http://www.discounttire.com/dt...mance

It's about that time to get new tires for daily driving (& R-comps, but that's another $tory). I'm thinking about breaking the tried and true ES100 tradition for something with a little more bite. Has anyone tried these relatively new Hankooks and if so, what kind of mileage are you seeing and how do they really compare to the 615's? I'm running a stock wheel/supsension btw, so 205/55/15 is optimal.

tia,
Matt

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Utilitarian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm thinking about breaking the tried and true ES100 tradition for something with a little more bite. Has anyone tried these relatively new Hankooks</TD></TR></TABLE>

They were included in the test of top-of-the-line tires in the December issue of Car and Driver. You can find it on their website, but without all the detailed graphs that were included in the print version of the article. Of the eleven tires tested, the Z212 came in eighth in dry performance and eighth in wet performance, and fifth overall (thanks to its low price). But these were all top-of-the-line tires, not budget performance tires like the ES100.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Utilitarian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how do they really compare to the 615's?</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Falken Azenis RT-615 wasn't included in the C&D test, but the Azenis is much, much grippier on dry pavement than the Z212. If you want a supersticky tire, then get the RT-615, $92/tire in 205/50-15 (whose downside is rapid tire wear, maybe ~10K miles). If you want something with very good performance that will last longer than that (maybe twice as many miles), then consider the Bridgestone S-03 ($139 for 205/50-15) or the OEM Bridgestone RE010 (around the same price for 195/55-15), neither of which was in the C&D test. If you don't want to spend that much, and you're willing to accept a bit lower performance (but still better than the ES100), then consider the Toyo T1-R, $87/tire in 195/55-15 or $92/tire in 205/50-15 (ninth overall in the C&D test), or the Kumho Ecsta MX, $80/tire in 205/50-15 (dead last overall in the C&D test).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Utilitarian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm running a stock wheel/supsension btw, so 205/55/15 is optimal.</TD></TR></TABLE>

???

EDIT: Changed qualitative characterization of test results, and removed comments about erroneous tire size...



Modified by nsxtasy at 7:22 PM 1/4/2006

 

Ooops. I meant 205/50/15.

Thanks for the information. I may finally breakdown and do an HPDE having raced autocross for three years.

Has anyone HPDE'd the ES100's? Also, are the RE010's still available?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Utilitarian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Has anyone HPDE'd the ES100's?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I know this doesn't answer your question (I'm sure others can answer it though), but... if this question means you're looking for something similar to the ES100 (I assume its lower price, specifically), you might want to consider the Kumho Ecsta SPT. In side-by-side testing by the Tire Rack, its dry performance was almost identical to the ES100, and it was significantly better in the wet. Both tires are around $60 for 195/55-15 (and around $75 for 205/50-15).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Utilitarian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">are the RE010's still available?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes. They are currently in stock at the Tire Rack, $138 each.

If you're interested in getting the RE010, I think I have a new or almost-new set that I'd be willing to part with and could save you a few bucks - if so, PM me.

 

I use the new RS2 on the street (215/45/16 on my JDM 16's). Better than the OE 215/45/16 RE010's and the 205/45/16 Parada2's I had before.

Can't comment about them for auto-x or HPDE, didn't buy them for that. I would imagine the RT-615 would outperform them, just from the information being said about the new Azeni.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 92TypeR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Better than the OE 215/45/16 RE010's</TD></TR></TABLE>

That size RE010 as available in North America is designed specifically as the OEM tire for the front of an NSX (with different tires for the left front vs right front, and compound that is different from the rear RE010 for the NSX). Unless you imported the version of the tire that is for the JDM ITR from Japan.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 92TypeR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and the 205/45/16 Parada2's I had before.</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's not saying much. The Parada 2 has substantially poorer performance than the ES100.

 

I have some..

 

I've owned both the ES100s and currently run the R-S2s on my Integra (205/50 R15). IMO, the R-S2's are a better overall performing tire. Better dry grip and slightly better wet grip. I do not plan on doing HPDE's with these since I have a set of Khumos for that duty. I did however run the ES100s on track at Summit and they did not perform very well (lots of under-steer and general lack of grip). To their credit, they were not in prime condition.

I swapped them for the R-S2's and feel that the Ventus tires are much better. I previously had a set of the Falken 215s and loved their grip but did not like the road noise and lack of wet weather grip (can you say hydroplane?) and did not want to wait for a set of the Falkens.

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

Of the eleven tires tested, the Z212 came in eighth in dry performance and eighth in wet performance, and fifth overall (thanks to its low price). Not very impressive, IMHO.

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

Ventus: 360 per set shipped.

Other brands: 560 per set + shipping?

200$ towards a track weekend: priceless.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Unless you imported the version of the tire that is for the JDM ITR from Japan.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Or they came on the wheels when I bought them.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
That's not saying much. The Parada 2 has substantially poorer performance than the ES100.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Tell me about it! I was waiting for the damn things to blow so I could pick up something worthwhile. But since I only drive the car on the street when I'm either getting gas, going to the track, or getting Taco Bell, I didn't see the reason in scrapping perfectly driveable tires (a gift I might add...)

Since the thread starter specifically stated he wants something for daily driving duties, the RT-615 definately falls short in the wet weather traction, at least compared to the ES100 and RS2. If you don't mind replacing tires more frequently than something along the lines of the OE Potenzas, the RS2 is a good choice for daily driving.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Ventus: 360 per set shipped.

Other brands: 560 per set + shipping?

200$ towards a track weekend: priceless.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

i have the ventus
it grips well
but wet conditions.. are abit iffy
but still alright
they are not that expensive as well

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ventus: 360 per set shipped.

Other brands: 560 per set + shipping?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not if you have to replace the Ventus more often, wiping out those savings.

It's really more like this:

Ventus: Not great, but not super expensive, but wears quickly.

Toyo T1-R and Kumho MX also tested: Similarly not great, but also not super expensive, but may last longer.

Other brands tested in C&D: Not available in sizes suited for an ITR (with the exception of the BFG, which is also not great but IS super expensive).

Other tires worth considering for an ITR: More expensive and last longer (RE010 or S-03), or wear out even quicker (Azenis RT-615).

Take your choice...



Modified by nsxtasy at 7:25 PM 1/4/2006

 

I like the Z212's for street use, George Knighton uses them for HPDE.

A couple of George's posts, you can search for more.

https://honda-tech.com/zero...36925
https://honda-tech.com/zero...26640
https://honda-tech.com/zero...86109
https://honda-tech.com/zero...60583
...
HPDE review versus RT215 Azenis
https://honda-tech.com/zero...64502

p.s. more searching

 

I love them,
Great auto x tire- damn nice hpde tire.
wet weather is not bad at all far better than my new azeni's..

 

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

Not if you have to replace the Ventus more often, wiping out those savings.

It's really more like this:

Ventus: Not great, but not super expensive, but wears quickly.

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

Maybe. Although I do not have any imperical data (other than mileage) to support my experiences, I believe that if this fellow had ES100s and looks to do an occasional track day w/ daily driving, the R-S2 would be a great choice.

Mileage between a 200 and a 280 wear rating may be different than what you would expect to get out of a set of tires. My Falkens lasted ~5000 longer (total of 24,000) than the ES100s under similar driving conditions (2 HPDEs and daily driving each set). I personally do not see the justification of spending %50 more money on a tire that marginially performs better and might last a few thousand miles longer. To each his own.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Ventus: 360 per set shipped.

Other brands: 560 per set + shipping?

200$ towards a track weekend: priceless. </TD></TR></TABLE>


http://www.caranddriver.com/ar...ber=9

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Car and Driver &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Fifth Place
Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212

The Hankook has one feature the other tires can't match—a $99 price. And to its credit, the Hankook didn't behave like the cheapest tire, particularly when the track was dry. It tied the $175 Yokohama and $145 Goodyear for second place in lateral grip, scoring 0.94 g. And although its dry-braking results landed it in last place, that shortcoming did not greatly affect the Hankook's dry-autocross showing—a 29.86-second average, a third-place result that was only 0.20 second away from the winning effort.

It became apparent that the Hankook was clearly tuned for dry running as its wet-track results were below average. Like the other poor runners in water, the Hankook felt greasy and was slow to recover once it broke traction. But in the dry, the Korean tire felt just as responsive and sticky as its more-expensive competition.

The thing is, though, the harder you drive, the more tread you'll burn off a tire. So if you're a track-day addict who doesn't mind sacrificing some wet-weather capabilities, the Hankook is a choice that will save you money without losing much performance.
Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212
Typical selling price $99
Service designation* 94Y
UTQG tread-wear grade 200
Weight, lb 23.6

Dimensions
Section width, in** 8.9
Tread depth, 32/in 9
Diameter, in 25.0

* The number, which in the case of these tires ranges from 90 to 94, is the load rating of the tire. The higher the number, the more weight the tire can carry. The letter is the speed rating: "W" for up to 168 mph and "Y" for 186 mph.
** Measured on a 7.5-inch-wide wheel.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Those C&D tests are ok if you run the tires at stock pressures, full tread and stock sizes. Otherwise, they aren't worth a whole lot IMO.

If you truly want to know what tires are good for HPDE and autox, look at the guys running at the top levels of SCCA Street Touring and see what they are on. That will tell you what the grippiest tires are, bar-none.

Now, if you aren't concerned with ultimate performance with tweaked settings, then concentrate on getting a tire that does well in all conditions. You aren't going to find a tire thats does everything well: overall grip, dry traction, wet traction, noise, cost and longetivity (wear). Pick 2 or 3 out of the above that are your priorities and go from there.

 

I'll respectfully disagree on your assessment. No way the RE010 are better than the Kooks. They feel more crisp but offer considerably less overall grip. Definitely slower around a race course on the RE010's.
S0-3's no comment other than they don't offer than same dry as the Kook either. Probably a better overall tire still, but the Kook's do offer lots of grip. There have been rather exhaustive tire tests done by the folks running Street Touring autocross and usually the best tire bubbles up for competitive use. The old Azenis, new Azenis probably are considered the best tires in the 205/50/15 world and the Kooks are marginally slower, but still better than nearly everything else. S0-3's and KD's have long been cast as second tier performance tires in that arena. Testing has validated they are slower.

I've run a couple sets of the RE010's on my ITR along with the Azenis RT-215's and the Kook's. The biggest downfall of the RT-215's were heat fall off, otherwise they were the best of the three. Kooks weren't far behind, but were less crisp (softer sidewall). RE010's offered considerably less grip than either, but felt the most connected and most like an R-compound. Braking wasn't stellar on either the Azenis or the Kooks, as the ITR often had more brakes than tire on R4-S's and even the stock pads in autocross situations, something that was never the case on R-compound race rubber.

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

Not if you have to replace the Ventus more often, wiping out those savings.

It's really more like this:

Ventus: Not great, but not super expensive, but wears quickly.

Toyo T1-R and Kumho MX also tested: Similarly not great, but also not super expensive, but may last longer.

Other brands tested in C&D: Not available in sizes suited for an ITR (with the exception of the BFG, which is also not great but IS super expensive).

Tires that are better than the Z212: More expensive and last longer (RE010 or S-03), or wear out even quicker (Azenis RT-615).

Take your choice...
</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

IMHO
The Yokohama ES100's are garbage. Soft side walls and less than adequate grip .
I bought a set of 205x50-15 R-S2 for my daily, wrapped on "15 96 spec ITR wheels for my daily and love them. No they are not as grippy or stiff as 215's but they still have enough grip/traction for daily or weekned HPDEs. For the price I highly recomend them especially over ES100's

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GUILOTINE &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Yokohama ES100's are garbage.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nonsense. The Yokohama ES100 is an excellent budget performance tire, for people looking for decent performance at a bargain price, in a tire that will last a long time. It offers pretty good grip on dry roads and great grip on wet roads, as noted in various comments here. No, it's not the grippiest tire around, but it's inexpensive (~$60/tire) and it lasts a long time (over 40K miles on my GS-R). It's a great tire for the money.

Does the Z212 (or the Azenis RT-615) offer better performance? Absolutely. Are those other tires a better choice than the ES100 for autocrosses and track events? You bet. But the ES100 is still an excellent tire for what it is: decent performance, and great bang for the buck.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GUILOTINE &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For the price I highly recomend them especially over ES100's</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Z212 (and the RT-615) offer better performance, but NOT better performance for the price; don't be ridiculous! The ES100 will last approximately three times as long as the Z212 or RT-615 (30-45K miles vs 10-15K miles), so you will have to buy three sets of Z212 or RT-615 to drive the same number of miles as the ES100 will last. Throw in the fact that they cost 30+ percent more in price, and they will cost you almost four times as much per mile.

Drive 45,000 miles, and here's how much you will probably spend, assuming you're on the high end of treadlife with each tire:

Yokohama AVS ES100 195/55-15 $344
(1 set at $61/tire from the Tire Rack = $244, plus $40 shipping, plus $60 mounting/balancing)

Hankook Z212 205/50-15 $1200
(3 sets at $85/tire from Discount Tire = $1020, free shipping, plus $180 mounting/balancing)

Falken Azenis RT-615 205/50-15 $1,236
(3 sets at $78/tire from Vulcan = $936, plus $120 shipping, plus $180 mounting/balancing)

Obviously, this is your choice, and you will get more performance from the Falkens or Hankooks than the Yokohamas. But the ES100 may be a great choice for someone who isn't willing to spend almost four times as much for that performance difference. Different tires because different people have different priorities.



Modified by nsxtasy at 3:50 PM 1/4/2006

 

P.S. I noticed that just today, Vulcan dropped their prices on the Azenis RT-615 from $92/tire to $78/tire. This is a significant difference, and (along with the performance difference, Azenis being better) could make the Azenis a better alternative to the Hankooks, for those who want a supersticky (albeit fast-wearing) tire.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by typer_801 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the RE010 ... feel more crisp
.
.
.
RE010's ... felt the most connected and most like an R-compound</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for providing more descriptive details that justify my previous comment. These are indeed the characteristics that RE010 enjoy. While the RE010 may not be as fast around a racetrack as some of the other tires mentioned here, they offer handling "feel" that is superior to other tires (and they last a lot longer than some of the other tires mentioned), which is why some folks are willing to pay a premium price for them.

And, of course, those who ARE most concerned about which tires are fastest around a racetrack are probably using R compound tires on the track, rather than any of the street tires being discussed in this topic.

 

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

Drive 45,000 miles, and here's how much you will spend:

Yokohama AVS ES100 195/55-15 $344
(1 set at $61/tire from the Tire Rack = $244, plus $40 shipping, plus $60 mounting/balancing)

Hankook Z212 205/50-15 $1200
(3 sets at $85/tire from Discount Tire = $1020, free shipping, plus $180 balancing)

Falken Azenis RT-615 205/50-15 $1,236
(3 sets at $78/tire from Vulcan = $936, plus $120 shipping, plus $180 balancing)

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

This about sums up my opinion as well. I've squeezed around 30k out of my ES 100's and feel I've got my money worth, especially since I snatched them for $57 a tire back then. The bottom line is how fast do you really want to be able to corner and brake on the street (within reason off course, barring jackassery)? For some one who races autocross or track and changes tires to R comps or race tires, it's always a trade off determining your street rubber. Basically, it boils down to stickiness=dollars and diminished mileage.

I'm going out on a limb thinking that the Kooks offer slightly less grip than the 615's but better water displacement for about the same price with the recent drop. Therefore, I'm going to be financially irresponsible and go back to Falken County; I have been itching to try the "new" 615's.

-M

 

The original thread states that you are looking for tires to drive on daily. I just bought some Dunlop Direzza 205/50/15's from Edge Racing for $45.00 a piece. It was $33.00 shipping. Mounted locally for $40 bucks on stock wheels. $253 total. You can't ignore those numbers. I have about 400 miles on them. 300 treadwear rating, decent bite and turn in (notice I decent, not HPDE2 or 3 duty), fine tire for the street, great rain channeling, and they ride a hell of a lot better than Azenis. Save the Azenis or R comps for the track

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Utilitarian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm going out on a limb thinking that the Kooks offer slightly less grip than the 615's</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're not going out on a limb in that regard. Don't forget the comparison test in last August's issue of Grassroots Motorsports, which tested six street tires around an autocross course and they finished in the following order:

1. Falken Azenis RT-615
2. Falken Azenis RT-215
3. Yokohama Advan Neova
4. Hankook R-S2 Z212
5. Kumho Ecsta MX
6. BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD

 

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

You're not going out on a limb in that regard. Don't forget the comparison test in last August's issue of Grassroots Motorsports, which tested six street tires around an autocross course and they finished in the following order:

1. Falken Azenis RT-615
2. Falken Azenis RT-215
3. Yokohama Advan Neova
4. Hankook R-S2 Z212
5. Kumho Ecsta MX
6. BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD
</TD></TR></TABLE>

One of the big reasons, other than availability, I did not buy the Falkens for a street tire is the god awful noise associated with their tread design and tread blocks. Maybe I'm getting old. How loud are the 615s compared to the 215s? I agree that my ES100s weren't garbage but after riding around on the Kooks I wouldn't go back to them. This coming from experience and not speculation. I average about 10-12k miles per year driving and would trade off a few thousand miles of usable mileage to driving enjoyment.