Michelin Pilot Road 4 - GT version?

[zenwhipper]

Can't seem to find whether or not, for the FJR one needs to purchase the GT version of the PR4. I think the GT is for BIGGER sport touring / touring bikes and the standard version tire is the one to go with. But- hell, I can't tell fer sure.

Anybody know... wanna help a fellow tire challenged rider?

Grazi

 

[RavFJR]

From what I've read about the Michelin PR4 GT, it was developed by michelin as a sport-touring tire for those that ride in alot of rain...extra siping.

 

[Fly Bye]

Michelin web site lists this tire for the FJR.

 

[Cav47]

I have the GT on my FJR.

 

[The Other Brian]

They are also designed with a stronger side wall to support heavier loads that may be found on a sport touring bike when 2 up riding and/or packed for multiday trips. I rarely if ever never ride 2 up, but I went with the GT's because I am a heavier rider and I frequently load the bike with camping gear.

 

[eg23232]

Not necssary to spend the extra money on a "GT" tire.

 

[fredkerr]

I run the GT on my FJR, and the regular on my NT700V. Very happy with both.

 

[bikerskier]

I'm on my third set and very happy with the GT. Most of my riding is longer trips with gear and often two up.

 

[user 86528]

Not necssary to spend the extra money on a "GT" tire.

I've bought a set to fit on my FJR. They were more expensive than the standard tyres. £1.00 per tyre!

 

[fisherdave]

I found this video today as I was also doing some research on the Michelin PR-4.



I found it to informative.

 

[Fly Bye]

I found this video today as I was also doing some research on the Michelin PR-4.

That sums it up for the most part.

Revzilla always has very informative videos.

Thanks for the post.

 

[20valves]

I'm having PR4 GT's put on mine coming from PR3 standards. I'm hoping for a bit better mileage but don't expect a lot of performance difference. I liked the PR3's just fine.

 

[Fred W]

The GTs have the same tread pattern as the regular PR4s. The "improved wet weather performance" is in comparison to prior PR's (2's and 3's) and, ostensibly, to other brands / models of tires. In other words, it's marketing puffery.

The GTs have heavier sidewalls for use with loads, same as the "B" spec PR2's had in the past. But curiously the load ratings are the same as the non GTs for some reason. Not sure why.

In the past there has never been any real difference noticed in mileage of the B spec vs regulars, so I would not expect the GT to give any different mileage than the regular PR4's. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Pterodactyl]

The 4 and the 4GT have the same speed rating and load rating (as Fred mentioned), so it is perplexing trying to understand what real advantage the GTs offer. One could argure that the additional sidewall structure will make the tire heat slower and higher. It would seem, too, that the GT would weigh a bit more, although a cursory search did not revel the weight difference. Any increase in unsprung weight goes a long way. I'm not anti-GT, but as I said earlier, I am perplexed as to what the advantage is over the PR4. Right now the only deciding factors I can see are cost, longevity and road performance. Cost is easy, but comparing the other two qualities is not so easy. Owner anecdotal feedback is all to often unreliable, and I have yet to see a comparative test by a impartial body.

 

[MrZappo]

I got a GT (PR3) for the "added weight and durability under heavy loads) and it was dead in 6k just like other tires ... The only difference was my lighter wallet ...

 

[Fred W]

My guess would be that a stiffer sidewall (with the extra belt) would flex less at a given air pressure, and should therefore generate less internal heat at that pressure. What that buys you as compared to just upping the PSI? I dunno.

 

[Redfish Hunter]

I put a set of PR4GTs on my ST1300 because it was a "heavy" sport tourer and that is supposedly why Michelin built that tire. I also load the bike up pretty good for my trips so it seemed like a good idea at the time.

The front looked great at 9K miles, it still had plenty of life left. The rear was shot at 8500 miles and was causing a strange vibration from about 5K miles.

In other words, the front lasted longer than a typical PR3 and the rear did not. I saw no advantage for the PR4GT. Unless you are a fan of the Ford Mustang GT and you think anything with GT in the name is cool. If you want to be cool, get the GT.

 

[20valves]

I would not expect the GT to give any different mileage than the regular PR4's. Of course, YMMV.

I know, I fall for the Michelin pamphlet claim of "better mileage" every time knowing it'll probably get about 5K miles, like everything else.

I've never run the GT's before and thought I'd try 'em. Um, not trying to be "cool."

 

[zenwhipper]

So- thanks for the comments. Have been doing a bit more research.

It looks like the GT uses the Michelin 2AT Dual Angle Technology and the non GT does not.

"Michelin's patented new 2AT Dual Angle Technology is a revolutionary design architecture for motorcycle tires that delivers the stiffness you need for heavier touring bikes, and the comfort you desire for the long ride. MICHELIN 2AT uniquely combines elements of both bias and radial tire designs during the manufacturing process in order to deliver the best of both worlds: the extra load carrying capacity of bias and the riding please of a radial."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SitT89yHUTQ

OMG- the vid imbedded!

Radial and bias plies on the tire.

And actually- Michelin does not show the non GT in its fitment guide for the FJR, only the GT.

Also the GT spec-ed for the R1200RT and that bike is pretty close in weight to the FJR.

I do a lot of loaded touring (one up, with camping gear). I'm about 175 pounds... seems like the GT is the one.

Ok... back to Google for more research.