just want some feedback on these tires...

and approximately how much paid for each?

 

You talking about the Yoko Advan A048? This is a tire that's really only meant for the cicuit. Tire Rack sells them if you want to check out their sizes. . Other than that I don't know much more. Really shouldn't be on a DD. Ken might know more.

Cheers.

 

I think boostedjeff rocks them.

 

yeah thats what i meant... hehe the YOKO ADVAN A048...

what tires would be suggested for DD? i just want something that handles pretty decent in both wet and dry... dont really mind about comfort...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PiNoY_BB6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what tires would be suggested for DD? i just want something that handles pretty decent in both wet and dry... don't really mind about comfort...</TD></TR></TABLE>

well,

1)What car? (make model year)
2) what size rims? (diameter, width, offset)
3) purpose? (DD only, some auto-x, the strip...etc)
4) budget?
5) Which is more important; tread life or stickiness? (no, you can't have the best of both
6) will you be using these in winter or snow? (that awful white stuff that turns a 20 min commute into a 2hr ordeal)

If you answer these we will be much better able to help you.

Cheers!

 

to answer you ?s...

1) 1997 Honda Prelude type SH(lowered)
2) 16s right now... but gonna move up to 17s in a few months or so...
3) DD mainly... but i would try out some auto-x a few times
4) budget... umm like 200 at the most for each
5) stickiness...
6) no winter driving...

 

I agree with old man neri; you really don't want to use R compound track tires like the A048 on the street, for a whole bunch of reasons. They won't last very long at all (like maybe under 5K miles), they aren't good in rain, they need to get heated up before they really grip well, etc.

Here are a few recommendations for you:

1. If you want the absolutely stickiest street tires around on dry pavement, get the Falken Azenis RT-615. They have wonderful grip on dry pavement, and they will be great at the autocross. The downsides: They wear rapidly (you might get around 10-12K miles to a set) and they're not all that great in rain. You can get 215/45-16 ($97) for 16" wheels, or 215/40-17 ($102) for 17" wheels.

2. If you want a tire that lasts longer than that and you're more interested in performance and not so worried about price, consider the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, which should last you about three times as many miles as the Azenis. Its dry traction is excellent, although not quite at the level of the Azenis, and it's great in rain. In 205/50-16 for $119 and in 215/40-17 for $144.

3. If you want a tire that lasts as long as the F1 GS-D3 but you don't want to spend a lot of money, consider the Kumho Ecsta SPT. Its dry traction is very good, although nowhere near at the level of the Azenis or even the Goodyears, and it's great in rain. In 205/50-16 for $61/tire ($71/tire less $40 rebate on a set of four) and in 205/45-17 for $78/tire ($88/tire less $40 rebate on a set of four).

 

^^ooh cool... thanks for that info... that really help narrow down my choices...

cause last time i changed tires, i got the KUMHO ECSTA ASX... they do okay, pretty mediocre and all that... havent really found anythin really special about them though... and for what i paid for them, damn...

i got it from AMERICAs TIRE COMPANY... and paid frikin $600 for all four...

pretty bad choice for me right there...

 

Yup. As you note, it was a bad choice for you. The Kumho Ecsta ASX is a good choice for anyone who needs an all-season tire. All-seasons are designed to work well in winter snow and frigid cold as well as in moderate to warm temperatures the rest of the year. They're a "compromise tire" for people who have to use one tire in all conditions; they're not as good in winter conditions as a true winter tire and, as you found out, they're not as good in moderate to warm temperatures as a summer tire. Anyone who cares about performance is probably not going to be happy with an all-season tire, and anyone who lives in an area that doesn't experience snow and cold doesn't need one. I can only guess that shops in such areas sell all-seasons because they think that drivers with family cars will be happier with the slightly longer treadlife of an all-season than with a tire that performs better. for them.

You'll find that any of the three summer tires I recommended above will grip MUCH better on dry pavement than your current all-season tires (ASX). And the F1 GS-D3 and SPT will grip much better in rain, too.

 

tyte... thanks for the info bro!!!

 

kuhmo mx. great dry and ok wet. if you're not dealing with snow of course. excellent bang for buck. i've been using them for autoxing as well. durable also.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by aholeb18 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">kuhmo mx.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, that's one choice. But there are a lot of things to keep in mind with the MX:

1. It comes in NO 16-inch sizes that fit his car well, so it's not even a choice unless he gets 17" wheels.

2. I wouldn't call it "great" in dry. It's pretty good on dry pavement, but nowhere near as good as the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, let alone the Falken Azenis RT-615. And it's really not very good at all in wet, unlike the Goodyear or the Kumho Ecsta SPT.

3. It won't last as long as the Goodyear or the SPT, although it will last longer than the Azenis (figure 15-25K miles for the MX).

4. It costs $93 after rebate for the 215/40-17.

Bottom line is that the Kumho MX really isn't best at anything. If dry traction is the only criterion, the Azenis is a better choice. If dry traction and either wet traction or treadlife are important, the Goodyear is a better choice. If price is a big factor, the SPT is a better choice. I guess the Kumho might be okay if you are looking for something in between those various choices, but I think most folks will find that one of the other tires mentioned is a better fit for their needs.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">things to keep in mind with the MX:

2. I wouldn't call it "great" in dry. It's pretty good on dry pavement, but nowhere near as good as the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, let alone the Falken Azenis RT-615.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's pretty amusing, considering the Ecsta MX has won both the SCCA STS Solo and ProSolo national championships for the past 2 years in a row - not the Falken Azenis or Goodyear GS-D3.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the Ecsta MX has won both the SCCA STS Solo and ProSolo national championships for the past 2 years in a row - not the Falken Azenis or Goodyear GS-D3.</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's because Kumho offers contingency funds, not because it's a better tire (which it isn't).

I'm not the only one who believes that the MX isn't as good as the others. The same thing was found in side-by-side testing by Grassroots Motorsports (where the Kumho MX came in fifth out of six street tires, with the Azenis first, no Goodyears tested) and by Car and Driver (where the MX came in last out of eleven top-of-the-line tires, with the Goodyear first, no Falkens tested). Grassroots Motorsports noted that the MX is not very good unless it's shaved down to 4/32", and if you're going to get shaved tires for track use, any R compound tire (including some made by Kumho) will out-perform the MX anyway. The C&D test noted that "(Kumho's) highest-performing tire, though, couldn't keep up here. In every test except dry braking, the MX finished well down the scale. ... 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."

The MX is not a bad tire, it's just that there are better tires out there. But if you want to buy the MX, go ahead. Tires eventually wear out, so you can try a different kind any time you need to buy tires, if you want...



Modified by nsxtasy at 5:50 AM 7/26/2006

 

i think i would be much happier though with either the AZENIS or the F1 GS-D3...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PiNoY_BB6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i think i would be much happier though with either the AZENIS or the F1 GS-D3... </TD></TR></TABLE>

I noticed in your original post your asked about price. You should note that the Good Years are actually cheaper than the Falkens when you amortize the price over the expected life of the tire, although the Good Years have a higher initial price.

Cheers!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I noticed in your original post your asked about price. You should note that the Good Years are actually cheaper than the Falkens when you amortize the price over the expected life of the tire, although the Good Years have a higher initial price.

Cheers!</TD></TR></TABLE>

yup i did actually take that into consideration...