Anyone use the Kumho tires they are cheaper than others but their performance stats seem to be compare to some of the other higher prices names.

 

 

Sorry, but the question is really vague.

First: what do you need from a tire (regular driving, summer/winter/both, location [I.e., does your area get lots of rain/snow/ice, etc.], daily driver or auto cross, drag racing, etc. etc. etc.).

Second: tires have different applications for different uses and there is no information provided in your post - thus again the question is too vague.

Last - tires have different 'wear' categories - that may place additional consideration on your part to which manufacture to purchase from (I.e., one tire may 'wear' better, providing additional miles over another with a different 'wear' rating - with a corresponding difference in price).

 

Remember when looking at "wear ratings" that the rating is only a comparison to other tire models and sizes from the same manufacturer. A "300AAA" tread wear rating for a Goodyear tire does not mean it will wear better or last long than a lower rated tire "280AA" from a different manufacturer.

This may also be true for other performance ratings as well.

 

I have the MX's and am very satisfied with them, but only a 1000 miles on them so far

 

I have 245/275 MX's mounted on wagon wheels for my DD A4 coupe and as soon as the same size Pilot Sport ZP's wear out on my vert with ZO6 wheels, I'll replace them with 275/295 MX's. These tires perform with the very best, and at aprox. $734 a set (Tire Rack) they're a no-brainer!

 

...then check a recent edition of Car & Driver. Although they 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

 

I'll go out on a limb and generalize what I call "ricer" tires, but I do speak from personal experience. Kumho, Summitomo, Nitto etc. From experience, I find them to be great on dry roads, aweful when wet, and they wear quickly. I have used all the of the above brands on several cars. None were daily drivers. Sunny nice weather cars. I was pretty happy with all three brands but the Summitomo's, IMHO were the best. None of them compete with the Michelins, i am running on the vette. Maybe its also the vette itself that has something to do with it

I tend not buy into tests like the one posted above. Its too easy to sway things toward one brand or another. I am surprised to see michelins so far down the list. I believe if they factored wear into the test the Michelins would have moved up the list. Wear/traction on the pilot sports is 380AAA.

I also wonder about wetting a track with water vs a real rain storm, where water accumulates on the road surface and makes proper conditions for hydroplaning. I can't see how they could have tested the treads ability to push water out on a wetted track. They also don't seem to mention ride quality, and road noise into the tests.

 

Sure, but less than 10 percentage points seperate the top performer from the last. A set the top performing tire, Goodtear's GS-D3, is somthing close to 2 G's! For that much, you could almost get three sets of Kumhos. If CF members are any gauge, the Kumho's seem to get a lot more favorable feed back than the Goodyears. Just my .02

 

I've got GY D-3's on my '99. They're great and much better than the GY Supercar tires on my '07.

 

You might want to read this test as well, then:

"Productreview: F1 GS D3
By Dan Barnes
Photography: Dan Barnes

Designed in Europe, the Eagle F1 GS D3 is Goodyear's "first truly global product," and its first tire aimed at the maximum-performance tire segment. The Eagle F1 GS D3 targets sport compact and tuner vehicles, and follows Goodyear's traditional emphases of maximum wet performance and good, all-around driveability. Goodyear is producing the Eagle F1 GS D3 in 39 sizes, from 15 to 21 inches.
The Eagle F1 GS D3 has internal construction features expected from the latest maximum-performance tire, including high-tensile steel belts, spiral-wound cap plies for excellent roundness and high-speed durability, high ply turn-up for strong sidewalls and quick response, and a rim flange protector molded into the sidewall.

It's the tread design that sets the new Eagle apart. It's divided into three zones; a solid center rib for good steering response is connected to shoulders with large, solid tread blocks by a series of power transfer bridges. The latter are part of what Goodyear calls V-TRED. The diagonal grooves are three times the length of the contact patch, helping evacuate water and avoid trapping air, thus reducing noise. Goodyear refers to the tread compound by the AAtrax moniker, emphasizing the tire's AA UTQG traction rating.
We sampled the Eagle F1 GS D3 at Goodyear's proving grounds outside San Angelo, Texas. The 7,250-acre facility has 58 miles of roadway with 53 different surfaces. There we witnessed demonstrations of wet-traction testing with a pickup truck and trailer test rig, as well as the phosphorescent hydroplaning test made famous in Aquatred commercials. The latter can be done at speeds approaching 200 mph for racing applications. We also drove the new Eagle F1 on a dry-handling loop in 2002 Audi A4 sedans. At moderate to high slip angles, the Eagle F1 felt like a good, ultra-high-performance tire, but it does make more noise than most tires in the maximum-performance category when cornering loads rise. The grip-slip knee in the load/slip-angle curve was very gradual. That made the tire extremely forgiving, but it also made it difficult to decide how hard the tire wanted to be pushed for best speed. Overall, though, the strongest impression was that the Eagle F1's capabilities were well beyond those of the stock Audi's suspension, and a complete evaluation would require a car with more aggressively tuned dynamics.
For evaluation on its Vehicle Dynamics Area, flooded to 0.050 inch with water, Goodyear provided three convertible Corvettes equipped with automatic transmissions. One Vette wore Goodyear Eagle F1 GS D3, one wore Michelin Pilot Sport and one Bridgestone Potenza S-03 tires. Though the cars were theoretically identical, they were rentals and could have had some differences.
In a braking test, the numbers indicated the Michelin third, Bridgestone second and Goodyear first, inverse of the order in which we drove them. Interestingly, we didn't feel the ABS pulsing for the last third of the stopping distance with the Goodyear.
On the wet autocross, journalists were firmly instructed to drive in second gear with the Traction Control System on line. The Goodyear worked well and showed a gradual, forgiving nature. The tire was also well matched to the Corvette's TCS, which intervenes very late, and allows the driver to get sideways. The Michelins slid more and sooner than the Goodyears, and the car was a bit tail-happier. The Bridgestones slid the most."

Many other articles were written about the GSD3s and every one praised them for their superior performance.

Your pricing of the GSD3s is off by about $1000. I bought my D3s and had them mounted and balanced for a total of $1100. Yes, that's a few hundred more than Kumhos, but as the Car & Driver test results stated, you get what you pay for. And no, the Kumhos haven't generated more positive feedback than the D3s. Generally, those who have tried both, prefer the Goodyears. In fact, three different Tirerack salespeople told me that the D3s are "superior" to the Kumhos, based upon their own testing.

 

I read alot of reviews on the BF Goodrich G-Force KDW's before I bought them, and none of the reviews I read said anything about poor wet traction. I guess I should tell my tires to start side slipping now in the rain, because they are supposed to. I also matted my car in 2nd gear on a day it was raining heavily, as a guy challenged me to an on ramp. Results:
Corvette gonesville straight and true, one guy in a VW Tuereg looking totally confused covered in a huge cloud of rain mist. We do get some really heavy downpours here in mountainous, west/central Virginia, so wet traction is very important to me, we have some very challenging roads!

In the review I read (the G -Forces) were rated third overall, and they cost me $750 delivered from tire rack, a $400. savings over the Michelins and Goodyears. And so far, I am very satisfied with the performance, wear, and noise. To each his own, I suppose.

John