[Z06] General Exclaim UHP Tires in Stock OEM C6Z sizes
12-04-2008, 02:00 PM
#21
Member: Jr Geezer's Club
Thread Starter
Minor details
Forgot to mention: with these Generals I'm losing a total of 28 lbs of un-spung weight over the GY Supercar's which is huge. Ten lbs per corner on the rears!
One thing I couldn't decipher is the tread depth on the Gens. Gotta be deep with 380 T.W.
Hope graphic comes out.
General - Top
Goodyear - Bottom
Bone
One thing I couldn't decipher is the tread depth on the Gens. Gotta be deep with 380 T.W.
Hope graphic comes out.
General - Top
Goodyear - Bottom
Bone
Last edited by Bone Daddy; 12-04-2008 at 03:23 PM.
12-04-2008, 02:26 PM
#22
Melting Slicks
Forgot to mention: with these Generals I'm losing 28 lbs of un-spung weight over the GY Supercar's which is huge. Ten lbs per corner on the rears!
One thing I couldn't decipher is the tread depth on the Gens. Gotta be deep with 380 T.W.
Hope graphic comes out.
General - Top
Goodyear - Bottom
Bone
One thing I couldn't decipher is the tread depth on the Gens. Gotta be deep with 380 T.W.
Hope graphic comes out.
General - Top
Goodyear - Bottom
Bone
Please weigh them when you get them
12-04-2008, 02:54 PM
#23
Member: Jr Geezer's Club
Thread Starter
For what it is worth, both weight ratings given in lbs on charts.
26lbs each rear General
36lbs each rear Goodyear
Thanks
Last edited by Bone Daddy; 12-04-2008 at 02:57 PM.
12-04-2008, 03:12 PM
#24
Melting Slicks
I find it interesting that the Continental Tire North America does not list a tire size of 325 30ZR19.
http://www.conti-online.com/generato.../index_en.html
http://www.conti-online.com/generato...master_en.html
http://www.conti-online.com/generato...esizes_en.html
http://www.conti-online.com/generato.../index_en.html
http://www.conti-online.com/generato...master_en.html
http://www.conti-online.com/generato...esizes_en.html
12-04-2008, 03:32 PM
#25
Member: Jr Geezer's Club
Thread Starter
12-04-2008, 06:54 PM
#26
Melting Slicks
I'm confused about General's math... See first Wt. column... 11kg is ~24lbs. Which would be even more impressive. But one of those columns is wrong:
Thus the request to weigh them when you get them.
12-20-2008, 12:34 AM
#27
Pro
Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So any more reviews of this tire? I was browsing tirerack and just noticed this tire for the first time. Seems to have great reviews everywhere, comes in Z06 sizes, and about half the price of the goodyears.
That's the first thing I thought when I read the post.
12-21-2008, 03:55 PM
#31
Pro
Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are $736 for a set on Tire Rack. Every review i've read about these has been positive. Lots of people saying how they last a long time, have super grip, and a really quiet.
Anyone have any pics of these on a Z06?
Found this while searching around.
Anyone have any pics of these on a Z06?
Found this while searching around.
12-23-2008, 03:38 PM
#33
Member: Jr Geezer's Club
Thread Starter
There in!
They came in but I have track event in late Jan that I am going to run the OEM GY's with. After that these puppies are going on. Come what may.
They have every bit of 10/32 tread depth.
The tape looks off but it is not. About 12.75" wide.
At the very least I expect to be ridden of all tire singing, whine, howl, and overall harshness as with the SC RF's.
Bone
They have every bit of 10/32 tread depth.
The tape looks off but it is not. About 12.75" wide.
At the very least I expect to be ridden of all tire singing, whine, howl, and overall harshness as with the SC RF's.
Bone
Last edited by Bone Daddy; 12-23-2008 at 03:41 PM.
12-23-2008, 04:25 PM
#34
Melting Slicks
12-26-2008, 09:38 AM
#35
Pro
Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They came in but I have track event in late Jan that I am going to run the OEM GY's with. After that these puppies are going on. Come what may.
They have every bit of 10/32 tread depth.
The tape looks off but it is not. About 12.75" wide.
At the very least I expect to be ridden of all tire singing, whine, howl, and overall harshness as with the SC RF's.
Bone
They have every bit of 10/32 tread depth.
The tape looks off but it is not. About 12.75" wide.
At the very least I expect to be ridden of all tire singing, whine, howl, and overall harshness as with the SC RF's.
Bone
Can you post some sidewall pictures? Does anyone have any pictures mounted to the stock wheels?
12-26-2008, 10:06 AM
#37
Racer
Member Since: Apr 2007
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tread pattern looks much better than the stock GY's... Non RF is also a plus because at the drag-strip, you'll actually be able to lower the pressure and see some results.
The huge negative, the compound. Someone stated that they heard that they last a long time and hook very well. That's pretty much an oxymoron. To last a long time, they have to possess a harder compound of rubber, which it appears that they do w/ the tire rating they have. Again, a harder compound will NOT grab better or have better traction, but I'm hoping that maybe the non run-flat side wall will allow some give w/ the right tire pressure which may, with the addition of a better tread pattern, result in a better straight line hooking tire.
Someone get these things mounted already. I wanna see some mounted width's compared to stock and hear some actual feedback regarding traction, etc!!
The huge negative, the compound. Someone stated that they heard that they last a long time and hook very well. That's pretty much an oxymoron. To last a long time, they have to possess a harder compound of rubber, which it appears that they do w/ the tire rating they have. Again, a harder compound will NOT grab better or have better traction, but I'm hoping that maybe the non run-flat side wall will allow some give w/ the right tire pressure which may, with the addition of a better tread pattern, result in a better straight line hooking tire.
Someone get these things mounted already. I wanna see some mounted width's compared to stock and hear some actual feedback regarding traction, etc!!
12-26-2008, 10:16 AM
#38
Racer
Member Since: Apr 2007
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because they have a treadwear rating of 380. The higher the number, the longer the treadlife, because the higher the number, the harder the rubber compound.
The harder the rubber compound, the less traction. You'll notice that the better "Performing" tires have much lower ratings, but they also will not last nearly as long. Think Drag Radials, etc...
The harder the rubber compound, the less traction. You'll notice that the better "Performing" tires have much lower ratings, but they also will not last nearly as long. Think Drag Radials, etc...
12-26-2008, 07:51 PM
#39
Melting Slicks
This review was posted on TireRack by someone with a 2006 Saturn Ion Redline (whatever that is):
Here is another review from a guy with a 2006 Mustang GT:
What's also interesting is that TireRack rates traction as "A" and General's website rates traction at "AA" for ALL Exclaim tires - http://www.conti-online.com/generato...nt_data_en.pdf
Initial Review, 20,000 Miles on Tires
December 22, 2008
These, for the price, cannot be beat in this category. It would be hard to imagine a tire that worked for daily driving better than these. Very quiet, superb hydroplaning resistance (hitting 4+ inches at 70+ MPH) very respectable tread wear, and decent low-speed and highway handling. Cornering seems firm, up to a point.
Now the bad side: they're not for racing of any sort. Even some spirited autocrossing had me sliding all over the place. They just cannot take very high loads, can barely hold the measly 210HP my car makes, and braking suffers as well. You will either feel the ABS kicking in if you panic stop, or wish you did.
For the price, they are great basic replacement tire, good for touring, or very wet climates. If you plan on pushing them hard, then you need to look elsewhere. You won't find what you're looking for in this price range.
December 22, 2008
These, for the price, cannot be beat in this category. It would be hard to imagine a tire that worked for daily driving better than these. Very quiet, superb hydroplaning resistance (hitting 4+ inches at 70+ MPH) very respectable tread wear, and decent low-speed and highway handling. Cornering seems firm, up to a point.
Now the bad side: they're not for racing of any sort. Even some spirited autocrossing had me sliding all over the place. They just cannot take very high loads, can barely hold the measly 210HP my car makes, and braking suffers as well. You will either feel the ABS kicking in if you panic stop, or wish you did.
For the price, they are great basic replacement tire, good for touring, or very wet climates. If you plan on pushing them hard, then you need to look elsewhere. You won't find what you're looking for in this price range.
Initial Review, 2,000 Miles on Tires
December 19, 2008
If you drive a performance vehicle and are looking for a comfortable, quiet tire that's great in the rain - and very inexpensive - this is the perfect tire. The negatives of getting that quietness and comfortable ride are that there is a lot of roll on ramps and corners and absolutely no traction under heavy acceleration (at least with a modified car - factory level power may be a little better).
December 19, 2008
If you drive a performance vehicle and are looking for a comfortable, quiet tire that's great in the rain - and very inexpensive - this is the perfect tire. The negatives of getting that quietness and comfortable ride are that there is a lot of roll on ramps and corners and absolutely no traction under heavy acceleration (at least with a modified car - factory level power may be a little better).
Last edited by Vettlldo; 12-27-2008 at 10:17 AM.
