|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 331
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 331 |
Personally I would get the SO-3's, 225-50-16 (I think they fit?). Of any, avoid the Kuhmos if price is not a concern. Their wet-handling is questionable at best and their dry isn't much better. I have them and they're acceptable, but nowhere near as nice as the SO-3's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29 |
Originally posted by Krafty:
Of any, avoid the Kuhmos if price is not a concern. Their wet-handling is questionable at best and their dry isn't much better.
I have Kuhmos on my 2000 SVT and in my opinion there are almost as good as the stock BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDWs. Kuhmos are quieter, wear better, and handle almost as good. For the price, I feel you can not beat the Kuhmos. I will need to replace my Kuhmo tires on my car soon and I will replace them with Kuhmo tires. I will get about 40,000 miles on my Kumhos. I only got about 20,000 miles on my BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDWs. Check out tirerack.com and check out many other people also give the Kuhmos high praise. Just because a tire is more expensive, it doesnâ??t necessarily mean it is better. One similar example, there are many more expensive cars than the Contour but it does not mean theyâ??re better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 331
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 331 |
Originally posted by 2000BLKSVT:
Originally posted by Krafty:
Of any, avoid the Kuhmos if price is not a concern. Their wet-handling is questionable at best and their dry isn't much better.
I have Kuhmos on my 2000 SVT and in my opinion there are almost as good as the stock BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDWs. Kuhmos are quieter, wear better, and handle almost as good. For the price, I feel you can not beat the Kuhmos. I will need to replace my Kuhmo tires on my car soon and I will replace them with Kuhmo tires. I will get about 40,000 miles on my Kumhos. I only got about 20,000 miles on my BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDWs. Check out tirerack.com and check out many other people also give the Kuhmos high praise. Just because a tire is more expensive, it doesnâ??t necessarily mean it is better. One similar example, there are many more expensive cars than the Contour but it does not mean theyâ??re better.
I'll agree that expensive isn't always better, but the fact of the matter is that the SO-3's ARE better than Kuhmos. I've driven cars that have had both and I can say without question that there is a difference in quality. As a matter of fact, I think there are better "budget" tires on the market now.
I'm driving on Kuhmos right now and can in no way say that they are horrible, they just aren't good either. If you don't agree, that's fine, though I think that you'll see my sentiments repeated over and over again if you search the forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
I will not enter the Kuhmo debate, but I will recommend the 225/50R16 size. On my car I have had 205/55R16 Goodyear GSC (the original tire), and then several 225/50R16 tires (Contineltal 4000H, BF Goodrich KDWS, and now Dayton Daytona ZR). The 225/50R16 is the same diameter as the 205/55R16 and is more than 3/4" wider.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496 |
How about 225/45/16.
I think the Yoko ES are also a great tire from what I keep hearing, reviews on Tire-Rack look great.
For all out performacne the S-03's can not be beat!
Money doesn't always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars ~ Hobart Brown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29 |
Krafty,
I did not agree with you saying to avoid Kuhmos and yes everyone has a different opinion about tires. One person out there may not even like the Bridgestones. If the Kumhos were really crapping tires we would not be having this discussion. I agree with you that the Bridgestone, Goodyear, or the BFGoodrich tires are better for performance. I will also agree that the Bridgestones are better than the Kumhos except for wear. My wife has a set of Bridgestones (not the kind we are talking about) on her Passat and yes they are great tires. I have the Kumho ECSTA Supra 712 205/55VR16 91V (340 AA A) tires on my car. I will get 40,000 miles on my Kumhos. My SVT is a daily driver and I do drive aggressive.
Mhconley,
You are trying to compare performance versus value, what is more important to you?
If money is no object and you want the best tires on the list you provided get the Bridgestones. They will cost you about 2.2 times more per mile than the Kumhos and 1.5 times per mile more than the Goodyears.
The Goodyears are not as good as the Bridgestones but better than the Kumhos in terms of perfomance. The Goodyears will last longer than the Bridgestones. The Goodyears will cost you 1.5 times more per mile than the Kumhos.
One more thing, use tirerack.com for research. The site is really helpful and so far every tire I have bought from them I agree with the customer survey.
One side note, do you really want the ultimate tire for your car? I drive a SVT and I hear that hard right turns can be dangerous for the engine in terms of oil starvation. I feel that my Kumhos will give before oil starvation will become a problem. The Bridgestones or BFGoodrich tires may let you take a right hand turn hard enough to cause oil starvation. In my opinion, the Kumhos along with 6.5 quarts of oil are additional insurance for the oil starvation issue. It would be hard for me if I had extreme performance tires to always remember to take right hand turns not too sharp. If I had extreme performance tire on my car I would get an oil accumsump.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 148
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 148 |
If you can find a place near you that sells them, give Toyo Proxes FZ4 a shot. I haven't heard anyone mention them on this board, so I am. I had a set on my previous car (Talon TSi) and I put 30k of "spirited" driving on them and they still had about another 5-10k left in them when I sold the car. They handle damn well wet and dry. I feel they're much better than the Kumho's you mention, but I have no experience with the S-03's. Their only downside is their poor snow handling but I don't think that'll be a problem in CA. They will be on the rims I get in the spring.
'98 T-Red SVT #4290
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,423 |
If I were on a budget, I'd pick the Yokohama AVS ES100 well before the Kumho 712. There are two types of owners that have the Kumho 712. The first are those that are really displeased with road feel, sidewall flex, and ultimate grip. Then there are those people that are happy with the compromie for the money. I have heard no one admit that it is a very good performance tire.
If I had more to spend, the S-03 or the new Goodyear F1 GS-D3. I have S-03's and love them.
225/50R16 is a good size, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 11
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 11 |
I wanted to post my decision.
I decided to go with the 205/55-16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 tires. I have found nothing but good comments on these tires. They are ranked just behind the Bridgestone Potenza S-03 Pole Positions (which I had on my 18's) in wet and dry traction, handling, and ranked higher by people saying they would buy them again at the Tire Rack. I just ordered 4 from the Tire Rack.
I'll post after my initial impression and let everyone know what I think...
Martin
99 Silver Frost SVT
205/55x16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3's on stock E1's
EBC Sports front rotors
EBC GreenStuff all around
Pioneer DEH-P3000 AM/FM/CD
4 Pioneer TS-A6813
Sylvania SilverStar 9006 lows
Sylvania 885 50W fogs
DRLs
|
|
|
|
|
