Ok guys,

Both are the same price, G-force has better treadwear than Azenis but looking at this from a strictly performance perspective which does better for track/autox (better yet which is proven to do better?)

215/45R16 Falken Azenis RT-615

vs

225/50R16 BF Goodrich G-Force Sports

Naturally I'd think the wider tire having more contact would do better but tire build does come into play so I'm posting this in case the Azenis are built that much better.

Keep in mind both are same price, $93 a tire (for the Azenis its 113 with a rebate comes out to 93 a tire)

 

You can delete this post. I just found a set with of Falken's at 225/50R16 for a total of less than 20 bucks more. If you guys still have something to say about the tires id like to hear it though, thanks.

 

They're both older tires that have been significantly outclassed by the latest batch of extreme performance summer tires (which the G-Froce Sport isn't even one of), in terms of traction.

While I love my current set of RT-615s, I wouldn't even consider buying another set with the better options out there (Ecsta XS, R1R, Star Specs, and a few others).

And wider tires do not have a larger contact patch, once inflated to the same pressure and mounted on the same car.

Enjoy the tires, but if you're looking for max traction at least you'll only need to run them for a year before they need replacement anyway, and can move on to a better tire then.

 

Didnt buy any yet but I did notice the Ecsta XS and Star specs on a Car and Drive tire performance chart:

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...e6c0951cf5.pdf

I'll keep doing some research I have time.

 

I've got the G-Sports on my EP and they are a big improvement than my previous Ziex 912's.Good traction and thread wear.By the way what kind of vehicle is it going on?

 

Going on a 97 Prelude SH. I was thinking of going with the G-Sports too because of the treadwear, im kinda afraid of the treadwear I see on Kumho Ecsta XS/Ventus V12/ Star specs

 

I wouldn't recommend either of these tires. First, though, you need to decide how much you care about performance vs treadlife, because that will determine which kind of tire you want to buy.

The stickiest street tires are called "extreme performance tires". As noted above, the best of these have been introduced within the past year or two: Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec, Kumho Ecsta XS, Bridgestone Potenza RE-11, Yokohama Advan Neova AD08, and Toyo Proxes R1R. All of these will typically last 15K miles, maybe up to 20K, which is longer than the Falken Azenis RT-615, which typically lasts 10-12K. All of these are stickier than the RT-615, as noted above. And the Dunlop and Kumho are priced similar to the Falken (although Discount Tire Direct has a rebate offer on the Falken now, probably because people are buying those competing tires instead).

You can also get longer-lasting summer tires, which the Tire Rack classifies as "maximum performance summer tires" (most of which do not come in the smaller sizes most of us here use) and "ultra high performance summer tires". These tires offer good performance, although not as good as the extreme performance tires, and they typically last anywhere from 20K to 40K miles. The ultra high performance summer tires are fairly inexpensive, too. The best of them are the Yokohama S.drive, the Fuzion ZRi, and if you can find it in your size, the Kumho Ecsta SPT, all of which give better performance than the BFG g-Force Sport for about the same price.

Bottom line: If you want the best performance for a reasonable price, start your search with the Dunlop Star Spec or Kumho XS if 15-20K treadlife doesn't bother you, or the Yoko S.drive or Fuzion ZRi if it does.

All of these tires are summer tires, which means they should not be used in snow or bitter cold because they won't grip well in those conditions, which winter tires and all-season tires can handle. In moderate to warm temperatures, summer tires offer better performance than all-season tires, on dry pavement and in rain. If you have to use the same tires in warm weather and snow, and you're willing to accept the compromise in performance that entails all year round, then you'll need all-season tires. All seasons generally last even longer than summer tires and often come with a treadwear warranty. The Kumho Ecsta ASX is one of the better all-seasons at a bargain price, and the Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Position is even better but more expensive. The Ziex all-season is cheap and the performance is a big step down from those two.

 

Fuzion ZRI really?

 

Cheap, good performance for the money, decent wear life.

What's the issue with them?

Tirerack test of them compared to other "ultra high performance" tires.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...ay.jsp?ttid=97

 

Yup. The Fuzion ZRi is one of the best "bang for the budget" summer tires, as good as the Yokohama S.drive, and notably better in rain. If you want a longer-lasting summer tire, the Fuzion ZRi is worth considering.

If you want one of the absolutely stickiest tires, though, pick from the "extreme performance" group.

 

I've actually been looking at the tires here:

Car and Driver Top Tires 2009

with the best DRY grip. I live in California so I think going for the best dry performance sounds like a plan. The Kumho Ecsta XS seems like the best bet for now but I'm still contemplating how often I'd use these tires for "performance" driving and if it's really worth the treadlife. Thanks guys

 

That article is really quite misleading because it compares several different kinds of tires with different design priorities.

As for where to make the trade-off between performance and treadlife, that's a matter of your own personal priorities.

Good luck.

 

Fuzion Zri's are crappy tires, I dont care what any test says, they have horrible longevity and chop out like nobodys business. Those tests CANNOT take heat cycling into account. The zri are cheaper than the S Drives, but in no way better. I would compare them to a falken ze912 which is a much better tire for approximately the same price. I have heard nothing but good about the dunlop star specs, but have never tried a set. I loved my falken rt615's but they have been outmoded by some newer stuff, none of which I have had the chance to run and test. Alot of the truly high performance stuff will get hard and lose grip before you wear them out on the street, you really want to chose a tire made for day to day use unless you do not mind this.

 

Not true at all - on either count. In most sizes, these two tires are priced very similarly; either tire can be slightly more, depending on the size. And the ZRi are much, much better than the S.drive in wet conditions, and very similar on dry pavement. For example, the 50-0 mph braking distance of the ZRi on wet pavement is 10 percent shorter than the S.drive (95.6 vs 106.1 feet). You can see a detailed side-by-side test of both tires at http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...ay.jsp?ttid=97

 

You obviously did not read my post, I could care less about initial testing as this is not real world conditions. Also use your beloved tire rack to look up pricing, 2254517 s.drive 121, zri are 91...25% difference in price.

 

Real world conditions have too many variables, so "anecdotal evidence" like yours, where you don't drive different tires on the same car in the same conditions, is total BS. Side-by-side testing uses those tires on the same car in identical conditions.

For an Integra or '97-00 Civic, common cars used by those here, you can get the S.drive in 195/55-15 for $72. The ZRi doesn't come in that size but it comes in 205/50-15 for $74.

 

I think it is very hard to justify the performance of a tire someone elses experience unless they have the very exact car + tire & tire size you have.

I had falken 615's on my edm ek4 vti and all I can say is WOW!

I must say though the dude above has the thread wear bang on! They lasted exactly 15k and by 20k the tire was pretty much bald,as matter of fact they started to show wear by a short as 5k on the side walls even though I have camber kits and a great balance, alignment.

But I repeat I really really want to note that they were amazing in the name of performance!

 

its not "anecdotal evidence" its what I do for a living. I look at hundreds of tires off hundreds of cars every day. It is absolutely not BS if a tire does the same thing on every car it is put on. It seems much more unrealistic to run every tire exactly the same on one car when each tire is designed differently and should be run at different air pressures, suspension settings, etc. Granted this does not put the tires on an "even" playing field, but they were not even to start with. This in no way discounts the testing that they do, but it should be looked at as a baseline, not the be all end all. On the extreme qualatative end, every tire will drive different and what it good for one person will be completely wrong for another. Also, I would venture to say most eveyone on this board has switched to a 17" wheel, and 15" is almost nonexistant on new hondas.

 

You would be mistaken. I am actually running 14's.

 

Absolutely NOT TRUE. People on this board - to which you are new - have Hondas of virtually every year, from the 1970s to brand new cars. The most popular cars here, by far, are the 1992-2000 Civic and 1994-2001 Integra. Based on the questions asked here, over 65 percent of the folks here have 15" wheels, 15-20 percent have 16" wheels, 5-10 percent have 14" or 13" wheels, and fewer than 5 percent have 17" wheels or larger.

New members here should be asking questions and learning, not demonstrating how much they DON'T know.

 

I have to say after researching the tires on that list although the top 3 tested as good performers I think I am willing to sacrifice some performance for a tire with more treadlife like the Bridgestone Potenza RE760's.