[parapaul]

Just idly scanning the interweb for tyres, planning ahead for spring when I need a new pair on the rear and I noticed something very interesting. I know it's not the be-all and end-all but these are as close to neutral comparisons as is ever likely to happen with something like tyres.

They're rated on fuel efficiency (A-G), wet grip (A-G) and noise.

Fuel efficiency is not actually that helpful - an A rated fuel efficient tyre uses 7.5% less fuel than a G rated one. That's 80 litres (just over a tankful) over the life of the tyre, which isn't actually specified. Say £100 over 10k miles? 15k? 20k? Who knows?

Wet grip is good though, an A rated tyre will stop in a 30% shorter distance than a G rated tyre. At 50mph, that's 18m difference, which is a lot.

For reference:

OEM Bridgestone Potenza RFT: Fuel F, Wet C, noise 73dB.

So, some of the popular choices on this forum:

Falken 452 £140: Fuel E, Wet C, noise 72dB
Falken 453 £143: Fuel F, Wet B, noise 71dB. Appears it's a more performance-orientated tyre than its predecessor.
Kumho KU31 £133: Fuel G, Wet C, noise 74dB.
Kumho KU39 £137: Fuel E, Wet A, noise 74dB. Interesting, because I found these quieter than the 452s they replaced.
Vred Sessenta £143: Fuel F, Wet C, noise 67dB.
Goodyear F1 Assy £174: Fuel E, Wet A, noise 70dB.
Conti SC5/5P £182: Fuel E, Wet A, noise 73dB.
Michelin PS3 £193: Fuel E, Wet A, noise 71dB.

Now, I know there's a lot more to it than that, but it certainly lends weight to the argument that premium brands aren't worth the extra...

[Kerr]

But the premium are A rated in the rain and only the Ku39 is from the budget.

What about dry weather performance?

[verysideways]

What about wear rate?
If the KU39 lasts half as long as the PS3 then it's a bit of a false economy...

[Frobius]

Also bear in mind that the tyre manufactures themselves come up with the ratings. Continentals A rating will be a shit ton better than nankangs!!

[Guvernator]

Errr I'd say that chart shows the exact opposite, all the premium tyres are A rated in the wet where as most of the mid range tyres are C. Sounds like they are worth the extra just on their wet weather performance to me!

Also I've not used Falkens on the BMW but I have on other cars and found that they last about half as long as a premium tyre like Conti's so a bit of a false economy.

I'm not really sure why people are prepared to compromise on tyre choice for the sake of a couple of hundred quid tbh.

[gman3msport]

I used the Falkens on my old 400bhp Subaru and personally thought they were very good, so good I put them on my last car an R32. I don't know if they perform different on a rear wheel drive but they were good on both 4wd cars.

Greg

[MrPogle]

Originally Posted by Guvernator

Errr I'd say that chart shows the exact opposite, all the premium tyres are A rated in the wet where as most of the mid range tyres are C. Sounds like they are worth the extra just on their wet weather performance to me!
<text removed>
I'm not really sure why people are prepared to compromise on tyre choice for the sake of a couple of hundred quid tbh.

+1

In the dry there is masses of grip and in the wet there is a lot less. From a safety point of view it is worth trading some dry-weather grip to improve the wet-weather performance.

Over the years there have been a couple of occasions where I have come to a tire smoking stop and there wasn't 6m of road left. This is several accidents I didn't have purely due to running premium tyres.

[MEGA]

How can any car enthusiast take such nonsense ratings in any way seriously.

Wear rate?
Performance degredation over life of tyre?
Dry performance?
Dry stopping?
Dry cornering?

Also. All the tyres have a db rating between 67 and 73 which is ridiculous. What speed was the test done at? Surely it should have been done at a higher speed so it makes more sense.

And how was it tested? Sensor in the tyre? Or in the car?

Is the environment for every single tyre test ever done exactly the same? The same RR with the same noise itself being made on the same car in the same building so similar ambient noise? I find it unlikely.

It's good to know that my Contisport 5Ps get an A rating in the rain, but I'm not sure the rating would lead me to drop down to some Kumho tyre and I don't understand at all how you can say premium tyres aren't worth it based on these ratings??? I guess you've never driven the car hard then....

Ho hum
Dave

[philmots]

Originally Posted by gman3msport

I used the Falkens on my old 400bhp Subaru and personally thought they were very good, so good I put them on my last car an R32. I don't know if they perform different on a rear wheel drive but they were good on both 4wd cars.

Greg

Imagine how good those cars would be on some properly decent tyres?

Falkens are a mid range tyre at best, I'm sure they're acceptable.. but ultimately they're mid range price suits their mid range performance.

An Assemetric 2 or Conti 5 are only around £150 more over a set.. which is nothing in the great scheme of things.

[MEGA]

Having run about 8 sets of Falkens and knowing them very very well, I've now moved to Conti's and they are just SO SO SO much better.

Falkens start out average and drop off a cliff after about 8,000 and are downright dangerous in the damp after that.

If you want to go fast get a premium tyre. Falkens are definitely just middle of the road. Average.

They are fun for nice progressive drifts though. Quite predictable. That is until they go off - like I said...

[Guvernator]

Originally Posted by MEGA

Falkens start out average and drop off a cliff after about 8,000 and are downright dangerous in the damp after that.

Had exactly this when I had a GTR a few years ago which came with virtually new Falkens when I bought it so I thought I'd use them until they wore out. To give them their due. they were pretty good for about 8000 miles but then performance seemed to just fall off a cliff within a VERY short space of time to the point where they were what I'd consider dowright dangerous with the car squirming dangerously if you even looked at the throttle. Never experience other tyres go off SO quickly, before or since.

They are a decent tyre and I know their is much love for them on this forum but unless they've improved things massivly in terms of wear rate vs performance, I'd rather spend the extra £150-£200 and get something better.

[MEGA]

Think of it another way. If you're paying say £150 for a tyre that goes off half way through its life and has average to good performance before that: Or £200 for a tyre that has excellent performance and is as good on the threads as it was brand new: Which is the better purchase?

But people have their favourites and are set in their ways so it's a pointless discussion to have

I'd fit them on a drift car for sure though! Hehe

[djgandy]

I'll skimp on some things, but the tyres are the only contact the car has with the road. What is the point of risking it, especially on a performance car.

If you do really high mileage I could see why you want to get some cheapos as the cost will soon tot up, but if that's the case get a 320d motorway grunt and save yourself a crap tonne more money too :P