Matching tyres

I put a pair of P Zeros on the back of my 325ti and I've never had a problem with them. (It already had P6000s on the front).

They've done 13,000 miles and still have 5mm of tread which doesn't seem like excessive wear to me. I'm very pleased with them.
 
see, this is what i dont get... according to Evo magazines tyre test, the worst tyre they tested still has 90% of the wet braking performance of the best tyre - and in the dry, that rises to 91%. in the test they state that like its a really bad thing, but generally i'm happy with 90% of the best available! but specifically looking at pirelli p zeros, a falken FK510 stops better... which is definitely a mid range tyre. kumhos are easily a match for hankooks and falkens, so really dont think they'll be that bad, especially on a car that isnt driven hard. on a car that has sporting credentials that you might actually be driving quickly you might need the extra 10 percent because you're going everywhere 10% faster, but surely a bit of defensive driving, leaving a good sized gap and being aware of other cars on the road will reduce your risk of a collision more than premium tyres.

http://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/golf-gti/18309/best-car-tyres-evo-performance-tyre-test/page/0/2

i actually think that where premium tyres are worth more is not in wet or dry braking per se, but that a michelin will still be going after 20,000 miles whereas a cheaper tyre will be worn out in 10,000.
 
brillomaster said:
see, this is what i dont get... according to Evo magazines tyre test, the worst tyre they tested still has 90% of the wet braking performance of the best tyre - and in the dry, that rises to 91%. in the test they state that like its a really bad thing, but generally i'm happy with 90% of the best available! but specifically looking at pirelli p zeros, a falken FK510 stops better... which is definitely a mid range tyre. kumhos are easily a match for hankooks and falkens, so really dont think they'll be that bad, especially on a car that isnt driven hard. on a car that has sporting credentials that you might actually be driving quickly you might need the extra 10 percent because you're going everywhere 10% faster, but surely a bit of defensive driving, leaving a good sized gap and being aware of other cars on the road will reduce your risk of a collision more than premium tyres.

http://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/golf-gti/18309/best-car-tyres-evo-performance-tyre-test/page/0/2

i actually think that where premium tyres are worth more is not in wet or dry braking per se, but that a michelin will still be going after 20,000 miles whereas a cheaper tyre will be worn out in 10,000.
Click to expand...

The idea behind the EU tyre label is to offer a level playing field of testing and allow the consumer to make an informed decision.

The differences between the label grades are well publicised but if we were to take the grades A and C it's widely reported that in wet braking at 50mph the improvement seen by the driver is a shorter braking distance of 7 metres........I'm sure that most of you would think that it's an improvement worth having. In addition if you were unfortunate enough to have an accident it's likely that your impact speed would be reduced considerably :thumbsup:
 
Tyreman said:
brillomaster said:
see, this is what i dont get... according to Evo magazines tyre test, the worst tyre they tested still has 90% of the wet braking performance of the best tyre - and in the dry, that rises to 91%. in the test they state that like its a really bad thing, but generally i'm happy with 90% of the best available! but specifically looking at pirelli p zeros, a falken FK510 stops better... which is definitely a mid range tyre. kumhos are easily a match for hankooks and falkens, so really dont think they'll be that bad, especially on a car that isnt driven hard. on a car that has sporting credentials that you might actually be driving quickly you might need the extra 10 percent because you're going everywhere 10% faster, but surely a bit of defensive driving, leaving a good sized gap and being aware of other cars on the road will reduce your risk of a collision more than premium tyres.

http://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/golf-gti/18309/best-car-tyres-evo-performance-tyre-test/page/0/2

i actually think that where premium tyres are worth more is not in wet or dry braking per se, but that a michelin will still be going after 20,000 miles whereas a cheaper tyre will be worn out in 10,000.
Click to expand...

The idea behind the EU tyre label is to offer a level playing field of testing and allow the consumer to make an informed decision.

The differences between the label grades are well publicised but if we were to take the grades A and C it's widely reported that in wet braking at 50mph the improvement seen by the driver is a shorter braking distance of 7 metres........I'm sure that most of you would think that it's an improvement worth having. In addition if you were unfortunate enough to have an accident it's likely that your impact speed would be reduced considerably :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

To be honest i dont think the evo article is really relevant to the discussion here, in that its a group test of the premium tyres where the margins between them are small. Not a test of premium vs mid range vs budget. The average driver would be happy with the performance of any of the tyres evo tested.

At the end of the day even 1 meter makes all the difference. Good defensive driving helps but still doesnt prevent idiots doing stupid things in front of you. What about when someone simply doesnt see you and pulls out right in front of you from a side road for example. All the defensive driving in the world isn't going to save you (unless your planning on taking it to extremes and doing 10mph past every side road you pass, even in national speed limit areas etc) but tyres with shorter stopping distances just might.
 
Here's a conundrum re stopping distances :wink: at which point does choice of vehicle overtake the choice of tyre for those looking to be supersafe on the roads re wet grip / dry grip / stopping distance
ie will a lighter weight car (such as a Z4 ) stop in a shorter distance on mid range rubber than a larger car (such as a 5 series ) would on premium rubber ?
Is a Golf R (awd) on cheapo rubber actually safer than a 3 series estate on premium rubber ?
 
mr wilks said:
Here's a conundrum re stopping distances :wink: at which point does choice of vehicle overtake the choice of tyre for those looking to be supersafe on the roads re wet grip / dry grip / stopping distance
ie will a lighter weight car (such as a Z4 ) stop in a shorter distance on mid range rubber than a larger car (such as a 5 series ) would on premium rubber ?
Is a Golf R (awd) on cheapo rubber actually safer than a 3 series estate on premium rubber ?
Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to post something along these lines😃
I did actually think someone was going to post " so we all need to go and spend £1,000s on six pots then!"
For me I'm not that obsessed with braking distances I let it be the deciding factor in what car I buy. but I'm prepared to stump up a little more for good tyres for the extra benefits they bring.
 
It’s not just stopping distances, but how well vehicle dissipates the energy of an impact. Better to spend more of a fixed available budget on a newer, better designed car and accept there’s less money left for tyres than it would be to buy an older, less robust car and spend more on tyres...

The tyre comparison I read before buying tyres for my RS4 found that GY Eagle Assymetric 3s performed better in both wet and dry than the premium competitors tested but with similar fuel economy and noise. Performance was the most important consideration for me as it is a car that’s driven hard at times. I’ve been very pleased - the grip levels are outstanding wet and dry and the car is perfectly quiet on all but concrete motorways*.




*exhaust and induction noise excepted :evil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom