Tyres - Decision made & Vreds fitted!

Poll Poll Which 4 tyre choice?

  • Conti Sport Contact 3 - £750 fitted

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Vredstein Sessanta - £650 fitted (approx)

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • Other (please give reason)

    Votes: 13 46.4%

  • Total voters
    28
tomscott said:
sars said:
tomscott said:
Dont make me sound like an idiot. I no fine well they dont pay full RRP.

I would say its because they want the best performance out of the cars and want the customer to be as safe a physically possible so putting tyres like Falkens do not fulfil the requirement.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You are a marketing guys wet dream :headbang:

Extremely productive and predictable like usual Sars.

Why thanks, I do try to be helpful when I can Tom :thumbsup:
 
sars said:
On the site there is a tyre review from Evo written in 2012, interestingly they put the midrange brand of Hankook, with their ventus S1 evo, in second place behind the Continental Sport Contact 3 and even though the F1A2 scored the most points they were in 3rd.....go figure.

Yeah, I guess a lot of it is what you want from a tyre... Personally I don't hammer a car around a bend (on UK roads) in a way that comes anywhere near to the limit of the tyre (if anyone does I think they're bonkers, considering the state of UK roads)... I actually look to see how they perform in the wet, and for that my Vreds I had last and the Goodyears before that have been outstanding.
 
I can tell this is just a bashing of young vs old so I digress.

The Vreds look compelling so whats what im going to try next. They've had awesome reviews in everything that I have read. But the PS2s I have are great and have always had them. I have found that they provide great performance in the wet and dry, although a bit more pricy worth the extra.
 
tomscott said:
I can tell this is just a bashing of young vs old so I digress.

Now that confuses me... I disagree with some (only some, I do agree with some of what you say) of your points, but I wouldn't say it's anything to do with age (also, not sure how Sars likes being called "old")

tomscott said:
The Vreds look compelling so whats what im going to try next. They've had awesome reviews in everything that I have read. But the PS2s I have are great and have always had them. I have found that they provide great performance in the wet and dry, although a bit more pricy worth the extra.

Not had any complaints about my Vreds apart from they were slippy as hell for the first few hundred miles... Also they are apparently noisy, but that's more of an issue for soft-top motoring I guess.

Oh, and they also look like they have been put on wrong, as both treads point in the same direction when you view the car from behind... looks kind of odd
 
I was just joking and he gives me enough stick and im sure hel get over it :wink:

I think the tread is pretty cool, but ye does look strange pointing in the same direction. They look a bit different but quite an aggressive pattern in comparison to a lot of other patterns. :thumbsup:
 
Just to wade into the debate....

I've used Vreds before, and after the first few hundred miles of 'scrubbing in' I found them to be excellent, very reliable grip- wet and dry, and didn't find them to be intrusively noisy (was on my roadster)

When it comes time to change on the M - I will more than likely go Vreds again. For a value:performance ratio I think they are tiptop. Unless I come into some money and then be going with the Michelin supers. (previously a big fan of ps2s)

For what it's worth I don't like the conti M3s or SC3s that I'm running currently
 
flimper said:
wantanM said:
For what it's worth I don't like the conti M3s or SC3s that I'm running currently

How do the SC3s compare to the M3s? Why don't you like the SC3s?


Nothing specific, just a general impression. The turn in seems a bit 'wooly'. Dont know if they have a slightly less stiff side wall compared to the competition.
They are by no means terrible just not nice and sharp.

I must add that I have never tracked them so don't have an in depth understanding of their limits. I have also yet to really test them in the wet as we haven't had much rain over the past 6 months.

General 'gut feeling' - I dont like them.
 
A review I don't think I've seen before

ultracsessantareview1kb9.jpg

ultracsessantareview2gf3.jpg

ultracsessantareview3us6.jpg
 
Continental 225/45 R18 91Y SportContact 5 FR

Continental 255/40 R18 95Y SportContact 5 SSR * FR

Are these right for the car, haven't seen front & rear in stock sizes before :?
 
flimper said:
Continental 225/45 R18 91Y SportContact 5 FR

Continental 255/40 R18 95Y SportContact 5 SSR * FR

Are these right for the car, haven't seen front & rear in stock sizes before :?
Isn't the SSR the runflat version?
 
Probably!

The ContiSportContact 5 SSR is Continental’s Max Performance Summer run-flat tire

:evil:
 
tomscott said:
I can tell this is just a bashing of young vs old so I digress.

Not so. I'm not old. But happen to agree with some valid alternative views to yours on this thread. I think that Falkens would be ample for normal and somewhat enthusiastic road use on an ///M. Track use - probables not.

I certainly wouldn't put a £300 set of tyres on my zed. However, I wouldn't spend over £1,000 just because it's an ///M. All depends on how you drive the car, which was my original point :)

Keep it friendly chaps :thumbsup: Let's not get too forceful with what is only an opinion.... :)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom