i'm still having a hard time contemplating y they're like $75 LESS a tire than the Toyo Proxies, so has anyone had the chance to test both out and notice significant differences?? let me put it this way...can anyone swear to the Proxies being $300 worth better than the Kumho's?? i find that hard to swallow.

plus, Kumho's + sways = Toyo's.

 

I love my khumo's they are great! I was sooo close to getting the Toyo's but I wanted an all season tire just in case I used them for the winter (I probably wont, and will go stock for the winter). But Anyways, they are really sticky and great in the rain. Nice tread and the tires will last you longer then the Toyo's....

 

I would go for Kumho's w/o a question. They are the best BANG for a buck.

Check on Tirerack.com and look at the survey results. Kumho's have same, if not better survey results than tires that cost 2x more.

Survey Results:

Kumho 712: 8.5 $100
Sumitomo HTR Z: 6.9 $101
Good Year HP Ultra+: 6.2 $113
Yokohama Avid V4: 7.4 $114
Yokohama A520: 6.2 $116
Pirelli P6000 Sp Ve: 6.8 $121
Dunlop Graspic DS1 7.8 $123
BFG CompT/A HR 7.1 $125
Dunlop SP Sport 5000 8.4 & 7.7 $130
Cont Sport Contact 4.5 $136
Dunlop SP Sport 8000 7.6 $140
Pirelli P7000 SS 6.4 $143
Yokohama AVS dB 8.3 $144
GY F1 Eagle GS D-2 4.4 $146
Pirelli P6000 6.7 $150
GY Eagle RSA 5.1 $152
Dunlop SP 9000 7.3 $153
Dunlop Winter SP M2 9.5 $159 (best for winter)
Pirelli PZero sys 6.2 $160
Dunlop SP 2000 5.9 $162
Bridgestone Potenza S-02 8.6 $170 (great tire but the price!!)
Pirelli PZero Rosso 7.3 $177
Michelin Pilot XGT V4/Z4 8.2 $190
Briggestone Turanza Revo 8.4 $209

Need I say More?

 

Are you sure the Khumo's will last longer than the Toyos?

 

Yes, I need to say more....

You are comparing the apples to oranges.

You can't rate the Max performance tires against Ultra Performance tires.

I'm sure they are a great buy for the money, but there is a reason that Tire Rack segregates the max performance tires into one category and the ultra performance into another. The max performance (like s-02, s-03, etc) are the best of the best, and the ultras are a notch lower (note -- there will always be exceptions).

I would be careful about aggregating different categories of tires against each other. (By the same logic, I should be able to grab some numbers from the winter, all-season, and other categories AND lump them together).

As a note, here is the link that compares the Kumho 712 against the Yokohama 520 (not exactly your top of the line NEW tire), and the Sumitomo HTR Z.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/ecsta.html


It is interesting to note that the Kumho looses to the Yoko A520 in dry lap times -- this makes me wonder about just how good the tire is (the A520 in a 235/45-17 is about $117 a tire).

 

Just got my Kumho Ecsta 712 in 225/40/18, without ANY price consideration, I must say these are AWESOME...also doesnt hurt to feel damn happy that you spent only 550 total for Z-rated 18 inch tires that ROCK!!! GO ahead and buy the Toyo T1-S I dare you...muahahhahahaah

 

Sorry to disappoint you man, but the 712s are summer only. heh - note the absence of the small thin strips of rubber near the sidewall on the tread block (compare to the stocks) - that thin block is for snow adhesion.

BUT I love mine and since I live in FL...

 

I had my Kumhos 712 supra for almost 4 months, and never had a problem. In my opinion it's an excellent high performance tire with an awesome value

 

Already bought the Toyos -- they were around $200 more. The A520 don't come in 18".

The tires (225/40-18) (no XL) are only load rated at 88W. The recommended tire is a 93V load rating.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.j...CSTA+Supra+712

You can joke about the Toyos, but they at least have a 92W (XL) load rating in the 225/40-18, a 93W in the 225/45-18, and finally a 95W rating in the 235/40-18.

An 88 rating means the tires will support 200 less pounds (1235lbs) at the max pressure of 44PSI, where the stock tires MXM4s support 1433lbs (93 rating) at only 35 PSI (with the max pressure being over 40 PSI).

Just don't do any driving in the desert at high speed...

 

Value -- yes. If you are running 225/40-18s, I think I should bookmark this page...

 

No, they are 3-season tires and he did mention using the stock tires if winter came around. Did I miss something?

BTW -- some tires have big blocks with lots of aggressive siping for winter and don't forget the compounds roll in cold temp. performance.

 

I think I am going to go for these in the 235/45 version soon. For 400$ you can't really go wrong. And, having maximal grip in a car like ours isn't all that important b/c it's a big front wheel drive boat anyways.

By the way, these appear to be W-rated, not that it really makes that much of a difference. And, the 235's have a very high load rating.

Plus, in the 235 version there is a full 0.4inch more treatwidth per tire than the Potenza re730s that I have now. Wooohooo!

 

Well, I only have run the stocks and the Toyos, but the difference is night and day. Don't underestimate what a good tire will do for the car. The change from stock to Toyo was first done dead stock. (No wheels, sways, etc -- absolute stock -- and I scared the $hit out of some friends with the amount of lateral Gs generated in the hills without a peep. The balance was also altered in a significant way; there was much less “push”. Finally, what is it worth for maximum off-the-line grip and superior wet weather grip -- you do really get what you pay for...)

I haven’t seen anybody trading Toyos, S-02s, etc for those tires yet. When someone does and says they are better, I’ll be ready for a test ride.

 

BTW -- 93 in a SL rated tire is NOT "a very high load rating" (Acura did put an XL next to the tire ratings in the manual – and yes, there is a little wiggle room.). To put things in perspective, the car is made to support 1000 lbs of passengers and cargo (close enough). The tires spec'd by Acura are 93 XL (not SL) -- there is a big difference. So, now there are people running 88 rated tires (in the 225/40-18 SL Kumhos [and other non-XL rated tires in that size]). This means that each tire is now supporting 200 lbs less per wheel -- 800 less lbs of support, leaving a load reserve by Acura's measure of 200 lbs. Do stay on a diet. (There is more to this, since the car has the bulk of the weight on the front, but still...)

 

I guess what I don't understand is the difference between SL and XL. The load rating for the tires we're talking about is 1477lbs which seems quite good, no? But, then, what does the nomenclature SL vs XL mean if it doesn't have to do with this load rating? I'm confused since the load rating for the stock tires is only 1433. What am I missing?

 

The 93 rating means the tire will support the 1477 lbs.

However, an SL tire will support that load at the MAX pressure. So, the stock tire for the CL-S supports 1477 lbs at 35 PSI and has a MAX pressure of 40+ PSI. So, it is supporting that FULL load rating at 35 PSI and is almost supporting that load at 32 PSI.

An SL tire with a 93 rating will support 1477 lbs at its max pressure. So, if the tire (Kumho for example) has a max pressure of 44 PSI, the tire will need to be inflated to 44 PSI to support the same load as the stock tire does at 35 PSI.

The Toyo is an XL tire and people can argue all day long about what tire is "best" -- I sure haven't run head-to-head tests of 20 tires on the same surface on my car, so who knows. However, at least the Toyo T1S Proxy is XL rated and has a 97W rating. It supports the 97 rating at around 40 lbs, but its MAX pressure is 50 PSI.

So, an XL tire has reserve -- and if look at the various tires, most SL tires of a similar size will have the same load rating unless they are have reinforced construction to get an XL rating.

The point I've made in the past is:

1. Acura specs 93V XL -- in the manual.
2. If you go lower, you are putting in a part that has a lower spec below Acura requirements..
3. 93 load rating is probably fine and even 91 is ok if the car is not driven at high speeds and/or with high loads and/or in high heat.
4. Even some argument could be made for a 91 rating, since the CL comes with 91 SL rated tires.

So, at what point is the load too low. First, the arguments here went, "well I don't drive with a lot of people and 93 should be fine". Then people put on 91 rated tires and say, "well the CL has 91 rated tires, I'm ok with that". Now, people are putting on 88 rated tires. So, is the next stop 86 rated tires, then 84 rated tires, and so on, until someone buys the farm?

Just know what you are getting into.