JTso

iTrader: (2)

Just got the Dec issue of C&D and here are the results of 11 tires tested on BMW 325i. Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 came out first place! Did your tires make the list?

Tires:
1. Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
2. Continental ContiSportContact 2
3. Yokohama Advan Neova AD07
4. Michelin Pilot Sport PS2
5. Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212
6. Dunlop SP Sport Maxx
7. Pirelli P Zero Rosso Asimmetrico
8. Toyo Proxes T1R
9. Bridgestone Potenza RE050A
10. BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD
11. Kumho Ecsta MX

sauceman

Interesting.

If anything, when you chose your tire, you basically have to decide between lateral performance and traction/braking ability.

rmpage

I've always wondered how the BF Goodrich's tread pattern would do in austere weather conditions. Not too well, as I suspected.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

Almost forgot some important stats...

Maxboost

Ahhh Advan NEOVAs! I guess i'll be using a set of that for my track set up then.
Does anyone had a set of these NEOVAs before?
I'm still debating between this and Falken RT615. I know that they're in a different price range but I just want to know if the NEOVAs are worth the extra.

jlukja

<--- would have loved to see the Avon M500 or M550 included in the compro.

HoRRo

JTso, you got a scan/pic of the pricing chart? Curious as to how they alloted the 100 pts. Thx in adv.

hans007

i really wish my tsx came with something other than the mxm4s. they do see rather unsporty , i guess that is why its a "touring" tire, but they put it on every thing they sell (tls, rls, rsx, rsx-s).

do dealers even let you get any of these as an option instead of the stock tires?

Ellas9

Most drivers of the TSX are not concerned with a small difference achieved in the slalom as a result of the other tires. Rather, they are interested in the longivity of the tires. I've not seen better tires than the MXV4's for this type of tire rating for lasting 90K kms without needing a change...the rubber compound and internal makeup appears to be better - unless they've suddenly changed the compound and manufacture of the tire in the last couple of years - I would of paid more for the MXV4's if it came with any other tire.

peter_bigblock

JTso, thanks for the info -- I haven't seen my Dec C&D yet. Tires are always a subject of great debate and, often, great hyperbole. This tire or that tire or the other tire is crap, these are the best in wet, those are stickiest in the corners.

I agree that the stock Michelins are not grippy summer tires, but for most (I'd say 90%) buyers they are just what the doctor ordered -- long-lasting tires with some sport in them, comfortable over the road, decent in the snow and rain. For me, I'll probably swap them for some grippier summer tires and a set of winter Blizzaks when the time comes, but don't forget that's about $1,000 worth of tires and wheels ($2,000 worth if you swap the stock rims for reasonably-priced lighter-weight rims). Not a lightly-made decision.

Tsx536

Thanks for the info JTso

I'm suprised that the Hankook tires were rated so high. They are a lot cheaper than the others ones. I still don't think I would get some, but that's pretty interesting.

sauceman

gdcwatt

Looking at the Goodyear's stellar overall and individual wet test results, it looks like there's an error in the wet autocross chart. The Goodyear's wet performance bar is labelled 32.27 sec (best in group), but it is shown at about 34.6 sec (tied for 3rd worst). I'm guessing that the 32.27 is probably correct, from the other data.

Just like to make sure that a good tire gets the credit it deserves, in case anyone was mislead by the chart.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

The charts don't tell the complete story of the test. Here are the impressions by the testers of the different tires. Additionally, since C&D didn't include road noise and tread wear ratings, I have compiled the data from tirerack, as road noise and tread wear could change the purchasing decision. It will take me some time to type everything out so the road noise and tread wear chart will be posted later. Btw, I will post 2-3 comments at a time.

11th place - Kumho Ecsta MX:
Compared with tire companies that have been in business for more than 100 years (Michelin and Goodyear, for example), Kumho began selling tires in Korea 45 years ago. The company has been selling its rubber in the U.S. since 1966, and its racing tires are well established and competitive in amateur circles. Its highest-performing street tire, though, couldn't keep up here. In every test except dry braking, the MX finished well down the scale.
In the dry tests, the Kumhos felt stable and easy to drive and gave plenty of warning of the approaching traction limit. The tires recovered well once that limit was crossed. They didn't offer much grip (0.92 g versus the best at 0.95), and the time of 30.28 seconds in the dry autocross was 0.62 second slower than the fastest tire. That may not seem like much, but our test course ws only 0.3 mile long, and on a longer track, the gap would be commensurately greater.
It was tricky driving the Kumho in the wet, however, because once the tire started sliding, it took seemingly forever to recover and regain traction. Geswein determined it was simply "slippery." That behavior would have been excused if the Kumho had posted fast numbers in the dry, but it didn't. And although the MX - at $136 per - was the third-least expensive tire in our test, the high score in the price category wasn't enough to regain ground lost in the performance tests. As a side note, Kumho recently introduced a new tire called the Ecsta SPT that offers slightly less performance than the MX but may be quite tempting with a price of $90.

10th place - BFGoodridge g-Force T/A KD:
Here's a tire that trades off its weaknesses on wet surfaces for outstanding performance on dry ones. The BFGoodridge g-Force gripped so ferociously in the dry that it felt almost like a race tire. It posted the highest lateral acceleration (0.95g) on the dry skidpad, and it never placed lower than third best in the other dry tests. The g-Force rewarded aggressive driving because its grip level didn't fall off precipitously once it started sliding, as some tires do. On a wet road, the g-Force is not so forgiving. Once you venture past the limits of adhesion and the tire begins to slide, you get a spooky feeling that resembles driving on ice, that is, you slide for a while before the tire regains grip. Geswein called the g-Force's wet-weather performance "not good" and "easy to overdrive in the wet." It finished last in the two out of three wet-track tests.
This result was not a surprise because printed on the side of this tire are the letters "KD," which company employees told us stand for "killer dry." Although this tire was designed to give up some wet performance in return for dry grip, we did find a few other tires that are just as capable in the dry and a lot better in the wet.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

9th place - Bridgestone Potenza RE050A:
The Bridgestone performed a lot better in the wet than the BFGoodrich. In two wet tests, the autocross and the skidpad, it placed third. Those were its highest finishes, and for the most part, this tire didn't shine in any one are.
In performance terms, the Bridgesone was midpack. It fell to ninth in the overall ranking because its 140 tread-wear grade was the lowest of the group, and compounding that, at $178 it was the second-most-expensive tire.
Our subjective comments seemed to back up the midpack performance. Geswein said it felt "dull and disconnected" and that it was "somewhat soft and imprecise when driven hard." Although we didn't test the ride characteristics of this tire, we wondered if its lazy feel was a result of being designed for a compiant ride. If performance is your goal, there are better choices.

8th place - Toyo Proxes T1R:
Toyo says its new T1R has "high-modulus bead apex rubber." You probably don't know what that means, and neither do we. This wasn't much more clear: "Spiral-woud, jointless edge and capplies." If this test were based on no comprendo engineer-speak, Toyo would win.
In fact, the Proxes never placed higher than eighth in any test, and in two dry tests, the autocross and the skidpad, the Toyo finished last, trailing the top finishers by significant margins. In some tests it felt better than it actually was performaning, but overall, Geswein noted it was "soft and imprecise" and didn't "feel like a sport tire."
In the end, the Toyo has its high wear grade (280) and attractive price ($135) to thank for its eight-place finish. In performance terms, there are lots of tires that do better. Perhaps a new set of "capplies" would help.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

7th place - Pirelli P Zero Rosso Asimmetrico:
With this Pirelli's seventh-place finish, we come now to the first of the midpack tires, which never excelled, but neither did they fall on their faces.
The Pirelli did flub two tests, which is why it lands farthest down in the group. In the dry-lateral-grip test, the Pirelli tied for second to last, and it finished seventh in the dry-braking test. Otherwise, it staked out the middle ground: not offending our enthusiast sensibilities but not knocking our socks off, either.
The Pirelli didn't move us fill our notebooks with comments. Geswein noted there was "nothing particularly strong or weak" in its performance. We did notice it was easy to drive in the wet because it smoothly straddled the transition zone between sliding and gripping. When some tires - Kumhos come to mind - begin to slide on wet surfaces, the really slide, but that wasn't the case with the Pirellis.
A week after out testing, Pirelli called to say there's a different version of the Asimmetrico that would have performed better. This version is noted by a hard-to-see "MO" that's embossed on the sidewall (it stands for "Mercedes spec." identifying the line of cars it was designed for), and it uses a different compound than the one we tested.

6th place - Dunlop SP Sport Maxx:
The Dunlop surpassed the Pirelli's overall score by just 0.1 point, and amazingly close finish of 1100 possible points.
The Dunlop performed better in most test categories than the Pirelli. We thought it was a fairly satisfying tire to drive in that it provided good road feedback and scored higher in the wet tests than in the dry. In the water, the Dunlop had a "proper combination of direct feel and firmness," Geswein noted. But it the dry, the tire seemed to lose its confidence and lost some of the crispness we appreciated in the wet.
So it's a slightly better wet tire but isn't steallar anywhere. The Dunlop was the only tire here that had its company name imprinted on the tread, which might socre style points with some.

5th place - Hankook Ventus R-S2 Z212:
The Hankook has one feature the other tires can't match - a $99 price. And to its credit, the Hankook didn't behave like the cheapest tire, particularly when the track was dry. it tied the $175 Yokohama and $145 Goodyear for second place in lateral grip, scoring 0.94 g. And although its dry-braking results landed it in last place, that shortcoming did not greatly affect the Hankook's dry-autocross showing - a 29.86-second average, a third-place result that was only 0.20 second away from the winning effort.
It became apparent that the Hankook was clearly tuned for dry running as its wet-track results were below average. Like the other poor runners in water, the Hankook felt greasy and was slow to recover once it broke traction. But in the dry, the Korean tire felt just as responsive and sticky as its more-expensive competition.
The thing is, though, the harder you drive, the more tread you'll burn off a tire. So if you're a track-day addict who doesn't mind sacrificing some wet-weather capabilities, the Hankook is a choice what will save you money without losing much performance.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

4th place - Michelin Pilot Sport PS2:
Ever since we first experienced the PS2 in 2004, we suspected it was a better-than-average performer. We were right.
It placed in the top half of every test and finished second in both wet and dry braking, an impressive display of this tire's all-around competence.
Perhaps the most interesting revelation was how similar the tire felt in water and on dry pavement. Regardless of the level, the PS2 provided crisp turn-in response and a gradual loss of grip as the driver exceeded the tire's cornering capabilities.
Michelin says the PS2's tread is composed of two different compounds. The outer two-thirds of the tread has a rubber compound that's biased to provided good dry traction; the inner third has a different compound that's skewed toward wet traction.
That performance will cost you. At $179, the PS2 is the most expensive tire in the test. A set of these Michelins would run $716, or almost double what four Hankooks go for. Is it worth it? How important is all-around performance to you?

3rd place - Yokohama Advan Neova AD07:
On dry pavement, the Yokohama tires put the BMW cars in a position to go faster through our tests. Check the results. With the Yokos at all corners, the BMW was fastest on the dry autocross, and they provided the shortest stopping distance by a significant margin.
Geswein knew the Yoko as a grippy tire before its results were posted. "Grip is way up," he commented after a run. He also noted that grip level stayed consistent even when the tire was sliding. In the dry, it performed a lot like the BFGoodrich, but the Yokohama is also pretty good in the wet.
Of all the tires, Geswein thought the Yokohama and the BFG g-Force rewarded aggressive driving because the two had a wide plateau of grip versus slip angle. That means if you enter a corner a little too fast and begin sliding, the Yokohama recovers quickly and in some sense covers up your mistakes.
The behavior in the wet was a little more toward the slippery end of the scale, but we could push the Yokohama hard and not feel as if we were on the verge of a sudden spinout. This combination of outstanding dry performance and more-than-passable wet performance makes the Yokohama a very alluring product. If you're looking to cut the quickest lap times while using a street tire, this is the one to have. Bring money: They're $175 apiece.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

2nd place - Continental ContiSportContact 2:
When we tabulated the results and found the Continental in second place, we went back and checked our math. During three days of testing, our subjective impressions didn't lead us to believe that the Continental was a second-place tire, but when we added the scores, that's where it landed.
It simply didn't feel as sporty as some of the other performers - the Yokohama and the Michelin, for two - but thanks in part to the wide channels in its treads that shed water well, this tire was very good in the wet, placing second in the wet autocross test and skidpad measurements.
On dry surfaces, the Conti never rose above third from last among 11 tires. It felt soft and imprecise, two qualities not in the vocabularies of performance tires. Geswein grouped it with the other "dull and disconnected" tires.
So how, then did it land in second place? There simply weren't huge gaps in the percentage differences amond all the tires in dry situations. For example, the last-place tire was within 10 percent of the best tire. But in the wet, the spread from best to worst was 15 percent, which made for a larger point spread. Plus, the Continental had a 280 tread-wear grade that was the highest for this test, and its $146 price was a few dollars below the average cost.

1st place - Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3:
As an all-around high-performance tire, you can't beat this Goodyear. It was the best performer in all three wet-track tests and was very competent in the dry. It generated 0.94 g on the dry skidpad, only 0.01 g off the first-place BFGoodrich and tied with the Yokohama and Hankook.
The Goodyear gripped so well that you might not have been certain the road was wet, and it lost traction in a gentle, predictable manner. It held onto the wet track with 0.82 g of stick, and impressive figure considering the worst tire in that test made only 0.67 g.
The Eagle F1 got a lot of favorable comments. In the wet, Geswein called it "direct" - a way of saying the tire provided clear signals about its contact with the pavement.
There were tires that performed better in the dry, but the Eagle wasn't far off. It was a little less precise than the BFG and Yokohama on a dry track, but not my much. And like the Continental, the Goodyear had a high 280 tread-wear grade. At $145 each, it's $34 cheaper than the most expensive tire here.

Road noise and tread wear rating:


I might just try the Goodyear next time, especially with low road noise and high tread wear.

TSXTuner

Your original equip is nothing like these.

They are specially made to the vehicle, rubber compound, everything
different in the OE product.

The way they do it, tire companies build many variations of the tire,
usually same mold but varying tread compound, belt angles, bead
filler height, many other possibilities.

They pretest to select best choices of the outcomes.
Send about 4 variances to the OE to test on the vehicle, the OE picks
the tire spec, or says go back to the drawing board and start over.

Later in the development phase they might even get into minor changes
to cancel a noise and such and such hertz. Crazy stuff.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

Prices are in post #4, column one in the pic.

ILoveMyHonda

Nice thread, I know I should just go buy the magazine but, are these the only tires they tested or did they test other brands? Falken, Nitto etc.?

Also what tires size is this test performed in?

HoRRo

Yeah, I saw that, but, in order to allocate (out of 100) points based on price......I wanted to know if the cheapest was 100pts and then a percentile decrease in pts for increase in dollars?

CobaltForge

Thanks for the post JTso. Now I have my mind set on those Goodyears!

theElio

Great informative post! Thanks JTso. Goodyears it is.

rmpage

Thanks for copying all this stuff for us.

mel4fun

Is Goodyear F1 GSD3 really that quiet ?

Looking at that thread pattern, I wonder how queit will it get after 15,000km ?

Anyone been using beyond 20,000km and feedback on the noise ?

zzzed

i had the goodyears on my 2001 accord ex....they handled really good dry and wet....but they were loud. i have been studying what to get for my tsx....and will most likely end up with the goodyears again....the ps2 is too much $$$ with a lower treadwear rating, the conti looks too conservative and the remarks on it make it seem soft. i looked at the bfg kdw2- good price and treadwear, aggressive tread pattern, but they are unproven to me......

JTso

iTrader: (2)

Some additional info on how the tires are rated...

Tires ratings:
We gave the top-performing tire in each test score of 100 and scored the rest on their relative performance. For example, the tire that had the highest dry lateral grip of 0.95 g scored 100 points, and the tire placing last with 0.88 g received 92.6 points (0.88 is 92.6 percent of 0.95). We then added the scores from all the dry tests to arrive at a dry-performance rating and did the same for the wet-test results.
Things were more complicated when it came to determining the finishing order of the 11 tires. In addtion to factoring in the wet and dry scores, we gave points based on a tire's price (we used the typical selling price in our calculations) and tread-wear grade, which is a rough estimate of how long a tire will have usable tread. For the price and tread-wear ratings we used the same proportional method.
But the categories were not all weighed equally. Our test focused on measuring performance, so we decided that results in dry - lateral grip, for example - would carry the most weight. Wet performance is important, but less so for the purposes of this test. The price and the tread-wear scores had nothing to do with performance, but who doesn't consider what something will cost before buying?
After a lot of debate, our scheme worked like this: The proportional weighting for tread-wear and price scores was cut in half, the wet scores were not changed, and we doubled the dry-performance scores. And that's how a tire's overall ranking was calculated for this test.
Should you disagree with our rating method, we've presented all the data in graphical form so you can decide what's important to you.
Before you jump to the results, a few more things: The BMW are rear-wheel drive, and our subjective comments might not be completely applicable to front-drive cars, which typically have handling characteristics different from the BMWs. We didn't test the tires for ride or noise characteristics, two traits tiremakers may considier as important as performance. We figure those two traits would be secondary for drivers interested in speed.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

The Goodyear has the same noise/comfort rating as the Michelin (8.5). I have the Michelin now and they are pretty quiet tires comparing to my previous Yoko ES100 which has a rating of 7.0.

Sebo

haha yeah! that makes the two of us!
thanx JTso you've made decsions easier by posting that info..

that means the info here is dead on: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....Eagle+F1+GS-D3

fedlawman

Great stuff JTso!

The Advan Neova is a "Max Performance" Summer tire. It will give you acceptable track performance, plus relatively long treadlife and a relatively comfortable ride.

The Falken RT-615, on the other hand, is a "tweener" tire. It's a step up from the Advan Neova, but a step down from street legal R-compound tires (like the Advan A048). This should clarify:

http://www.falkentire.com/615micro.htm

In other words, it's not going to perform on the track as well as an R-compound tire, but it's a viable compromise if you're serious about the track, but don't want to swap wheels and tires before and after every event. If you're shopping right now, you might be able to find a bargain on some left-over RT-215's. Awesome tire that was replaced by the RT-615.

One note about R-Compound tires: They are designed to perform on the track at high temperature and pressure, but they have unforgiving breakaway characteristics compared to traditional street tires. You should be an experienced high preformance driver before you step up to R-Compound tires.

xizor

I'm surprised, the two tires autocrossers like most, the Kumho MX and Hankook RS2 didn't fare so well in the dry braking and AutoX tests

dom

Does the F1 come in a 215/50/17?

fedlawman

They're popular because they are great tires that you can get for under $100 each.

CCColtsicehockey

i love the tire tread of these so much

Goodyear Eagle F1 GSD3
[IMG]http://www.blackcircles.com/public/tyres/goodyeartest/content/obj1027538?view=277

CCColtsicehockey

i love the tire tread of these so much

Goodyear Eagle F1 GSD3

CobaltForge

They come in a 215/45/17

Link: http://www.discounttiredirect.com/di...%2FPerformance

peter_bigblock

They also come in 235/45/17 which is closer to the stock overall tire height (25.5" stock, I think). That's a wider and slightly heavier tire, though. Check out Tire Rack.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

You can also use 225/45/17 which I have used before. But it requires lowering to look good.

xizor

the MX isn't all that cheap (the RS2's are though ), but considering the amount of money the national level autoxers spend, I would expect them to pay whatever is necessary for the best street tire