hi i read through the archives and i really couldn't decide if there is really a big difference in feel with the tire sizes on the same tires re040 or potenza g3's

im in oz melb and im looking for some good tires for the stock rims (re010 seem to be faded out by bridgestone)

g3's are like A$198 each and re040 A$239

with that price i can get so3 for A$222 but then i need to buy 16" rims

so im considering if i should go all out with the re040 or just g3's and if so the 205/50 or 195/55 i'll be driving it on street only and wet and dry traction will be important because all 4 season are evident everyday here in melbourne

all will falken's and yokohama's should be considered as well

thx in advance

 

I take it you have 15 inch rims stock over there?

And do you have to deal with snow or ice at any point of the year?

 

Nope - no snow here :D

I've got RE040's on stock 15" rims - they've done well as the RE010 replacement - They hold up on the track well too - no real complaints about them - they were OEM for the MR2's/NSX (15") - and Audi's T's.

If you're looking for something more, the Falken RT215 or the toyo trampio street/race tyres :D but they won't last to long.... my last set lasted around 11000kms, but to me, I rather have the enjoyment of grip, rather than tyres lasting the life of the car ...

 

You're going to have to get advice from other folks down under. The tires that we tend to use here are the ones available here, which are not the same as what you can buy. The RE010 is still available here in 195/55-15. The Bridgestone Potenza S-03 is available here in 205/50-15 and 195/50-15. So those are three obvious choices that we get, and you don't. We don't get a Potenza G3.

One other choice that's available here in 195/55-15 is the Yokohama AVS ES100. It's not as sticky on dry pavement as the RE010 or S-03 or Falken Azenis RT215, but it's still pretty good - better than some other tires like the Kumho Ecsta Supra 712, for example - and it's great in rain (unlike the Falken), lasts a long time, and is very, very inexpensive (USD61/tire, which is AUD80). If rain is a big consideration for you (and it sounds like it is), that one might be worth considering, if it's available in your market.

Incidentally, ...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by euG3dc2r &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I've got RE040's on stock 15" rims - they've done well as the RE010 replacement - They hold up on the track well too - no real complaints about them - they were OEM for the MR2's/NSX (15") - and Audi's T's.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The 15" RE040 was not OEM for the NSX. The '91-93 NSX came with Yokohama A022H or Bridgestone RE010 in 15"/16", and in '94-01 came with the same tires in 16"/17". The '02-05 NSX did indeed come with Bridgestone RE040, but those are 17"/17".

 

get 205 50 15 falken azenis... they're about AUD$200 each
I had them before. Dry traction is very good and wet is not bad.

makes the car looks more aggressive IMO

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by boszyen &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">falken azenis... they're about AUD$200 each
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I wouldn't recommend the Falken Azenis RT215 to anyone for whom wet traction is a big consideration, like it is for ITSUKA. While they might not be absolutely horrible if you keep your speed down, most other street tires grip significantly better on wet pavement.

I'm surprised they're so expensive Down Under. That's about twice as much as they cost here in the States (USD75, or AUD99 per tire). And, since they wear so quickly, that means that they're significantly more expensive on a dollars-per-mile basis than any of the other tires we're discussing here.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">since they wear so quickly,</TD></TR></TABLE>
vs. RE010 and the S-03...
yea right.

this discussion has happened several times.... and the $/wear ratio for the Azenis is not as bad as you lead people to think.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">vs. RE010 and the S-03...
yea right.

this discussion has happened several times.... and the $/wear ratio for the Azenis is not as bad as you lead people to think.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nonsense. I don't "lead people to think" anything. The numbers are simple to calculate. Anyone can look at the numbers and think whatever they want.

Cost per set RE010: $520 for 4 tires plus $60 mounting = $580
Treadlife for RE010: most folks get 15-20K miles if they drive them from new down to flat treadwear bars, although a few get less than that and a few others (including me, still with tread at 25K) get more

Cost per set Azenis RT215: $300 for 4 tires plus $60 mounting = $360
Treadlife for RT215: most folks get 9-12K miles if they drive them from new down to flat treadwear bars, although a few (including euG3dc2r, whose 11K km equates to less than 7K miles) get less than that and a few others get more

For every 60K miles miles you drive, at the upper end of the estimates, you will buy/mount 3 sets of RE010 for $1740 (2.9 cents per mile) or 5 sets of RT215 for $1800 (3 cents per mile). Pretty darn close.

However, if you're in Australia and you're paying 600 U.S. dollars for a set of Azenis, that means you will pay $3300 every 60K miles (5.5 cents per mile). Not close at all.

Those are the numbers.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Treadlife for RE010: most folks get 15-20K miles
Treadlife for RT215: most folks get 10-12K miles</TD></TR></TABLE>

As discussed in the past... your mileage #'s are slightly skewed from my (and other drivers) 'actual' results.

Most folks 'might' get more mileage out of a set of S03's/010's/Azenis. But if driven the same way, the tread life out of all three tires (I have use all 3) is approximately the same.

Price is the determining factor for me but since the post creator said ("because all 4 season are evident everyday")... his choice should not include the 010's or Azenis.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">your mileage #'s are slightly skewed from my (and other drivers) 'actual' results.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, they're not. They're the "consensus numbers" from many, many reports posted here on h-t.com In fact, I have bent over backwards NOT to use "outlier" ("skewed") numbers like my own RE010 (which will probably reach ~30K by the time the treadwear bars are flat) or like euG3dc2r's with his &lt;7K miles on the Azenis. This is quite obvious from my posts.

I don't know why you seem to be intent on repeatedly attacking me for posting these numbers. It appears that you object to the concept of looking at a "dollars per mile" basis. However, that makes the most sense for any analysis of the cost of any particular tire over any period of time.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Most folks 'might' get more mileage out of a set of S03's/010's/Azenis. But if driven the same way, the tread life out of all three tires (I have use all 3) is approximately the same.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nonsense. The reports posted here in the past consisted of usage that was similar from tire to tire, and the mileage difference between RE010 and Falken RT215 is striking. (For that matter, I even have a couple of track events on my RE010 that still have tread after 25K miles.)

Incidentally, I have not posted any statements about the S-03. The reason is, even though we have had lots and lots of posts about treadlife for the RT215 and the RE010, there have been few such posts for the S-03. You can only work the numbers if you have sufficient numbers of reports to get an idea of what is common and what is an outlier; we just don't have that for the S-03.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Price is the determining factor for me but since the post creator said ("because all 4 season are evident everyday")... his choice should not include the 010's or Azenis.</TD></TR></TABLE>

But he later clarified that he does not deal with snow. The RE010 does just fine with rain, in above-freezing temperatures. The average daily high temperature in Melbourne, where he lives, in the middle of the winter (July), is 55 degrees F.

If I thought he were regularly driving in below-freezing temperatures and/or snow, I would not recommend ANY of these tires for year-round use; I would recommend a separate set of winter tires. But he's not.

 

Simple question Ken;

What do you daily or public road drive on your R?

And what do you track on your R ?

The Azenis started originally becoming popular with the HPDE/Autocross crowd and trickled down accordingly. When you use and abuse tires like this, the cost factor comes into play and the Azenis win.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What do you daily or public road drive on your R?</TD></TR></TABLE>

March-December: Bridgestone Potenza RE010
Average annual rainfall here: 35 inches

December-March: Pirelli Ice winter tires
Average annual snowfall here: 39 inches

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And what do you track on your R ?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Toyo RA-1.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Azenis started originally becoming popular with the HPDE/Autocross crowd and trickled down accordingly. When you use and abuse tires like this, the cost factor comes into play and the Azenis win.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Azenis are a good choice for people who HPDE/autocross and don't have to do a lot of driving in rain; I never said they weren't. But the "cost factor" goes away when you take into account that they just don't last as long as most other tires.

I find it shocking that people like you and Willard think that people shouldn't look at how long the tires last when they are calculating how much they cost. It's actually cheating people when you continue to talk only about the purchase cost, and discourage them from looking at the entire picture, which includes how long they last. Just like I think you're short-changing people when you claim that Azenis "aren't that bad in the rain, if you keep your speeds down", instead of being honest and noting that they're not as good as most other tires in that regard. It's like you're a Falken salesman, trying to hype ONLY the good points, rather than giving people an honest, comprehensive understanding of ALL of the product's points, both good and bad.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The Azenis are a good choice for people who HPDE/autocross</TD></TR></TABLE>

Which is exactly my point and how they became popular. My Re010's got torn up at autocrosses, not even track events and that's why I went to the Azenis.

Spending twice as much for a tire I knew I was gonna waste sooner than later made no sense to me dollar wise. As it does for the many of us that track or dual drive our cars and or don't run R compounds exclusively. Which as of late I have gone to, and ironically am now looking at possibly the Re010's again as a street tire.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and don't have to do a lot of driving in rain</TD></TR></TABLE>

Re010's suck total ***** in the rain with anything less than 50% tread left imo. If you're driving in a lot of rain I wouldn't suggest them nor would I suggest the Azenis though. But on the other hand I have tracked the Azenis in the rain (full depth down to 60%) with no more than the usual experiences. I've autocrossed the Azenis in the rain many more times than I've tracked them similarly and the truth is that they will hydroplane like any other tire given enough pooled water.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But the "cost factor" goes away when you take into account that they just don't last as long as most other tires.</TD></TR></TABLE>

But Ken, this totally depends on intended usage. I didn't jump on here to promote them over another. But there is a Reason why many of us use them.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I find it shocking that people like you and Willard think that people shouldn't look at how long the tires last when they are calculating how much they cost.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I find it equally shocking that you think I was trying to "team" up with Willard to argue or debate and defend the tire in question where in fact I was just pointing out how they became popular as per their cost effectiveness.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's actually cheating people when you continue to talk only about the purchase cost, and discourage them from looking at the entire picture, which includes how long they last.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

And again as always you make good points that I may or may not agree with

But my dollars spent in the past few years were for specific and intended usage and the Azenis filled my requirements, while I learned enough to eventually benefit and take advantage of R's. At this point I'm running R comp's at the track and whatever is on the car for random autocrosses (for now will be a set of 50% left Azenis).

I did get almost 20k miles out of my original Re010's but they were run till bald and definitely Not effective or safe for any wet weather or pooling rain driving.

 

Thanks. Now we're starting to make real COMPARISON points regarding why one tire is better than another - not for everyone, but in specific attributes that may or many not be relevant to any particular owner/buyer/user. This is why I only recommend a tire for someone's specific, stated needs - instead of saying that X tire is the "best" for everyone.

If you live in Los Angeles or Phoenix and you daily drive your car and occasionally drive in an HPDE or autocross event, the Azenis RT215 is a great choice. Not because it's inexpensive - it's comparable to the RE010 in cost per mile - but because it offers nice performance on the street and for track events (particularly for those who don't have the track experience to take advantage of R compound tires).

If you live in New York or Seattle, though, the RT215 has the downside of not being as good in the rain as the S-03 or RE010 (I don't agree with your comments about the RE010, BTW - yes it gets worse when the tread gets worn, but that's true of ALL tires). Maybe you get the RT215 anyway, particularly if you have another car to use when the weather gets sloppy; or maybe you get the S-03, which is a fine tire, or maybe you get the RE010 and get a separate set of wheels for track tires. Those are other choices.

Then again, for anyone who really needs to save money on tires, there are other choices that may be better. I mentioned the Yoko ES100 earlier in this topic. The ES100 costs roughly 1.3 cents per mile, less than half as much as the RE010 or the RT215 on a cost-per-mile basis, thanks to excellent treadlife, and it does very nicely in rain, too. I wouldn't use it on the track, because it won't stick as well as the RE010 or the RT215, but in an autocross or two? Sure, if I weren't actually competing. You can learn a lot by autocrossing in your street tires. And for someone who is willing to sacrifice some performance in order to save money, it can meet those needs very well. Definitely beats all the rest of these in "bang for the buck", although not in sheer performance.

There are lots of good choices in tires out there. No single tire does the best at everything - wet traction, dry traction, handling, treadlife, cost, noise, hot temperatures, frigid temperatures, snow traction, etc. - but lots of tires are excellent in some of those respects. The best thing you can do is to decide which of these attributes are most important to you, and get the tire that best fits those priorities.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know why you seem to be intent on repeatedly attacking me for posting these numbers.</TD></TR></TABLE>
no attacks.. just public disagreement

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It appears that you object to the concept of looking at a "dollars per mile" basis.</TD></TR></TABLE>
yes.. because it is not universally applicable.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yes.. because it is not universally applicable.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's true that almost all of the reports that people have provided have consisted of moderately aggressive street driving, sometimes with an occasional autocross or HPDE event thrown in. That's the typical usage pattern here on h-t.com. I think that's because (a) those who never drive their cars all that hard are not enthusiasts who provide reports here, and (b) those whose cars are used only as track cars, not on the street, are likely to be using R compound tires rather than either of these choices.

So yes, if all of your driving is track driving, or if you drive like granny and never corner hard, your results might be different - in which case you'll be one of the "outliers", in one direction or the other. For most of us, though, the tires will last as long as most of the h-t.com members have reported they will with the typical, moderately hard usage pattern. (About 75 percent of the reports fell into the ranges stated earlier, with the remainder split between "low outliers" and "high outliers".)

 

thx alot for all the information guys

i really didn't expect so much reply, but none the less it's all been taken into consideration

but back to one of my questions

is there much difference in driving feel between 195/55 and 205/50? as in more grip? less steering response etc...

also will the 8mm difference on the side walls make a big difference in wall flexing etc?

thx again for the input

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ITSUKA &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

is there much difference in driving feel between 195/55 and 205/50? as in more grip? less steering response etc...
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Depending on the width of the wheel, how the tire sizing runs, tire construction and compound, Yes.

 

Since you live in Australia ...



Yokohama A048.

 

Hello???

What about the Kumho MXs, Imho by far the best all around tire I have used in a long time.
Rain- np
hot- np
snow- yeah right
track- pretty impressive
daily street- damm good, just watch out for extreme cold pavement/ tend to slip like most summer tires
Comfort/ noise- well with in respectable levels.
Cost- installed was $400.
Mileage- so far about 20,ooo But I'd have to dbl check.
Looks- Ahh those odd shaped designs on the side are weird.
Size- Fits a 6.5 rims very nice, I don't like the look on a 7 inch, looks like it's a hair small and is being pulled in (not square) I have not tried a 6 inch rim but would imagine that it should be no problem.
Comments from the only instructor- What tires do you have?, these things are nice... they take the heat well.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bbasso &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What about the Kumho MXs, Imho by far the best all around tire I have used in a long time.
Rain- np
hot- np
snow- yeah right
track- pretty impressive.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I played with Erik95LS at Mid-Ohio, he loved his MX's on the track. I was surprised how fast he was, musta been the tires.

-Chris

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris F &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I played with Erik95LS at Mid-Ohio, he loved his MX's on the track. I was surprised how fast he was, musta been the tires.

-Chris
</TD></TR></TABLE>

or the driver

I'm very happy with the MXs so far. The grip is fantastic and they're decent in wet weather as well.

 

sounds good

im using kumho's at the moment and there are only normal tires and they sucked , when i bought the car the tires need replacing so the previous own got the cheapest **** he could find, so i really didn't want to go with kumho's again but this may change my mind again,

 

Which ones have you been using?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ITSUKA &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is there much difference in driving feel between 195/55 and 205/50? as in more grip? less steering response etc...</TD></TR></TABLE>

IMO, no.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Depending on the width of the wheel, how the tire sizing runs, tire construction and compound, Yes.</TD></TR></TABLE>

While it may initially sound like 1GreyTeg and I disagree, I don't think that's true.

When I answered no, what I meant was, there would not be a difference in driving feel between 195/55 and 205/50, assuming all else equal. I think there are much, much more significant differences between different tire makes/models than there are between two sizes 10 mm apart within the same make/model. Differences in how the sizing runs, tire construction, tire compound, etc are likely to differ from one make/model tire to another, but not from one size to another within the same make/model. So I am actually saying the same thing as 1GreyTeg: differences attributable solely to the sizes are minimal, but differences attributable to the make/model of tires can be substantial.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thk &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yokohama A048. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Again - different tires are appropriate for different people with different priorities. The A048 is a track tire (R compound). It's great for track usage. Every track tire I've run into is not suitable for anyone whose top priorities include good rain traction - and that applies to ITSUKA. I don't think the A048 would be suitable for daily year-round use in Melbourne, which gets 26 inches of rainfall per year (similar to many cities in the American Midwest).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bbasso &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What about the Kumho MXs, Imho by far the best all around tire I have used in a long time.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Kumho MX is generally regarded as a very good tire - not quite as good by most performance measures as the very best street tires around (e.g. Bridgestone S-03, Goodyear F1 GS-D3, Michelin Pilot Sport PS2), but reasonably close, and less expensive.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ITSUKA &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">im using kumho's at the moment and there are only normal tires and they sucked , when i bought the car the tires need replacing so the previous own got the cheapest **** he could find, so i really didn't want to go with kumho's again but this may change my mind again,</TD></TR></TABLE>

Remember, Kumho (like most brands of tires) makes many, many different tires for different purposes. The Kumho MX is their top-of-the-line street tire, and it's a pretty good all-around tire. Kumho also makes some very good track tires (including the V700 Victoracer and the Ecsta V700) as well as some budget performance tires (the Ecsta Supra 712, which competes with the Yokohama ES100, although the Yoko pretty much does everything just a little bit better) and some other inexpensive, mediocre-performing tires as well. All Kumho tires are NOT the same. You need to decide what attributes you're looking for, and decide which specific model(s) of tire from Kumho and other brands best meet your priorities.