to fit into.”
Photo: Bradley Iger
Still, the outdated performance rating standards that Zanzig told me about – as well as his assertions that treadwear only tells you part of the story – left me wondering what a cross-shopping enthusiast’s best course of action currently is. And on that part, he and Wagner are in full agreement.
“When I’m purchasing tires, the information that tends to be the most useful to me is third-party testing data,” said Wagner. “Tire Rack, for instance, does back-to-back testing of wet weather performance, dry performance, noise levels, and other criteria. That can really help you make an informed decision.”
Zanzig says that, considering industry’s lackadaisical approach to rating standard updates and the difficulty of narrowing tire performance down a few simplified numbers, this may be the best method for the foreseeable future.
“There hasn’t been a lot of movement there, especially when comes to things like handling. We probably have fifty different measurements that we use internally, like the G-force on the tire during use and tire force and moment measurements. But most consumers aren’t interested in that technical data, and there isn’t a simple metric that rounds up all of these different characteristics and quantifies them into one easily-understood number. So it really comes down to back-to-back third-party comparison testing. There are ways to achieve very objective numbers in that sort of testing, and I would like to see more of it.”