[magic77]

215/40/18 front and 245/35/18 rear can find 425s for front and 453 for rear only

[philmots]

Hankook S1 Evo 2 for me.

Falkens are over hyped on the Internet IMO. I've never seen an actual good review apart from owners justifying their purchase!

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by PhilM

Hankook S1 Evo 2 for me.

Falkens are over hyped on the Internet IMO. I've never seen an actual good review apart from owners justifying their purchase!

I searched high and low for performance testing of the Falken 452 when I was hearing the forum reports a few years back. The Falken never seemed to get a test against any of the premium brands. Then I found a full test review in a performance multi-tyre test in a 'Wheels' magazine 2008 tyre test. The fact it was with the Goodyear F1 asymmetric (pretty much the benchmark tyre in 2008) and the Dunlop SP sport Maxx gave it some credibility. The Falken came in second, to the Goodyear, almost the same performance as the Goodyear F1 asymmetric.

The tester commented:

Me? I’d opt for the new Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric, despite its significant price premium. And, if it wasn’t yet available in my size, I’d be happy to drive off with the Falken FK 452 and pocket the change. This pair were up the sharp end of the field so predictably often, they’re an obvious choice if driving enjoyment really is your thing.

As I couldn't get the Goodyear F1 asymmetric in my sizes, I fitted the Falken 452 to my 330d, replacing the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 (another top tyre in its time), found the Falken very similar in performance to the F1 GS-D3. In fact the way they rode improved the 330d over and above the Goodyear, which did surprise me. I'd chosen the GS-D3 for its wet weather bias, being known as the "wet meister" by testers in its time. The Falken didn't disappoint either, on our wet roads up here, very good wet performance.

BTW, I don't justify it on price, I could afford any tyre I wanted to fit. The Michelin PS2 wasn't available in my 17" sizes, or the Goodyear F1, same for the better Continental offerings. I was looking for a tyre which fitted somewhere between the F1 GS-D3 and the F1 asymmetric for performance.

No experience (or done any research) on the Falken 453, so can't comment on where that sits in the pack.

HighlandPete

[AdamC]

Originally Posted by Sparky68

Find the Kuhmo somewhere, cracking tyre

Found the Kumho's
Got them for £500 all in so can't complain.

[magic77]

Well having taken my e90 on couple of track days and round ring on the falkens I have to say they coped very well and still have plenty of thread and grip left in them for this summer. With my lead foot it seems they cope quite well

[philmots]

It's wet grip that Interests me mainly, balanced by price.

I've had ditchfinders on a car before (had a new set on when I bought it.) In the dry it was completely fine but in the wet it was lethal.

Re Falken 453...

This review states it's weak in the wet.

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article...-Tyre-Test.htm

This review - it came 25th!!!

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article...aking-Test.htm

Being the new version of the 452 I can't see the 452 being any better in any category otherwise they're making a huge step back in a lot of years worth of development. (The 452 has been around for what seems like ages)

Still people seem to rave about them.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by PhilM

It's wet grip that Interests me mainly, balanced by price.

I've had ditchfinders on a car before (had a new set on when I bought it.) In the dry it was completely fine but in the wet it was lethal.

Re Falken 453...

This review states it's weak in the wet.

Look at the latest official labelling ratings... the Falken 453 is 'surprisingly' in the B band for wet grip.. Better than some of our premium brands for wet grip for a given size comparison.

HighlandPete

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Look at the latest official labelling ratings... the Falken 453 is 'surprisingly' in the B band for wet grip.. Better than some of our premium brands for wet grip for a given size comparison.

HighlandPete

Isn't the ratings given by the manufacturer and not independent tests?

[nicktyler]

I just read this thread from the top as I am getting new rears to replace 452's in a couple of weeks.

Man am I confused now. I wish it was less complicated.

[philmots]

Originally Posted by Kerr

Isn't the ratings given by the manufacturer and not independent tests?

I've heard that it is from various other sources!

I'd rather take note of a tyre test that does back to back tests with different tyres in the same size etc.. Rather than a label (for the clueless general motoring population) that's generated by the manufacturer!

Whatever the banding the tyres are in the tests show clearly that they're not a patch on the more premium brands.

It doesn't bother me (I'll just have to remember not to anchor on in the wet if the car behind me is shod in Falkens!)

[F31-340i]

i'm not sure I get this falken bashing.

In the tyre test above the falken scores pretty much the same as e.g. pirelli and bridgestone competitors. My experience has been the 453 has great stability in the wet and tracks very well through standing water (not necessarily the same thing as ultimate braking distance, whch is only one aspect)

I think they are popular as they offer almost premium performance but are much cheaper. Whats not to like?

My other cars have Continental (911) and Pirelli (cooper s) tyres and I've tried bridgestones, continentals and goodyears as well as Falkens and vreds on my 330ds. I don't think Falkens should be considered ditchfinders by any stretch of the imagination. They wipe the floor with the pirellis on the mini, though the Continentals on the porsche are pretty good I'll admit.

[F31-340i]

the eu tyre testing is described here :

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...11R0228:EN:NOT

you can see all tyres are tested against the same regluation, under defined conditions, against a 'reference tyre'. i can't find out what the reference tyre(s) are but assume they must be the same so all tyres from different manufacturers can be truthfully compared? various articles describe the reference tyre as 'independant', so this would be logical.

this would mean for all tyres rated B, they take 3-6m longer to stop from 50mph than an A tyre. It sometimes reads like the reference tyre is A or G rated, but its not clear.

[Kerr]

[F31-340i]

at the risk of boring everyone, more here

the standard reference test tyre (srtt) is (or used to be) a 16" bf goodrich tyre. 225/60R16

http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MAY_2007/tire_may07.html

- suggests uniroyal might make them too - picture of the tread here.

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/t...RRF-71-10e.pdf

so looks like the bandings are all relative to this tightly specified tyre tread, compound, size and construction, and not just arbitrarily within a manufacturers range. the national authorities are responsible for checking that the manufacturers are following the tests and not cheating, so the fact that they are manufacturers tests doesn't necessarily mean they aren't standardised and therefore comparable.

mind, the national authorities involved might be the same guys making sure dobbin never ends up in your burger

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by PhilM

I've heard that it is from various other sources!

I'd rather take note of a tyre test that does back to back tests with different tyres in the same size etc.. Rather than a label (for the clueless general motoring population) that's generated by the manufacturer!

Whatever the banding the tyres are in the tests show clearly that they're not a patch on the more premium brands.

It doesn't bother me (I'll just have to remember not to anchor on in the wet if the car behind me is shod in Falkens!)

There is an EU directive on the wet grip test procedure, (COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 228/2011) even if it is the manufacturers responsibility to provide the published data. There has to be some integrity or there will be different testing results by the market surveillance authorities, in comparison to the testing results declared by the suppliers. As I understand it, there is a national authorities responsibility to check the conformity of the declared classes on the label of tyres.

The problem with any of the back to back tests, we still get quite wide variations in positions, even of top premium rated tyres. Still too many variables, or if a tyre is placed 1st in test 'A', it really ought to be best in test 'B', 'C' and 'D'. And other tyres also following same placements in those same tests. If not we have variables, or too much subjective appraisal. We can't have it both ways.

I've been involved in testing to BSI and EU standards in my career, so understand a little about test procedures. Tyre testing by motor mags' and the like, appears by comparison to be a black art IMO, and takes some analysis to try and sift out the anomalies. User tyre reviews are even worse for clear data, often far off the mark as we can't have a '1' rating and '5' rating for the same tyre, in a 1 - 5 scale, that doesn't add up in proper testing, no way.

What does come across in user reviews from my observation, we often rate tyres different than the tests we read. Take the Vredestein ULTRAC SESSANTA, a highly rated tyre with many users, but like the Falken FK 452 it doesn't seem to stack up when you read raw data. Why the positive reviews? They appear to work well, as a stack up of features. Then we know some OEM tyres like the Bridgestone Potenza is rated highly as a premium tyre, but many users find them very overrated, even hate them on a vehicle. That can't be right either.

BTW, if I'm behind you in the wet in my car, you won't have to worry, I'm running Continental Sport Contact 3. Just a thought, you'd just better remember to measure my tread depth.... now there is a comparison we ought to consider, even for premium tyres.

HighlandPete

[Tyso335]

Originally Posted by nicktyler

I just read this thread from the top as I am getting new rears to replace 452's in a couple of weeks.

Man am I confused now. I wish it was less complicated.

yeh im now confused what to get to haha

[Kerr]

I did consider going for the Kumho KU39 costing £480 for 19" tyres.

When it came to the crunch I couldn't buy them and went for Goodyears which were just over £700.

I fully expect to get 18 months out of them and saving £220 over that time really isn't that much.

[Tyso335]

Originally Posted by Kerr

I did consider going for the Kumho KU39 costing £480 for 19" tyres.

When it came to the crunch I couldn't buy them and went for Goodyears which were just over £700.

I fully expect to get 18 months out of them and saving £220 over that time really isn't that much.

what goodyears mate> how do they handle. w

what do you think of these ]

http://www.camskill.co.uk/m55b0s6158...R19_89Y_XL_TL_

[Tyso335]

the falken 452 tread looks way more sportier and grippy then the 453 such tough choice. or do you spend more on others ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by Tyso335

what goodyears mate> how do they handle. w

what do you think of these ]

http://www.camskill.co.uk/m55b0s6158...R19_89Y_XL_TL_

Goodyear Eagle F1 asymmetric 2.

They are sitting on the kitchen floor just now.

The car is getting the wheels refurbished on Thursday and the tyres fitted.

They feel very soft and sticky. Can't wait.

[dopper99]

Originally Posted by Kerr

Goodyear Eagle F1 asymmetric 2.

They are sitting on the kitchen floor just now.

The car is getting the wheels refurbished on Thursday and the tyres fitted.

They feel very soft and sticky. Can't wait.

Mate, did you get that place that knackered your wheels to cough up for refurbishments?

[Tyso335]

Originally Posted by Kerr

Goodyear Eagle F1 asymmetric 2.

They are sitting on the kitchen floor just now.

The car is getting the wheels refurbished on Thursday and the tyres fitted.

They feel very soft and sticky. Can't wait.

oh right sounds good mate. does this mean they are going to wear down pretty quick?? what tyre were u running