tire choices - help needed

[ischmitz]

Here are some choices for tires for my narrow-bodied car with Fuchs 16/6 in the front and 16/7's in the rear. I might be willing to roll the rear fenders but I don't want to flare it.

- Ecsta MX 388$
205/55/16 front
225/50/16 rear

- Ecsta MX 360$
205/55/16 all around

- ECSTA Supra 712 288$
215/50VR16 in the rears
205/55VR16 in the front

Will I be able to stick the 225 in the rear (29mm torsion bars, rear sway bar, revalved Bilsteins) Choice one is what I really like but I am afraid the 225 won't fit and I end up with 180$ of paperweights.

Would the MX all around in 205 perform better or the next best model Supra 712 with shorter sidwall and 215 patch.

Does it make sense to have different size front and rears? I need to make a decision quick here since my current fronts leave a lot do desire.....

ingo

[IROC]

225/50-16s on 7s in the rear of a non-flared car is possible, but I've seen them not fit more times than fit. Your safest bet with your wheels is 205/55s all around.

Mike

[pbs911]

I really like my Estacia MX tires. BBIII shows they hold well. i would try with the wider in the rear, correct the negative camber problems and maybe roll the fender lips and/or move the oil lines. It may be fun to spin the tires in a straight line with the skinnier tires, but the extra width in the turns is worth it.

[nostatic]

I have a related problem in that my rears are worn, but the fronts look like they've got a fair amount of tread left. The cheapest solution would be to put new Kumho 712s on the rear, then hope that the next tire change would come at the same time (and I'd likely go with a different tire). I've been warned against putting different tires on the rear, unless of course I swap the fronts too. I was thinking Dunlop SP8000s (sort of a standard), as I don't want to spring for S-03s right now (just spent too much money). The guy at wheel enhancements recommended Yoko EVS100s over the Dunlops.

Any reason you're sticking with Kumho other than price?

[ischmitz]

nostatic,

not really, it seems you can't beat the price/performance ratio of Kuhmo's and I want to see if they are a step up over my current rears.

I have Bridgestone Potenza's RE 950's in the rear now and they seem to hold up amazingly well to the 3.6 power with it's 205/60/15 size. I have a hard time spinning them.

Ingo

[nostatic]

Maybe I'll slap a pair of MXs on the rear, then replace the front 712s when they get a bit more wear on them. From conversations it seems like running a higher speed rater tire in the rear might be an OK mix. Another tire in the same general price range is the RE750, which I seem to recall being mentioned here. Time to do some searching...

[KTL]

First, the 712 and the MX are really not in the same category. Sure they're both Z rated (actually the MX is W rated). The 712 is a slight compromise tire while the MX is more suited to high performance first, other stuff (treadwear, noise, all weather use, etc.) is secondary. You can tell just by the treadpattern that the MX is putting some more rubber on the road than the 712. The MX has less sipes throughout and therefore a more stable midsection and shoulder blocks. The MX is probably a little less rain worthy than the 712 though.

Being that Ingo has the 3.6 power, i'd have to say you want to go with the bigger rears if you can. Bigger meat out back would help to address power-on oversteer and also help curb the added pendulum effect of a bigger (heavier) motor out back.

I'd think a set of MX's on the rear and 712's in front would induce a little more understeer than 712's all around. Nothing wrong with that. Just bringing it up. Not surprising that the rears are gone before the front. I thought that 911's typically eat rears at almost twice the rate of the fronts?

I have both the Kumho MX (205/55, 225/50 on 6,7 Fuchs) and the Yoko ES100 (205/55, 245/45 on 7,8 Phone dials). The Kumhos feel much grippier and stable. The Yokos feel a bit softer and are slightly quieter. I know my comparison is a bit poor because the tires are different sizes on different wheel widths but it's better than no comment at all?

I think the MX is a steal of a deal. And you don't have to thrown down a bunch more $$$ to step up from the 712 to the MX. I'm really happy with mine so far. Look kinda cool too.

[ttweed]

Originally posted by ischmitz
it seems you can't beat the price/performance ratio of Kuhmo's

Don't overlook the Falken Azenis , if you're looking or price/performance, Ingo. They make a 205/55-16 and a 215/45-16. Best bang for the buck I have seen. Very comparable (perhaps superior) to the Kumho MX for less $$$.

TT

[KTL]

Tom's right about the Falken Azenis.

A lot of autocrossers use this tire and it's supposed to be the hot setup.

I'd imagine the Azenis is a better performer than the Kumho MX. The Azenis is an asymmetrical tire that's designed for all-out performance. Not quite an R-spec tire at 200 UTQG but sticky nonetheless. Supposed to be a copy of the Yoko AVSR

More about the Falken Azenis here:

Previous Tire Discussion