• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Tire Choices for 16/17 OEM Wheels?

Joined
28 December 2001
Messages
2,774
Location
Berwyn, PA
Hello,

I have done a search, and found out that the other tires that will fit OEM 16/17 tires are Falken Azenis sports, and Kumho Ecsta 712?

If I were to go for Falken Azenis, what exactly is the size that I need? I have looked up Falken website, and I could not find sizes that are same as OEM Yokohama tires.

Also, if you know any other grippy, yet inexpensive tires, please let me know. I plan to use them at the track, and my experience level is still early to use the R compounds.

Thank you.
 
I strongly recommend the OEM tires (Bridgestone RE010 or Yokohama A022H) - especially for track use. They are great handling tires, and they are perfect for the track as well as for the street.

The track is NOT the place to save a few bucks on tires. You're spending hundreds of dollars to sign up for each track event. Your savings with cheap tires would be maybe $5-10 for each event. It's not worth it. Trust me - you really don't want to drive on the track using cheap, crappy tires like the Kumho Ecsta 712. Get the good OEM tires.
 
Check out the Yoko AVS ES100. They are much less money than the OEM tires and they work great!

That being said, at NSXPO 2002 the guy behind me had OEM tires and he could definately out grip me.
 
I still prefer the RE010s on the track until I decide to switch to actual track tires. I ran the Kumhos at Infineon last year since they were on the spare set of wheels I bought from Peter and I was surprised at how well they handled. They were extremely noisy in terms of squealing in every corner but they held up well for being a cheap tire. The only other problem is that they rub in the front at lockout but that generally is not an issue.

I would not go back to them because of my preference for the OEMs but I figured I would express my minority opinion that they got me through two days on the track without a problem.

Here is a vid of a lap on the Kumhos:
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?...invite&cmp=EMC-IS_other&creative=album-invite
 
NetViper:

I don't see the ES100 listed in the OE 16" front size, so what sizes are you running on those '96 wheels? Just curious.

Richard
'93 Blk/Blk
 
rrwildman said:
NetViper:

I don't see the ES100 listed in the OE 16" front size, so what sizes are you running on those '96 wheels? Just curious.

Richard
'93 Blk/Blk

I acutally don't have them on the fronts. I thought you could get them though?
 
NetViper said:
I acutally don't have them on the fronts. I thought you could get them though?

Thanx. I just thought you'd found something I hadn't. Nah, I don't see 'em in 215-45/16. I do see a 205-45/16 though, and that would actually work fine. 205's enough cross-section for the front of an NSX (OE '91-'93), they'd work on the rim width, but they'd just be a little shorter. The '93 TCS would actually like 'em more than the OE '94+ size combo. If you decide to put 'em up front, that should work fine with 245-40/17 OE size rears on the '94+ wheels. The slightly narrower cross-section might even offset the lack of the OE F/R compound difference and result in better balance, who knows?

Anyway, just curious. Thanx

Richard
'93 Blk/Blk
 
Acura NsX Pilot said:
You mean your running two different sets of tires front/rear ?

Yeah. I know, its bad. Shame on me. The car came with Pirelli P7000? on the front and they have never worn out. I put the Yoko ES100 on the rear and intended to replace the pirelli with Yoko when they wore out. They are still looking good though 2 years later.

When I do it next time though, I will replace all 4. There doesn't seem to be a lot of options though.

What did you guys end up getting?
 
Do 225/45-16 & 255/40-17 fit on those wheels? The Bridgstone S-03 comes in that size.
 
Go with the Falkens.

BTW, I had 225/45/16 F 255/40/17 R Yok-Es100 and they were the worst tires I had ever used. No stick, squishy side walls, dead on-center feel.

The kicker for me is that with a lowered car, the 225/45/16 rubbed at full lock.

Went with the Falkens and have not looked back. Great feel, sticky as heck, progressive, stiff. Not great in the rain, but who cares... you don't drive in the rain do you:D.

JMO
 
Since you have stock size wheels, I also recommend the OEM tires - especially for the track.

I’ve been on the track once with the Kumho Ecsta 712 (stock 15/16 sizes) and can comfirm that they are very crappy tires. In fact, during a slalom exercise, the instructor commented on how poorly my NSX was going thru the course due to the tires. If I recall correctly, with the same driver, the speed was down about 7 MPH compared to his stock NSX.

I also agree with Hiroshima’s assessment of the ES100. During my limited time behind the wheel of an NSX with these tires, I could tell a drastic difference compared to the stock tires. While this was on the street and this car had 15/16 sizes, even if the shorter sidewall 16/17 do perform slightly better, I would not consider these tires for the track.
 
I ran a couple of days at Road America in 2002 on ES100s, with my 325i. My perception was that they performed adequately, but that was my first HPDE, so I was hardly an expert.

I love them as a value high performance tire, along with the T1-S, but I wouldn't put them on my NSX.

I have a set of ES100s on my TL.

Anyone run 225/40/16 on the OEM 16s?

How about 255/40/17 rears on the OEM 17s?
 
Discount tire has the falkens for the cheapest. Vulcan tire has the tires for the cheapest per-tire price but you have to pay for ship. Discount has free ship which makes the end result the cheapest. I tried a bunch of different resellers but no dice, go with Discount Tire Direct. www.tires.com

I run Falken 215/45/16 F 245/45/17 rears. The width of these tires, because of how sqare they are, are equivilent of having 10mm wider tires. I compared them side by side with the Yok ES100's I had on the car and the were virtually identicle to my 225/45/16 F 255/40/17 R. No kidding, these things are wide for their size.

Two noted downside of the Falkens.
They are heavier than most tires. The most obvious reason is that the sidewall of the Falkens are 3 ply and not 2 as in most car tires. This make these tires resist rollover quite a bit better and it should make these more responsive at turn-in.
The second downside is that full treaddepth of the Falkens are 8/32 whereas the ES100's are 10/32. So right off they don't have as much tread. (Treadwear is 220 I think so they are not designed to last all that long)

http://www.discounttiredirect.com/d...ilBrnd.do?tpc=FALHZ5&tp=Passenger/Performance

brahtw8:
I used to run 225/40/16's in Yok A520 and they worked great. Did not rub at full lock but I was not running stock wheels. I had SSR's with a 38 offset. I cannot guarentee if they will or will not rub with the stock front wheel offset.

All in all, short of the OEM tires and Max performance tires that cost twice as much, there are not too many tires that can compete with the Falken's for price and performance.

HTH
 
Not to beat a dead horse, and not to bash Yokohama, but I cannot recomend enough that the ES100's are NOT for the NSX that is driven agressively (even on occasion). I have no idea what Yokohama was thinking when they replaced the A520 with the ES100's. The ES100's were absolutely ***DEAD*** on-center. At 60 mph I could wiggle the steering wheel 5-7 degrees and practically nothing happened. Taking corners at speed was more difficult because of the soft sidewalls. They were quiet and I hear they last a long time but those were not the things that I placed high on my list for *MY* car. If those are your objectives, then by all means look at these tires.

I am not trying to offend those who picked this tire for their car, heck *I* picked them for my own car. I just know when I made a mistake and if you are lucky you can work quickly to rectify it. Yokohama offers a 30 or 60 day guarentee where you can try out their tires and if you do not like them they will take them back. If you are within this period, I would encourage you to try driving someone else's car with different tires to see what you may or may not be missing.
 
Hiroshima said:
brahtw8:
I used to run 225/40/16's in Yok A520 and they worked great. Did not rub at full lock but I was not running stock wheels. I had SSR's with a 38 offset. I cannot guarentee if they will or will not rub with the stock front wheel offset.

I have them on my Racing Harts, which have an unusual (and unbeknownst to me) offset. They seem to be about .1 larger in overall diameter, and obviously are 10mm wider (both obviously theoretical, not actual as tires do vary in size.) I am hoping that I can re-use the fronts if my RHs can't be fixed/replaced and I have to go to the stock 16/17s. Unfortunately, I don't think Toyo makes a 245/40/17, so I will probably end up running 255s on the rear stock 17s (94-96 solaris silver).

BTW, I also noticed the ES 100s are a bit on the small side as to width. My Dunlop D40M2s were noticeably wider than the ES 100s that replaced them, despite being the same size. (These were the 225/50/16s on my 325i. As indicated above, I don't recommend putting ES 100s on an NSX, as they don't offer enough performance.)
 
brahtw8 said:
Unfortunately, I don't think Toyo makes a 245/40/17, so I will probably end up running 255s on the rear stock 17s (94-96 solaris silver).

If you are going to use Toyo's, I know of a local club member that uses T1-S front tires that are 225/45/16 and he said that particular tire does not rub and he is lowered with Bilstiens. As far as 255/40's I think those tires are perfect for the rear of the NSX. Fills out the wells and looks good. Did not affect my TCS so,... I say go for it.
 
Hiroshima said:
If you are going to use Toyo's, I know of a local club member that uses T1-S front tires that are 225/45/16 and he said that particular tire does not rub and he is lowered with Bilstiens. As far as 255/40's I think those tires are perfect for the rear of the NSX. Fills out the wells and looks good. Did not affect my TCS so,... I say go for it.

I would use my existing 225/40/16s, and would try to get some 255/40s for the rear, but I don't know if they make the T1-S in that size. I have 265/40/17 T1-S on my racing harts, but the stock 17 x 8.5s can't handle that much rubber AFAIK.

Anybody run a 255 on a stock 17 x 8.5?
 
brahtw8 said:
Anybody run a 255 on a stock 17 x 8.5?

I have. Worked great. I ran 255/40/17 on the OEM rears. I checked the T1-S spec sheet and they do offer 255/40/17 but they are Y rated. Not an issue for most as I don't usually trave at 149 MPH for over an hour at a time:D

http://www.toyo.com/tires/tire_specsheet.cfm?id=2
 
Hiroshima said:
I have. Worked great. I ran 255/40/17 on the OEM rears. I checked the T1-S spec sheet and they do offer 255/40/17 but they are Y rated. Not an issue for most as I don't usually trave at 149 MPH for over an hour at a time:D

http://www.toyo.com/tires/tire_specsheet.cfm?id=2

Thanks for the link. I have been to the site and have looked at the specs before, but it wouldn't let me in through the front door without downloading a flash player today (at work).

BTW, you misread the speed ratings. The Y rating is good for 186 MPH. V is only good for 149. W is 168. So don't worry about sustaining 150 MPH plus speeds . . .
 
The same three tires being discussed here - the OEM tire (RE010), the Yokohama ES100, and the Falken Azenis Sport - are the leading choices for my other car, and are often compared with each other. I've driven each of them as well. Here are the pluses and minuses of each:

RE010 - Superbly precise handling. Great grip on dry pavement. Good grip on wet pavement. The most expensive of the three. Great on the track.

ES100 - Great value. Good grip on dry pavement - not as good as the others, but not bad at all, especially for the price. Great grip on wet pavement. The least expensive and longest-lasting of the three. (Outperform the previously-mentioned Kumho 712 in every regard.)

Azenis - Great grip on dry pavement. Not good at all on wet pavement. The shortest treadlife of the three. Most folks love it on the track, but a few claim that it gets slippery when it heats up.

The treadlife of the RE010 is typically about 50 percent more than the Azenis, and the treadlife of the ES100 is 50-100 percent more that of the RE010. While the Azenis is fairly inexpensive, on a cost-per-mile basis, the cost advantage vanishes due to its short treadlife.

The RE010 is a great tire if you are looking for a tire that can be driven on the street and on the track, without any real downsides on either. It's a little expensive but is rewarding in terms of performance.

The ES100 is not the best tire around, but offers tremendous bang for the buck. It's an appropriate tire for someone who rarely pushes his car hard, uses it mostly for highway and commuting miles, really doesn't care all that much about performance, and is willing to sacrifice some performance to save money on tires (particularly if he has a separate set of track tires).

The Azenis offers really great grip for street driving on dry pavement. It's a good choice for those living in climates where it rarely rains, and for those who want a streetable tire primarily for track use.

Again, I think the OEM tire is a great all-around choice for a car that is going to be driven on the street as well as the track, for those who don't want track tires (R compound). It does extremely well at both, and is even good in rain. The Azenis is another good choice as long as your car rarely sees rain, although its short treadlife prevents it from qualifying as any great bargain, despite the low purchase price. I would not use the ES100 for a car that is expected to do much track time.

Note - None of these tires is suitable for use in winter conditions.
 
Back
Top