What tyres are you running?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

They're over rated. B'stone have done well out of F1 tie up/Potenza as they're OE shod for a lot of cars, even the Ferrari Enzo!

Falken 452s are a hell of lot better and cheaper.

---

Well I can safely say that other than the Vredestein Snowtrac 3's, the Potenza's are far and away the best tyres I've ever had in terms of grip.

Most people I know with RE050A's tend to be happy with them, the one caveat being winter performance which aint so good. But to have done 22k miles on them and only be just round half way through them is pretty good in terms of wear. I also

The big problem with tyres is that in almost all situations, a new tyre will be better than the old one in terms of wet grip and noise than a tyre which means that a lot of people get a car which has something like Michelin's, Pirelli's, Conti's or Bridgestones on it and puts a set of Wanli's or Nankang's on it and as you'd expect they're better because they have more tread on them.

Personally I place more weight on tests conducted in fairly controlled conditions with the same cars

2010 EVO Tyre Test | the online tyre guide

Potenza did fairly well here.

Anyway, the Subaru is now running 1 less Conti after a massive bolt killed the rear left tyre by punching a freaking massive hole through the tread. Now running an Infinity which we had in the shed. Not all that bothered as the Subaru will hopefully be going off the road soonish and it'd probably get a couple of new tyres anyway whenever it goes back on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Personally I place more weight on tests conducted in fairly controlled conditions with the same cars

2010 EVO Tyre Test | the online tyre guide

Potenza did fairly well here.

---

As did both Contis with an overall 1-2.
... just sayin' ;) :bandit: :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

As did Contis with an overall 1-2.
... just sayin' ;) :bandit: :p

---

I'd happily fit CSC3's if they made them in the proper load rating for my size :p Start making them in 195/45 R16 84V and I'll buy a set ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Most people I know with RE050A's tend to be happy with them, the one caveat being winter performance which aint so good. But to have done 22k miles on them and only be just round half way through them is pretty good in terms of wear.

---

Who are they?

Most Jap car, err, enthusiasts I know wouldn't dream of going back to the RE50A.

Tyres on the Smacker are Michelin Premicy HP XL 225/50/17's 98W. Good wear (16-18k on the fronts where all the weight and turning wear is) and 40K+ on the rears. Minimal road noise, excellent all-round grip and good fuel economy. Expensive tyres, but if you ring round, you can get them fitted etc for under £200/corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Who are they?

Most Jap car, err, enthusiasts I know wouldn't dream of going back to the RE50A.

---

Well, different sizes, different characteristics and all. I didn't like the Falken's so I think that says a little about how tyres differ with size.

I post on Fiatforum and a firm favourite (for the winter tyre people) there are Vredestein Snowtrac's and I myself have some and love them, yet on other sites people prefer Pirelli's or Michelin's. Tis just the way things are. After a ridiculously bad set of Pirelli P400's I'll never buy Pirelli's, even though they'll be absolutely fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Tyres on the Smacker are Michelin Premicy HP XL 225/50/17's 98W. Good wear (16-18k on the fronts where all the weight and turning wear is) and 40K+ on the rears. Minimal road noise, excellent all-round grip and good fuel economy. Expensive tyres, but if you ring round, you can get them fitted etc for under £200/corner.

---

Not a bad price and good mileage! www.mytyres.co.uk do an absolute shedload of tyres in that size. Just as an indication of what you can get for less, you can get a Conti for £160 or a Uniroyal Rainsport 2 for £130. If you're a Michelin fan, Costo regularly do 20% off offers. You have to be a member though.

One thing I would just mention as well, it's always recommended that you keep your best tyres on the rear as it lessens the risk of losing the back end in the wet. I know it goes against conventional wisdom for a FWD car, but far better to understeer off and hit something with the front of the car rather than oversteer and hit the object sideways ;)

Vicki Butler Henderson explains why new tyres should go on the rear - YouTube

That said, who needs to pay £200 for ONE Michelin when you get get a goodride for £48.50 EACH? :rotflmao:

Details: Goodride SA-05 225/50 R17 98W XL BSW - mytyres.co.uk

Christ almighty, which plonker would put those on his car? :mark:

Oh and also, Camskill are very cheap for tyres too :)

Same Michelin's are £171.30 from them. You have to get them fitted of course, but the saving is worth it. Car Tyres - MPV Tyres - People Carrier Tyres - 17" :: R17" - 225/50/17, 225/50 R 17 ::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Oh and also, Camskill are very cheap for tyres too :)

Same Michelin's are £171.30 from them. You have to get them fitted of course, but the saving is worth it. Car Tyres - MPV Tyres - People Carrier Tyres - 17" :: R17" - 225/50/17, 225/50 R 17 ::

---

I've got a Costco card through work luckily, but they were not (believe it or not) as cheap as the online price from Kwik Fit. As a rule, I price match with Kwik Fit, take a screen shot, email it to SMC Ford who then match the price. Saves about £50 a corner on the dealer's price!!!

The only rubber I buy from Costco however is, errrrrrrrrr, ummmmmmm, well, you know....... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Not a bad price and good mileage!

---

I do, however, drive like a pu55y. My aim is to get 700 miles from a tank a fuel, but the gentle driving has the bonus of being easy on the tyres. And the longevity of the tyres is even better, given that the wife uses the car for the school run and work when it is raining. She walks the kids to school in the dry, but work is too far to walk.