I think everyone here can agree that size for size the Kumhos for some reason tend to have more rounded sidewalls and therefore a smaller contact patch than the next tire. Well I'm looking for tires for my 16x7 rims and am kinda thinking a little cooky...

Here's an exerpt from a thread comparing Azenis to Kumhos... http://forums.clubsi.com/showflat.ph...b=5&o=0&fpart=
----------------


The kumho 712s only give approx 6-3/4" of a contact patch due to their rolled sholder design. Compare that the the Azenis pic bellow.


Now look at the same size 205/50 Azenis contact patch!! 7-1/2" wide contact patch!! That's an extra 3/4" of rubber on the road for the same size tire. You can also see that the shoulder is more squared off to the side wall then the 712s are.

---------- end

So what I'm thinking is 215/40-16's are going to be too small in diameter, so next best bet would be 225/40-16's. IMO these should equate to the average 215/45-16. Do you guys think it'll rub or its overkill, or judging by my "exerpt" it might make sense? TIA

 

Does anyone run 215's on a 16x7 40mm offset rim?

 

the kumhos also have deeper tread and this part of the reason the contact patch seems smaller. When you put the weight of the car on the tires is becomes larger.

 

This may be true but all the tires I've seen which looked narrow were loaded and looked narrow both up front and in back.

 

Are Kumho's abnormally narrow, the Falken's abnormally wide, or combination of both? I'll be getting some Kumho's in within a week, I'll compare them to my old Yoko A520's.

I think a more accurate way to measure would be to drive through a patch of clay or mud & measure the width from that. That way you're seeing a little more of how the tires react under load. I'll do it both ways when I take my measurements. Although, the yoko's are mounted on a 6.5" wide wheel (stock), and the Kumho will be on a 7" wide wheel. Shouldn't change it much, but I suppose it could be a factor.

Something else worth considering . . . . . Are the sidewalls different heights? I mean, aspect ratio is a percentage of the width, so do tire companies design/measure their sidewalls using the actual width, or advertised width? If it's based on actual width, that could make for a substantial difference in overall diameter between the two tires.

 

interesting work.

 

ttt

 

Mud?

Nah, just throw down a hella deep pile of baby powder or something.

The Azenis are quite wide for their 205 rating...

Let us know what you think of the Kumhos... I nearly got those, then decided to go w/ the A520s.

 

Still haven't got my Kumho's in - should be here either tomorrow or Wednesday.

But I did measure the A520's that are sitting on my porch - roughly a 7.5" contact patch, so comparable to the Falken's. They're incredibly bald, though, so it's possible that might affect things. As soon as I get my new ones, I'll do comprehensive measurements on contact patch loaded & unloaded, as well as sidewall. I can take pics, but I'll need someone to host them.

I'll also measure the (also quite worn) 185/65-15 blizzak's I've got on there now, just for ***** & giggles.

I'm not sure how many psi I should measure them all at, though. Should I maintain it constant between all of them, or inflate them all to their max. recommended pressure? I guess if I'm feeling industrious I'll try both, and see how different pressures affect each tire.

Unfortunately, I've got a dirt driveway, so there's plenty of mud to leave tracks in. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother having a nice car.


edit - I just remembered - I keep one of my original Bridgestone's as a full-size spare, so I can take measurements on that as well. Should keep me busy . . . .


[Modified by Daemione, 12:17 PM 4/22/2002]

 

i had Yoko A520s on my car before.. those tires are so noisy! the first thing i realized with my kuhmos was the nice quiet ride

 

Yeah, I agree - extremely noisy, especially in the last half of their life. But even new, they had a nasty resonance at a couple different speeds.

A lot worse than my Blizzak's have been for the last 5-7,000 miles, and they're not pleasant.

Still the Yoko's performance can allow you to forgive them for a lot.

 

Any takers on my 225/50-16 theory?

 

Uber Honkey: Do you have pics of your car? I'd like to see how 215/40-16's sit on the rims. TIA

 

There are lots more factors that should be taken into consideration ladies and gentlemen. First off, the 712 in that shot is brand new. The 520 is heavily worn. Second, are you sure one of them isnt mounted on a tire while that picture was taken? And if it was, what pressure was at? Also, tire life may play a role. If that tire was sitting on the car without being driven for a week or so, it will have flatter contact patch.

This is a better shot.