Sure, no problem. I had a decent set of Dunlop tires on my bike. Got good mileage out of them, relatively satisfied with them. Probably the 30th set of Dunlop tires I've run over the years.

So jumping on be hype of the new Michelin, I bought a front tire in a c2. Keep in mind, my bike rode and handled fine before installing the Michelin. Immediately after installing the Michelin, my bike was dangerous to ride over 50-60 mph. The bike danced all over the road. Seriously, dangerous. My ol actually asked me if we were about to go down. After checking everything under the sun, the answer should have been clear all along. I swapped the front Michelin for an Avon venom, and my bike handles better than it ever has. I had the Michelin checked out every way possible, and 2 different shops found nothing wrong with it. I sent it back to Michelin, and they found nothing wrong. They did refund my money after hours of debate, but it was a struggle. No more Michelin for me...

 

Running Michelin Commander IIs on my Ultra Classic for 2500 miles. What an immense improvement from the Dunlop whitewalls. Cornering stability and tracking on this heavy bike was greatly improved with these tires as was freeway cruising. Claims of high mileage are yet to be seen but would be a bonus.
I would buy Michelins for the truck and car any day over Dunlops, same goes for the bike.

 

Just put the C-II's on my 07 Fat Boy front and rear. Amazing difference on the first ride. Bike just handles like a dream. Like others have said, local dealer does not stock them. Ordered mine from Revzilla.com. Cost $300 for both delivered to my door. Cheaper than Dunflops, so even if they don't last longer still a good deal. I'm hoping the 200 rear gets better than the 7 to 8k I got with the factory tire...

 

Just thinking out loud here, if you replace a worn tire with any new tire, won't there be a vast improvement? I ran the michelin front and rear on my ultra and noticed no difference in handling (we aren't racing here). Only difference I did notice was a lot less mileage than the Dunlops and feathering on the Michelin rear at about 7K. Guess I'm in the minority. Will stick with the Dunlops. 110K on the Ultra, used a few tires.

 

[QUOTE=1plumr1;11525608]Just thinking out loud here, if you replace a worn tire with any new tire, won't there be a vast improvement? I ran the michelin front and rear on my ultra and noticed no difference in handling (we aren't racing here).


You raise a very good point. However, in my case, I have been through 4 sets of Dunlops on my bike (34k miles) so I know how a new Dunlop feels. My bike never seemed as agile on new Dunlops as it does on these new C II's. Time will tell if my opinion of them changes.

 

I just got back from a 4000 mile trip on a set of commanders. They had probably 3000 miles prior to the trip. They handled great on 4000 miles of twisty canyon and mountain roads. They even did the job on 15 miles of gravel in LOLO pass on MT where they were resurfacing the road although I cursed the entire way.

In Idaho on Hells Canyon the road was so hot so you had to be a tad bit cautious, but it would be like that with any tire when it is hot enough to melt the pavement. The tread still looks great and I expect at least another 5000 miles out of these tires, probably more.

 

Can't really speak to the tire compound question. IMO its the tread pattern hat makes the difference. The MCII don't have a center line in the tread pattern. Thats what tracks the tar snakes.

 

Had them on my old bike. Commander II's are good BUT...you need to keep them aired up to 41+ on front and back. I have found that they get squirrely on the freeway with less.

 

6K on my MCII's and really like them. Went threw two sets of Dunlop E3's before these, which I also liked much, much better then the 402's.

I think the MCII's handle a tad bit better than the E3's, and if I can get 17K on the rear like I did on the E3's I would be happy.

 

Why are some saying they are cheaper than others? They look pricey to me??