Dec. 2005 Car and Driver High Performance Tire Test Results
11-16-2005, 04:22 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 3,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crossbow
I would have to agree with the assesment that the T1-S is superior to the T1-R. I ran the T1-S for a bout 20k miles, and I have T1-R's now, and they definitely provide less dry and wet grip then the T1-S's did 
.
I'm actually considering selling my T1-R's and getting some hankook Z212's.
. I'm actually considering selling my T1-R's and getting some hankook Z212's.
I like my Toyos way better than the stock RE040's. They are a better tire in every way.
11-18-2005, 12:29 PM
#27
Ya i know the brochure says they are supposed to be better...but they sure aren't. I'd say these are a de-evolution in terms of handling and cornering potential, but an evolution in terms of ride quality/road noise. ie they're turning more into street touring tires.
Luckily 245/40/17 is a common M3 sizing, so I should be able to sell them and recoup some of their value.
Luckily 245/40/17 is a common M3 sizing, so I should be able to sell them and recoup some of their value.
11-18-2005, 04:47 PM
#28
Originally Posted by L8APEX
so in your opinion, would the toyos be a good every day tire for the 8. Not for autocross or track use, but everyday driving. And how long does a set last, 15k-20k miles? I am in need of new street tires, and had been looking at the toyos, just want to get some feedback before buying. I trusted tire racks rating system when i bought my last tires, and I won't do that again. Word of mouth from a fellow 8 owner is much better IMO.
thanks.
thanks.
As for the comments about them being lower grip than the T1-S, I guess I can't directly compare, since I had my T1-S's on a much different car several sets of tires ago. But I do think the R's have better turn-in and are a little more fun for that reason. As I have said before, the T1-Rs take quite a while to break in and you have to get the pressure right. Those that claim the T1-Rs have less grip than the T1-S, how many miles do you have on them? Is it the same size tire, on the same size rim, with the same setup?
11-18-2005, 04:51 PM
#29
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
Not as good as the Yoko Advan Neova in the dry and the Falken has poor wet performance, IMO the 615 wouldn't have done well in the test
the Advan Neova are very expensive which hurt it in the test, the dry performance also increases dramatically if shaved, of course that hurts the wet performance more, right now the Neova is the hot choice for the street tire racing classes
the Advan Neova are very expensive which hurt it in the test, the dry performance also increases dramatically if shaved, of course that hurts the wet performance more, right now the Neova is the hot choice for the street tire racing classes
This test picked the 615 first, 215 second, and the Neovas third for dry performance in an autocross (although on a Nissan Sentra SE-R). I think the 615s would have done very well in the C&D test. Yes, wet grip would have been down but price would help make up for that.
If I were making an STU RX-8 I'd start with the 615s. But, it's possible the Neovas would be better in the RX-8 application - do you know of any tests to that effect?
11-18-2005, 04:53 PM
#30
Smooth Criminal
Originally Posted by GeorgeH
Yes, I think they are an excellent overall street tire. They won't provide the grip of the advans but they will last longer and cost less. If you want the ultimate performance street tire then look elsewhere, but if you want an excellent street tire I think the Toyos are great.
As for the comments about them being lower grip than the T1-S, I guess I can't directly compare, since I had my T1-S's on a much different car several sets of tires ago. But I do think the R's have better turn-in and are a little more fun for that reason. As I have said before, the T1-Rs take quite a while to break in and you have to get the pressure right. Those that claim the T1-Rs have less grip than the T1-S, how many miles do you have on them? Is it the same size tire, on the same size rim, with the same setup?
As for the comments about them being lower grip than the T1-S, I guess I can't directly compare, since I had my T1-S's on a much different car several sets of tires ago. But I do think the R's have better turn-in and are a little more fun for that reason. As I have said before, the T1-Rs take quite a while to break in and you have to get the pressure right. Those that claim the T1-Rs have less grip than the T1-S, how many miles do you have on them? Is it the same size tire, on the same size rim, with the same setup?
11-21-2005, 11:42 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: rialto ca
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have the falken 615s on my rx8 am im on a rail in corners and at the drag i can clutch drop my car at 7500 and barely spin the tires they grip so hard its crazy
11-22-2005, 05:27 AM
#33
Smooth Criminal
^^yeah, i think i have decided to get the azenis for my autocross tires, now I just have to find a shop that sells them, or I will have to order them. Everyone in the autocross world that runs street tires, is basically inl ove with them. Not sure about using them as my daily tire though.
11-22-2005, 07:42 AM
#34
Originally Posted by L8APEX
^^yeah, i think i have decided to get the azenis for my autocross tires, now I just have to find a shop that sells them, or I will have to order them. Everyone in the autocross world that runs street tires, is basically inl ove with them. Not sure about using them as my daily tire though.
11-29-2005, 11:19 PM
#36
I need to read the article.
Someone says Kumo ESTCA MX and another poster say's it's the 712's.
Big difference between the two.
I'll stick with my Kumho's ESTCA MX
Oh, by the way if you are looking for weight... They are 21lbs!
Someone says Kumo ESTCA MX and another poster say's it's the 712's.
Big difference between the two.
I'll stick with my Kumho's ESTCA MX
Oh, by the way if you are looking for weight... They are 21lbs!
11-30-2005, 06:03 PM
#37
Forum Vendor
All of these 18" comparisons are SOOO IRRELEVANT!
Throw some 245/17's on and lets see who wins?
18's are for "bling"
At 8 lbs less weight per corner, 1/2" lower, and 5% shorter gear ratio, the 17" is the only relevant road to performance.
Throw some 245/17's on and lets see who wins?
18's are for "bling"
At 8 lbs less weight per corner, 1/2" lower, and 5% shorter gear ratio, the 17" is the only relevant road to performance.
11-30-2005, 06:10 PM
#38
The article covered MXs, not 712s.
And Canzoomer, I must say I disagree. 275/35-18s (in a Falken 615) would be one wickedly mean performance tire. Yes, the 17s will spin up a bit quicker, but to say the 17s are the only relevant road to performance is an oversimplfication. Would a 275/35-17 be faster? Probably, but since it's not available the point is moot.
I'll take grip over acceleration, on a track or autocross, every time.
And Canzoomer, I must say I disagree. 275/35-18s (in a Falken 615) would be one wickedly mean performance tire. Yes, the 17s will spin up a bit quicker, but to say the 17s are the only relevant road to performance is an oversimplfication. Would a 275/35-17 be faster? Probably, but since it's not available the point is moot.
I'll take grip over acceleration, on a track or autocross, every time.
11-30-2005, 11:39 PM
#39
The Yokahama Advan Neova AD07 265/35-18 is wider and shorter than the Falken Azenis 275/35-18
https://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-racing-25/phat-76896/
https://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-racing-25/phat-76896/
12-01-2005, 12:10 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: rialto ca
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my tire set up is front is 18 by 8.5 rim with 245/40r 18 and my rear is 18 by 9.5 with 275/35r18 falken st 615s i know know one has more grip with tires then this set up con to san berdo meets to check it out
12-01-2005, 01:34 AM
#41
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
The Yokahama Advan Neova AD07 265/35-18 is wider and shorter than the Falken Azenis 275/35-18
But, back to CZs point, I acknowledge that a 245/40-17 AD07s mounted on some nice light rims would be a very fast street setup. But you'd need to lower it to keep the fender gaps under control.
12-01-2005, 08:01 AM
#42
Originally Posted by canzoomer
All of these 18" comparisons are SOOO IRRELEVANT!
Throw some 245/17's on and lets see who wins?
18's are for "bling"
At 8 lbs less weight per corner, 1/2" lower, and 5% shorter gear ratio, the 17" is the only relevant road to performance.
Throw some 245/17's on and lets see who wins?
18's are for "bling"
At 8 lbs less weight per corner, 1/2" lower, and 5% shorter gear ratio, the 17" is the only relevant road to performance.
what's your excuse when someone on 18's
your @ss then? I see it all the time ...
12-01-2005, 01:31 PM
#43
It's funny - if you look at the tire brands one might buy for an RX-8 running in ST/SP/SM, there just doesn't seem to be any compelling 17" sizes (i.e. 265 or wider in a 35 series sidewall). But for pure street use, where 245 seems like a very desireable width, 17" becomes a more realistic alternative, and one that would pay off with lower gears, MOI and unsprung weight.
If Yok made a 265/35-17, or a 275/35-17, I'd probably go that way for STU. Only downside would be 3 mph less in second gear, the importance of which would be course dependent.
If Yok made a 265/35-17, or a 275/35-17, I'd probably go that way for STU. Only downside would be 3 mph less in second gear, the importance of which would be course dependent.
12-01-2005, 02:11 PM
#44
not to mention the comment was street setup and how often will a potential tenth or two difference make in the typical street setting that doesn't count for anything except unchecked egos and reckless driving tickets?
that kind of thinking is what gets my head shaking back and forth on a regular basis around here
that kind of thinking is what gets my head shaking back and forth on a regular basis around here
12-01-2005, 08:41 PM
#46
you have to understand that it's not only possible but actually proven for a 17lb wheel to be faster than a 16lb wheel
static weight is no guarantee of the lowest rotating inertia, and then there are issues like flexure under load, etc.
it's one thing to gab on about a theory somebody read in an engineering book, it's another to have real world experience, often the two don't always jive because real life factors in the reality and magnitude of everything that actually occurs as opposed to a theory that considers only one aspect without any sense of what it really means in the big picture
static weight is no guarantee of the lowest rotating inertia, and then there are issues like flexure under load, etc.
it's one thing to gab on about a theory somebody read in an engineering book, it's another to have real world experience, often the two don't always jive because real life factors in the reality and magnitude of everything that actually occurs as opposed to a theory that considers only one aspect without any sense of what it really means in the big picture
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbarber
Series I Trouble Shooting
14
07-25-2015 01:34 PM
Touge
Canada Forum
0
07-18-2015 05:41 PM
