Now, I realize that both of these tires are in the 'budget summer performance' category. I was deadset on some yokos but now these have caught my eye. I can get the kumho for $58 each from tire rack in 195/50, or i could get the yoko for $59 a piece in the same size. So obviously the price difference between the two is no issue. So what is it boys, which is the better tire all around. For a daily driven, non tracked DC? These would be on stock 15x6 wheels. Which is gonna handle better, which is gonna last longer, which is better in rain, etc? I appreciate any and all feedback, I know you guys know your stuff. If you have any suggestions on a different tire that is similiar let me know. Thank you.

 

These are perhaps the two best tires in this segment. They are extremely similar in price and performance. The Tire Rack has a side-by-side comparison test of these two tires on its website here. The Kumho came out better overall, although the Yokohama came out better in important categories like dry handling and dry lap times.

The Yokohama has been on the market for a couple of years, and has been the leader in that segment during that period, so it's easy to find a lot of comments on them (like in this topic). I've been using them during that time on my '94 GS-R, and I can assure you that they offer very good dry traction, outstanding wet traction, and outstanding treadlife. Mine still have plenty of tread after 20K miles, and they look like they'll last about 35K miles before I have to replace them, which is excellent. Since the SPT just hit the market, it will be hard to find people who are using them yet, let alone have driven enough on them to know how long they will last. But they did well enough in the Tire Rack testing that they're worth trying.

Both are great choices, just try either one and you'll probably like it.

 

Thank you very much. So if it was up to you personally, if you had to pick one or the other, the yoko is going to be your choice? From what I read in the tirerack comparo it seems as if the kumho will be a better choice for daily/spirited driving than the yoko. The way they worded it it seems as if the yoko barely edged out the kumho in dry handling, which to me is not that big of a deal, as I wont be taking it to the limit on city streets anyways. I was impressed by the way the kumho came in just after that O.E. tire in road noise. So i gather that the kumho would ride smoother and quieter at the expense of a tad less dry capability?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hotsuma23 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if it was up to you personally, if you had to pick one or the other, the yoko is going to be your choice?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not necessarily. I'm just more familiar with it, from personal experience. But I'd be just as willing to try the SPT.

The differences are very minor, in either direction. These may be the two most similar tires around.

 

well, i haven't tried the SPT, but i did have a set of ES100's.

the one thing i noticed about them was the road noise...it was insanely loud compared to my previous Dunlop FM901, and Pirelli P7000.

the yoko's have really good grip though, but they wear kinda fast. mind you, i was running the 205/45/zr16 size. try out the new SPT's and give us a review!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mashimaro &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well, i haven't tried the SPT, but i did have a set of ES100's.

the one thing i noticed about them was the road noise...it was insanely loud compared to my previous Dunlop FM901, and Pirelli P7000.

the yoko's have really good grip though, but they wear kinda fast. mind you, i was running the 205/45/zr16 size. try out the new SPT's and give us a review! </TD></TR></TABLE>

I have found exactly the opposite, using 195/55-15 ES100 on my '94 GS-R. The road noise is normal, just like any other tire I've used.

As for wearing fast, these are the longest lasting tires I've used on that car. Here's how many miles I've gotten on various tires, rotating them regularly and driving from new tires until the treadwear indicator bars are flat across:

Michelin XGT-V4: 28K miles
Dunlop SP9000: 30K miles
Bridgestone RE010: 27K miles
Yokohama ES100: 40K miles (estimated based on treadwear after 20K miles so far)

 

Now after looking at the comparison graphs, it looks as though the kumho beats the yoko in about everything. I think I will be ordering my set from tirerack.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hotsuma23 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Now after looking at the comparison graphs, it looks as though the kumho beats the yoko in about everything. I think I will be ordering my set from tirerack. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Sounds good.

After you've driven a good 1000 miles on them, let us know how you like them!

 

Ok now the only thing i have not decided yet is 195/55 or 195/50. I just dont know. I cant make up my mind. I know the 50 will throw off the speedo a bit, it will in theory reduce my final drive ratio, and other than that I really dont know which to choose. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

 

Get the one that keeps the accuracy of your speedometer - 195/55-15.

 

I have had my Yokohama ES100's for about 2 months now (5,000miles) and they are extremely good tires. The treadwear SO FAR is good for high performance tires. I live in FL so i dont really have to worry about snow but they are damn good on dry surface and in wet conditions.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Get the one that keeps the accuracy of your speedometer - 195/55-15.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Does it really matter that much though? The 50 series will acclerate a little better wont they? Also what type of difference in comfort is there between the two? I mean its only what, 2 cm total difference?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hotsuma23 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Does it really matter that much though? The 50 series will acclerate a little better wont they? Also what type of difference in comfort is there between the two? I mean its only what, 2 cm total difference?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Most of the differences between the two are usually very small*. So I'd rather have an accurate speedometer/odometer and not worry about insignificant differences elsewhere.

*Depending on the tire, sometimes these two sizes are surprisingly different in price. For example, with the Yokohama AVS ES100, the 205/50-15 size costs 23 percent more than the 195/55-15 ($75 vs $61 per tire).

 

i have ES100 195/55/15. iam very happy with them. good in rain and not the best on dry, but no problem at all.

snow...no way. i had hard time comming back home from MT..lol loose grip when i press gas lil hard.

for the money i wll get tham again. or falken 712

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rusty VTEC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">for the money i wll get tham again. or falken 712</TD></TR></TABLE>

Falken 712? Is that like the Kumho Azenis?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Falken 712? Is that like the Kumho Azenis? </TD></TR></TABLE>

ROFL

 

I think im gonna go with the 195/50 because they cost $58 each vs. $67 each for the 195/55. Thats $36 dollars for the set difference. Also I think I like the more lower, aggressive look of the 50's. I will be able to slam my car a bit more to w/o rubbing I assume?

 

yup. long as you stay on 195/xx/15

i will take some pic of my ES100 195/55/15 soon.

 

Well its official, I ordered my Kumho Spt's in size 195/50/15 today. What for $58 each. What you guys think, that size will be cool? I mean its only 1 cm smaller in overall diameter than the 205/50/15s.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hotsuma23 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What you guys think, that size will be cool?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I already told you what I think. 195/55-15 is the right size for most Integras. The 195/50-15 is the right size for most Civics (not all, but most). It's 3.3 percent smaller in outer diameter than stock for most Integras, including yours. It will work - I mean, the car isn't going to blow up or anything - but your speedometer and odometer will read high by that percentage.

 

Well, I understand the advantages and disadvantages about having a shorter tire than stock. Now what I was mostly talking about was 205/50/15 compared to 195/50/15. The sidewall height in those two are almost identical (5mm difference).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hotsuma23 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well, I understand the advantages and disadvantages about having a shorter tire than stock. Now what I was mostly talking about was 205/50/15 compared to 195/50/15. The sidewall height in those two are almost identical (5mm difference). </TD></TR></TABLE>

Each difference adds up. The sidewall height of the 205/50-15 is 5 mm taller than 195/50-15. The sidewall height of the 195/55-15 is 4.75 mm taller than 205/50-15, or 9.75 mm taller than 195/50-15. That total sidewall difference of 9.75 mm from stock means a difference in outer diameter of 19.5 mm, or 3.3 percent, which is not insignificant.

 

imo es100's arnt that great as they are made out to be, they come with less tread new then other tires ini its class, the tread ware dosnt last very long at all. new tires looks like used tires when there the es's imo, because of how thin of tread you have. but thats from my experience

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eg64u &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">imo es100's arnt that great as they are made out to be</TD></TR></TABLE>

I disagree - I think they're very good, and an outstanding bargain for the price - but you're entitled to your opinion. But please, base your opinion on actual facts, not on misinformation.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eg64u &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">they come with less tread new then other tires ini its class</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not true. Here is the tread depth when new of the leading tires in the "budget performance" category:

Yokohama ES100: 10/32"
Avon Tech M500: 10/32"
Bridgestone Potenza RE750: 10/32"
Dunlop Direzza DZ101: 10/32"
Fuzion ZRi: 10/32"
Kumho Ecsta SPT: 10/32"

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eg64u &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the tread ware dosnt last very long at all.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Also not true. This is the fifth different tire that I am using on my Integra GS-R, and the Yokohama ES100 is lasting significantly longer than any of the others I've used, including the stock tire Michelin XGT V4 (28K miles), Dunlop SP9000 (31K miles), and Bridgestone RE010 (25K miles). It appears that by the time they are done, I will get about 35K miles, which is outstanding for a high-performance tire like these.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eg64u &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">new tires looks like used tires when there the es's imo, because of how thin of tread you have.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Again - as noted above, the tread on the ES100 is just as deep as on any other tire in its class. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it's just plain wrong. If you don't believe me, you can go to each of the tires on the Tire Rack website and click on "Specs" to see how much tread depth it has when new.

Maybe someone sold you some ES100 tires and claimed that they were "almost new", but they weren't really new at all, and you didn't realize it?

 

just picked up AVS Es100 and it's freaking awesome. I'm not as scared to hit corners at high speeds and noise? what noise? It's quieter than my Michellins. Thanks for the input Nsxtasy!