Well time has come to replace my tires on my 05...A buddy gave me a set of Michelin Pilot sport for the rear....I went to look for matching fronts...they dont make that size for the exact tire i need but they make the Michelin Exalto PE2 for the front but its not the same pattern as the back...I was considering getting the Potenza 960AS all around. I like to drive in the colder NY weather and also like the fact that the treadware is 400 instead of the Potenza 050 OEM tires that have a 140 treadware. Plus the all season is better in wet conditions than the summer tires. Anyone have the all seasons tires? Should i get the other Michelins for the front? Any suggestions would help.

 

Michellins are very high in price. All season tires are great if that's what your looking for. I live in miami n just bought rear tires for my new set of wheels n I went with Goodyear Eagle F1's. They are all season. If your not boosted I don't think you need ultimate performance tires for normal driving. But that's my opinion. Check out the goodyears. If you want to go even cheaper try Dunlop Direzza. But if you want super stickies go with a drag radial.

 

I dont care for mis-matched setups for the most part myself. They tend to give unsettling handling characteristics....which might be fine for other cars, but not so much for a car built to be a well-balanced roadster. I personally love the OEM S-02s, but I'm also in Alabama where hot, dry weather is the norm (with this year being the exception to that). Ofcourse I also have the teg I can drive if the weather is bad. Again though, I'd try to get something similiar to the Michelin's unless you want it to always be unbalanced and either under or oversteer like crazy.

 

Sumitomo HRTZ III's have performed great in heavy rain for me

 

All season tires + S2000 = Does not compute.

 

It really depends on your use of the car. Daily commuter? Auto-X? Mountain Runs? etc.... Get a tire that matches your usage and don't mismatch your tires. Keep the same compound and pattern front to rear.

 

Since it's warmer out, I'm going to be driving it more. Probably until the first snow fall in winter, so it's gonna be driven alot. I don't track it or anything so that's why I'm considering the all seasons. They'll last longer than the oem potenzas and are less in price.

 

I agree, I had all seasons and I didnt like them one bit. Even for normal driving the car didnt feel the same. I know with any car the tires will change a lot but it seemed to change a lot more with the S2000.

 

just a side note; when it comes to comparing treadwear ratings, they are different between companies, meaning the DOT doesn't rate it, as they do with the traction and temperature ratings. the companies with the most accurate UTQG ratings are Falken and Bridgestone believe it or not.
if I were you I would just buy a complete set and keep the Michelin's as spares.

 

^^sounds good to me

 

All seasons are not necessarily better in the rain than a summer tire. It depends on the type of tread pattern and composition and how cold the rain/road is.

The 960AS really isn't a high performance tire. It's an all season touring semi performance tire. It's a weird category...I wouldn't use them on my S2000, to be honest.

Do you drive in the snow or just in the cold weather? I really haven't had THAT much of an issue driving in cold weather in summer tires. Just remember that they're not as sticky...so keep the on ramp heroics for the warmer weather.

BFG G-force sports might be a good tire to look into. Good rain traction, long lasting, and good dry grip.

Bridgestone Potenza 760sports are something else to look into. They have a technology that exposes a more water friendly tread as the tire wears to make up for tread wear. You get consistent rain traction thru the life of the tire...and they're sticky icky in the dry.

 

Meh...temperature and traction ratings are pretty standard in a tire category. High performance tires score around the same, Minivan tires score around the same, touring tires score around the same, etc. Plus...if the DOT rates them...how can two be more accurate than others? You think someone at the other companies is slipping the DOT guy a $20 under the table?


The traction ratings are based on a wet straight ahead stopping test in a standardized setting.

They tell you which tires NOT to buy...not which tires to buy. If a tire deviates from the rest in an unfavorable way...it sucks ***. The rest of the tires could differ GREATLY in real world traction, but may have the same traction/temp ratings.

Buying tires is usually best done not by looking at lab numbers; But from the experiences of others and tire tests done in real world situations.

 

Believe the dude meant that the treadwear rating wasn't DOT, and I think he's right. IIRC every tire company has a say in what their tread rating is.

 

I know this. I believe he was talking about traction/temp ratings. But even if he was talking about tread wear ratings...how is one company more accurate than another if they all have different scales?

I'm more accurately awesome on my own scale (compared to how awesome I used to be) than anyone else's scale of their own awesomeness. Does this work? No.

There's no one standard to compare the treadwear to because everyone has their own scale. So you can't say one is more accurate than another. There's no measuring stick of accuracy.

In any case, if the tread wear rating is higher, the tire will wear slower...for any company. For example:

A Michelin 300 tread wear tire will wear faster than a Michelin 500 tread wear tire.

It's not bizzaro world over at everyone else's plant besides bridgestone and falken.

 

I think I will just stick with the OEM Potenzas050... anything is better than what i have on the car now. I have BF Goodrich on the rears, and Potenzas in the front. Both are bald so its hard to judge how the car really handles. Thanks for all the info guys.

 

I've run a lot of makes of tires from R-compound to all season over my ten years with the S2000 and I'm so impressed with the Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec that I have told all my owner-friends to give them a try. They are surely not for the snow. As long as they make them, I'll buy them.

 

Yeah, the Star Specs are awesome. I ran them for th past 2 seasons of HPDEs and I plan to run them again this year. They're DIRT cheap as well.

My snow tire is a civic Si lol.

 

I have the Star spec's as well. I plan on getting AP1s with winterforces or something for the latter half of the year but these tires are absolutly unreal. They trump the RE050's by a huge margin and are cheaper, I think that makes it an easy decision.

 

They don't work well in the cold, though. That's why I didn't suggest them for the OP. They harden up so much when it gets cold out that they stop gripping.

 

treadwear rating is not consistent among manufacturers and they can also be inconsistent within a manufacturer too.

for example:
many cars come w/ Bridgestone Potenza RE92's as the OEM tire. Bridgestone claims they are high performance all season tires with a "160" treadwear rating. however, the tires are not sticky and they still have 6-7/32" despite the fact that I've used them for at least 50,000km already. i'm sure bridgestone gave the re92 the low treadwear rating to make people think they're performance tires.

 

Does anyone have 225/45/17 on the fronts instead of the oem 215/45/17 and 245/40/17 on the rear? Do the 225's stick out or anything? Is this a good set up?

 

Exactly why im buying AP1s and putting blizzaks on them

 

225/45/17s are taller than 245/40/17s by a noticeable amount. Yes, people run that setup. No, it won't stick out.

I'd go with 255/40/17s out back, though. That's the OEM CR sizing for the rear FWIW.

 

Im not concerned with the tallness of the tire, its the same height as the stock front, i was just wondering about the bigger width in the front. BTW there going on stock ap2 rims.

 

no...a 225/45/17 is NOT the same height as the front 215/45/17 on the stock S2000.

It's 9mm taller. Which means .35'' taller over all. Observe:

(215 x .45) x 2= 195.5mm

(225 x .45) x 2= 202.5mm

202.5 - 195.5 = 9mm

9mm/25.4 = ~.35''

No, the width won't be an issue.

225/45/17s are also taller than a 245/40/17 by right around the same amount.

So with 225/45/17 fronts, a 255/40/17 rear would be a better option than the stock 245/40/17.