Printable View
yes it is, but i doubt if it will stay at this noise level as the thread wear down.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
I think re001 is not the best choice if you are after dead comfort quiet tyres. you should probably go with dunlop sport maxx or yokohama.
The SP2050m also gets noisier as it wears down. If it is quieter, then to me it is acceptable since I am used to the stockies.Quote:
Originally Posted by petsfact
Is there anyone that can rec. me a tyre? 17" onto my EJ so it cant be too big. Just for everyday driving. not for track or anything.
I need it to last so something that doesnt wear as quickly. budget isnt too high aswell.
Also is there anywhere where i can read up abit on tyres? such as what the numbers 205/40 etc mean?
thanks!
S.Drive or C.Drive have a 300 wear rating. Pirelli Dragon has 380. They last longer than tyres like Bridgestone RE001 Adrenalins, which have a rating of 220.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dy_
For all your tyre definitions and info, http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbi...yre_bible.html
In the 2nd Sticky of this forum "Wheel and Tyre Bible"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dy_
http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbi...yre_bible.html
thanks dude
I thought re001's have a rating of 220...Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=753
at 220 i'd choose them as my next tyre but if they're 180 i probably wouldn't... I tried calling some bridgestone stores in Adelaide, but no one will tell me the twr of the re001's
thread wear rating is 220 for RE001Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullabaloo
Oops, I keep mixing them up with the other bridgestones. I'll correct my error in my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullabaloo
dunlop sport 01 also worth a look if you are looking for 17", they look nice. :P
If anyone's interested Bob Jane Tempe has a set of 4 Conti Sport contact 2s 225/4517s for $225.00 each.Good price!!!:thumbsup:for a good tyre.
Tony1234,
How does the Conti Sport Contact 2 compare with RE-001?
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony1234
Different, The CSC2's are a touring tyre. It is quieter, safer in the wet and longer lasting than RE001, but with less outright grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by V205
Thanks. By looking at the pictures.. the CSC2 seem to have a squarer shoulder block than the RE001.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
the CSC2 is a popular OE tyre with European car manufacturers, where they often fit RE050/A to the same cars. While the re001 is avail in 15" for compact cars, the CSC series had always concentrated on sizes 17" and upwards and only offer the smaller sizes in their premium contact series.
Very predictable tyre and quiet enough when new, has huge circumferal grooves ( high speed aquaplanning resistance obviously a high priority in this case ) that are wide enough to fit your finger in them so the land to sea ratio is far less than that of the re001, and slightly less than the re050.
They get progressively more noisy as they wear, though no where near as bad as say the Goodyear Eagles. And less grip and predictability once past half worn due to not only deterioation of rubber compound but also less thread squirm/flex. All tyres lose grip and drivability through age and wear but its dropoff at half thread is more noticable than the re050 and dunlop sport maxx I've experienced.
The CSC3 is now out, looks like an evolution of the CSC2 and CSC before that, I hope they've made some worthwhile improvements on this tyre. Meanwhile there should be some decent discounting on the superceded CSC2 which will make it a seriously good buy.
They're a great all round road tyre,excellent in the wet.I've got approx.22k on them now.I haven't driven on the RE-001s,i hope they're better than the RE-010s cause they're crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by V205
The re010, re030 and re040 were truely crap tyres, they tried to have an quiet OE tyres with the handling and grip of the other potenzas with small tread blocks and suceeded at neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony1234
Don't worry the RE001 has very little in common with the re010, more like a much improved version of the old RE711 with asymetrical tread pattern which is a new direction for Bridgestone.
EG30, what car did you use the RE711 on?
I remember the days when RE711 and A509 were all the rage and they were really close to each other in terms of performance and peoples preference for them.
What size is your RE001 and on what car?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EG30
RE711 on an E30 BMW 325i 125KW/1200kg RWD car, which had a set of RE710 on it before that. The RE710 I did about 35,000Kms/2.5yrs and the tyres were only 25% worn when I replaced them and I used to corner hard in that car! That's despite a low treadwear rating of 180 ( mind you it's often you put non grippy tyres under duress you get a lot of wear and tear when the tyre slides around; when the tyre is gripping and not sliding there is negligible wear) ! When I sold the car to a fren I decided to replace the set so the new owner has a fresh set of tyres. The RE711 was getting phased out and I bought a set of them since I was so happy with my prev RE710 purchase. The old tyres went on and became transport tyres for my bmw 2002 historic racecar, so I don't wear out my RE540s on the way to an event.
I specified the RE711 in 185/60R14 for a close lady fren about 5-6 years ago for her EK auto coupe (EJ?). The orig gripless OE Dunlop 175/65R14 lasted only 43,000kms and the RE711 only got replaced early this year and the odo was showing 115,000Kms. Would have been good for another 10,000kms if not for the edge wear due to kerb wheel/wheel align on 2 of the wheels.
The A539 was on the market around the same time as the RE711, and the A510 b4 that while the RE710 was current. I remember the early days in the late 80s you had the RE71 which I had and its Yoko rival was the AVS 161 intermediate tread pattern and A509 was the more affordable option.
While new the A539 doesn't feel much different to the RE711, they both grip well, reasonably quiet and has great sidewall integrity and crisp turn in. But when it ages the A539 gets pretty rock hard and you loose grip and breakaway warning ie a big dropoff in overall grip. I had a pair of the A539 which were 85% new in our dc2r but the rubber had gone too hard for my liking. A fren's old BMW has the same A539 on his car with the same situation; I'll take some pics one day along with my durometer so that would give an indication of relative hardness of rubber of one tyre vs other.
what do u guys think?
falken fk452 (falken flagship)
or
goodyear eagle ls2000 (their new tyre)
the first is directional, and the second is not.
http://www.tirerack.com/
theres lots of reviews on tyre brands there
any recommendations and pricing for 205/40/17?
was looking at Bridgestone Adrenalin but have no idea on pricing, or even if they have it in that size...
Call the tyre place. Bridgestone has tyre size listings on their website so you can find out if they make Adrenalins in that size.
if you drive euro or new civic, go for something not that extreme. a general dunlop probably serve the purpose well.
RE001 is not extreme. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by petsfact
General purpose dunlops are crap. They have very poor treadwear when you drive aggressively and are poor in the wet.
They list your size as avail in the second half of 2007, so you need to check with a bridgestone tyre centre to confirm availabilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th Gen
just picked up a set of RE001's for the civic. 195x50x15 for $115 per corner is a decent price (pm me if u want to know where) for a decent tyre.
I almost crashed twice on my drive home but ill assume its just the cast layer wearing off lol. Feel grippy and quite good response and feel The Sidewalls are quite stiff and i cannot feel a limit as yet. My guess is these will snap under or oversteer when pushed hard
Take a look at the Dunlop Sport Maxx :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th Gen
its the second half of 2007 right now :DQuote:
Originally Posted by EG30
any other suggestions besides RE001 and the Dunlops and indicative pricing please?
PM if you want
Search this thread. There are many recommendations and price estimates.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th Gen
pricing depends on size. It is too broad to give an idea on.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th Gen
205/40/17 pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by didz
I ve been quoted a pair of Toyo T1R 205/45/16 for $350. Is that good price for them?
that's a definately a good price for them them --> those that sell you the tyres...Quote:
Originally Posted by mugen24
thats a good price for sure. better than anythign i got for a higher profile! Contacts may get me better ones yet!Quote:
Originally Posted by mugen24
Got mine in Melb for $169 each balanced and fitted... which is better than $350 for 2 :pQuote:
Originally Posted by mugen24
i changed today for $400 plus everything, include 4 wheel alignment...
any views on continental 205/55 16's. I have been quoted $200 p/tyre
If they're the conti sport contact 2s i.m sure you'll like them.(i've got 225/45/17s)They're a good all round road tyre,nice ride,good grip,good in the wet,(i reckon they suit the Euro well)wear reasonably well just make sure you set pressure fairly high(38-40psi)as they have soft sidewalls and seem to handle better at that sort of pressure.:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by blk05gli
cheersQuote:
Originally Posted by tony1234
what would the suggested tyre pressure be for the Bridgestone RE001's 205/45/16's?
for daily use mainly, occasional track in the future but for now just on the streets
Thanks
start with 34psi front and 32 psi rear cold inflation pressure and see how you go, and fine tune it in 1-2 psi increments, one end of the car at a time to feel the affects, then decide what's best for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TECDUP
for track work you might want to pump the front up to 42-44psi, the rear anywhere from 34-40 psi depending on your pref.
got the RE001's today
will see how it goes but initial impressions are promising
i find 36 front 35 rear gives best response, excellent for smooth freeway ride, a bit rough on tramline uneven road surface though.
if you are after comfort ride, go 34 front and 32 rear for sure, but you must rotate at least every 10000kms.
i assume u r talking about FWD car.
hey guys i know there not the most expensive and best tyres out there but what are falkrem(unsure on spellin) 329s like? i think thats what the guy recomended for my ej8 on 15s
Ok, i have had the Adrenalins (re001) for a week now. I got 205/45/16 for $209/tyre...
dry handling is unreal, you never realise how bad your body roll is until your cornering hard at 80-90kms without any understeer.
I had my first taste of wet handling today, stick good, once pushed they did slip a little but quickly caught traction again
I would recommend to anybody...
i have had the adrenalins for about 2-3 weeks now on the front only.
i have also had the car lowered and, yes it does make a hell of a difference.
haven't really 'maxxed it out' cause of crappy syd roads :P
I've had mixed comments between RE001 and RE050A (both bridgestone of course). Some claimed RE050A is higher performance than RE001, and others (including me) thought otherwise. Can anyone for sure confirm which one is correct?
The RE050/A is their flagship OE tyre for the prestige car market incl top European cars. You see them fitted as OE tyres to a few Japanese cars too incl Subaru Libertys and Mazda 6s.
I have a set of RE050 on my C36 AMG Merc, and the RE001 on my EG.
In a nut shell the RE001 has a more agressively tread pattern and design philosophy with far higher tread area ie land to sea ratio to the RE050 and grips a fair bit more. But the RE001 is a lot noisier and in large sizes if fitted to a highly refined prestige car where you can hardly hear the engine/drivetrain and wind noise the tyre noise will become far too noticeable to be acceptable for that market segment. The RE050 also has a more gradual breakaway which suits the OE market and comes in Run Flat Tyre version in many sizes which is important for the current gen of BMWs.
The RE050 would cost a fair bit more than a same size RE001 at your local Birdgestone tyre centre too. Manufacturers get super good deal on OE tyres at factory direct level but OE tyres hardly ever get discounted to consumers unless they are getting phased out.
got a quote for the potenza 050A in 225/45/17 for 260 each. Apparently on special now
for Adrenalin RE001s, is there any performance (or other) difference between made in Japan or made in Australia ones?
for 215/45/R17 quotes i got so far range from:
Bridgestone - $295
Bob Jane - $275
Kmart - $245
are the RE001's made in AUS?
cheap price from Kmart huh?
not sure. i thought i heard something about some sizes being made in australia...
yep kmart has it in their catalogue right now... not sure about other sizes though. $245 sounds good. though i've read somewhere about someone somehow getting a size in 17inches for closer to $230 per corner... *shrugs*
i got my 205/40/17 for 220 per corner
depends on where you are though (i am from syd)
cheers for that. i'll keep it in mind when i come to buy (pretty soon). having a hard time choosing between RE001's and S.drives.
tyre life is an issue, but considering ive done 50k km on RE050's (TWR140) the RE001's (TWR220) should hopefully do at least 50k km too...
^50k kmz???
wtf
u must drive very very slowly or take corners very very slowly
i dont think my a drive r1s will last more than 35k kmz
my stoke oem good years only made it to 29k kmz
I've got a set of S drive on my dc2r and Re001 on my EG Si, been regretting not getting the RE001 on both cars actually. I thought the new S drive would be much improved from the ES100 and would like to give the Yokies a go after a long hiatus but I was wrong. The RE001 is far stickier than the S drive and in the same price bracket and possibly slightly cheaper. My beef with the S drive is that it's far too hard even when new, coupled with the Yokohama's typical good sidewall rigidity with very little give under duress they would be pretty snappy in terms of breakaway when the rubber ages and esp in the wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullabaloo
So do yourself a favour and get the re001s and I'm sure you would be as happy as many members who had bought a set recently. Buy a set of S drives and you are likely to wish you bought a set of re001 when you get to drive a car/ get driven in a car with the re001s.
mine is 205/50 16 and it's made in japan..
I have 205/50 R15 RE001s and they're made in Japan too. First impression is very good. I haven't driven in the wet, you know it doesn't rain in Brisbane anymore..... but on dry roads the general feel is much better than my previous tyres. I noticed the difference immediately, which may seem like a bold statement, but it's true. Traction is great from first gear, and I'm more confident going heel-toe into corners. They almost seem to absorb some bumps etc, the ride is smoother with these.They're a bit noisier than my cheap Maxxis tyres but it's really quite negligible.
I've only had the new wheel/tyre combo on for a little while, but I'm pleased so far.
EG30 what was the price diff between the S drive and RE001?Quote:
Originally Posted by EG30
i found with the Yokos there are heaps of diff tread patterns - S drive, A drive etc. whats the diff between them all?
I've got a feeling that the Aust made Re001s cater for the commodore/falcon/bogan sizes ie 235/45R17 and its eqv in 18 and 19s that are rarely used in the European and Japanese markets thus it makes sense getting it made locally.
thats not a bad theory..Quote:
Originally Posted by EG30
I've been researching the Bridgestone Adrenalin RE001 as my next tyre. So far, I haven't heard anyone who's bought it with anything negative to say about it. Looks like a good design.
How are they for all out dry performance? They don't look like a dry performance tyre.
Seems like the Yokos S-Drives aren't getting the nod from you fellas? I had C-Drives and found them beautiful especially in the wet :p
Anyone know the difference between say the RE001 Adrenalin, RE050A/RE050 and RE040?
Anyone got AD07? I got 2nd set for my car. Very good on both dry and wet. I used FM901, ST115 and GIII. AD07 is the best at this moment.
If you are happy with the C drives in the wet at the moment, you will be creaming in your pants if you had a set of RE001 on your car ( not that the C drives are bad in the wet at all, far from it ).Quote:
Originally Posted by DreadAngel
RE050(A) is a replacement of the RE040, they are OE tyres optimised for quietness which is very important in the OE market. The RE040 ( and RE010 and 030 before it ) was a crap tyre hardly worthy of the Potenza name ie more like Pretenza not Potenza. RE050 far better tyre despite similar apperance; but very different construction and compound.
The RE001 has a lot more rubber on the road compared with the same sized RE050, more aggresive tread pattern, asymetrical concept with much higher land to sea ratio. Noisier tyre though with whining noises under braking from 60Km/h - 10Km/h and distinct humming harmonic noises from 60-80Km/h on my car with 195/50R15 on a EG5. Re001 cheaper than RE050 too, esp now that Bridgestone Aust ( now wholly owned by Bridgestone Japan ) is pushing it very aggressively in terms of pricing and marketing.
The unique selling proprosition of the RE001 is not so much the absolute grip it provides on the most loaded tyre under hard cornering ( which is still long way off R compund tyres ) but how the lightly loaded wheels stay planted on the road despite having not a lot of mechanical downward pressure on those tyres. As a result it's a lot more forgiving, predictable and inspires a lot of coinfidence at the transitional phases of cornering; even in the wet.
^^ can vouch for this.. i got re001 and just tried to do hard cornering in wet..
the result is it doesn't lose a grip at all :)
This isn’t a recommendation, so much as an ‘anti-recommendation’ and a bit of a rant and whinge! Keep in mind here that I’m not talking about more expensive ‘performance’ rubber, only cheaper tyres to fit standard rims (but cheap doesn’t have to mean utter crap!). This is because my car budget is limited, not because I wouldn’t prefer higher spec tyres!
I do make some positive comments below on a couple of different tyres I've had / have on my car, but they are cheaper tyres and I'm sure others may think them utter rubbish, but hey, we can't all afford $200 a corner!
Some background to application, my chassis (CB7 Accord) isn’t completely bog standard, it’s fitted with Koni yellow dampers set quite stiff (love my Konis, but that’s where the budget went!!), caster increased to 5°, -1.5° front camber, and front/rear strut braces (home made, but better – i.e. stiffer mounting brackets - than any I’ve seen commercially available). Next step when $s allow is rear ARB upgrade, but I’ve made a substantial improvement in rear roll stiffness already just by fitting poly D bushes and reinforcing (stiffening) the ARB mounting brackets (the ones that attach with three bolts and are very flimsy, deducting substantially from roll stiffness as they flex). This made a significant improvement on the understeer front.
Where was I, oh yes, crap tyres:
Just fitted a pair of Falken ZE329 tyres (a known brand and a tyre of which I’d heard some good things as being a decent good value/performance cheaper tyre). So I only paid $120 each, and I do know you generally get what you pay for, but I’ve bought far better for similar or less money. These are about the worst tyre I can remember driving on, with the possible exception of some very early Hankooks from maybe twenty years ago! I’ve had better retreads!!
Falken tyre size is 185/65/15 on the standard rims (5.5J/15). Standard tyre size is 195/60/15, but this is a lot of case width for a 5.5” rim (the narrowest permissible rim with this case width, good for a softer ride but giving a soggy soft sort of sidewall behaviour not good for steering response etc), which is why I opted for the narrower 185/65 tyre (5.5” being the Falken *recommended* rim width for these tyres, i.e. not the narrowest permissible).
If I’d gone with 195/60 then I’d have been putting them on the narrowest possible rim for that tyre size, not good for handling etc, so problems would in probability have been even worse! In the best of all possible worlds I’d get wider rims for 195/60 (6.5J to 7J), but it all comes down to the dreaded budget, and what ‘She Who Must Be Placated’ (to paraphrase Rumpole) allows me to get away with spending on the car!
I’m happy to trade a bit of outright grip for a bit more steering response, the aspect ratio may not be as good on paper, but the sidewall depth is pretty much the same between 195/60 and 185/65, and it’s the sidewall depth AND angle that’s more important for steering response (at least in theory and all else being equal…). Also, on rough roads narrower treads can perform better than wider (for a number of reasons).
I first fitted the Falkens to the front at 38psi, instantly resulting in poor steering response, plenty of understeer at all but walking speed and tyre howling when pushed harder. So I upped pressure to 45psi which improved things but still pretty bad. Even after 100+km (wearing off the mould release) the problem got no better. Funny thing, even at 45psi on rough roads with stiff damper settings these tyres don’t feel harsh or stiff at all, if anything they feel like they are under inflated (they have a max inflation of 51psi, I may well end up there!). I already dislike these tyres!
Problem seems to be very soft casings, in particular the sidewalls seem / feel to flex a lot, and consequently the tyres develop very large slip angles, just like an under inflated tyre.
Plan B, swapped them to the rear (at 38psi to not be higher than the front) where I thought they might be somewhat more acceptable, but sadly not so! The car now became borderline dangerous (no exaggeration) with truly horrible handling, so I upped pressure to 45psi - problem better but still totally unacceptable.
The upside is that the car now (with Falkens on rear) had better steering response (at least better turn in), but, it was then followed by a nasty wobbly pudding oversteer that was truly dreadful and fairly unresponsive to steering correction because the Falkens just wanted to keep on sliding!! The car felt for all the world like it had a huge weight in the back end acting like a monster pendulum! In an emergency manoeuvre at speed I think it would be dead easy to lose the back end and spin, especially on the dirt roads which I have to drive on.
I now really really hate these tyres, to say I’m disappointed in them is an understatement, and my expectations weren’t huge!! I’ve had to put the Falkens back on the front because on the rear there would eventually be a crash, yes it was that bad! At least with the Falkens on the front the car is directionally stable… too directionally stable!
The two tyres I replaced with the Falkens were Sava Intensa (195/60/15), cheap ($120ish from memory) but surprisingly good - for the money, no complaints, except wear rate – when inflated to 38/40psi. The biggest surprise were with the other tyres I’m currently running, the two I had to buy at the only tyre emporium open in the late afternoon last Xmas eve (Kmart, in desperation after having two flats that day, Merry bloody Xmas!).
These are Sonar SX608 (195/60/15), that cost me I think $115, (basically from the Nankang even more cheapo range!). If I’d had any choice at the time I wouldn’t have considered buying this then unknown generic brand, but surprisingly they are subjectively 5 times as good as the Falken ZE329, and about as good as the Sava Intensa (a bit less grip, but better steering response, I think the sidewalls are reasonably stiff but somewhat harder rubber).
I originally had these Sonars fitted to the rear (with the Intensas up front) at 35psi where they seemed to work well, and forgot about them (well, I didn’t really think – incorrectly – that the rear end asked all that much of the rear tyres, and they’re a very ordinary looking tyre!). This set up gave a fairly neutral handling characteristic once I’d stiffened up the rear ARB mounting.
I recently had to move them to the front (and Intensas to rear) when the Intensas started losing grip (they were getting pretty thin on tread!), fully expecting them to be awful when on the front, but was pleasantly surprised with their competence, especially at 38psi (not so good at 40 though). Not quite as grippy as the Intensas (with tread!), but better steering response, so better turn in / correction behaviour but a bit more mid corner understeer. This may come down to the sidewall angles related to the Intensa being quite wide in the tread for a 195 section casing, and the Sonar being quite narrow treaded for a 195…?
All in all, with the Konis and strut braces, caster, front camber, and rear roll stiffness improvements (does still need a thicker ARB though, still rolls a bit much and could use more rear / less front weight transfer to reduce inherent understeer) and the Sonars or Savas up front, and probably any half decent tyre (i.e. not ZE329s!) on the rear, and all tyres at highish pressures, even with standard rims the old Accord is quite entertaining to drive for what it is, even if the outright grip levels may not be massive…
I nearly bought another two Sonars or Savas (in a 185/65), but I didn’t, and I regret it. So (unless anyone wants to buy them…please!?), I’m now stuck with these bloody Falkens for quite a while, which doesn’t fill me with delight. They really make the car far less enjoyable to drive (maybe better at 51psi???!!!), but I won’t feel too bad about giving them a bit of a caning, the sooner they wear out the better!
Ah Icic! Thanks EG30 and Hans Bond :) I think I'll give these RE001s a try see how things go ;) I'll report when the new car has them then can give you a comparo to the C-Drives even if its not much of a competitionQuote:
Originally Posted by EG30
Instead of 38psi, did you try 33psi instead? 38psi is on the high side for such a high profiled tyre. You get bulging in the middle, reducing your contact patch.
when the time came to replace my dunlop 2050 205/55R16s last month, a friend recommended Sumitomo (made by dunlop?) I have 205/55R16 HTR 55Z and in wet and dry, my opinion is that they are much better tyre than the OE the car came with - grip/turn in is great, and when cornering hard (VSA off) - rear end stays inline (unlike the 2050's !)
only thing - 2050's lasted me 57K - damm!
I haven't yet tried the Falkens at a more conservative pressure, I probably will but my expectation is that this is likely to be even worse. What I do expect is that lowering the pressure will result in even larger slip angles and less response. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 'tread bulge' in modern radials (with their fairly stiff steel belts) isn't much affected by higher pressures, certainly not nearly as much as cross ply tyres are. The tread isn't visibly bulging at 38 or 45psi, and they did behave somewhat better at 45 vs 38...Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
Put another 2psi in them this morning (47psi), but haven't driven on them at that pressure yet. If it's no better or worse then I'll try dropping them down to a more sane psi as you suggest. If this works then they'll be the only tyre I've ever used that gets better steering response at lower pressure, even my go-kart steers more sharply at 20psi than at say 15. If I'm lucky the Falkens may get a bit better when the tread blocks wear down, but I really think the case stiffness is most likely to be the problem.
Re the Sava Intensa tyre, we also have some on a Mazda 323 in a 195/55/15 size. On this car they perform not nearly as well as the 195/60/15 Intensa on the Accord. The difference isn't just when cornering hard, it's there even when driven quite conservtively, manifesting most obviously in steering response and directional stability (i.e. the Intensas on the Accord or more responsive and have better stability in a straight line and in corners than those on the Mazda).
I know the cars are quite different with very different suspension designs (with the Accord suspension obviously being far superior!) and the Mazda has a 6J rim (which in theory should work better with a 195 tye than the 5.5J on the Accord), but I suspect the difference is at least mostly in the tyres themselves and may not just be the different aspect ratio. All else being equal the 195/55 on a 6J rim should be significantly superior to a 195/60 on a 5.5J rim, but it isn't. Why, I don't know for sure but assuming the tyres themselves are the problem, the Savas on the Accord are made in New Zealand, but the ones on the Mazda are made in Slovenia. Might this mean there may be significant differences other than aspect between these tyres...??
Since the curret topic seems to be on the Bridgestone Potenza RE001, I thought I might just include my 2 cents.
I've currently got the RE001s on my 06 ODC in the size of 225/45/ R18 @38psi. The tyres are made in Japan and cost me about $265 a corner.
I got the tyres when I installed my ARBs, lowered the car and new rims. I was initially afraid of the road noise that the tires would produce, but to my surprise, it was only very slightly nosier than stock tires (Yokohama Aspec 215/60/16). Grip is amazing, been going around round-abouts at higher speeds and still feel very safe. Wet grip is also amazing, imagine throwing a 1.6 ton mini-van around a wet corner and feeling in control.
Best tires I've gotten so far.
geez very good price for such BIG size, thought they would be closer to $300 or more in 18". Is that a run of the mill price at a non anti-bridgestone tyre shop or the best price you found in a bridgestone sympathetic shop?
My Mechanic got me the tires, I have no idea where he got them from, but I did make a few enquires and the cheapest I got was $270 from TyrePower in Perth City.
ok ic thanks for the info.
That's awesome price for 225/45/18 RE001. ($265)
Even kmart typres was quoting me 225/45/17 ($305).
Anyone in Melb got RE001 at realistic prices yet? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution
Anyone have any opinions on the pirelli pzero dragon?
Cheers.