95 civic hatch with gsr lsd and integra suspension and brakes. I have the chance to put powersteering since i already have all the parts, does it really make any difference. oh i drive the car on weekends and its not a daily driver.

Also i have 15'' wheels and wanted the Falken Azenis sports what would be a good replacement since they are discontinued in 15''

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by roma’s h22eg6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">95 civic hatch with gsr lsd and integra suspension and brakes. I have the chance to put powersteering since i already have all the parts, does it really make any difference. oh i drive the car on weekends and its not a daily driver.

Also i have 15'' wheels and wanted the Falken Azenis sports what would be a good replacement since they are discontinued in 15''</TD></TR></TABLE>

???

A GSR Limited Slip?

The Azenis has been discontinued?

You want to ADD power steering?

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are a loaded vessel of misinformation. I'd like to meet the guy that sold you the GSR LSD. He's pretty slick.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I'd like to meet the guy that sold you the GSR LSD. He's pretty slick.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You didn't know about GSR lsd's? They are JDM yo!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'd like to meet the guy that sold you the GSR LSD. He's pretty slick.</TD></TR></TABLE>


it could have been me.....JDM GSR Vehicles came with optional LSD for the tranny....

 

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


it could have been me.....JDM GSR Vehicles came with optional LSD for the tranny....

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

True.
But $5 and a cold beer says thats not the case here.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

True.
But $5 and a cold beer says thats not the case here.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Plus they weren't called GS-Rs in JDM-land.

I as well remain confused about everything.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by roma’s h22eg6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Also i have 15'' wheels and wanted the Falken Azenis sports what would be a good replacement since they are discontinued in 15''</TD></TR></TABLE>

The old "RT-215" Azenis Sport has been discontinued:

http://www.vulcantire.com/azenis_t.htm

The new "RT-615" Azenis is available now in 205/50-15:

http://www.vulcantire.com/azenis_rt615_t.htm

Or you could get some Kumho Ecsta MX's:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...TA+MX

Hope it helps,

Jon
(who just put MX's instead of Azenis on his car last week)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by getfast &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Jon
(who just put MX's instead of Azenis on his car last week)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
why did you put on mx's instead of azenis? i thought azenis was the ultimate sts tire?

 

p/s steering rack has a quicker ratio than the manual racks, but a manual rack with the quaiffe quick pinion and rack is faster than a p/s rack.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by coot_er &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">why did you put on mx's instead of azenis? i thought azenis was the ultimate sts tire?</TD></TR></TABLE>

1) they were cheaper

2) I had 15" MX's on my E30 and loved 'em (10k miles of street/autox/roadcourse, they were also good in the rain)

3) The M3 is hard on tires (3200 pounds with mostly stock suspension and stockish alignment) and I didn't want to mount anything that would get greasy & slippery during roadcourse sessions (like the 14" RT-215 Azenis did on my 2700 pound E30 with real suspension and lots of negative camber.) I don't know if the 615's would really be any better... but this means nothing when considering putting them on a light Honda being used for anything but roadcourse driving.

Your mileage may vary... I don't think either one is a bad choice... you asked a question and I was just trying to give you a variety of answers

Hope it helps-

Jon

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by chrisw85 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">p/s steering rack has a quicker ratio than the manual racks, but a manual rack with the quaiffe quick pinion and rack is faster than a p/s rack.</TD></TR></TABLE> Actually, that is untrue. It gets to just about stock ratio for a PS rack.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Eyal 951 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Actually, that is untrue. It gets to just about stock ratio for a PS rack.</TD></TR></TABLE>

as far as i have known by reading the threads on here about how to convert p/s into manual with the breather tube and all, DC2 p/s racks are quicker than manual racks, but not by much.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by chrisw85 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as far as i have known by reading the threads on here about how to convert p/s into manual with the breather tube and all, DC2 p/s racks are quicker than manual racks, but not by much.</TD></TR></TABLE>
My post was unclear. The PS rack of the DC2 is much quicker then the manual racks, However the quaife QSR is almost exactly the same as the DC2 PS rack.

 

I was assuming he has a GSR motor and trans with a lsd installed. I often find I need two hands on the wheel in my GSR with lsd and wide race tires on wheels with very non-stock offset even with power steering. I guess it would have to depend a lot on exactly what the car is being used for and what the driver's expectations are. I've driven a 90 Civic with a b16, quaife, and 225 kuhmo 700's with no power steering and it was not hard to drive. Fast transitions made for lots of wheel twirling but effort was OK.

 

The new Falken Azenis RT-615 is the closest replacement for the old Falken Azenis RT-215 (also called the Azenis sport). The improvements made in the RT-615 include better wet traction and better resistance to heat buildup (i.e. to getting "greasy").

The Kumho Ecsta MX is a very different kind of tire. The Falken RT-615 is a fast-wearing, super-sticky tire, designed to fall in between R compound track tires and the best street tires, in performance as well as treadlife. The MX is an inexpensive top-of-the-line street tire, with performance a big step down from the very best street tires like the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, Bridgestone S-03, etc, but a lower price tag. And it will last longer than the RT-615.

If you're looking for a tire for track events or autocross - IOW looking for best dry grip, without any other concerns - get the Falkens. If you're looking for good "bang for the buck" on the street and for an occasional track event, the MX is a good choice.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by getfast &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">1) they were cheaper</TD></TR></TABLE>

That was the case prior to last month, but is no longer true. The 205/50-15 size of the RT-615 is $78 at Vulcan Tire and at Edge Racing, the MX is $80 at the Tire Rack.

 

its a gsr tranny with a type r lsd installed, i think i'll go with the rt 615's and i decided to go ahead put the powersteering on it. thanks for the help

 

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

If you're looking for a tire for track events or autocross - IOW looking for best dry grip, without any other concerns - get the Falkens. If you're looking for good "bang for the buck" on the street and for an occasional track event, the MX is a good choice.

That was the case prior to last month, but is no longer true. The 205/50-15 size of the RT-615 is $78 at Vulcan Tire and at Edge Racing, the MX is $80 at the Tire Rack.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for the explanation. Personally I've had better luck with MX's than I've had with RT-215's, so I got 'em again. Maybe I'll get 615's next... or RA-1's.

PS- They actually were cheaper in my case, because I have access to a Tire Rack wholesale account.

Jon

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The Kumho Ecsta MX is a very different kind of tire. The Falken RT-615 is a fast-wearing, super-sticky tire, designed to fall in between R compound track tires and the best street tires, in performance as well as treadlife. The MX is an inexpensive top-of-the-line street tire, with performance a big step down from the very best street tires like the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, Bridgestone S-03, etc, but a lower price tag. And it will last longer than the RT-615.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I've always heard that the MXs are pretty good for the track because for a street tire, they love heat. Not true??

I still don't know why you'd put P/S on a car that's not a daily driver. What problems are you having with it now w/o P/S? I did the loop/breather on my Integra and I daily drive it no problem, in auto-x it's great too.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by White98LS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I've always heard that the MXs are pretty good for the track because for a street tire, they love heat. Not true??</TD></TR></TABLE>

No more so than any other street tire. And worse than many others. The MX came in fifth out of six street tires tested in last August's Grassroots Motorsports (the two Azenis came in 1-2), and came in last out of eleven top-of-the-line street tires tested in December's Car and Driver.

I'm not saying that they're bad tires. They're good, for the money. But they're just not the best street tires around, particularly if you're looking for autocross performance.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But they're just not the best street tires around, particularly if you're looking for autocross performance.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Of course the mx taking the STS championship for the last 2 years doesn't show anything about the tire. They're just as sticky as azenis when hot.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ryan12321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">They're just as sticky as azenis when hot. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Then why did Grassroots Motorsports find that they were so much slower (more than half a second difference in a 40-second course)?

And why did Car and Driver find that they were ninth in dry autocross times, out of the eleven tires they tested?

<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">Its highest-performing street tire, though, couldn't keep up here. In every test except dry braking, the MX finished well down the scale.

In the dry tests, the Kumhos felt stable and easy to drive and gave plenty of warning of the approaching traction limit. The tires recovered well once that limit was crossed. They didn't offer much grip (0.92 g versus the best at 0.95), and the time of 30.28 seconds in the dry autocross was 0.62 second slower than the fastest tire. That may not seem like much, but our test course was only 0.3 mile long, and on a longer track, the gap would be commensurately greater.

It was tricky driving the Kumho in the wet, however, because once the tire started sliding, it took seemingly forever to recover and regain traction. Geswein determined it was simply "slippery." That behavior would have been excused if the Kumho had posted fast numbers in the dry, but it didn't. And although the MX—at $136 per—was the third-least-expensive tire in our test, the high score in the price category wasn't enough to regain ground lost in the performance tests.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Then why did Grassroots Motorsports find that they were so much slower (more than half a second difference in a 40-second course)?

And why did Car and Driver find that they were ninth in dry autocross times, out of the eleven tires they tested?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why is GRM the ultimate authority on tire testing. They spend one test on them, the rest of STS has spent years testing both back to back.

I don't know Car and Drivers test methods.

Do you believe everything you read in magazines?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ryan12321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why is GRM the ultimate authority on tire testing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

They're not the ultimate authority. But they have done numerous tire tests over the years, using professional champion drivers, professional timing equipment, etc. They are one authority.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ryan12321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know Car and Drivers test methods.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Similar. Professional drivers, with blind testing (the drivers didn't know which tires they were using). They tested the tires on wet and dry pavement, for lap times, braking distance, skidpad numbers, etc. Same cars, same drivers, same day, same weather. Standard procedures that you don't get in racing, so that you can see the effect of changing only one variable (the tires).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ryan12321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Do you believe everything you read in magazines? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Nope. I get to try out most of these tires on the track, on my own cars as well as on my students' cars. And the Kumho MX is just not very good, compared with the best street tires around (like the Azenis). It's not bad for street use, though.

 

It could be that in national-level competition, tires shaved to nearly bald are the norm among the front runners, and in that state the Kumho's are almost as fast. They didn't shave them to that depth in the GRM test, and I assume they didn't in the C&D test either. Due to the Kumho contingency, some of the fastest drivers will choose them despite a slight disadvantage (which in reality, may not even exist). This could account for the results at Nationals of a tire that doesn't test well in the magazines.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Nope. I get to try out most of these tires on the track, on my own cars as well as on my students' cars. And the Kumho MX is just not very good, compared with the best street tires around (like the Azenis). It's not bad for street use, though.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well while you're "trying" out these tires I was testing them. The mx is very good for auto-x and yeild the same times. A blind test in this case will yeild a skewed result. I would agree in most cases a blind test would work, but these two tires do not use the same driving style IMO.

National drivers shave both tires. The new azenis sucks at full tread too. If I remember correctly the mx's that won nationals were 4/32nds. I was co-driving the same car, but don't remember exactly. Not shaving could definately alter the test. But if you're not shaving tires for auto-x they're all going to suck anyway.