Khumo mx : any opinions on these like dry pavement traction, ride comfort, tread life, would you buy them again or anything else.
Thanks in advance. Reg

 

Yep, on a T/A with a solid rear. Awesome for teh price!

 

great tire for the price

 

Great price and great tire. Had a set for awhile. Would definetly purchase again

 

I'm 99% sure this will be my next tire. Any body have experience with the run-flat version?

 

good tire for price.. but they wear quickly. BFG-KDW2 is another good one for a similar price.. lil more.. but last a lot longer..

 

...then check out last month's edition of Car & Driver. Although they "only" used 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

 

thats what I also heard

 

I've used these tires on my FRC and they do very well in the dry, traction wise and wear. Don't go out in the rain unless I must due to idiot drivers in SoCal. They are quiet, responsive, and I have 12k miles on them so far including 4 track days, 1 at Spring Mtn and 3 at WSIR (big track), and they look like they will go 12K more at least (if I stay off the track). They stick very well at the track also. As far as the Car and Driver test, I believe that it does make a difference in the car used for any tire test, and the results are only good for that car. Suspension design, tire sizes vs weight distribution and CG make a huge difference in how tires work. This particular test also gave 30% weight to wet performance which is why the GY GS D3 ranked where it did. I have also not seen anyone use that GY tire at the tracks I have run on. Therefore it is my opinion that the C&D test rankings are data for the C5 for anything other than general info and possibly wet performance. You're going the correct route in asking for direct experience from people who have used these tires on a C5 to make your decision.

 

Dave, thanks for posting this!