After a lot of research here before, nsxstasy helped me to choose Yokohama AVS ES100 tires for my car. After 11,000 miles, things are still going good. After getting my wheels aligned like I do every 2 months or so, I had the tire guys measure the tread left on my tires. They estimated there was about 5k left on the tires (I didn't get the x/32 inch measurement but oh well).

So, when I get the new set of tires, should I stick with the Yoko's? I have 2004 Accord sedan 4cyl I/H/E, pulleys, and hopefully will be getting a turbo kit within the next month or two along with new struts and upgraded sway bars. The ES100 was exactly what I was looking for, and at a reasonable price.

My stock size was 205/65/15. I have 17x7.5 rims and I got 215/50/17 this time. I was thinking about going to 235/45/17. Would this be right? Will I have any problems. I am also lowered on Tein S-Tech's which is 1.9 front 1.3 rear.

Thanks in advance.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by msedacca &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">After getting my wheels aligned like I do every 2 months or so, I had the tire guys measure the tread left on my tires. They estimated there was about 5k left on the tires (I didn't get the x/32 inch measurement but oh well). </TD></TR></TABLE>

It's easy enough to measure it yourself. Just put the car in sunlight, put a bunch of marks close together on a toothpick or card, place it in one of the tread grooves (not on the treadwear indicator bars), put your eye alongside the edge of the tread, and see which mark the top of the tread matches. Then put the toothpick or card on a rule to measure the distance. You might find that you don't need to buy more tires quite so soon.

16K total sounds a lot less than I would expect the ES100 tires to last. We have 38K on our set on the GS-R and they still have about 3/32" of tread. (You can drive them down to 2/32", which is where the treadwear indicator bars are flat across.) I realize that driving styles and cars differ, but still...

Maybe the tire guys were suggesting you replace the tires before they get down to the treadwear bars. Some people do that; the big downside when they start wearing down is that their performance in rain gets worse. (This is true of all tires, not just the ES100.) If you can live with this and don't mind taking it easy when it's wet out, you can drive them down to 2/32"; if you prefer to have better traction in rain, you can consider replacing them before then.

Why do you get an alignment every two months?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by msedacca &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So, when I get the new set of tires, should I stick with the Yoko's? I have 2004 Accord sedan 4cyl I/H/E, pulleys, and hopefully will be getting a turbo kit within the next month or two along with new struts and upgraded sway bars. The ES100 was exactly what I was looking for, and at a reasonable price.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, the first question would be, how do you like the ES100? If you like it, then great - get it again. If you want to try something different but similar, there are other tires that are at least as good in price and performance (which wasn't true just a year or two ago); the Kumho Ecsta SPT is a good example. If you're looking for higher performance (to go with that turbo), you will need to either pay more, or accept shorter treadlife, or both; let us know if that's a trade-off you would consider.

Oh, it's also worth mentioning that if you decide to try the Kumho SPT, there's a $40 rebate on a set of four, through August 12.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by msedacca &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My stock size was 205/65/15. I have 17x7.5 rims and I got 215/50/17 this time. I was thinking about going to 235/45/17. Would this be right? Will I have any problems. I am also lowered on Tein S-Tech's which is 1.9 front 1.3 rear.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would stick with the 215/50-17 again. The diameter of the 235/45-17 is reasonably close (0.6 percent smaller than stock) but it's 30 mm wider. With a tire that wide, your clearances are going to be tight, especially on a lowered car, and they might rub. I would stick with 215/50-17 again.

The Kumho Ecsta SPT is $87/tire in 215/50-17 (that means $77/tire after rebate), and the Yokohama ES100 is $107/tire. You can see a side-by-side comparison test of both tires here. Basically, their performance is almost identical in the dry tests, and the SPT is superior in the wet tests.

 

The Yoko's were great, I just use this car as a daily driver, and intend to even with the turbo on. I liked a better wet traction here in FL (although these tires had better wet traction that the Michelin MX4 Plus stock all-seasons), but I'm still very concientious(sp) about driving slow and taking it easy in the rain.

As far as performance, it wasn't that big of a deal, I'm not putting out that much power, and I don't do any burnouts, even though I tried once. I do an alignment every two months to make sure that there is nothing going wrong, since I have an adjustable camber kit, so with that, the arms and bearings get moved out of place easier, and the front wheels tend to get more positive camber quicker than normal. It still looks like there is a lot of tread left, and I will try your mode of measuring them to get a more accurate measurement.

I need something with better treadlife than the rest, without a large downside of performance. I know that there is that three word phrase, reliability, cheap, high performance or something like that, you can't have all three.

I really wasn't pleased with the fact that I wasn't getting a huge cornering change with the width of tire, I've been asking around with the tread width of 235 as opposed to 215 and I just get shrugs, which is what I'd expect.

Thanks again for your help nsxtasy.

 

I think you'll like the SPT even better than the ES100. Try 'em...