Originally Posted by Kolyan2k
I heard/read it long time ago, but you can read it at tirerack.
UTQG Treadwear Grades are based on actual road use in which the test tire is run in a vehicle convoy along with standardized Course Monitoring Tires. The vehicle repeatedly runs a prescribed 400-mile test loop in West Texas for a total of 7,200 miles. The vehicle can have its alignment set, air pressure checked and tires rotated every 800 miles. The test tire's and the Monitoring Tire's wear are measured during and at the conclusion of the test. The tire manufacturers then assign a Treadwear Grade based on the observed wear rates. The Course Monitoring Tire is assigned a grade and the test tire receives a grade indicating its relative treadwear. A grade of 100 would indicate that the tire tread would last as long as the test tire, 200 would indicate the tread would last twice as long, 300 would indicate three times as long, etc.
The problem with UTQG Treadwear Grades is that they are open to some interpretation on the part of the tire manufacturer because they are assigned after the tire has only experienced a little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This means that the tire manufacturers need to extrapolate their raw wear data when they are assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades can to some extent reflect how conservative or optimistic their marketing department is. Typically, comparing the Treadwear Grades of tire lines within a single brand is somewhat helpful, while attempting to compare the grades between different brands is not as helpful.
OK - good information; however it doesn't say it's inaccurate, it just says it's "not quite as helpful". From what I've experienced, a 280 rating on Eagle F1s is about the same as 280 on Bridgestone RE750s, both of which wore out quicker than the Contis. Worst case I've ever seen is Yokohamas (their best tire at the time) which was rated at 240 or thereabouts, that lasted 8500 miles (rears) in normal driving. I've gone 13-14K miles on Eagle F1s rated at 280.
In any event, the Contis with their somewhat softer sidewalls ride a lot better and still handle great. I did go up 1 size on the E92, with 235 front/265 rear, and they're about half-worn at 7500 miles on the rear. With Sport suspension and its aggressive negative camber, this is the best wear I've seen thus far. All in all, though, I think it just comes down to economics and personal preference. The Contis were less expensive than some others, and as previously mentioned, they're a great combo of ride and handling for me.