I searched and either I'm blind or there's nothing decent out there.


What do you guys prefer?
Click the tire name and you can read all the tech specs.

BTW, I'm personally going to get some 205/45/16s soon, so I also wanted to see who likes what out of these choices.


BFGoodrich g-Force T/AŽ KDW NT


BFGoodrich g-ForceTM Sport


Bridgestone Potenza RE750


Dunlop Direzza DZ101


Falken GRB FK-451


Falken Ziex ZE-512


Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3


Kumho Ecsta ASX (KU21)


Kumho Ecsta MX (KU15)


Kumho Ecsta SPT (KU31)


Toyo Proxes 4


Toyo Proxes T1R


Yokohama AVS ES100


Yokohama Parada Spec-2

 

Prefer for WHAT?

Value (purchase price and treadlife)? Kumho SPT.

Dry performance? Falken RT-615.

Dry and wet performance and treadlife? Goodyear F1 GS-D3.

All-weather (i.e. snow) capability? Kumho ASX.

 

I live in San Diego so wet weather/snow isn't much of an issue. I have older Falken Azenis' on my car and they've lasted me quite a while with 220, so that or better would be fine.

 

Since you said wet weather/snow isn't much of an issue i would say the Azenies RT-615 would be a good choice. But if you would like a tire with better threadlife and better wet traction I would consider the Goodyear F1 GS-D3.

Ali

 

I like those tires too, but they don't come in 205/45/16.
Only 225/50, 215/45, and 205/40.

And with the way my car sits now, I'm told 215/45/16s will rub a lot. I would consider the 205/40/16s, but they have a smaller diameter than the factory 185/60/14s that came with my car, and I'm low as-is and I'm in no rush to raise my car up to compensate for a smaller-than-oem tire.

Here's how I sit now with 195/60/14 Azenis:

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I like those tires too, but they don't come in 205/45/16.
Only 225/50, 215/45, and 205/40.

And with the way my car sits now, I'm told 215/45/16s will rub a lot. I would consider the 205/40/16s, but they have a smaller diameter than the factory 185/60/14s that came with my car, and I'm low as-is and I'm in no rush to raise my car up to compensate for a smaller-than-oem tire.</TD></TR></TABLE>

205/40-16 should work perfectly on your car. The outer diameter is only slightly smaller than your stock size (1.3 percent smaller). Yes, they will lower your car, but only ever so slightly, by 0.14 inch (3.6 mm), which isn't a whole lot to be worrying about. To put that in perspective, that's only about half as much as the difference in ride height between a new tire, and the same tire when it's worn and needs replacing (worn down to flat treadwear indicator bars).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here's how I sit now with 195/60/14 Azenis</TD></TR></TABLE>

That size (2.1 percent larger diameter than stock) raises your car by 6 mm, almost twice as much as the 205/40-16 lowers your car.

 

I am a big tire enthusiast. I have been in the tire business retail and wholesale. I hate goodyears! They have have good tread life but i have seen way too many issues with almost everymodel. As for the es100 they tend to chop on the inside and wear uneaven on any vehicle. Paradas will stick like hell but aren't the greatest in rain/weather. treadlife is poor as well. BFG's the kdw sticks well also but treadlife isn't the greatest. The g force sport is a reall nice tire for the money. Good tread life, all the porche guys that come in love these to death. The toyos tend to be more of a euro thing. With them being extreamly flexible sidewalls they love the "streatch" Performance on these seams to be ok but treadlife is weak. We don't do to much with kuhmo's so i conldn't really say to much on them. They seem to be relativly inexpensive though. Bridgestone makes a nice tire stickey as all hell. I am not a big dunlop fan so can't really say to much good about them. All the local circle race tracks run the falken ze512 and they are a very stickey tire for only being h rated. You did forget a major brand who seems to make the best tires of them all. Michelin!! The piolt sport ps2 is an amazing tire. I am currently running some yoko advan a043's and they are turning out nicely. Good wear, stickey as all hell, hydro resistance isn't too bad (new hampshire weather gets harsh!) and they have gone 5000 and still looking like new. This is all just my .02 felt like writing.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by d15bfi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> All the local circle race tracks run the falken ze512 and they are a very stickey tire for only being h rated. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Do they race in the snow or something? Why would anyone who knows anything run an all season tire on a race track?

As for everything else you said, well.....I am sure Ken will have some comments to make. I look forward to it, it should be interesting to see his view points.

Cheers.

 

I use the Falken 512's everyday and I think they suck. They do well in the rain, but lacks in dry performance. If I had to do it again I would have gone with the Kuhmo SPT.

Ali

 

Wow! I've tried all those tires and I disagree with almost everything you say. You like to write sweeping generalizations; most are wrong in part because they are sweeping generalizations, and IMHO most are wrong because they are neither true nor accurate.

You can't blame an entire brand for problems with a few specific models. Almost every brand of tire sells some tires that are excellent, and some that are not. (The only exception would be specialty brands like Hoosier or Mickey Thompson.)

Until very recently, Goodyear has really not been in the aftermarket performance tire segment in a big way (at least, not in sizes for Honda/Acura cars). The F1 GS-D3 changes all that, and is, quite simply, an excellent tire in many, many ways. And that's not just my opinion; it won the Car and Driver test of top-of-the-line tires last year.

Simply not true. I've got my second set (on our '94 GS-R) and they wear normally and evenly.

I'm not sure what "stick like hell" means, but the Paradas are crap, and won't give anywhere near as much traction as Yokohama's own ES100, let alone stickier tires like the Azenis.

The KDW has two versions, with different tread patterns. The one that the Tire Rack calls the KDW2 is the one that comes in sizes for Honda/Acura cars. It's a decent tire, with decent dry traction, wet traction, AND treadlife, but it's expensive compared to similar tires from other brands. BFG also makes the KD, for which your description is more applicable (but is even more expensive).

The g-Force Sport is crap. For the same money or less, you can get the Kumho SPT, Yokohama ES100, or Avon Tech M500, any of which will give MUCH better performance for the same price.

Again, not true. Toyo is based in Japan; most major tire manufacturers manufacture their tires at plants around the world, and I assume this is true of Toyo as well. Toyo sells a lot of tires in the States and Canada; I am not familiar with the European market, but I would guess that their market share in North America is at least as big as in Europe.

Like Goodyear, Toyo makes a lot of different tires. Some are excellent; others are not. The Proxes RA-1 R compound track tire is excellent, one of the leading track tires and attractively priced. The Proxes T1-R is a pretty good performance summer tire, as good as tires like the ES100 and SPT, although not as good as top-of-the-line tires like the F1 GS-D3. The Proxes 4 is an okay all-season tire, although it's not as good as some other top all-seasons. Treadlife on all of these is as good as competing models from other manufacturers.

Like Goodyear and Toyo, Bridgestone makes a variety of tires, some of which are very good. These include the RE01R, which is indeed sticky but which (in North America) doesn't come in sizes to fit Hondas and Acuras; RE050A Pole Position, which is an excellent top-of-the-line summer tire, although not quite as good as the Goodyear F1 GS-D3; RE750, which is a good summer tire similar to the SPT and ES100 but is more expensive; RE960AS which is an excellent all-season tire although more expensive than the Kumho ASX all-season; the Blizzak line of excellent winter tires; and a bunch of other tires that are not as good as these and are not worth mentioning.

Like Goodyear and Toyo and Bridgestone, Dunlop makes a variety of tires, some of which are very good. These include the SP Sport Maxx, a very good top-of-the-line summer tire, although not quite as good as the F1 GS-D3, and the Direzza DZ101, an excellent budget performance tire that is similar to the ES100 and SPT.

The Ziex ZE-512 is a crappy all-season tire with crappy performance, quite the opposite of sticky. I can't imagine why anyone would use an all-season tire on a race track, unless they already had it on their daily driver. And even among all-season tires, there are lots better all-seasons (e.g. Kumho Ecsta ASX, Pirelli PZero Nero M&S, Bridgestone RE960AS, Avon M550A/S), some of which are in the same price range or less. The ZE-512 is not worth buying.

Like Goodyear and Toyo and Bridgestone and Dunlop, Michelin makes a variety of tires, some of which are very good, others which are not. The Pilot Sport PS2 is very good, although far from "amazing". Its performance is not quite as good as the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, and it costs a lot more. I can't think of a single Michelin tire which has the best performance in its segment.

The A043 is the stock tire on the MR2 Spyder, is only available in two sizes, and is very expensive. For just about any car, you can do much better.

I am aware of most of the tires available in the North American market. When I made the quick recommendations in my post above, I wasn't ignoring other ones that are available; in their particular segments, the ones I mentioned are simply better in every way than the ones I didn't mention.

 

Going back to the original post, here is my opinion on each:

Good wet and dry traction and decent treadlife, but you can get similar tires (ES100 or SPT) for less money.

Crappy performance. Crappy on dry pavement, crappy on wet pavement. You can get MUCH better tires for the same money (ES100) or less (SPT).

Good wet and dry traction and decent treadlife, but you can get similar tires (ES100 or SPT) for less money.

Good wet and dry traction and decent treadlife, similar to the ES100 and SPT, at an attractive price. Check prices; the SPT is usually, but not always, less expensive.

Falken is in the process of replacing the FK-451 with the FK-452. Good wet and dry traction and decent treadlife, but the ES100 and SPT are better.

Crappy all-season tire. For less money, you can get MUCH better performance with the Kumho Ecsta ASX all-season. If you don't drive in snow or frigid cold, you don't need all-seasons in the first place.

Excellent tire. Excellent dry traction, excellent wet traction, excellent treadlife. More expensive than bargain-priced tires but less expensive than many other top-of-the-line tires.

Excellent all-season tire, performance as good as any all-season on the market, and priced less than many other tires. If you need all-season tires, this is the one to get. If you don't drive in snow and frigid cold on the same tires as the rest of the year, then you don't need all-seasons in the first place.

Good performance tire, with excellent dry traction, not so good in wet. Not as sticky as the Falken Azenis RT-615, but lasts longer; if you're looking for something in between the Azenis and the SPT in both performance and value, this might be a good choice.

Excellent value summer tire. Very good dry traction, outstanding in rain, long treadlife, bargain price. Highly recommended.

Crappy all-season tire. For less money, you can get MUCH better performance with the Kumho Ecsta ASX all-season. If you don't drive in snow or frigid cold, you don't need all-seasons in the first place.

Good wet and dry traction and decent treadlife, similar to the SPT, at an attractive price. Check prices; the SPT is usually, but not always, less expensive.

Crappy performance. Crappy on dry pavement, crappy on wet pavement. You can get MUCH better tires for the same money (ES100) or less (SPT).

 

What about these Michelins? I searched their site and there are only two models that come in 205/45/16 and these are the better of the two:

PilotŽ Primacy™

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Pilot Primacy</TD></TR></TABLE>

Those are in the Tire Rack's lowest performance category for summer tires. They are designed to emphasize ride comfort, rather than performance, as noted on the Tire Rack website: "The Michelin Pilot Primacy is a Grand Touring Summer tire that was developed to meet the needs of sporty luxury coupe and sedan drivers who want comfort and tread life along with performance." I haven't driven them, but they sound like something I would only recommend to my grandmother...

Most of the best tires around (and, in some cases, the best for the money) are already included in your list (along with a few truly crappy tires). The only tire I don't see on your list that is worth buying (other than winter tires) is the Falken Azenis RT-615, which offers outstanding traction on dry pavement (as sticky as any street tire), with downsides that include so-so wet traction and rapid treadwear. Also there are some tires not on your list (but which I mentioned in a post above) which are also pretty good, but there are ones on the list that are at least as good and in some ways better.

BTW, is this for for a '92-95 Civic (based on your username)? If so, why are you looking for 205/45-16? The proper 16" tire size for that car is 205/40-16. 205/45-16 is too big for a '92-95 Civic (but works on Integras and '97-00 Civics).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
BTW, is this for for a '92-95 Civic (based on your username)? If so, why are you looking for 205/45-16? The proper 16" tire size for that car is 205/40-16. 205/45-16 is too big for a '92-95 Civic (but works on Integras and '97-00 Civics).
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Just about everything is interchangeable between 92-95 civics and 94+ integras so why would tire size not be? I just dont wanna end up getting a tire and having it look too small. I've seen hatches and coupes with the same rims before, and they always look smaller on the coupes so yeah.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Like Goodyear and Toyo and Bridgestone and Dunlop, Michelin makes a variety of tires, some of which are very good, others which are not. The Pilot Sport PS2 is very good, although far from "amazing". Its performance is not quite as good as the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, and it costs a lot more. I can't think of a single Michelin tire which has the best performance in its segment. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Other than this I agree with you, but the PS2 has consistently been rated as the best Max Performance tire by the tire rack until the latest Bridgestone RE050A Pole Position beat it out. Also, the Pilot Exalto is the best in its class according to Tire Rack. Similarly the Pilot Sport A/S is the best in its class, as is the Pilot Exalto A/S. It looks to me like you don't like Michelin much, but that is fine as I don't think they fit what the OP is looking for anyway. I voted for the Ecsta SPT as the best combination of traction, treadwear, and price.

PS2: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...id=50

Exalto: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...id=54

Pilot Sport A/S: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...cQty=

Exalto A/S:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...id=60

 

Because the engines and transmissions were designed to be able to be put into both cars. The tires do NOT have the same dimensions and are NOT designed to be interchangeable. What works on an Integra does not necessarily work on a Civic, and tires are a perfect example.

'92-95 Civics came from the factory with 175/70-13 tires (22.65 inches); a few models had other sizes with a similar diameter. For 16" wheels, you need 205/40-16 (22.46 inches, 0.8 percent smaller) to match. 205/45-16 is TOO BIG (23.26 inches, 2.7 percent bigger).

'94+ Integras came from the factory with 195/55-15 or 185/65-14 tires (depending on model), both of which have outer diameters of 23.44-23.47 inches. For 16" wheels, those cars can use 205/45-16 (0.8 percent smaller) or 215/45-16 (23.62 inches, 0.7 percent larger).

There are plenty of excellent tires in 205/40-16, including the Kumho SPT (for dry/wet performance and value), the Falken RT-615 (for dry performance), and the Kumho ASX (for winter/all-season capability), as well as most of the other choices in your post.

For your '92-95 Civic, get 205/40-16. Don't get 205/45-16.

Not true - unless you're only referring to user survey results, which are highly biased because everyone responds only about the tires they already bought. The side-by-side comparison test results are MUCH more meaningful, since they test the tires (identical tread depth) on identical cars at the same place and time. And in the most comprehensive side-by-side comparison test of 11 top tires, the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 finished first overall, and the PS2 finished fourth. You can read the test yourself.

Although the Pilot Exalto PE2 performs well in its class, the problem is that its class is "budget performance tires" (what the Tire Rack calls "ultra high performance summer tires") - a class that includes the Kumho SPT, Yokohama ES100, Avon Tech M500, etc, tires that offer good performance as well as good value. And the Pilot Exalto PE2 does not offer good value; in fact, its prices make it a poor buy indeed. Let's look at actual numbers, and take the 205/45-16 size as an example, since all the tires we're talking about are available in 205/45-16. The Pilot Exalto PE2 is $139. The Goodyear F1 GS-D3 is $123 after rebate. And the Kumho Ecsta SPT is $54 after rebate. So compared with the PE2 "budget performance tire", the Goodyear offers MUCH MUCH MUCH better performance for a bit less money, and the Kumho offers similar performance for MUCH MUCH MUCH less money. This is a no-brainer; it would be quite silly to buy the PE2 when you can get better tires for less money.

The Pilot Sport A/S is an excellent all-season tire - similar to the best all-seasons like the Kumho ASX, Bridgestone RE960AS, and Avon Tech M550 A/S - but, unlike the others, the Pilot Sport A/S is not available in any sizes to fit most Honda/Acura cars (Civics, Integras, etc). So you can't even compare prices to see what kind of value it offers; it's just not available.

The Pilot Exalto A/S is more of an entry level all-season, rather than a top-of-the-line all-season, and is a big step down in performance from the Pilot Sport A/S, Kumho ASX, etc. Yet, even though its performance is MUCH worse than the Kumho ASX (for example), it costs 2-3 times as much! So it's HIGHLY overpriced.

I don't look at brand names; as I noted above, every brand has some tires that offer excellent performance, and some that don't. Most brands have some tires that offer good value along with the performance, although some brands (e.g. Kumho, Avon) tend to offer more "bang for the buck" while others (e.g. Michelin, and to a lesser extent Bridgestone) tend to be overpriced in their performance category. But I don't recommend tires based on brand; I look at the performance, value, and other attributes of the individual tire model, rather than the brand. It all depends on the market segment and how that tire compares with other tires. If a particular tire offers a combination of performance and price that is better than tires from other brands, then that's the one I recommend.

As for your claims that I "don't like Michelin much", I frequently recommend their X-Ice winter tire (along with the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50) in the "studless winter tire" category, because IMO its performance and price are both similar to the WS-50, and both are better than other studless winter tires (except for the Blizzak REVO1, which is supposed to be even better but I haven't tried). And I suppose I should amend my previous statement to exclude the X-Ice. However, the Michelin summer tires and all-season tires that compete with the ones mentioned in this topic just don't offer as much performance for the money, and that's why I don't recommend them. If they came out with new models to compete, or if they lowered their ridiculously high prices on tires like the PE2, I would be delighted to recommend them as well. I'm as happy as anyone when new tires come along (or when tire prices are lowered). More offerings and less expensive offerings benefit everyone, and I'm happy to change my recommendations when better products become available.

 

I will be personally getting the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 once I can afford to get some rims and tires. I read around and in the Car and Driver test, it ranked like number 1 out of the group. Some of the other tires like the Khumos ranked so damn low.

Remember get the best tires you can afford, your life is riding on it, AND your performance/handling/braking.

 

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

'92-95 Civics came from the factory with 175/70-13 tires (22.65 inches); a few models had other sizes with a similar diameter. For 16" wheels, you need 205/40-16 (22.46 inches, 0.8 percent smaller) to match. 205/45-16 is TOO BIG (23.26 inches, 2.7 percent bigger).</TD></TR></TABLE>

My car came with 185/60/14s actually. 1010tires.com recommends staying within 3% of the factory size to minimize the inaccuracy of the speedometer.

OE 185/60/14 tire diameter: 22.74"
My current 195/60/14 Azenis tire diameter: 23.21"
Difference: 0.47" (2.03% larger)

205/45/16 Diameter: 23.26"
Difference from OE size: 0.52" (2.24% larger)

205/40/16s tire diameter: 22.45"
Difference from OE size: 0.29" (1.28% smaller)


I guess as little of a difference it is, the slightly larger tire will at least get me better fuel economy. Barely noticeable, but still better, nonetheless.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">1010tires.com recommends staying within 3% of the factory size to minimize the inaccuracy of the speedometer.</TD></TR></TABLE>

To minimize the inaccuracy, get the size that is closest to your stock size. It's best to keep it within 1 percent or so whenever possible.

205/40-16 is still the better size for your car, and for any pre-'96 Civic. It will give you less speedometer and odometer error, slightly better acceleration (the 205/45 will make acceleration in each gear slightly worse), won't rub, etc.

You should still get 205/40-16.

 

I understand all your points. I'm definitely not trying to argue with you or anything, but I even plugged in my factory sized tires and it suggests plus sizes for me, so I clicked 16" rims and it threw me 205/45s.

 

Btw, what's up with 'load ratings'? I understand that it's the maximum load a tire and support, but does a higher rating mean stiffer sidewall or what?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I even plugged in my factory sized tires and it suggests plus sizes for me, so I clicked 16" rims and it threw me 205/45s.</TD></TR></TABLE>

If you put your car in on the Tire Rack website, and you click 16" rims, it recommends 205/40, NOT 205/45.

Get 205/40-16, not 205/45-16.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Btw, what's up with 'load ratings'? I understand that it's the maximum load a tire and support, but does a higher rating mean stiffer sidewall or what?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not necessarily.

 

Did you read the link I gave you for the PS2? It was a TireRack test that it placed above the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 not a user survey, I thought the C&D test was too biased towards wet performance and treadwear rating (which varies b/w manufacturers so a 280 Goodyear might wear like a 180 Yokohama). My dad owned a set of F1 GS-D3s on a BMW 545i 6-spd and thought they had marshmallow sidewalls although they performed well in the wet and lasted almost 20,000 miles. How often is it wet vs. dry where you live? I am in Grand Rapids, MI (pretty rainy part of the state) and it is still almost always dry out. I agree that Michelin tires are expensive, especially when you consider the mail in rebates that many manufacturers offer (How many people actually send them in? You get your money back like 3 months later) however I also have always had good experiences with them (except for OEM Accord CRAP). I have also owned a set of Kumho Ecsta ASX due to Luke @ Tire Rack's recommendation and thought they were garbage (Poor wet traction, marginal dry traction, and scary as heck in winter, I sold them for $50 for all 4 225/45R17 after 10,000 miles) I had a similar result w/ the ES100 which were so loud after 6,000 miles that my stock stereo could barely keep up (2005 Subaru WRX STi, I got them rotated and balanced every 2,000mi because I had read this could happen, my alignment was perfect according to the 3 shops I went to). I replaced the ASXs with Exaltos (which I got $200 off a set of 4 making them $100 a tire mounted and balanced) and they were 2x the tire in every aspect so I think you calling them nowhere close in performance is way off the mark according to my actual experience with them both. Don't waste your time on REVO 1s if you get any amount of slush, they don't evacuate it well at all, the WS-50 are still by far the best winter tires I have used.

Jon

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCal EJ1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Btw, what's up with 'load ratings'? I understand that it's the maximum load a tire and support, but does a higher rating mean stiffer sidewall or what?</TD></TR></TABLE>

What you said is basically all it means. A manufacturer gives each tire a maximum load rating based on how much weight they believe each tire can support. It may be reasonable to assume that in the same exact tire (size, model, and brand) a tire with a higher load rating has stiffer or at least tougher sidewalls since that is the main load bearing part of the tire. For your car it is somewhat irrelevant because it is so light, you won't be towing and even if you pack 7 people in your car you won't generally go over the per tire load rating.

Jon

 

Actually, the two tires turned in VERY similar results. The only really big difference between the PS2 and the F1 GS-D3 is in price. Advantage: F1 GS-D3. And in the fact that the PS2 doesn't come in sizes to fit most Honda/Acura cars. Advantage: F1 GS-D3.

You really seem to be biased in favor of the overpriced Michelin tires...

They do indeed perform well in the wet. Also in the dry. HARDLY marshmallow sidewalls, although I admit I am not putting them onto a 4000-pound car. On a 4000-pound car, just about ANYTHING is going to feel like marshmallow sidewalls. That's due to the weight of the car, not the tires. (And yes, I've driven some of the finer big cars, M5 etc.)

Again, you seem to be bending over backwards to diss the Goodyears and to praise the overpriced Michelins. Which is especially remarkable since the Michelins don't come in sizes to fit most of our cars. Praising the PS2 is like praising a particular brand of boat propeller; both are equally irrelevant to anyone with a Civic, Integra, del sol, CRX, ...

No, it isn't. Grand Rapids is pretty rainy; on average, there is at least a little rain 144 days a year there, with an average of 37 inches of precipitation annually. That's the same precip as Seattle (not exactly considered a dry climate), Dallas, and St. Louis. Granted, there are some cities that get more rain (much of the East Coast including Miami, New York, Atlanta) and some others that get less (much of the western half of the country including Los Angeles, Denver, San Francisco), but your climate is not particularly dry. Same as mine (not surprising, since I live less than 200 miles away from you).

Granted, if you never drive in the rain because you have some other car to drive on rainy days, then you may want to get a tire whose performance is much better on dry pavement; but that wouldn't be the PS2, that would be tires like the Falken Azenis RT-615, BFG T/A KD, and in larger sizes, Bridgestone RE01R and Yokohama Advan Neova AD07, all of which offer better performance on dry pavement than the F1 GS-D3 or the PS2, but which are poorer on wet pavement and don't last as long.

Wow, I've never heard of anyone so intent on twisting the truth in order to back up their opinion. Now you are claiming what, that people shouldn't take rebates into account, and that some people don't send them in? Come on, get serious and stop spewing crap!

It sounds like maybe you're really, really wealthy, and maybe you don't care about getting tires that cost less but offer equal performance because you don't need the money, and you don't send in rebates because you have so much money that forty bucks isn't worth filling out a form. Are you that out of touch with the fact that most people try to get value for their money, and don't want to get a tire that's significantly more expensive unless it's significantly better in some ways?

Well, all-seasons are a compromise. If you're accustomed to driving winter tires in the winter, then all-seasons will indeed be scary as heck - ALL all-seasons, not just the ASX. And in warmer weather, again, they will feel like garbage compared with summer tires - again, ALL all-seasons, not just the ASX. That's why anyone who lives in an area which experiences real winter weather is better off getting two separate sets of tires, one set of winter tires for winter, and a set of summer tires for the rest of the year. It has nothing to do with the ASX.

Again, it seems as though you're bending over backwards to trash a lot of tires, all except the overpriced Michelins, but all your arguments turn out to be pure hype. Simple fact: The ASX is as good as any all-season tire on the market, in winter and in warm weather. But all-seasons are always a compromise.

Maybe you had a suspension problem that was causing them to wear unevenly and causing the noise. Or maybe the STi is just a noisy car and it has nothing to do with the tires at all. Regardless, I drive the GS-R with the ES100 almost every day (except in winter, when the winter tires are on it) and I don't find it noisy at all, either when they're new or when they wear, except when they are really quite worn (and again, this is true of most tires, not just the ES100).

Are you comparing the all-season ASX with the Exalto A/S all-season tire, or with the Exalto PE2 summer tire?

Do you even own a Honda/Acura automobile? It seems like you're only posting about BMWs and Subarus...