Our Club President is on his second set.
The first were the MX non run flats, which he really prefered to the stock GY run flats. quieter, better handling. He did not notice any loss in wet performance compared to the GY's.

He needed new tires and due to inavailabilty could not go with the same tire. Instead he went with the run flat version...
He is disappointed. they are rougher riding and noisy compared to the non -runflat version.
He wishes that he had pre-planned and would gladly have the non runlflat MX version again...

 

My vert had new MX's on it when I bought it. I thought they were a good tire. Dry performance was pretty good and I don't push the car on wet roads so I was satisfied with them there also. I changed to BFG KDW 2'a on some new wheels and loved them. I'm running PS2's on the CCW BS Classics now in 275 and 315 sizes. I wish BFG made the KDW 2's in those sizes. I liked them better than the PS2's.

 

You can pretty much look at the MX's and realize they are going to suck in the wet. They don't have alot of grooves for dissipating water. Just alot of rubber meeting the road.

 

I gottum and I likem!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Now listen up ...all you Kumho naysayers. In Sept 2006 I just put on 4 new Kumho runflats and took a trip to Yellowstone. Leaving Yellowstone I got just past Jackson Hole heading for Rock Springs when I hit a snow squall...Slushy snow for about 20 miles...The car did not slip a bit with these tires and traction control. Don't tell me they are no good on wet surfaces...I've been there and I've done it...

 

Got a nice set of Kumhos for a Camry I was selling. Good cheap insurance to help sell the car. Got some Kumhos for the wife's '98 Integra. Saved a few bucks and they ride real quiet.

For the 'Vette, however, I bought Pilot Sports A/S ZPs. I don't scrimp on a car that I owe what I owe on this one.

s'noJob

 

I might get flamed for this, but most Vette owners stick with original rubber. At any rate, I think Kumhos are a good tire (have a couple of friends that swear by them) but they do wear rather quickly (both run flat and non-run flat versions).

 

I've got them on mine and I've been well pleased with them.

 

Which model, ASX or MX? BTW comparing wet weather traction, meaning water in its pure liquid form, and snow traction is apples to oranges.

 

I have the Kumho all reason tire (ASX). Not a bad tire for cruising around, but sometimes I think I should have waited for the michelins. (I had waited 2 months when they were out of stock).

If you need all season tires and can't stand to wait for a repair or service truck, get the Michelin Pilot Sprt A/S ZP.

The difference in price for tires probably shouldn't be a huge factor if you look at it as cost per month.

 

I agree. Okay, let's see how they stack up to other tires:

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

 

I don't see Avon's on anybody'slist. I had Avon's before the Kuhmo's I have now. The avon's lasted longer, hooked better, were quieter and rode better. They were just out of stock when I was ordering!

 

The Avon Tech M500s were given average handling ratings and worse than average tread life. They did do well wet braking, hydroplaning, and noise level in CR's latest tire test. I have no doubt that they are better than the MXs, although the Ecsta SPTs are a definite improvement over the MXs. Unfortunately, their tread life is not any better, getting a worse than average rating.

 

I have MX's and on the second set. I do several HPDE's and if I get 10K out of a set of tires I'm happy no matter what.

I've driven mine, bald, in the rain..you have to remember, your in the rain.

Dry traction is great and I'm very happy.

BTW that C&D article...they picked Conti's as the #2 tire...there is a huge indication they have no idea what is going on Some of the worse tires on the market.

I've had Toyo T1S's and the R is supposed to be a better tire. If you want a wet weather tire the R is it. They are the BEST wet weather tire you will find.

 

I have the run flat version of the Kumho Tires and love them. they do where kinda quick but i have no problem at the track or on the road.

 

Inexpensive to buy but man do they wear quickley....next time I'll wait till a more costly tire fits the budget. It'd be interesting to do a cost per mile analysis............

 

I bought the Kumho SPT and no regrets. I have 9,000 miles on them and they are not showing any wear. Try them you will like them.

 

I have them on my car as well. In the cold, wet, snow, they aren't very good. On a hot day they stick pretty good. Overall for the money you save they aren't that bad.

 

Kumho Ecsta MX runflats here with no issues. Remember these are summer tires - stay out of the snow and off cold roads and they will perform well for you. Wet road performance is great and they stick like glue in the dry. I have only had non-run flat Kumhos and the original Gxxxyears to compare to each other, and the non-runflats ride better and are quieter (if you are brave enough to run around in a Corvette without a spare - I'm not after having two non-repairable road hazard flats at the same time, which had they not happened right in front of a tire dealer would have been a disaster). The G brand original equipment run-flats(99) were really junk and and should be a real embarrassment to the company that has supplied tires for Corvettes for years. Yes, Kumhos are foreign made tires, but the last time I checked, the Koreans have always been on our side.

 

I am now running some Kumho MX's non runflat since my Nittos gave up. They seem to hook pretty decent considering the power level. I have been running Kumho Ecsta 700's up front for 1 1/2 year now with a lot of miles and they still look really good. I would rate them as really good for the price they cost.