I was about to put another pair of Falken Azenis on when I was told that they were discontinued for a new Falken RT type of tire, which I was also told is "more aggressive". Does anyone have input who has had experience with both types. I have the Falken Azenis 205's on the ITR right now, and I love them.

Thanks

 

next time try using the wheel/tire forum...

many will tell you that the RT has a slightly softer side wall and they are better for wet traction (in comparison to the 205)

i would recommend picking them up, but try looking into other tires in its category such as the hancook's (not sure what model though), sorry bout that.

 

Go ahead and get the 615s, they have similar/better grip to the 215s but they do "feel" different.

The Hankook RS2 Z212 is similar in grip at a lower price also.

 

Thanks for the response, I'll check out the tire forum. You might be able to remind me before I head over there ... I completely forgot.. which size Azenis were able to fit on the stock ITR wheel? I just remember that they were 205's, but there were a bunch of others numbers that went along with that

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jetydosa &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Go ahead and get the 615s, they have similar/better grip to the 215s but they do "feel" different.

The Hankook RS2 Z212 is similar in grip at a lower price also.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i wanna try the hankook rs2 too! friggin shoulda bought em initially. dammit.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jetydosa &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Hankook RS2 Z212 is similar in grip at a lower price also.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

jety,
Would you mind filling me in on which numbers are referring to which name tire? When I hear "215", I first think of tire size. I'm really not familiar with all of this, and I should be. Thanks for being as specific as possible.

 

The Hankook Z212 RS-II's are really nice street/track tires. they are good in the rain also when full thread.

 

RT215 is the Azenis sport, the tire the most people think of when you refer to "Azenis"

RT615 is the "new Azenis", that replaced the older tire, Falken discontinued the 215s.

Both come in 205/50-15 that fits the stock ITR wheel, albiet with worse steering response than the stock RE010 and the stock wheel is quite narrow for such a wide tire. On 7" wide or wider the Azenis really feel good though.

 

rt 615 is the best tire i've had to date... i had so3's, kumho mx, azenis rt 615 is simply the best!!

 

the 205/50/15 is the stock ITR wheel size (for azenis and other after market wheels)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rino924 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the 205/50/15 is the stock ITR wheel size (for azenis and other after market wheels)</TD></TR></TABLE>

are you asking that or saying thats what it is..

stock itr tire size is 195-55/15 and wheel size is 15x6

 

It really depends on your intended purpose and application.

I just switched from the Azenis 215's to Kumho MX's and came back from an HPDE at Limerock Park last week where I broke them in 100 miles travel to and from and 110 miles on track. I was impressed with a few things, kinder street manners as in quieter and smoother handling were the most immediate differences. Turn-in for comparison was not as crisp and I am comparing the Azenis 215's in 205/50/15 on 7" wheels with MX's in the same size and also on 7" wheels. Turn-in could be adjusted a bit with tire pressures though. Ultimate grip was a bit less but felt more consistant with the MX's as the day went on. They broke away progressively and were audible and could be controlled easily and caught before they actually let go altogether.

Overall I was pleasantly impressed with the MX's and the price was nicer than the new 615's as well. Both tires are 200 treadwear IIRC but my main purpose was a dual purpose street to the track and track wet weather driving tire. But I gotta say that the MX's are definitely a nicer ride on road in comparison.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It really depends on your intended purpose and application.

I just switched from the Azenis 215's to Kumho MX's and came back from an HPDE at Limerock Park last week where I broke them in 100 miles travel to and from and 110 miles on track. I was impressed with a few things, kinder street manners as in quieter and smoother handling were the most immediate differences. Turn-in for comparison was not as crisp and I am comparing the Azenis 215's in 205/50/15 on 7" wheels with MX's in the same size and also on 7" wheels. Turn-in could be adjusted a bit with tire pressures though. Ultimate grip was a bit less but felt more consistant with the MX's as the day went on. They broke away progressively and were audible and could be controlled easily and caught before they actually let go altogether.

Overall I was pleasantly impressed with the MX's and the price was nicer than the new 615's as well. Both tires are 200 treadwear IIRC but my main purpose was a dual purpose street to the track and track wet weather driving tire. But I gotta say that the MX's are definitely a nicer ride on road in comparison.</TD></TR></TABLE>

615 is very different from 215, design is more like mx or so3 or ventus just a whole lot better (i was a bit sceptic, but definatly the best tire yet), mx would be second on my list, and i haven't tried hankook ventus.

 

For comparisons of the old Azenis RT-215 with the new Azenis RT-615, do a search; there have been lots of topics on them, both here and in the new Wheel and Tire forum. This topic, in particular, has quite a few comparison comments.

There is a test of various top-of-the-line tires in the new (December) issue of Car and Driver. It's worth checking out. The Kumho MX finished dead last. The Goodyear F1 GS-D3 finished first, but unfortunately, its only 15" size available is 195/50-15, a bit small for the ITR. The Hankook R-S2 Z212 did pretty well, mid-pack; aside from the Azenis, which were not included in the C&D test, it's probably as good a street tire as you're going to find for the ITR, comparable to tires like the OEM Bridgestone RE010 and the Bridgestone S-03, while priced considerably cheaper. I think that the Falken RT-615 offers significantly better grip, though (and I'm not sure I believe all the hype about the Hankook being comparable with the Azenis). And without actual reports, we really don't know whether the Hankook will last as long as the two Bridgestones, or will wear as quickly as the Azenis.

When it comes to getting tires for the ITR, I think the choice (in order of descending grip) is between (a) getting max grip with the Azenis RT-615 (205/50-15), and living with the rapid wear (short treadlife); (b) spending a lot of money for the OEM Bridgestone RE010 (195/55-15) or Bridgestone S-03 (205/50-15), or less money for the Hankook Z212 (205/50-15), all excellent performers; (c) spending less money for one of the not-so-great top-of-the-line tires like the Kumho MX (205/50-15) or Toyo T1R (195/55-15), which are still very good tires; or (d) spending even less money for a "budget performance tire" like the Yokohama ES100 (195/55-15) or Kumho Ecsta SPT (195/55-15). Your money, your choice...

EDIT: Improved the ranking of the Hankook after reviewing various test results...



Modified by nsxtasy at 11:11 AM 11/18/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rino924 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">next time try using the wheel/tire forum...

</TD></TR></TABLE>

I thought this had a lot to do with Type Rs since most people run Falken Azenis here, and unless people have stock-piled them they will need a replacement soon. I was looking at the new Azenis and I have not been impressed by the appearance(no input on handling accept thay aren't good in the rain). Nothing beats the 215s for value, quality and handling in my opinion, its a real shame they are discontinued. I will probably look to a much more expensive when it comes time to replace the 215s.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ed 341 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I was looking at the new Azenis and I have not been impressed by the appearance(no input on handling accept thay aren't good in the rain). </TD></TR></TABLE>

Huh? You are judging them by their looks? And I can tell you first hand the new Azenis are damn good in the wet (at least at close to full tread depth anyway).

I agree it sucks the new Azenis are so much more $ than the old ones, but they still are GREAT tires for the price, and absolute grip is arguably better than ANY street tire out there at ANY price.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There is a test of various top-of-the-line tires in the new (December) issue of Car and Driver. It's worth checking out. The Kumho MX finished dead last. The Goodyear F1 GS-D3 finished first, but unfortunately, its only 15" size available is 195/50-15, a bit small for the ITR. The Hankook R-S2 Z212 didn't do all that well, which leads me to believe that it may not be worth all the hype about being comparable with the Azenis. (Unfortunately, the Azenis weren't included in the C&D test.)
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Of note for what I considered for comparison testing was Our much touted Tire rack tests (apples to apples) where the MX performed admirably including it's wet weather handling (which is what I was really after) and when the price point was factored in was a strong contendor and for me the ultimate winner:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...7.jsp



&

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/max_perf.jsp

"On the track in the dry, the ECSTA MX came into its element by also providing very responsive handling, superior cornering and excellent braking traction; but it wasn't able to run quite as fast as the g-Force T/A KD.

On the track in the wet, the ECSTA MX continued to provide responsive handling, along with good cornering and braking traction. This made the ECSTA MX easier to drive at the limit and allowed it to turn the fastest lap times of the three tires."










And is another test that I took into consideration from Grassroots Motorsports: http://www.grassrootsmotorspor...t.pdf

There's 3 things that I must stress that were most important to me in order: 1) wet weather handling, 2) price & 3) ultimate performance.

 

Care to summarize the C&D findings?

 

I'm not sure how many people might have been waiting for this kind of development, but around March or April 2006 the Falken Azenis RT615 will be available in 215-45-16.



Kumho MX = Old Technology. Its advantage is that it is very easily available almost everywhere, and that it's just a known quantity under high G situations. I'm always surprised when people prefer the Kumho MX to the Hankook Z212 and the Azenis RT615...but perhaps the preference is related to driving style.

You're getting good advice here from people who know what they're talking about. I'm not sure I have anything to add unless you just want to know what each of us would buy for his specific purpose right this second.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It really depends on your intended purpose and application.

I just switched from the Azenis 215's to Kumho MX's and came back from an HPDE at Limerock Park last week where I broke them in 100 miles travel to and from and 110 miles on track. I was impressed with a few things, kinder street manners as in quieter and smoother handling were the most immediate differences. Turn-in for comparison was not as crisp and I am comparing the Azenis 215's in 205/50/15 on 7" wheels with MX's in the same size and also on 7" wheels. Turn-in could be adjusted a bit with tire pressures though. Ultimate grip was a bit less but felt more consistant with the MX's as the day went on. They broke away progressively and were audible and could be controlled easily and caught before they actually let go altogether.

Overall I was pleasantly impressed with the MX's and the price was nicer than the new 615's as well. Both tires are 200 treadwear IIRC but my main purpose was a dual purpose street to the track and track wet weather driving tire. But I gotta say that the MX's are definitely a nicer ride on road in comparison.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think the biggest benefit the MX's hold over the Falkens as the MX's are nowhere near as sensitive to heat as the falkens are. I found my falkens getting greasy due to heat 1/2 - 3/4 way through each session, on the MX's i experienced the exact opposite. The hotter they got, the better they stuck.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by xjohnx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I think the biggest benefit the MX's hold over the Falkens as the MX's are nowhere near as sensitive to heat as the falkens are. I found my falkens getting greasy due to heat 1/2 - 3/4 way through each session, on the MX's i experienced the exact opposite. The hotter they got, the better they stuck.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Can you conceive of the possibility that what you've described could actually mean that the ultimate grip of the Falkens is actually higher?

And that the MX are just sturdier considering your driving style?

(That's about as politically correct as I can phrase the question. )

 

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

Can you conceive of the possibility that what you've described could actually mean that the ultimate grip of the Falkens is actually higher?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh I could definitely agree comparing just the 215's to the MX's, 615's excluded since I've not yet driven on them. But I think theres a few things that contribute to the differences and not just compound alone.

But first, I looked at each manufacturers treadwear ratings (200) for the 215's and (220) for the MX's so I must correct my earlier (IIRC) per the about equal tread wear ratings.

I'd expect the stiffer sidewalls and larger tread block pattern of the Azenis to also make a strong difference where turn-in and lateral grip is concerned. I did notice that understeer was more prevalent with the MX's. This understeer could be countered to a degree with higher pressure settings and different corner entries but after viewing some incar video last night I did notice that the lines had to be taken a bit less aggressively to also compensate. It is important to consider that my reported experience with the MX Vs. 215 comparison is Not for competition and or timed events. I'll have to wait for that till spring

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And that the MX are just sturdier considering your driving style?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

It depends on the definition of "sturdier". I'd expect the overall construction of the 215 to be sturdier or more robust tire actually and definitely more aggressive but it does fade grip wise when it gets heated and or over-heated (which I'm sure was what you were after G), and as the tire gets on in life it fades sooner in my experience, whereas the MX, (older design and technology or not) showed when shaved to be quicker & more consistant than when at full tread depth for the GRM testing. Take that for what you will.

 

I'm just hitting h-t right now for the first time this morning. I'm going to go through detailed comments and questions in a moment, but a few quick points:

1. The new Azenis RT-615 was designed to be much better in rain than the old Azenis RT-215, and reports here indicated that they succeeded. Any comments about it not being good in the rain should specify whether they refer to experience with the RT-615 or the RT-215. (I suspect they are for the RT-215.)

2. Similarly, the new Azenis RT-615 was designed to hold up to heat when driven hard (e.g. at the track) much better than the old Azenis RT-215, and reports here indicated that they succeeded in this regard as well. Any comments about it getting greasy should specify whether they refer to experience with the RT-615 or the RT-215. (I suspect they are for the RT-215.)

3. Treadwear ratings are questionable to begin with, and are not comparable between brands. For example, the old Azenis RT-215 has a treadwear rating of 200 and the OEM Bridgestone RE010 has a treadwear rating of 140, yet reports from lots of ITR owners indicate that you can expect about 60 percent more miles with the RE010 than the RT-215 (most common treadlife figures are 15-20K vs 9-12K, although there are owners whose mileage falls on either side of those ranges).

I'll post more in a moment.

 

I've been through 2-3 sets of old azenis and am currently on the new azenis.

Performance wise they're both close, so its hard to say. But it seems to me that the old ones were better, but its really hard to say without compairing them back to back.

The new azenis are fine, but I think I'm going to try something else next time.