And the field narrows yet further.
As we round to 2023, mainly Dunlop and Falklans remain.
As we round to 2023, mainly Dunlop and Falklans remain.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
17/17 and 17/18 Tire Choices - not much left.
- Thread starter stuntman
- Start date
+ Yokohama AD08RS (AD09 maybe when they are completely available ?)
+ Goodyear Eagle F1 A6
You must be in Europe; I’m not seeing either as DOT approved / available in the US as of today in the States. F1 is a great tire; hope we get A6 here and I wonder how it will compare to the 4S.
The Goodyear is getting top reviews everywhere, well above the Michelin PS4, even against the PS5, for example:
I see no reason why Goodyear would not get their top performance tire DOT approved, a US manufacturer ignoring the US market seems weird to me...
(edit) as for the Yokohama AD09, it's trickling through Europe right now (I can see a few sizes at usual retailers), I wonder how much better it is compared to the AD08 series, because that Goodyear looks really promising to me...
I see no reason why Goodyear would not get their top performance tire DOT approved, a US manufacturer ignoring the US market seems weird to me...
(edit) as for the Yokohama AD09, it's trickling through Europe right now (I can see a few sizes at usual retailers), I wonder how much better it is compared to the AD08 series, because that Goodyear looks really promising to me...
Last edited:
I’m not worried any of the three to get approved, more what subset of tires they elect to bring to the US market. I have had this scenario before where a new tire is announced, they even offer some oddball sizes for their initial run overseas, only for the US offerings to focus on larger sizes.
I didn't notice it mentioned but Continental Extreme Contact Force has a 225/40/17 and a 275/35/18
Great tire option.
Sucks. Unfortunately, the trend of larger rims is here to stay and is going to reduce our choices. I remember thinking that the is300 had huge 18 inch rims when it came out. Now, even the cr-v has 18 inchers and Accords have 19 inch rims. Bad for fuel economy and braking distance. Expensive when needing to replace tires. Bad when hitting pot holes.
I'm looking for a set of summer tires for the Titan 7 17x8, 18x10 wheels I bought years ago. Noticed that I can import Pilot Sport 4 in 215/40R17 and 275/35R18 from the UK (confirmed they have dot markings etc.) From what I can tell these sizes play nice with the TCS on an '01...
I have Falken AZENIS RT615K+ on my 1994. I am very happy with the ride and limited road noise. Seem to handle well although I have not pushed them as of yet. Best part was price, for the size you need 17/18 = $732 from Tire Rack. When I had my Titans on the car I ran 215/40R17 front and 265/35R18 on the rear.
I have these on our '94 as well -have been extremely happy with them. Hoping to try the newer RT-660 which is supposed to be a big upgrade from the 615K+
The 660k supposedly has improved grip at the expense of durability/longevity. This is why Falken continues to produce the 615k+.
Indeed, and I'm totally okay with that. The DOT codes typically get old before I can wear them out anyway.
I have a set coming to try on new wheels I'm designing. The 615K+ will stay on the 5Zigen FN01-RCs
For street driving or even fast canyons I doubt you would be able to tell the difference between the 615K+ and 660. For me it came down to price as I don't track the car any more and just needed a competent street tire. I didn't see where the additional cost of the 660 would provide any significant benefit.
Agree. A lot of these performance differences really only appear at the racing circuit. You just can't generate the required temperatures and cornering loads on the street. You might be able to feel differences in sidewall rigidity and things like turn-in responsiveness on the street though.
FWIW the 660s are a little wider than the 615s for a given size, at least for common 17/18 nsx sizes. So a 215/40/17 660 will not look stretched on a 8” wheel while the 615s will
Never understood why wheel manufacturers produced a front wheel in 8" width for the NSX. 7.5" is far better and accommodates a 215/40R17 sized tire without the stretch. Given the limited room inside the wheel well you really can't squeeze a 225 or 235 tire under there without some compromise (i.e. removing the fender liner, going to wider fender, and you will still rub the inner wheel well at full lock) so an 8" width doesn't really add any performance benefits over a 7.5" width when paired with a 215/40R17 tire.
Last edited:
Will a 255/40-17 rear work (TCS) with 215/45-16 front?
Last edited:
215/40R16 is not a common size. Didn't see that size available on either Tire Rack or Discount Tire although could be available through less reputable outfits. Unlikely you will find that size in a high performance name brand.
Why do you want to mount up a 215/40R16 when 215/45R16 is the OEM size?
Why do you want to mount up a 215/40R16 when 215/45R16 is the OEM size?
Sorry typo...fixed. So will the rear 255/40-17 (as opposed to 245/40-17) throw TCS?
If you are after a combination of 215/40R17 (front) and 255/40R17 (rear) you will be fine. I am running these sizes and no TCS issues.
Will a 255/40-17 rear work (TCS) with 215/45-16 front?
The 255 is approximately .3” larger in diameter than the OEM 245/40R17. Since you are specifying an OEM front size I would not think the TCS algorithm is that sensitive to be bothered by such a small discrepancy.
Somewhere in the forum was published a formula for calculating ratios for determining tire size compatibility. Maybe someone can provide a link.
Somewhere in the forum was published a formula for calculating ratios for determining tire size compatibility. Maybe someone can provide a link.
Similar threads
