Are they different cars? Were there any differences in engine type/size/power or gearing (maunal/auto/gear ratios)? Note also that some tyres will have a different wear rating than others (the shorter-lasting ones normally are better gripping and/or less noisy on the same car).

My current car (also FWD) had Bridgestone ER30s fitted, and I changed them after 6 years/43,000 miles with 4mm left on the fronts and 5mm on the rears. They would've lasted me much longer, however they were poor in the wet (only after 1 year), getting quite hairy near the changeover time, plus they also were VERY noisy, especially on concrete or gravelled roads. Admitedly I am quite light-footed, so I can get a long life out of sets of tyres on my cars.

My previous car managed over 50k on its first set (Dunlops - again, similar wet handling issues/age forcing me to change) though were worn down to 3mm F/4mm R. Irnonically I swapped to Bridgestones on my previous car and Dunlops on the current one, both worked much better.

Edited by Bycro on 23/12/2015 at 00:18

Well regarded make, many OE fitments.

But also take a well deserved pat on the back youself, that is very good going for car tyres, sensible sizes one presumes and a decent sized rollig radius helps, it's good going if regularly rotated, but if they've been on the front the whole time truly excellent.

As for Hankooks generally, had them lorries now and again and they seemed good, never had them on a car that i can recall, but i bought a set of Hankook All Terrains (Dynapro ATM RF10's if anyone's bothered) for my Landcruiser in Feb at a very good price, they come with some 12/13mm of tread depth and apparently 60/70k is the mileage i should expect, they are big being 265/75 x 16 so not exactly whizzing round.

At first they felt squishy, very squishy, didn't expect them to be great on road cos they are AT's anyway with a deep block tread, but as time went by they improved little by little, i don't think they fully bedded in (scrubbed the mould releasing agent off) till i'd covered about 2000 miles, by which time they gripped well in the wet but still felt a bit of a handful.

They don't have high wet grip ratings, no AT tyre does if it comes to it (except some really cheap Chinese tyres, ratings of which i take with a pinch of salt), and its not the first time that my own findings have been at odds with the grip ratings self awarded to some tyres, i'm fast coming to the conclusion those ratings should mostly be taken with said pinch.

Reading on the Landcruiser forum a tyre discussion, the general consensus is to increase the meagre 31ish psi all round to about 35/36 which i did which resulted in much improved handling, i could experiment further but they'll do for now.

The vehicle can now be thrown around in all sorts of weathers in complete confidence, more controllable on the twisties than you might think for the size of it, Hankook get a big thumbs up from me, i will certainly pencil the make onto my shortlists when next tyre hunting.

Incidentally if that bedding in mileage sounds high, its about where it should be, lorry tyres take about 5000 miles to bed in fully before you get full grip so its on a par.

Edited by Bycro on 23/12/2015 at 00:34

Going back 10-15 years, Hyundai used to fit Kumho (another Korean brand) as OE and gained a good reputation for wear and grip - but later versions of the Kumho tyres had poor wear/grip - then Hyundai switched to Hankook, also Korean, and restored their reputation for good wear/grip.

Roomster 1.9TDi Scout 205/45x16: 2 front sets of Michelins both lasted 22k to 3mm, Hankook Evo (1) lasted 30k to 3mm. At that point they were beginning to tramline (like most worn tyres), but seemed to be equal in performance to the Michelins (not that one door-handles a Roomster...).