Originally Posted by
BigMW
I suspect 250 and 250a ARE the same tire (compound, pattern, thickness, weight), but one is sold on the open market, at market prices. The other was a bulk purchase by the factory, at near cost prices, so they asked for it to be identified differently, so that the tire company is not responsible for warranty. If car manufacturer decides to warranty it, then you get it from them
Edit: note the key words "I suspect" - this is strictly my guess
BigMW - I'm going to state that in my experience inside the auto industry, that while you may not be EXACTLY right, you're going down a path that is more closer to actuality than others might suspect. OEMs wield enormous leverage over vendors. Most of the time OEMs get what they want. In that vein, I would say that an OEM interaction with Falken has led to this situation with the 250 / 250A tire.
And, Basic has mentioned, and I don't remember his words exactly, but it seems he puts not a whole lot of value in the UTQG ratings. Basic appears to be down in the trenches of some really good tire engineering, so I believe what he says about tires.
However - If it were between the two Falkens, I would choose the 250 tar over the 250A tar, for the cost & warranty reasons Mark states.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2020 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 42.4 mpg (US) ... 18.0 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.9 mpg (Imp)