falken vs f1 and 225 vs 255

P

pauljb1

Member
Hi Guys,

Just in the process of getting a set of 18inch 107 alloys refurbed to replace my 16inch alloys. I know 107 seems a bit love or hate on here, but i obviosuly love them.

Question is i have been looking at tyres and not sure what to do with regards to mid range or high end.

Either i was thinking save money and get Falken tyres or spend the extra and get the goodyear f1. At the minute i am with the goodyear f1 as i want to treat me car well and enjoy it. But will i noticed much difference between them and the Falken.

Also last thing can i get some pics off people with 225 width tyre on 8.5j 18inch alloy? I was considering just ordering 225 40 18 all round to fit on the front 8j and 8.5j rear. So whats your opinion and any pics. I heard it can be bad to stretch tyres and can increase risk of a blow out.

Cheers in advance.
 
Hi mate,

I know it's not either of the tyres you're asking about, but try Hankook Ventus S1 evo tyres. Great performance all round.
 
pauljb1 said:
I was considering just ordering 225 40 18 all round to fit on the front 8j and 8.5j rear. So whats your opinion and any pics. I heard it can be bad to stretch tyres and can increase risk of a blow out.
Click to expand...
The E36 M3 EVO used 245/40 on 8.5 x 17 rims. I would consider a 225 to be too narrow. It will fit but you will be losing even more sidewall flex (& you're really going to notice it anyway going from 16" to 18"). Also, you're risking pothole damage which is already an issue with 18's. BMW fitted 255's for a reason.

Rim width -- Min tyre-------------Ideal tyre width -- Max tyre
7.0 Inches -- 195 mm-------------205 or 215 mm -- 225 mm
7.5 Inches -- 205 mm-------------215 or 225 mm -- 235 mm
8.0 Inches -- 215 mm-------------225 or 235 mm -- 245 mm
8.5 Inches -- 225 mm-------------235 or 245 mm -- 255 mm
9.0 Inches -- 235 mm-------------245 or 255 mm -- 265 mm
9.5 Inches -- 245 mm-------------255 or 265 mm -- 275 mm

I've just bought a set of 8 x 17 with 225/45 RFT's on with the intention of fitting winter tyres. I swapped them with my 107's & found the car was much nicer to drive. So much so that once the winter set are on I think I'll sell the 107's & buy something in 17" for next summer.

With regard to tyre brand, a lot of it is down to how you're going to drive. Premium tyres are better than mid-range when on a track day, on a smooth road at the limit, but in day-to-day road use you won't really notice any difference.

Everyone has their favourites. Sometimes it's just down to a cool tread pattern. I can recommend Vredestein Sessantas which aren't silly money. Can't comment on life expectancy as I didn't run them long enough. Goodyear F1's are good if getting a little pricey (Northumbrian Traffic Police won't use anything else but they can afford to chuck 'em away at 4mm).

Stay away from Asian Ditch Finders you've never heard of, let the tyres bed in for a couple of hundred miles & don't try to push your luck (unless you're on a track) & you won't have a problem.
 
Hi Guys,

Thanks for the advice.

I will have a look at the hankook, had some on my MR2 and they where better than Kumo i had but still felt the front had a bit of understeer. Need to look at the price. I also heard about the verds too.

Reiver what way did the car feel nicer, what about the looks tho? I think my Zed looks a bit stupid with 16inch wheels, i saw a black z4 with 107 on my way home today and it looked amazin. Suppose personal preference. Tho did your 107's have rft? Maybe the difference you noticed was with have 17inch rft? I am hoping the difference in stiffness wont be too bad going from 16inch rft to 18inch non rft.

Suppose its best to go for bigger than 225, not sure if 235 or 245 are much cheaper than 255?
 
oh and yeah i have already learnt my lesson from using Asian Ditch Finders, put a set of Nakangs on my MR2 to tie me over until i sold it and oh my god, the amount of times i had the back end coming round. Was quite fun tho as it was easy enough to control in the mr2
 
17" gave less tramlining & don't hop & skip - 18's are unbelievabley bad on rural Northumbrian roads! You couldn't take a hand off the wheel! If all your roads are German smooth . . . Looks v performance.

Yes, 18's look better BUT do you notice from the driverers seat?

16"??? Well I take your point. I'll stick to my guns - 17" for driver enjoyment - 18" for looks - 19" for those that value looks over everything.

You pays your money . . . .

FWIW - I have just coming up to 40 years driving experience :driving: so I've gone from 80 's series tyres(155 & 165 !!!) before anyone heard of 'low-profile' to '70-series ( on my '82 E21 & '85 500SL) all the way to 35 series RFT's on my Z4.

You don't need super low profile tyres/wheels on the road. In fact it's quite the opposite given the state of UK roads.

Decide for yourself whether you're a fashion victim or a driving enthusiast :wink:
 
pauljb1 said:
oput a set of Nakangs on my MR2 to tie me over until i sold it and oh my god, the amount of times i had the back end coming round. Was quite fun tho as it was easy enough to control in the mr2
Click to expand...
Nankangs are the 'value' brand of Yokohama.

I had Yoko's on my '88 Honda CRX back when only bikers new the brand. I found Nankangs on my '91 E34 520 which I bought in 98. My first thought was to ditch them asap but as they were brand new I went with them. I ended up getting another pair as they really weren't that bad. Again - depends how you drive.
 
Cheers reiver.

It's good to have the experience on the forum, as I have the 18s in the garage I will give then a blast and see how it goes. There is plenty of 17inch mv2 alloys floating around which would look nice painted black on my z4 if I find the drive too stiff. Out of interest what suspension setup do you have? Standard?

I was told that nakang was a budget brand made up yoko which is part of the reason why I went for them. They replaced the kumhos I had on the back and from my experience there where honestly the worst tyre. You could really tell the difference in the wet. But we are comparing different cars.

Do you have a pic of your car with 17s?
 
I would stick with 255s on the rear.

Plenty decent tyres out there. Just don't go budget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've gone for the falken 453's for my new wheels.

225/35 and 255/30 on a 9j and 10j by 19" wheel respectively.

After scrubbing them in a little, car feels better to drive when compared to the 18" 108 I had previously. Road comfort is unchanged but the tendency to understeer is significantly reduced.

Smiles all around from an incredibly reasonably priced tyre.
 
pauljb1 said:
Do you have a pic of your car with 17s?
Click to expand...
They are style 103's - the standard fitment on pre-FL 3.0's so they suit the car quite well. I'm having them refurbished & fitting winter tyres (probably Avon Ice Touring ST's).

I'm not really a fan of all black wheels (I'm more of a traditionalist). They would work on a light colour car (e.g. silver) but my Zed is dark red (Merlot metallic) so silver looks best.

NeilP said:
225/35 and 255/30 on a 9j and 10j by 19" wheel respectively.
Click to expand...
Neil, 225 are too narrow. 235 is the minimum for a 9" rim.
 
Reiver I would say silver suits your car given it's colour . My car is silver grey colour so think black would be grand but I am goug to get my 107 done in silver first as am not too sure myself if it would look quite right either. Was thinking maybe keep and eye out for cheap mv2 thy need a refurb and try it by hand in black.

Neil you got any pics of your tyres to see why they sit like on your alloys?
 
Reiver said:
NeilP said:
225/35 and 255/30 on a 9j and 10j by 19" wheel respectively.
Click to expand...
Neil, 225 are too narrow. 235 is the minimum for a 9" rim.
Click to expand...

Falken state that 225 can be safely fitted to a 9j.

A slight stretch will occur as shown below. IMO, for the driving I do (read: non track, normal street driving) there is no need for a wider footprint.

9739978443_c5bc15f9d8_c.jpg
IMG_9892 by NeilllP, on Flickr
 
NeilP said:
Falken state that 225 can be safely fitted to a 9j.
Click to expand...
It seems Yokohama would disagree as they provided the list I took the extract from. I got the list a few years ago but things haven't changed that much. What if you had an accident? Going by the Yoko list an insurance company could use the argument that the tyre & wheel sizes were incompatible. That would be a tough battle to fight.

But, with regard to wheel & tyre sizes, even the standard 3.0 fitment of 8 x 17 is more than the car needs. The E36 M3 used 7.5 & 8.5 x 17 which were considered adequate for a 1500kg 321bhp car. A 3.0 Z4 is nearly 200kg lighter & 100bhp less powerful so why does it need bigger wheels? Answer: it doesn't.

The fact is the Z4 would probably drive a lot better on 7 or 7.5 x 17's all round. The only reason to increase rim diameter is to fit bigger brakes. The extra grip afforded by wider rims/tyres is generally outside the scope of normal road use. The 18" option was for looks, pure & simple.

8" fronts can tramline quite badly - more so when the tyre height has to drop half an inch to accomodate a larger wheel. 9 x 19's must make the car dive about like a hyperactive Jack Russell chasing rats. They may be bearable in leafy Watford but in the wilds of Northumberland they would simply unusable.
 
Reiver said:
NeilP said:
Falken state that 225 can be safely fitted to a 9j.
Click to expand...
It seems Yokohama would disagree as they provided the list I took the extract from. I got the list a few years ago but things haven't changed that much. What if you had an accident? Going by the Yoko list an insurance company could use the argument that the tyre & wheel sizes were incompatible. That would be a tough battle to fight.

But, with regard to wheel & tyre sizes, even the standard 3.0 fitment of 8 x 17 is more than the car needs. The E36 M3 used 7.5 & 8.5 x 17 which were considered adequate for a 1500kg 321bhp car. A 3.0 Z4 is nearly 200kg lighter & 100bhp less powerful so why does it need bigger wheels? Answer: it doesn't.

The fact is the Z4 would probably drive a lot better on 7 or 7.5 x 17's all round. The only reason to increase rim diameter is to fit bigger brakes. The extra grip afforded by wider rims/tyres is generally outside the scope of normal road use. The 18" option was for looks, pure & simple.

8" fronts can tramline quite badly - more so when the tyre height has to drop half an inch to accomodate a larger wheel. 9 x 19's must make the car dive about like a hyperactive Jack Russell chasing rats. They may be bearable in leafy Watford but in the wilds of Northumberland they would simply unusable.
Click to expand...

Theres no disagreement, it's what they state as their recommended specs. :wink:

Easy battle to fight...

http://falkentire.com/tires/car-tires/azenis-fk453

Manufacturer states what is safe for the tyre they produce with their name on it.

The car also feels far more planted and stable though I feel that is more on part to the tyres/lowering rather than the width of the wheel itself (bearing in mind the tyre size being used)

Watford has some horrible roads, but remembering that I went from 18" with runflats, the swap to 19" with non run flat isn't as drastic.
 
Interesting chart. It seems the rim width can increase as the tyre height drops.

225/45 x 17 has a range 7.0 - 8.5 with 7.5 as the ideal

225/40 x 18 has a range 7.5 - 9.0 with 8.0 as the ideal

225/35 x 19 has a range 7.5 - 9.0 with 8.0 as the ideal

So they'll fit but they aren't regarded as ideal. My old E36 had staggered M3 wheels. The bloke lives around the corner & I'm tempted to try a temporary swap to see what the difference is. I'll bet it steers better with narrower fronts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom