Subaru Outback Forums banner

Yokohama Geolander A/T-S

56115 Views 75 Replies 35 Participants Last post by  ronnieboy
Is anyone running the 225/60/17 Yokohama Geolander A/T-S on their 2010 Outback? If so, how are they?


See less See more
1 - 3 of 76 Posts
Bobaru said:
So far my experience with them has been great. The handling crispness has been almost as good as the PZero Rosso's, and the ride, noise level, comfort, etc. has been a lot better. We'll see if they live up to their 540 treadwear rating....

Not really applicable to an Outback, other than the Continental tie-in.....
Actually I have been doing a bit of searching for a better set of tires and was eyeing the Continental ExtremeContact DWS. They came out on top in TireRack's winter test of Ultra High Performance All-Season tires:

However the reviews have been mixed. Some people have noted that they are very noisy and that the sidewalls are too soft. Others have said they are quiet and provide great handling. It would help a lot to hear from someone who could compare them to the ContiProContact that comes stock on the 2010 Outback.
Bobaru said:
It is hard for me to compare the ContiProContact with the Conti ExtremeContact DWS, since they are on very different vehicles, and also because the DWS's are lower profile (40 series).

So far, the DWS's on my Volvo C70 have been very quiet, compared to the Pirelli PZero Rosso's they replaced. Perhaps the DWS's will grow noisier as they wear, but so far so good. (But the ContiProContacts on my Outback are also very quiet.)

I'm not sure what to make of the "soft sidewall" comments from some reviewers. It probably depends on what prior tire the DWS was being compared to. Since many DWS applications are for fairly high-performance cars, the "standard" they are being compared to are other high performance tires, many of which are pretty stiff (in some cases, the prior tire was a run-flat, which will definitely have a stiff sidewall...).

The DWS's give up a bit of ultimate dry handling, I think, in favor of really good wet and snow performance, and also in favor of a good ride. But this is in the context of very high performance tires. Compared to more normal "touring" tires, like the ContiProContact, I would think that the DWS will outhandle them, whether in the dry, or wet, and MIGHT even be better in snow. They will also wear a bit faster.

It may be a moot point - I don't think the DWS's come in the right size for a 2010 Outback, unless you are also doing a "plus-size" wheel change.

I have been reasonably happy with my ContiProContacts so far, although that includes almost no time in the snow (so far). Bottom line - it's a tough comparison when the tires are so different in intent, and are usually used on very different cars.
Thanks for the comments. It helps to hear from someone that is driving on both even though they are on different vehicles.

Your point that "It probably depends on what prior tire the DWS was being compared to" is exactly what I have been trying to cut through. Just about everyone comments on a new set of tires in comparison to the old set that they just replaced. So, it can be hard to answer the self-centered question of "How will these compare to the tires I have now?"

I was looking at the DWS in a 235/55ZR17 configuration. That size would be about .4" shorter and .6" wider than the OEM 225/60R17. I know that dovidan used this sizing to mount a set of Michelin Primacy MXV4s and seems to be happy with them:

For the record I have done a bit of snow driving with the ContiProContacts and was pleasantly surprised. I didn't expect much from them having previously run AT tires with the Extreme Weather rating. (There's that frame of reference thing again.) But I found that the ContiProContacts gripped just fine in a long drive on a snow-covered interstate that had just reopened after a 2-hour closure to clear accidents. My main complaint about them is that they are too soft and squishy feeling. So, I am really just looking for something a bit firmer with comparable snow traction and noise characteristics.
See less See more
nikwax said:

17 inch low profile tires say "street performance" rather than "off road" we really want to go crashing through the wilderness on 50 series tires and alloy rims?
Not really, but the stock tires are actually 60 series, not 50. Personally I think this is a reasonable profile considering that most owners will log a pretty small % of miles (if any) crashing through the wilderness. As for the 17" rims they are getting to be pretty standard fare in order to accommodate modern brake sizes. Even serious off-road vehicles like the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon are running 17" rims now.
1 - 3 of 76 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.