Kumho Tires?
03-18-2007, 05:02 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Tolland CT
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kumho Tires?
Why are Kumho tires so much less than Goodyear or Michelin's? I'm refering to non runflats. Anybody with insight please respond. I notice a lot of members run Kumho. Thanks
03-18-2007, 05:11 PM
#4
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Tolland CT
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-18-2007, 07:57 PM
#7
Race Director
You essentially get what you pay for when it comes to tires.....read on!
Although Car & Driver used "only" a 325 BMW as a test mule, you are very likely to experience similar results with your C5. To minimize variables such as driving techniques, track surface temps, etc, C&D enlisted the help of the Tire Rack and their test mule vehicle. Although the track used was small, it's lined with sprinklers that can soak the asphalt. "It took three days to perform all the tests. We accerated to 50 mph and then braked to a standstill. There was a benefit to that lower speed: It ensured that we were measuring the braking performance of the tires and not just brake fade."
"In addition to factoring the wet and dry scores, we gave points based on a tires's price and tread-wear grade, which is a rough estimate of how long a tire will have usable tread." "Our test focused on measuring performance, so we decided that results in the dry-lateral grip, for example - would carry the most weight."
So, without further adeau, here're the results:
(Best to worst):
NUMBER 1: Goodyear GSD3: "As an all-around performance tire, you can't beat this Goodyear. It was the best performer in all three wet-track tests and was very competent in the dry. It generated .94g on the dry skidpad, only .01g off the first place (dry) BFGoodrich and tied with the Yokohama and Hankook.
The Goodyear gripped so well, that you might not have been certain that the road was wet. It held onto the wet track with .82g of stick, an impressive figure considering the worst tire in that test made only .67g.
...And like the Continental, the Goodyear had a high 280 trad-wear grade. At $145, ieach, it's $34 cheaper than the most expensive (guess which tires have THAT distinction!).
2nd place: Continental ContiSportContact 2: "It simply didn't feel as sporty as the others.....on dry surfaces, the Conti never rose above third from last among 11 tires. It felt soft and imprecise. But in the wet, the spread from best to worse was 15 percent, which made for a larger point spread (giving the Contis a boost). Plus the Continental had a 280tread-wear grade that was the highest (tied) for this test.
3rd place: Yokohama Advan Neova AD07: Excellent dry performance, but a bit on the slippery end in the wet stuff - expensive at $175 apiece.
4th place: Michelin Pilot Sport PS2: "At $179, the PS2 is the most expensive tire in the test." Competent, but expensive sums up this tire.
5th place: Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212: At $99 each, these are the least expensive tires - very good on dry pavement, but "greasy and slow to recover" on the wet stuff.
6th place: Dunlop SP Sport Max: "In the dry, the tire seemed to lose its confidence..."
7th place: Pirelli P Zero Rosso Asimmetrico:"In the dry-lateral-grip test, the Pirelli tied for second to last, and it finished seventh in the dry-braking test.
8th place: Toyo Proxes T1R: "...the Proxes never placed higher than eighth in any test"...nuff said!
9th place: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A: "it felt dull and disconnected and was somewhat soft and imprecise when driven hard."
10th place: BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD: Outstanding performance on dry surfaces, but very scary on wet surfaces - don't get caught in a rainstorm wearing these shoes...
11th place: Kumho Ecsta MX: "They didn't offer much grip and the time of 30.28 seconds in the dry autocross was .62 second slower than the fastest tire. That may not seem like much, but our course was only 0.3 mille long, and on a longer track, that gap would be commensurately greater." "And although the MX - at $136 per - was the third-least-expensive tire in our test, the high score in the price category wasn't enough to regain ground lost in the performance tests."
On a congratulatory note, the first place tire is made right here in the USA by an American tire company
Although Car & Driver used "only" a 325 BMW as a test mule, you are very likely to experience similar results with your C5. To minimize variables such as driving techniques, track surface temps, etc, C&D enlisted the help of the Tire Rack and their test mule vehicle. Although the track used was small, it's lined with sprinklers that can soak the asphalt. "It took three days to perform all the tests. We accerated to 50 mph and then braked to a standstill. There was a benefit to that lower speed: It ensured that we were measuring the braking performance of the tires and not just brake fade."
"In addition to factoring the wet and dry scores, we gave points based on a tires's price and tread-wear grade, which is a rough estimate of how long a tire will have usable tread." "Our test focused on measuring performance, so we decided that results in the dry-lateral grip, for example - would carry the most weight."
So, without further adeau, here're the results:
(Best to worst):
NUMBER 1: Goodyear GSD3: "As an all-around performance tire, you can't beat this Goodyear. It was the best performer in all three wet-track tests and was very competent in the dry. It generated .94g on the dry skidpad, only .01g off the first place (dry) BFGoodrich and tied with the Yokohama and Hankook.
The Goodyear gripped so well, that you might not have been certain that the road was wet. It held onto the wet track with .82g of stick, an impressive figure considering the worst tire in that test made only .67g.
...And like the Continental, the Goodyear had a high 280 trad-wear grade. At $145, ieach, it's $34 cheaper than the most expensive (guess which tires have THAT distinction!).
2nd place: Continental ContiSportContact 2: "It simply didn't feel as sporty as the others.....on dry surfaces, the Conti never rose above third from last among 11 tires. It felt soft and imprecise. But in the wet, the spread from best to worse was 15 percent, which made for a larger point spread (giving the Contis a boost). Plus the Continental had a 280tread-wear grade that was the highest (tied) for this test.
3rd place: Yokohama Advan Neova AD07: Excellent dry performance, but a bit on the slippery end in the wet stuff - expensive at $175 apiece.
4th place: Michelin Pilot Sport PS2: "At $179, the PS2 is the most expensive tire in the test." Competent, but expensive sums up this tire.
5th place: Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212: At $99 each, these are the least expensive tires - very good on dry pavement, but "greasy and slow to recover" on the wet stuff.
6th place: Dunlop SP Sport Max: "In the dry, the tire seemed to lose its confidence..."
7th place: Pirelli P Zero Rosso Asimmetrico:"In the dry-lateral-grip test, the Pirelli tied for second to last, and it finished seventh in the dry-braking test.
8th place: Toyo Proxes T1R: "...the Proxes never placed higher than eighth in any test"...nuff said!
9th place: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A: "it felt dull and disconnected and was somewhat soft and imprecise when driven hard."
10th place: BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD: Outstanding performance on dry surfaces, but very scary on wet surfaces - don't get caught in a rainstorm wearing these shoes...
11th place: Kumho Ecsta MX: "They didn't offer much grip and the time of 30.28 seconds in the dry autocross was .62 second slower than the fastest tire. That may not seem like much, but our course was only 0.3 mille long, and on a longer track, that gap would be commensurately greater." "And although the MX - at $136 per - was the third-least-expensive tire in our test, the high score in the price category wasn't enough to regain ground lost in the performance tests."
On a congratulatory note, the first place tire is made right here in the USA by an American tire company
Last edited by Dave68; 03-18-2007 at 08:10 PM.
03-18-2007, 08:05 PM
#8
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Tolland CT
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You essentially get what you pay for when it comes to tires.....read on!
Although Car & Driver used "only" a 325 BMW as a test mule, you are very likely to experience similar results with your C5. To minimize variables such as driving techniques, track surface temps, etc, C&D enlisted the help of the Tire Rack and their test mule vehicle. Although the track used was small, it's lined with sprinklers that can soak the asphalt. "It took three days to perform all the tests. We accerated to 50 mph and then braked to a standstill. There was a benefit to that lower speed: It ensured that we were measuring the braking performance of the tires and not just brake fade."
"In addition to factoring the wet and dry scores, we gave points based on a tires's price and tread-wear grade, which is a rough estimate of how long a tire will have usable tread." "Our test focused on measuring performance, so we decided that results in the dry-lateral grip, for example - would carry the most weight."
So, without further adeau, here're the results:
(Best to worst):
NUMBER 1: Goodyear GSD3: "As an all-around performance tire, you can't beat this Goodyear. It was the best performer in all three wet-track tests and was very competent in the dry. It generated .94g on the dry skidpad, only .01g off the first place (dry) BFGoodrich and tied with the Yokohama and Hankook.
The Goodyear gripped so well, that you might not have been certain that the road was wet. It held onto the wet track with .82g of stick, an impressive figure considering the worst tire in that test made only .67g.
...And like the Continental, the Goodyear had a high 280 trad-wear grade. At $145, ieach, it's $34 cheaper than the most expensive (guess which tires have THAT distinction!).
2nd place: Continental ContiSportContact 2: "It simply didn't feel as sporty as the others.....on dry surfaces, the Conti never rose above third from last among 11 tires. It felt soft and imprecise. But in the wet, the spread from best to worse was 15 percent, which made for a larger point spread (giving the Contis a boost). Plus the Continental had a 280tread-wear grade that was the highest (tied) for this test.
3rd place: Yokohama Advan Neova AD07: Excellent dry performance, but a bit on the slippery end in the wet stuff - expensive at $175 apiece.
4th place: Michelin Pilot Sport PS2: "At $179, the PS2 is the most expensive tire in the test." Competent, but expensive sums up this tire.
5th place: Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212: At $99 each, these are the least expensive tires - very good on dry pavement, but "greasy and slow to recover" on the wet stuff.
6th place: Dunlop SP Sport Max: "In the dry, the tire seemed to lose its confidence..."
7th place: Pirelli P Zero Rosso Asimmetrico:"In the dry-lateral-grip test, the Pirelli tied for second to last, and it finished seventh in the dry-braking test.
8th place: Toyo Proxes T1R: "...the Proxes never placed higher than eighth in any test"...nuff said!
9th place: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A: "it felt dull and disconnected and was somewhat soft and imprecise when driven hard."
10th place: BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD: Outstanding performance on dry surfaces, but very scary on wet surfaces - don't get caught in a rainstorm wearing these shoes...
11th place: Kumho Ecsta MX: "They didn't offer much grip and the time of 30.28 seconds in the dry autocross was .62 second slower than the fastest tire. That may not seem like much, but our course was only 0.3 mille long, and on a longer track, that gap would be commensurately greater." "And although the MX - at $136 per - was the third-least-expensive tire in our test, the high score in the price category wasn't enough to regain ground lost in the performance tests."
On a congratulatory note, the first place tire is made right here in the USA by an American tire company
Although Car & Driver used "only" a 325 BMW as a test mule, you are very likely to experience similar results with your C5. To minimize variables such as driving techniques, track surface temps, etc, C&D enlisted the help of the Tire Rack and their test mule vehicle. Although the track used was small, it's lined with sprinklers that can soak the asphalt. "It took three days to perform all the tests. We accerated to 50 mph and then braked to a standstill. There was a benefit to that lower speed: It ensured that we were measuring the braking performance of the tires and not just brake fade."
"In addition to factoring the wet and dry scores, we gave points based on a tires's price and tread-wear grade, which is a rough estimate of how long a tire will have usable tread." "Our test focused on measuring performance, so we decided that results in the dry-lateral grip, for example - would carry the most weight."
So, without further adeau, here're the results:
(Best to worst):
NUMBER 1: Goodyear GSD3: "As an all-around performance tire, you can't beat this Goodyear. It was the best performer in all three wet-track tests and was very competent in the dry. It generated .94g on the dry skidpad, only .01g off the first place (dry) BFGoodrich and tied with the Yokohama and Hankook.
The Goodyear gripped so well, that you might not have been certain that the road was wet. It held onto the wet track with .82g of stick, an impressive figure considering the worst tire in that test made only .67g.
...And like the Continental, the Goodyear had a high 280 trad-wear grade. At $145, ieach, it's $34 cheaper than the most expensive (guess which tires have THAT distinction!).
2nd place: Continental ContiSportContact 2: "It simply didn't feel as sporty as the others.....on dry surfaces, the Conti never rose above third from last among 11 tires. It felt soft and imprecise. But in the wet, the spread from best to worse was 15 percent, which made for a larger point spread (giving the Contis a boost). Plus the Continental had a 280tread-wear grade that was the highest (tied) for this test.
3rd place: Yokohama Advan Neova AD07: Excellent dry performance, but a bit on the slippery end in the wet stuff - expensive at $175 apiece.
4th place: Michelin Pilot Sport PS2: "At $179, the PS2 is the most expensive tire in the test." Competent, but expensive sums up this tire.
5th place: Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212: At $99 each, these are the least expensive tires - very good on dry pavement, but "greasy and slow to recover" on the wet stuff.
6th place: Dunlop SP Sport Max: "In the dry, the tire seemed to lose its confidence..."
7th place: Pirelli P Zero Rosso Asimmetrico:"In the dry-lateral-grip test, the Pirelli tied for second to last, and it finished seventh in the dry-braking test.
8th place: Toyo Proxes T1R: "...the Proxes never placed higher than eighth in any test"...nuff said!
9th place: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A: "it felt dull and disconnected and was somewhat soft and imprecise when driven hard."
10th place: BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD: Outstanding performance on dry surfaces, but very scary on wet surfaces - don't get caught in a rainstorm wearing these shoes...
11th place: Kumho Ecsta MX: "They didn't offer much grip and the time of 30.28 seconds in the dry autocross was .62 second slower than the fastest tire. That may not seem like much, but our course was only 0.3 mille long, and on a longer track, that gap would be commensurately greater." "And although the MX - at $136 per - was the third-least-expensive tire in our test, the high score in the price category wasn't enough to regain ground lost in the performance tests."
On a congratulatory note, the first place tire is made right here in the USA by an American tire company
Thanks for the information. It gives me a lot to think about.
03-18-2007, 09:33 PM
#9
Melting Slicks
Those are good stats... if you are racing everywhere you go. Or your Corvette is a track only weekend machine.
In the real world where tenths of seconds do not matter and cost does, my Kumhos are performing quite nicely. The SPTs have a 280 treadwear as well, which is good for a daily driver.
They handle far better than the 1400 dollar runflats that came on it, and drastically quieter.
The only helpful thing I can add is that when purchasing my Ecstas, I would rather have gone with a 35 sidewall front and 30 rear, instead of the stock 45/40. They are a LITTLE taller than I expected, and the sidewall flex is more noticable. That is not a characteristic of a Kumho tire, but of any radial. After toying with which air pressures to keep them inflated to, it has minimized the flex.
In the real world where tenths of seconds do not matter and cost does, my Kumhos are performing quite nicely. The SPTs have a 280 treadwear as well, which is good for a daily driver.
They handle far better than the 1400 dollar runflats that came on it, and drastically quieter.
The only helpful thing I can add is that when purchasing my Ecstas, I would rather have gone with a 35 sidewall front and 30 rear, instead of the stock 45/40. They are a LITTLE taller than I expected, and the sidewall flex is more noticable. That is not a characteristic of a Kumho tire, but of any radial. After toying with which air pressures to keep them inflated to, it has minimized the flex.
03-18-2007, 09:52 PM
#10
Instructor
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: Mt.Washington Kentucky
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those are good stats... if you are racing everywhere you go. Or your Corvette is a track only weekend machine.
In the real world where tenths of seconds do not matter and cost does, my Kumhos are performing quite nicely. The SPTs have a 280 treadwear as well, which is good for a daily driver.
They handle far better than the 1400 dollar runflats that came on it, and drastically quieter.
The only helpful thing I can add is that when purchasing my Ecstas, I would rather have gone with a 35 sidewall front and 30 rear, instead of the stock 45/40. They are a LITTLE taller than I expected, and the sidewall flex is more noticable. That is not a characteristic of a Kumho tire, but of any radial. After toying with which air pressures to keep them inflated to, it has minimized the flex.
In the real world where tenths of seconds do not matter and cost does, my Kumhos are performing quite nicely. The SPTs have a 280 treadwear as well, which is good for a daily driver.
They handle far better than the 1400 dollar runflats that came on it, and drastically quieter.
The only helpful thing I can add is that when purchasing my Ecstas, I would rather have gone with a 35 sidewall front and 30 rear, instead of the stock 45/40. They are a LITTLE taller than I expected, and the sidewall flex is more noticable. That is not a characteristic of a Kumho tire, but of any radial. After toying with which air pressures to keep them inflated to, it has minimized the flex.
Right on brother, I have never recalled timing myself on the way to work or anywhere else as for as that goes.
03-18-2007, 10:30 PM
#11
Race Director
Actually, you don't need a racetrack to appreciate the difference between the best and the worse tires that are out there. I often find myself taking hard corners on dry and wet surfaces and believe me, there is a noticable difference, especially on wet surfaces. Of course, if you always drive in a leisurely manner, any tire will do, even Sumitomos!
03-18-2007, 11:16 PM
#12
Instructor
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: Mt.Washington Kentucky
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, you don't need a racetrack to appreciate the difference between the best and the worse tires that are out there. I often find myself taking hard corners on dry and wet surfaces and believe me, there is a noticable difference, especially on wet surfaces. Of course, if you always drive in a leisurely manner, any tire will do, even Sumitomos!
03-18-2007, 11:39 PM
#14
Race Director
Okay, let's look at it this way, then: For a set of 4 tires, you pay $650 for the worst (of the top 11) and $950 for the best. For a typical C5 driver who puts on, let's say, 6000 miles in one year, the tires should last a minimum of 3.5-4 years, maybe more. Even if they last 3.5 years, or 1277 days, the cost per day for buying the best tires is a mere 24 cents per day! That's $1.64 per week and $7.20 per month.
NOW can you afford the best tires out there?
Tires are like brake pads and rotors: Don't get the least expensive stuff; your life may depend upon it.
NOW can you afford the best tires out there?
Tires are like brake pads and rotors: Don't get the least expensive stuff; your life may depend upon it.
03-19-2007, 06:38 AM
#15
Advanced
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Corn country IN
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not buy the tires that fit the driver (Kumhos - very good, affordable tire) and take the extra money - buy your wife a new dress - take the kids out for pizza - and enjoy life!
03-19-2007, 06:50 AM
#17
Administrator
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: In a parallel universe. Currently own 2014 Stingray Coupe.
Posts: 342,877
Received 19,278 Likes
on
13,957 Posts
C7 of the Year - Modified Finalist 2021
MO Events Coordinator
St. Jude Co-Organizer
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19-
'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
NCM Sinkhole Donor
CI 5, 8 & 11 Veteran
03-19-2007, 07:38 AM
#18
Team Owner
When my GY's are done, I'm going with Michelin.
03-19-2007, 08:11 AM
#19
Drifting
Kumho SPT
I went with the Kumho SPTs. I think they are Fine.
I don't race at a track. I don't drive in really bad weather if I can help it. My tires will most probably age out before they wear out. I don't need to see TV or Mag advertisements proclaiming how great they are.
I do like how quiet they are compared to the GY RFs. I do like how well they grip. I do like the Money I saved. I do like the way Kumhos worked on my last Corvette.
Barrier
I don't race at a track. I don't drive in really bad weather if I can help it. My tires will most probably age out before they wear out. I don't need to see TV or Mag advertisements proclaiming how great they are.
I do like how quiet they are compared to the GY RFs. I do like how well they grip. I do like the Money I saved. I do like the way Kumhos worked on my last Corvette.
Barrier
03-19-2007, 09:20 AM
#20
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jan 2002
Location: Davison MI
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you switch away from the run flats, do you lose function of the tire air pressure function ?
also, if going to non run flats, and you pop a tire 100 miles from home, do you just sit on the side of the road ?
also, if going to non run flats, and you pop a tire 100 miles from home, do you just sit on the side of the road ?