During the final portion of our presentation, the itinerary of our action-packed day was revealed. Using modified 2004 Acura RSX Type S's we would be evaluating the tires on both wet and dry skidpads, an autocross course, and a "hydroplane in corner" station, where we would drive the car over a pool of standing water in the middle of a turn at varying speeds. The WRX STi's were over on Track 3, a road course consisting of "low friction asphalt" and enough sprinklers to keep an average of 1.5mm of water on the surface of the track. Fun.

We were split up into several groups and then ferried off to the various test tracks in vans. First up for our group was the "hydro in corner" test. This was where we would drive three identically prepared RSX's (except for tires, of course) around a bend and through standing water at several steady speeds. The purpose of this was to A) compare the tires' ability to resist hydroplaning and B) to feel the difference in how the tires reacted once they did hydroplane. The turn is quite wide, yet it's still a bit unnerving when you feel the car suddenly deviating from its intended arc and instead vectoring straight into the field ahead. By 50mph, all 3 of the tires hydroplaned to some extent, with the Bridgestone Potenza RE750s delivering the greatest pucker factor. This RSX felt like it lifted something like 3 inches off the road surface, and pushed quite far outside the intended line before the tires finally came off plane, just in time to keep it on the pavement. The steering went completely limp during this time. The PE2s exhibited mild hydroplaning and a very slight lateral excursion, but maintained at least some semblance of steering feel. The Yokohamas performed nearly as well as the Mick's but they did seem to take a heartbeat or two longer to regain traction than the PE2s. Advantage: PE2

Next up was the polished wet skidpad. The idea was to circle around this 300ft skidpad as quickly as possible, without going off course. The results of this test were a little bit surprising to me, as it turns out the "real" performance was somewhat different than how things felt. The first time around, I took the Yokohama AVS ES100-equipped RSX around the loop. It seemed fairly composed at the limits, but I wasn't paying too much attention to how much speed I was actually carrying. The second time around, I took the Bridgestone RE750 car around. This car felt a little slower than the AVS ES100 car, and again it delivered (by far) the highest pucker factor of the three cars tested. As I approached the limit, the rear end was very lively and continually threatened to come around at the slightest provocation. This time I was paying attention to the speedometer and I managed to circle the entire loop at right around 60mph. Nudging it up to 61 or 62 would work for maybe a quarter revolution, but then you'd hit a slightly deeper pool of water and the car would get all out of shape. Fortunately I was able to catch it before an embarassing excursion into the mud. Now it was time for the PE2 car. Holy schmokes. I'm now easily circling at 65mph and it feels very stable. Brimming with confidence, I toed the throttle a bit more and looped the circle one more time with the speedo flickering in the 66-67mph range most of the way. Now at that speed, it seemed like I was walking more of a fine line, but WOW! Finally, I went back around the skidpad for a fourth stint, again in the Yokohama car, this time so I could expressly note the speed. Judging by the feel alone, and particularly comparing it to the RE750, I was guessing that it would circle the track at perhaps 62-63mph, but much to my surprise the best I could manage was only 58mph. It's not that it was getting ragged or hairy above that (like the RE750s were above 60mph), it was simply limited by understeer. Advantage: PE2

While the RSXs (with their fully adjustable suspension, DC sports headers and exhaust, and AEM intake) were quite fun, I've driven quite a few DC5s in the past, so I was really looking forward to the next track on our agenda, where a trio of 2004 Subaru WRX STi's awaited their caning. This is called "Track 3" - a short, tight, flat, and twisty road course. Oh, and thanks to several dozen sprinklers, it's soaking wet too. Depending upon which configuration is used, it's either 0.9 miles or 0.45 miles. We used the 0.45 mile configuration. The best time of the day was just under 40 seconds, so that gives you an idea of the average speed through this course, even with 300 AWD horsepower on tap. I found that it was a bit more difficult to sort out the differences between the three tires here because I was trying to get up to speed with the nuances of the WRX's performance envelope, and it took a little while to drive it consistently. Certain tactics resulted in serious understeer, or serious oversteer, so driving the car consistently and smoothly in those conditions required a bit of a learning curve. In terms of ultimate cornering grip, braking grip, and overall feel, the PE2s held a bit of an edge over the other two tires, but on that wet track any of the three tires could get out of shape. According to the stopwatch, I was a tiny bit quicker on the PE2s, but perhaps only a half second or so behind were the RE750s, and another few ticks behind that were the ES100s. Advantage: PE2

After this first session on the wet road course, we broke for lunch, and while we were eating, the Subies scooted off to the garage where they were fitted with new tires. The first tires we tested wore full treads, but now we were going to try the same course on tires that had been precision shaved to 50% tread depth. The point of this exercise was to compare the "enduring performance" of the three makes, in other words, how well they perform after the initial compound and tread depth has worn away. As I awaited my turn to drive on these reduced tread tires, some of the first guys in our group were returning from their first laps out and the way the color had left their faces told me quite a bit. Some of them were slowly shaking their heads, trembling, and muttering words like "diabolical" and other stuff we shouldn't print. Cool! Now it's my turn. I jumped in one of the competitor cars first and was only a little more cautious than the earlier laps. JEEPERS BLIMEY!! I nearly found myself axle deep in sodden earth in the first turn. There was virtually zero traction to be had at all. If you could snap it past the horiffic initial understeer, you could fake some pretty sick WRC-style tail out action on some turns, but that was pretty much the only fun to be had. It was just too much of a handful. Next I tried the the other competitor car (I forget the sequence, as its of little consequence in this case) and it was pretty much the same. Pretty awful. Finally, I went out in the Michelin car and my first thought was that maybe they were trying to pull a fast one on us. It hardly seemed any different from the full-tread car, but it was absolutely astonishingly better than the other two cars at 50%. I was several seconds faster per lap in the 50%-tread PE2s than the other two tires, and nearly as quick as I was on the full tread PE2s. Advantage: PE2

For the final stop on our test agenda, we once again piled in the van and went over to the asphalt lake. At this location there are several dry tests that can be performed - slalom, skidpad, and an autocross style course. We did the skidpad and autocross portion, again using the RSXs for our tests. On the autocross course, I found the PE2s again felt the best, with a noticeable advantage in braking and cornering grip. Sure enough, I was quickest on these tires. What was interesting was that I wasn't too far behind on the RE750s, yet from a subjective standpoint they (again) felt the worst. I preferred the feel of the AVS ES100s, but they were consistently slower than the RE750s. Advantage: PE2

The final performance check of my day was circling the dry skidpad. This is one of the more mundane test procedures, and as expected, the PE2s felt stickier than the Yokos or Bridgestones, and it did in fact circle the dry skidpad in less time than the other two, posting an advantage of around 0.01 G's over the 2nd place finisher. Advantage: PE2

As you can see from the results of these tests, either Michelin picked their performance tests very carefully, or the PE2s truly are a superior tire to the Bridgestone RE750 and Yokohama AVS ES100. While I'm inclined to think that Michelin wouldn't invite a group of autowriters out to show their tires performing poorly in their own tests, it should be noted that independent tests have had similar results. Is there any downside to these tires? We did a quick survey of the pricing at the Tire Rack, (a gold level sponsor of the Temple of VTEC) and found that the PE2s aren't exactly cheap tires. In the 225/45-17 size that we tested, the prices are as follows:

In terms of overall objective performance, the rankings pretty much follow the pricing order, with the most money buying the most performance. As you can see from the table above, the PE2s are slightly more expensive, yet still very close in price to the Bridgestone RE750s. They outperform the Bridgestones (if only by slim a slim margin in some cases) in dry testing and blow them away in wet conditions, particularly when wear becomes a factor. From a subjective standpoint, the PE2s are again the clear victor, particularly when it comes to their wet performance, but they also inspire a lot of confidence in the dry. For second place in the subjective rankings, I think the ES100s edge out the RE-750s, if only for their superior feel at the limit in wet conditions. It should be noted, however, that I currently have a set of the Yokohama AVS ES100s on my S2000s, and I found that they perform okay when brand new, but they wear very quickly and grip deteriorates rapidly as they wear. Noise also becomes a bit of an issue with wear, so while a savings of $38 per tire may seem attractive at first, that extra money may be better spent on a tire with "enduring performance", such as the PE2s.

Overall, I have a very high opinion of Michelin's new line of high performance tires. We have a set of the Michelin PS2s on our project TSX, and as you will hear in another article, we have been extremely pleased with their performance. So, by virtue of their performance in this particular comparison, the Michelin PE2 gets our stamp of approval.

Tech Note: Hydroplane Resistance
Also at Michelin's Laurens Proving grounds is a state of the art setup using a special high speed, high resolution (14megapixel) Digital SLR camera setup which records a tire's hydroplaning performance. In the photographs below, you can see how each of the three tested tires fared at 50, 55, and 60mph as they drive over a standing pool of water, 4mm in depth. As the speeds rise, the contact patch diminishes in size and air bubbles begin cavitating in the wake of the tire as the tire actually is lifted from the road surface by hydrodynamic forces. This effect can be seen most clearly on the Bridgestone Potenza RE750 photo set. Note how the PE2 manages to maintain much of its contact patch at 60mph and has the least cavitation. This is a big part of the reason it performed so well in our wet tests.

Michelin Pilot Exalto 2

Bridgestone Potenza RE750

Yokohama AVS ES100