Im interested in buying new tires. Just need some street/performance tires. I want so that have a decent tread life though. So Ive been looking at the ES100s. Anybody got any feedback or recommend anything else that aint too pricey? Oh they are going on my 96 Spec JDM ITRs

 

If you need new rubbers for your ride? I know a place call Zoom auto parts and tires in La Puente, CA. The number to call is 626-369-5400, they have the best deals. ask for kevin. I picked up a set of Toyo’s, they hooked it up.

 

Overall the ES100's weren't so good. They stuck pretty good but they didn't last very long for me.

 

ES100s are a very good 'bang for your buck tire' also look at the Kuhmo SPT.

 

The ES100 is a very good tire. We're on our second set on the '94 GS-R. Very good traction on dry pavement, excellent in rain, last a long time (over 40K miles, longer than any other tire we've had on that car), and fairly reasonably priced.

That being said, the Kumho SPT does everything as well as the ES100 or better, and they're significantly cheaper in most sizes, even before you take the $40 rebate into account. If I were buying a set of tires today, I would get the SPT rather than the ES100.

However, if you have 14" wheels, the ES100 is available in 195/60-14, and the SPT isn't available in 14" sizes.

For more comments on folks using the ES100 on Integras, click here.

 

i have es100's in 205/40/17 (dont worry im downsizing soon) and theyre not bad at all. even with bad camber issues they have lasted me 30k miles and i still have some more left in em... great bang for buck, as already stated

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by whiterabbit010 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you need new rubbers for your ride? I know a place call Zoom auto parts and tires in La Puente, CA. The number to call is 626-369-5400, they have the best deals. ask for kevin. I picked up a set of Toyo’s, they hooked it up. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Cool, thanks. I will check them out

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Overall the ES100's weren't so good. They stuck pretty good but they didn't last very long for me. </TD></TR></TABLE>
What do you recommend?

<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">ES100s are a very good 'bang for your buck tire' also look at the Kuhmo SPT.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Will check into the Kuhmo's, thanks.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The ES100 is a very good tire. We're on our second set on the '94 GS-R. Very good traction on dry pavement, excellent in rain, last a long time (over 40K miles, longer than any other tire we've had on that car), and fairly reasonably priced.

That being said, the Kumho SPT does everything as well as the ES100 or better, and they're significantly cheaper in most sizes, even before you take the $40 rebate into account. If I were buying a set of tires today, I would get the SPT rather than the ES100.

However, if you have 14" wheels, the ES100 is available in 195/60-14, and the SPT isn't available in 14" sizes.

For more comments on folks using the ES100 on Integras, click here.</TD></TR></TABLE>


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by VTECommie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i have es100's in 205/40/17 (dont worry im downsizing soon) and theyre not bad at all. even with bad camber issues they have lasted me 30k miles and i still have some more left in em... great bang for buck, as already stated </TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I appreciate it. If you recommend anything or know of anywhere I can get some tires, let me know.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dubs97integ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you recommend anything or know of anywhere I can get some tires, let me know.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Decide on the tires you want, and then shop around to see where you can buy them and have them installed at the lowest price (or if there are other factors that matter to you, like convenience, etc). Don't go to a tire dealer and let him talk you into some other tire that doesn't meet your needs as well.

Check mail order places first. The Tire Rack and Discount Tire Direct (Discount Tire's mail order division) have good prices. At the Tire Rack, you will pay shipping (typically ~$50 for a set of four tires) but no sales tax; DTD has free shipping (and no sales tax) but their prices are higher, so they may or may not be cheaper. Some local tire dealers may be willing to match mail-order prices, or come close. Also, some local tire dealers include mounting and balancing in their prices.

If you buy the tires from a mail order place, you can get them mounted and balanced at any local shop (tire dealer, car dealer, independent mechanic, etc). Some tire dealers will do this for tires bought elsewhere, others don't, and others charge exorbitant prices for tires not bought there. Mounting and balancing typically costs $10-20 per tire. I've found that, in my area, Wal-Mart provides inexpensive, competent mounting/balancing for $8-10 per tire on tires brought in to them.

 

I've had very good success with the Kumho MX's. And they are a bit stickier than the ES100's from my experiance.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I've had very good success with the Kumho MX's. And they are a bit stickier than the ES100's from my experiance.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Kumho MX is a very, VERY different tire from the ES100. This is a terrible recommendation for anyone looking for good treadlife, such as the original poster notes.

<u>ES100</u>:
Dry traction/handling - very good
Wet traction/handling - excellent
Treadlife - excellent (25-40K miles is common)
Price - inexpensive
Size availability - excellent

<u>MX</u>:
Dry traction/handling - excellent
Wet traction/handling - mediocre
Treadlife - fair (15-20K miles is common)
Price - moderate (higher than the ES100)
Size availability - poor

The ES100 (as well as the similar Kumho SPT) is an excellent choice for a daily driver, for someone looking for good performance and excellent value (price/treadlife). It costs less than the MX and for most drivers - apparently everyone in the world other than dvp - the ES100 lasts twice as many miles as the MX.

The MX is a poor choice for a daily driver, due to its relatively mediocre wet traction and treadlife. It's an okay choice for someone looking for a streetable tire to take to autocrosses or track events (although the Falken Azenis RT-615 is even better).

EDIT: Added size availability.



Modified by nsxtasy at 2:25 PM 11/30/2006

 

Except for the fact that my ES100's didn't wear good at all (and I'm not the only one that has experianced this). The price between the ES100's and MX's...you have mixed up. The ES100's are $84.00 at the tirerack where the MX's are $77.00.
Maybe he'll be one of us that experianced the lack of life in the ES100 tires. Why take that chance.
I've had the MX's that are one the car now for about 18 months with about 20 autocross runs and one track day at Thunderhill (plus the drive down there). They are still well above 1/2. And they have been my daily driver tires the entire time.
The MX's might not be the best recommendation for a lasting tire but I deffinately would not put the ES100 in there either. But the performance you get out of the MX at 77.00 compaired to the 88.00 ES100 is well worth it.

You can try saying I'm the only one that experianced the bad wear in the ES100's but you and I know that isn't true.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Except for the fact that my ES100's didn't wear good at all (and I'm not the only one that has experianced this).</TD></TR></TABLE>

I know over 30 people who are using the ES100, and I've seen reports from another 30 or more here on h-t. Everyone except you and me has gotten 25-40K miles to theirs. I got more than 40K. YOU are the only one who has experienced less than that, the only one that I have ever heard of.

In fact, I do not believe that you got poor mileage on the ES100. That sounds like pure B.S. It simply does not make sense that you get treadlife different from everyone else in the world. Maybe your car had an alignment or suspension problem at the time. Because everyone else except you gets 25-40K miles. Or more.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The price between the ES100's and MX's...you have mixed up. The ES100's are $84.00 at the tirerack where the MX's are $77.00.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not true. Not if you look at the most common sizes for the most common Honda/Acura cars here, and look up the Tire Rack prices:

<u>Integra or '97-00 Civic</u>
14" wheels - ES100 $75 (195/60-14), MX not available
15" wheels - ES100 $64 (195/55-15), MX $72 (205/50-15)
16" wheels - ES100 $81 (205/45-16), MX not available

<u>del sol, CRX, or pre-'96 Civic</u>
14" wheels - ES100 $72 (185/60-14), MX not available
15" wheels - ES100 $57 (195/50-15), MX not available
16" wheels - ES100 not available, MX not available

I'll go edit my post to note that size availability of the MX is poor, too.

Furthermore, if anyone other than dvp drives 40K miles on these tires, he'll be buying TWO sets of the MX to last 40K miles, but only ONE set of the ES100.

Incidentally, even Kumho rates the MX with only a 220 treadwear rating, vs 320-340 for the SPT, which is similar to the ES100. So that's more evidence that anyone except dvp can expect to get 50 percent more treadlife from the SPT than the MX.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Maybe he'll be one of us that experianced the lack of life in the ES100 tires.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Highly unlikely. Only one person in the world gets poor treadlife on the ES100, and that position is already taken. Everyone else gets 25-40K. Or more.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You can try saying I'm the only one that experianced the bad wear in the ES100's but you and I know that isn't true.</TD></TR></TABLE>



It's true. Deal with it.

 

I don't care what you believe. I have absolutely no reason other than the truth that those tires wore out faster than any tire I've had. My suspension perameters haven't changed enough to make any difference.
"Everyone else in the world"...lol. EVERYONE uses that tire right...lol.
Now take yourself over to the tire racks site and read threw the reviews on the ES100 and you will see I am absolutely not the only one that saw bad wear. For the sake that I know I'll have to tell you....you might want to skip any reviews that are under 10k miles. You can try blaming out of alignmnet all you want. In fact there was another guy here that didn't like the tire for the same reason, you even responded to him in an older thread. I'll try to find that one for you....


Yes it is true...
OMG...you left out THE two MOST common sizes....LMFAO...how about 205 50 15 and 205 40 17???

205 40 17
ES100-$84.00
MX-$77.00........Both in stock...what a silly thing to have to add...

205 50 15
ES100-$74.00
MX-$72.00.....both in stock

What a joke you are making out of this availability thing. And simply giving out incorrect information.

Intresting how you're trying to change the point with availability...the two most common sizes for anyone looking for both DD and track day tires are available from the MX, which was never any part of this thread.


OH, so now your trying to change the point to the SPT....I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to follow all the turns your making in this thread.
You should know that you can't rely on tread wear ratings from one manufacturer to another, let alone even one manuctuerer about their own products. Or wear ratings much at all. Nice way to discredit yourself there.
But the point here is the ES100 wears terrible from my experiance. You're going to have to swallow that some day.



Well of course nobody can dislike a tire if nsxtasy likes the tire. That would be impossible. Keep throwing around the generalities.

MX's out last the ES100's and out perform it as well. At least they did for me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"Everyone else in the world"...lol. EVERYONE uses that tire right...lol. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Everyone else in the world who has used those tires.

It's easy to tell when someone doesn't have facts to argue with - they try distracting the discussion from the facts by making false, irrelevant statements. Thanks for providing such a great example.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OMG...you left out THE two MOST common sizes....LMFAO...how about 205 50 15 and 205 40 17??? </TD></TR></TABLE>

I included 205/50-15. And anyone using 205/50-15 can just as easily get 195/55-15, if they're getting the ES100.

205/40-17 is only used by ricers with the bling bling 17-inch wheels, which are nowhere near as common on Civics and Integras as 14, 15, or 16.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What a joke you are making out of this availability thing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's not a joke when there aren't sizes available for many of our cars. The only joke is your false information about the ES100. Pure BS.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Intresting how you're trying to change the point with availability...the two most common sizes for anyone looking for both DD and track day tires are available from the MX, which was never any part of this thread.</TD></TR></TABLE>

205/40-17 is not common. Not common for the street (except among ricers), and not common for the track. The most common sizes for folks here are the six I listed above. And the MX is not available for five of them. THAT IS A FACT.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OH, so now your trying to change the point to the SPT....I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to follow all the turns your making in this thread. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not the one who first mentioned the SPT. But here are the FACTS (I know you have trouble dealing with FACTS, but here they are anyway) which tell why the SPT is relevant to the discussion of the ES100, while the MX isn't: The SPT competes with the ES100. Both are excellent choices for daily drivers, with long treadlife and good wet traction and good dry traction. The MX does not compete with the ES100, due to its poor wet traction and short treadlife.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But the point here is the ES100 wears terrible from my experiance. You're going to have to swallow that some day. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The only thing I have to swallow is the knowledge that I get more than 40,000 miles from my ES100, when used on my '94 GS-R. Which is one more FACT that you won't accept, but it's TRUE. Here are some more FACTS for you:

FACT: The MX won't last as long as the ES100. Anyone except dvp can expect the MX to last 15-20K miles, and the ES100 to last 25-40K miles (or more).

FACT: The MX performs poorly on wet pavement and in rain (another FACT which you continue to ignore). And I'm not the only one with that opinion. The Car and Driver test, in which the MX finished dead last among top-of-the-line tires, said, "It was tricky driving the Kumho in the wet, however, because once the tire started sliding, it took seemingly forever to recover and gain traction."

 

LOL, you're the one bringing up things not even talked about in this thread.


Here you go with that lame *** availablity agruement that no one brought up. 205 50 15 will fit just fine on all Civics and Integras for that size range. That's just a stupid point to bring up considering we are talking about a car that will see DD AND track time.
You need to make up your mind about what your talking about. This is not about availablity for tire sizes people use for cars that NEVER see the track.
17's are bling bling on an Acura for handling. LMAO again. I know many guys why like the lower profile for track days. Considering we are limited on any wider tires other than going with a race tire. That is seriously a terrible arguement.


The only BS here is you not realising we are talking about a car that sees the track and DDing. And once again the availability issue is horse sh*t here because the 205 50 15 would be used much more on all integras and civics for DD and track days or even the 205 40 17. Whether you want to admit or not.



Yes it is common, very. People do not use those sizes on the track and if they do it's because they are beginers and don't know a wider tire is better or they can't afford them.
I have never seen any acura or Honda with a tire skinnier than a 205 on the track.


Thanks for your opinion. That's all it is is an opinion.
Poor wet traction....lol. Have you ever owned the MX? The MX is much better in the rain than your "poor" comment. In fact It's very close to being as good in the rain as the ES100. With full tread.



Fact......as is mine after having my ES100's crap out way before 40k.

FACT: The MX's did last longer than the ES100's.

HELLO McFly...we never even talked about the wet handling. Dude, you're cracking me up now...
Once again you discredit yourself in believing the Car and Driver test. It was totally flawed and done unprofessionally. Regardless of what people think. Testing tires at an autocross does not tell you what they are like on the street. And yet again you need to figure out which way your arguement is going....DD and track car or just DD. We are not talking about both.

 

Yes, I've driven on the MX. They're very good in the dry, but they suck in the wet. And they wear out quickly. Again, not just my opinion, but that of everyone else I know who has used them (except you).

DD or track? For a daily driver like the original poster here is asking about, the ES100 and SPT are much better because they last so much longer (and the SPT is less expensive, too). For a car that sometimes sees the track or autocross (which no one here was asking about), the Falken Azenis RT-615 is much better than the MX.

 

Just more opinions.

 

I disliked my ES100s but even I have to say that they lasted a long time (I wished they would wear out faster so I could hear myself think again) Ecsta MXs are good in rain?!?!?! I would take warm Hoosier AS304s over the MX in the rain (exaggeration but you get my point).

 

I've had absolutely no problems with the MX in the rain. Both the ES100 and the MX start hydroplaining at around 70mph in heavy rain. Stick wise they felt very similar in the wet. At full tread anyways. Just another opinion.

 

I went from avon tech m500 to es100 on the same car and I found the avon 500's to be a better tire particularly in the areas of wet performance and noise. the avons also offered more ultimate grip but they were slow to turn in and gave less feel. I might just get about 25k out of the es100 on a heavy, traction deficient somewhat powerful fwd car (stage 1 hpt volvo 850). the fronts wear at approx 2x the rate of the rears so i see no reason they would not get 35-40k on a non built fwd honda. I like the es100, and i loved the avons. i am going to get the khumo spt when these are gone. the khumo tests against the es100 similarly to the way the avon m500 did at tire rack so i am looking forward to them.

i am considering the es100 for my civic and bet they would be a good match, and i expect a bit of noise.


Modified by mini-e at 7:24 PM 11/30/2006

 

Wow, lots of information. Thanks everyone Im considering the Kuhmo SPT's. Also, The Falken Ziex but heard they wear out pretty quick too...

 

dvp you are not the only one on this thread that dislikes the avs es 100 for tire wear.. i got 15000 miles out of mine and a co-worker only got 12000 miles out of his tires...i didn't care for the grip in wet...spun the tires way to much....dry handling was okay at best....but i prefer tire's like the falken 615 or hankook rs2 instead for dry handling and i use my studdless snow tires in winter for traction...nsxtasy you may like your yok's but there are people out there that disagree with on this particular subject of wear on those yok's.....i would like to try out the spt's asomeday in the future

 

Great tire for the price


Modified by HT Chaplain at 9:23 AM 12/1/2006

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dubs97integ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Wow, lots of information. Thanks everyone Im considering the Kuhmo SPT's. Also, The Falken Ziex but heard they wear out pretty quick too... </TD></TR></TABLE>

The Falken Ziex ZE-512 is a really poor all-season tire. You don't need all-season tires in Southern California. (You don't regularly drive on snow, do you?) Even among all-season tires, the performance of the Ziex in all conditions is crappy. (However, they don't wear out quickly - but you will wish they did. )

I think the SPT is an excellent choice for your stated needs. The ES100 is a good choice, but the SPT is even better.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Falken Ziex ZE-512 is a really poor all-season tire. You don't need all-season tires in Southern California. (You don't regularly drive on snow, do you?) Even among all-season tires, the performance of the Ziex in all conditions is crappy. (However, they don't wear out quickly - but you will wish they did. )

I think the SPT is an excellent choice for your stated needs. The ES100 is a good choice, but the SPT is even better.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Now theres something we agree about. Those tire were terrible for everything but wear.


Thanks vtecsi00, I knew I wasn't the only one.