Finally got some new kicks for 234
205/40ZR17 84Y (reinforced)
Treadwear 220
Traction AA
Temp A




Have no impressions yet as I only put 5miles on them to drop off 234 at it's home.

yshi - who can't wait to see how they hold up on the track!

 

nice set of tire/rims

you should put some JDM bling tires on jdm rims

kumho's korean lol but korea rocks

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zyg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nice tires and wheels!

Hmmm ... is this a good time for me to do a cross-country drive?
Another couple weeks, just to eat at Neptune's net again, drive the PCH and get lost in a few canyons ... as well as say "hello" to some West Coast H-T Bro's. hehe</TD></TR></TABLE>

if j00r passing through chi-town lemme know

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Have no impressions yet as I only put 5miles on them to drop off 234 at it's home.</TD></TR></TABLE>

well get on with it then.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zyg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What are the specs on those, including speed rating?</TD></TR></TABLE>
205/40ZR17 84Y (reinforced)
Treadwear 220
Traction AA
Temp A

yshi - whose off to go hang out in Venice bch

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zyg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What are the specs on those, including speed rating?</TD></TR></TABLE>

W for 15'&16'
Y' for 16' through 19'

look like the tread wear rating is 220, so slightly better than the falken's 200. they are a few dollars more than the falken's but what happened to the price of the falken's? they now seem much more expensive than what i remember. i seem to remember low $60's per corner and now they're mid $70's.

plus if you purchase through tirerack you get 2 free mini RC racers, huhuhu.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lanceh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">look like the tread wear rating is 220, so slightly better than the falken's 200.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not necessarily. Tread wear ratings are only comparable for the same brand of tire, not between different brands.

 

Maybe, but the reality is that treadwear ratings are only useful for comparison within the same tire company.

Warren

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zyg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Another couple weeks, just to eat at Neptune's net again, drive the PCH and get lost in a few canyons ... as well as say "hello" to some West Coast H-T Bro's. hehe</TD></TR></TABLE>
Hit up Encinal, it's right next to Neptunes, nice hi speed canyon. Going East &gt; West you can easily hit 90+mph.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zyg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Isn't that contrary to what Tread wear ratings are supposed to represent, since there is supposed to be a "standard" test used with a nominal 100 being the same irrespective of the manufacturer!?!?</TD></TR></TABLE>

No. The comparison tire used for the standard test which determines tread wear ratings must be the same for all the tests within a manufacturer, but each manufacturer can use a different comparison tire.

From the Just Tires FAQ: "Note: Tread wear grades are valid only for comparisons within a manufacturer's product line. They are not valid for comparisons between manufacturers."

 

One local motorsport club's president have the MX on his 911 turbo and he autocross with these tires. They do grip pretty well on such a big car. Of coz there's some driving skill involved though.

Just hope to hear more feedback from different owners with different cars. No matter on dry/wet performance.

Can't wait to see when the Kumho slicks comes out too. Of coz Hoosier will still be the best so far I think? But the Kumhos will be available in the market probably by next year, as Kumho's representative mentioned in local Kumho Super Challege event. They are DOT approved slicks too.

So see if it'll become popular too.

 

yeah, feed back from anyone would be great. i'm in the market to buy some tires in the next few weeks and leaning towards the azinis (sp), but would like info on anything at this point.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoonek4 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">can't wait to see when the Kumho slicks comes out too. Of coz Hoosier will still be the best so far I think? But the Kumhos will be available in the market probably by next year, as Kumho's representative mentioned in local Kumho Super Challege event. They are DOT approved slicks too.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Kumho DOT approved "slicks" (they're not really slicks) have been out for years, and released a new tire last year. Not sure what you're talking about.

 

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

Now that's an idea!
A bit north of the way I was planning to go, though.
Got time to go to Vancouver then South? hehe</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's not the fastest route.

Fastest = 70 to 44 to 40 to 15 East to West, of course.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ITR764 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yeah, feed back from anyone would be great. i'm in the market to buy some tires in the next few weeks and leaning towards the azinis (sp), but would like info on anything at this point. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm in the same market, deciding between the MX, ES100 and Azenis.. of course the 2 RC cars from tirerack are swaying me towards MX..

 

I've got the MXs on my car (205/50/15) and they are amazing. I've got nothing else to really compare them to other than Dunlop SP 5000s or Matador Aquilla MP41 (bought it with them on and took them right off).

The treadwear doesn't seem horrendous after 10K on them either.

 

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

Isn't that contrary to what Tread wear ratings are supposed to represent, since there is supposed to be a "standard" test used with a nominal 100 being the same irrespective of the manufacturer!?!?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Wrong Wrong Wrong. That may be what you think it should be but here's what it really is and why you can ignore it as a useful measure:

Treadware ratings are assigned by each manufacturer for their tires. 100 is "supposed" to be their "average" tire. A tire that lasts twice as long is supposed to have a 200 rating. Obviously manufacturers quickly realized that consumers would compare numbers across brands and that the higher the number the better. So the manufacturers started by saying that their average tire was something that they used to make and that was 100. Then it was easy to say that their new tire would last 3 4 or 5 times as long as that crummy old bias ply cheapo and there you have it - a completely meaningless, government sanctioned number.

The only reason you should look at treadwear is if you are autoxing. Then a rating of 140 and up keeps you in STS or STX a rating below that kicks you out.

Within one manufacturers product line treadwear ratings might have some meaning but i would not trust that either. There is too much reason for a tire maker to keep inflating the numbers for each new tire they come up with.

 

ok, my mind is made. i'm going to follow in yosh's foot steps and get the MX's. i just can't pass up the two free RC kaas

 

My MX's seem to get better with each mile Ive put on them. Only ~400mi so far though...

 

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

Kumho DOT approved "slicks" (they're not really slicks) have been out for years, and released a new tire last year. Not sure what you're talking about.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes it's not 100% slick u can say. Since it has a few straight stripes of thread on, not all of the tire surface but as I remember on the outside of the tire. That mite be one of the reason that makes it a DOT approved race tire.

Kumho Canada show these tires in last month's Kumho super challenge event and as they said it's the 1st time in North America. They are not annouced and not in production yet. So I guess they will provide more details to the media later.

 

Kumho currently sells two different R compound tires in North America, as you can see on their website.

One is the Victoracer V700, which has been available here for years and looks like this:



And the other is the Ecsta V700, which just came out last year and looks like this:



I still can't tell whether you're talking about one of these two tires, or some other tire...

 

b0th r-tires have 2 grooves molded deep enough to qualify for DOT approval. Not the intent of the law, but they meet the letter.

 

nice rubbuhz!
looking forward to seeing them on sun.

kepani-who knows these rubbuhz don't require pre-lube.

 

It's a model called V710. I'm currently asking the local club's member to send me the pix of that race tire that they put on show on the event's banquet.

For more info:
http://www.vcmc.ca/ubb/ultimat...00672

 

how do those tires match up with toyo's or yoko's

 

Kumho V710 prototype tire: