GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk5 => Topic started by: R32UK on 25 February 2009, 08:21
-
Well... after kerbing one of my tyres, and finding a BIG bubble on the inside wall of the other I am unfortunately going to have to replace the front 2 after just 5k :cry:
Seeing as the back 2 only have a couple of 1000 left on them, and following on from advice given to RR on a previous thread I have decided to replace the back 2 also to give the full benifit of new boots with AWD.
Was told by my local garage that the damage on the side wall was probably caused by a pot-hole... was just wondering if anyone else has found the side wall of the eagle F1 assymetrics to be particularily weak? Just find a little strange how easily it has been damaged considering I dont recall hitting any potholes very hard.
Was also thnking of making the switch to the mitch PS2's... but was told by my local fitted that they will cost approx £100 more (for 4). Anyone who has had both the PS2's and the F1's???? is the extra £100 worth it???
thx :grin:
-
Any pics of the damage caused by the pothole?
I'd be interested to see how much it can damage your tyre, and maybe it will prevent me from ignoring them in future!!
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
-
Any pics of the damage caused by the pothole?
I'd be interested to see how much it can damage your tyre, and maybe it will prevent me from ignoring them in future!!
Will get a picture up asap :wink:
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
Not really heard much about the kumhos tbh.. would be interesting to have a read if you have a link.
Good to know that its not just the assyms that have a problem with the side wall. Would definately agree with the fact that the assyms seem to last alot longer than the PS2's which seem to be a softer compound. Will just have to remember that the Assyms seem to take a few thousand miles to wear in :grin:
-
TBH, I have no particular report, just that they are very common dicussion on most performance car forums, and they split opinion as is often the case.
The doubters and 'will not touch with a barge pole brigade' are often flushed out, when they admit to never trying a tyre, rather they just go on brand snobbery and price, but those who have treid the tyres, I have seen a very high satisfaction level, 9 out of 10 saying they are very happy, and this mirrors my findings, I got my friend to switch from PS2's to Kumhos on his M3 before Christmas, and he is very pleased, and he really rags it, and his overall view is fantastic wet weather performance, not had enough warm days yet to form much else of an opinion.
I use either www.camskill.co.uk for mail order, and get my local fitter to put them on, or event tyres as a mobile fitter
-
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5631/img00002200902250941.jpg)
(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6272/img00001200902250941.jpg)
Dont ask me how I spotted this.... purely off chance :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
TBH, I have no particular report, just that they are very common dicussion on most performance car forums, and they split opinion as is often the case.
The doubters and 'will not touch with a barge pole brigade' are often flushed out, when they admit to never trying a tyre, rather they just go on brand snobbery and price, but those who have treid the tyres, I have seen a very high satisfaction level, 9 out of 10 saying they are very happy, and this mirrors my findings, I got my friend to switch from PS2's to Kumhos on his M3 before Christmas, and he is very pleased, and he really rags it, and his overall view is fantastic wet weather performance, not had enough warm days yet to form much else of an opinion.
I use either www.camskill.co.uk for mail order, and get my local fitter to put them on, or event tyres as a mobile fitter
Will defo bear them in mind for the future... however I have already ordered mine from a local tyre fitter so dont want to make myself look like a prat by changing! :grin:
So F1 assyms it is. Will have them on the back too so for the first time on all four new tyres since new!! (well not the first but the sportcackkkk dont really count) :smiley:
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
-
Think I would get Goodyear to make an opinion on that, it's extreme, looks like the carcass beads have let go
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
-
Damn, that really looks pretty bad - I didnt think it would be that bad!!
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
I see. My recently purchased GTI is on Dunlop SP SPORT 9000 225/45 R17 ZR. Anybody got an opinion on these? I haven't driven it on anything else, so I've no frame of reference.
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
Dunolp sportmaxxx :wink:
-
Just popped into see my tyre fitter as they havent arrived yet. He has told me that he has the GSD2???coming in. As they have replaced the F1's.
Just wondering if this is the case?? :huh:
-
The suggestion of Kumho KU31's is interesting.
My past experience of using Kumhos to replace oem Pirellis, Michelins etc on quick cars is entirely positive.
They grip, are tough, wear well and are great value.
I'll try them next time. (at £67 each you can replace them with plenty of tread left on)
-
The suggestion of Kumho KU31's is interesting.
My past experience of using Kumhos to replace oem Pirellis, Michelins etc on quick cars is entirely positive.
They grip, are tough, wear well and are great value.
I'll try them next time. (at £67 each you can replace them with plenty of tread left on)
Would probably have looked at them tbh... but as the car is going back end of aug I presume they will want the tyres to be replaaced with a similar priced brand they came on. Oh well..... 6months to do as much damage to them as i can :evil: Will let you know how i get on once they are worn in :grin: :grin:
-
Dunlop Sportmaxx are pretty cack, they seem to be very keen to wear prematurely on the inside edge (had my alignment checked so not that) and average handling wise in the wet and dry.
Falken FK452 FTW. Amazing tyre for the price. Highly rated by most who use them.
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
Dunolp sportmaxxx :wink:
Never had them, so cheers for another tyre for the cack pile!
-
Just popped into see my tyre fitter as they havent arrived yet. He has told me that he has the GSD2???coming in. As they have replaced the F1's.
Just wondering if this is the case?? :huh:
That is a very old tyre, he must be wrong, thye previous F1 was the GS-D3, a big improvement over the D2, the D3 is now superceded by the F1 Assy, accept nothing else. The D3 is end of life, I think he probably means D3
-
Falken FK452, yep.
I like these cheaper brands, they are usually great tyres at bargain prices.
Nothing worse than putting on an expensive soft tyre and have it wear out in a few thousand miles. You can end up driving around with too little tread depth to cope with rain whilst you eke out the last few miles.
People sware by expensive Toyo Proxies. I used them once and found them to be a very mediocre tyre, spoiling the steering of my Alfa.
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
Not really heard much about the kumhos tbh.. would be interesting to have a read if you have a link.
Good to know that its not just the assyms that have a problem with the side wall. Would definately agree with the fact that the assyms seem to last alot longer than the PS2's which seem to be a softer compound. Will just have to remember that the Assyms seem to take a few thousand miles to wear in :grin:
Who says PS2s have a softer compound than the F1 Asymmetrics? :huh:
-
The doubters and 'will not touch with a barge pole brigade' are often flushed out, when they admit to never trying a tyre, rather they just go on brand snobbery and price, but those who have treid the tyres, I have seen a very high satisfaction level, 9 out of 10 saying they are very happy, and this mirrors my findings, I got my friend to switch from PS2's to Kumhos on his M3 before Christmas, and he is very pleased, and he really rags it, and his overall view is fantastic wet weather performance, not had enough warm days yet to form much else of an opinion.
I agree there are some peeps who may have their own prejudices, and who never actually try out a tyre (but that doesn't apply to me).
But one thing is absolutely certain, IF tyres like Kumhos or Eagle F1 Asymmetrics were as good as a few minor individuals 'claim' - then why are they not offered as standard OEM equipment on high performance cars such as the Bugatti Veyron, Audi RS models, or Porsches (which ALL have the PS2 as OEM standard fitments)? :rolleyes: Both Porsche and Audi RS cars make no compromises - particularly in 'handling' where tyres are without doubt THE most crucial component.
The only reason that Goodyears, and the majority of the other tyres mentioned in this thread are cheaper than the PS2s - is simply because they are not as good as the PS2. And I am not just talking about actual 'performance' of the tyre, but also about the 'aftercare' of the actual tyre companies. The 'customer service' from both Michelin and Continental is light-years better than other 'premium' brand companies, including Goodyear-Dunlop!
As always though, ETTO.
-
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5631/img00002200902250941.jpg)
(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6272/img00001200902250941.jpg)
Dont ask me how I spotted this.... purely off chance :grin: :grin: :grin:
Fcuk me! :shocked: That is actually worse sidewall damage than occurs on the notorious Pirelli P-Zero Rossos - and they are known to have a 'weak carcass'. Is there any tell-tale damage to the actuall rubber on the sidewalls near that bulge?
And you had been driving on a tyre like that? :shocked: Did you not notice any 'feedback' through the steering wheel? :huh:
-
Think I would get Goodyear to make an opinion on that, it's extreme, looks like the carcass beads have let go
Nope. The beads are actually completely intact, and perfectly serviceable. It is actually the sidewall carcass 'plies' which have let go - in a serious manner. R32UK was a very lucky boy - that could have caused a serious blow out!
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
I see. My recently purchased GTI is on Dunlop SP SPORT 9000 225/45 R17 ZR. Anybody got an opinion on these? I haven't driven it on anything else, so I've no frame of reference.
Actually, the sportcackkk are actually the Dunlop SpotMaxx, which were OEM fitments on some 2006-2008 GTIs. :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
Not a very good tyre. Quite hard tread rubber compound (meaning they don't grip), a weak carcass - and they actually suffer badly from 'static deformation' on certain cars, GTI included. They are basically a 'half-way house' (read: botch job) development of the Dunlop ShyteMaxx SportMaxx, with half the tread pattern being directional, and the other half being asymmetric. :sick:
I was going to recommend some Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s, but noticed you are on 17" rims, and the PS2s don't actually go down to that lowly size! :grin:
-
Just popped into see my tyre fitter as they havent arrived yet. He has told me that he has the GSD2???coming in. As they have replaced the F1's.
Just wondering if this is the case?? :huh:
No, no NOOOO. They are incredibly old stock, and are actually directional tyres, rather than the asymmetrics which you currently have. Avoid.
-
A set of wheels I just bought came with FULLRUN tyres :grin:
Made in China, worth about 20p. How they ever got TUV and DOT approval I'll never know.. but they have. Apparently 'drifters' love them for their ability to break traction easily (especially when fitted backwards) and the masses of white smoke they produce. Might have to slap them on and go do some donuts on the maccy d's carpark, innit.
-
The suggestion of Kumho KU31's is interesting.
My past experience of using Kumhos to replace oem Pirellis, Michelins etc on quick cars is entirely positive.
They grip, are tough, wear well and are great value.
I'll try them next time. (at £67 each you can replace them with plenty of tread left on)
Interstingly shyte. :sick: :sick: :sick:
I have tried Kumhos on a Polo - fcuking useless. Break traction very easily in a straight line. Lock up very easily under braking. And they were very scary when cornering - you turn into a corner (which I know like the back of my hand) - they turn in, turn in - then suddenly without ANY warning - slide sideways - virtually hitting the opposite kerb. Tried this on other corners (just to make sure there wasn't a diesel spill or sommat) - but every time I turned in - sudden and complete loss of lateral grip. Kumho = dangerous tyres. I also tried Kumhos on a Tiguan (a Golf5 4motion on stilts :wink:) - and again, identical problems. Those Kumhos really totally ruined the dynamics of both cars! :sick:
Firestone 'Fuel Saver' tyres are wayyyyy better than those Kumhos, and the Firestones were utter shyte compared to say Continental EcoContact or Michelin Energy.
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
I see. My recently purchased GTI is on Dunlop SP SPORT 9000 225/45 R17 ZR. Anybody got an opinion on these? I haven't driven it on anything else, so I've no frame of reference.
Actually, the sportcackkk are actually the Dunlop SpotMaxx, which were OEM fitments on some 2006-2008 GTIs. :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
Not a very good tyre. Quite hard tread rubber compound (meaning they don't grip), a weak carcass - and they actually suffer badly from 'static deformation' on certain cars, GTI included. They are basically a 'half-way house' (read: botch job) development of the Dunlop ShyteMaxx SportMaxx, with half the tread pattern being directional, and the other half being asymmetric. :sick:
I was going to recommend some Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s, but noticed you are on 17" rims, and the PS2s don't actually go down to that lowly size! :grin:
So what are these then? http://ssl.delti.com/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?details=Ordern&cart_id=12998162.124.24141&typ=397798&ranzahl=4&Breite=225&Herst=Michelin&Quer=45&Felge=17&Speed=W&weiter=0&kategorie=6&Ang_pro_Seite=10&Transport=P&F_F=&dsco=124&Achse=&LoadRange=
-
A set of wheels I just bought came with FULLRUN tyres :grin:
I suspect that might be what happens in your underpants too! :grin: :grin:
Made in China, worth about 20p. How they ever got TUV and DOT approval I'll never know.. but they have.
Hmmmmm . . . are you sure they havn't just faked the TÃœV and DOT approvals - afterall, China certainly aint shy of 'counterfeiting' anything. I bet they would even claim that the Popes' sh!t is TÃœV approved! :laugh:
Seriously though, maybe check with the accreditation labs at TÃœV Nord or TÃœV Sud.
Apparently 'drifters' love them for their ability to break traction easily (especially when fitted backwards) and the masses of white smoke they produce.
Yebut - 'drifting' isn't exactly the correct way to go round a corner on the Queens Highways. Let the old Bill catch you getting the tail out, and you'll be done for careless driving (just like motorcyclists who happen to 'pop' the odd wheelie).
Might have to slap them on and go do some donuts on the maccy d's carpark, innit.
Allrite then - but only if you are wearing a Burberry baseball cap, which hides greasy manky hair, and wear a white shell suit! :grin: :grin:
-
What's the sportcackkkk???
Continental Sport Contact
I see. My recently purchased GTI is on Dunlop SP SPORT 9000 225/45 R17 ZR. Anybody got an opinion on these? I haven't driven it on anything else, so I've no frame of reference.
Actually, the sportcackkk are actually the Dunlop SpotMaxx, which were OEM fitments on some 2006-2008 GTIs. :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
Not a very good tyre. Quite hard tread rubber compound (meaning they don't grip), a weak carcass - and they actually suffer badly from 'static deformation' on certain cars, GTI included. They are basically a 'half-way house' (read: botch job) development of the Dunlop ShyteMaxx SportMaxx, with half the tread pattern being directional, and the other half being asymmetric. :sick:
I was going to recommend some Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s, but noticed you are on 17" rims, and the PS2s don't actually go down to that lowly size! :grin:
So what are these then? http://ssl.delti.com/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?details=Ordern&cart_id=12998162.124.24141&typ=397798&ranzahl=4&Breite=225&Herst=Michelin&Quer=45&Felge=17&Speed=W&weiter=0&kategorie=6&Ang_pro_Seite=10&Transport=P&F_F=&dsco=124&Achse=&LoadRange=
Well fook me. Michelin must have only recently started the PS2s in 17" rim sizes. When they first came out, they were only available in 18" and above. So now all you 17"-ers can run some decent rubber too.
EDIT: Yup, now on Michelins own website: www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk/en/car-4x4-van/advantages/20070312100256.html
-
TBH never really noticed much on my run down south on the A1 Friday evening... but didnt really venture over 70-80 (well ok maybe just for a short blast :evil:) So didnt notice much. Spent nearly all day Saturday driving round N.London which was stop start at best so didnt notice anything either.
Did spot the bluge on Sunday morning, drove round N.London again and didnt really notice anything. However I did decide to play it safe on my journey up the M1, sticking to 70mpg (with a great 32mpg average too :grin:). This is where it felt very slightly shaky compared to normal... it was only then thinking back that it was probably the same on the way down where the car felt a little unstable but I put it down to probably the incorrect tyre pressure which I was meant to check (but was running slightly late as usual :rolleyes:)
Was told by tyre guy it could pop at anytime!! He was supposed to pick up the car this morning... but forgot :undecided: Not sure what to make of the GSD2's now as he told me they were the newer version of the F1's.... Is he telling porkies??? :undecided:
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
Not really heard much about the kumhos tbh.. would be interesting to have a read if you have a link.
Good to know that its not just the assyms that have a problem with the side wall. Would definately agree with the fact that the assyms seem to last alot longer than the PS2's which seem to be a softer compound. Will just have to remember that the Assyms seem to take a few thousand miles to wear in :grin:
Who says PS2s have a softer compound than the F1 Asymmetrics? :huh:
ME!! :tongue: Well by my own experience anyway. PS2 as good as they are, seem to wear much quicker than the F1's.... not by much but a noticeable amount.
-
The doubters and 'will not touch with a barge pole brigade' are often flushed out, when they admit to never trying a tyre, rather they just go on brand snobbery and price, but those who have treid the tyres, I have seen a very high satisfaction level, 9 out of 10 saying they are very happy, and this mirrors my findings, I got my friend to switch from PS2's to Kumhos on his M3 before Christmas, and he is very pleased, and he really rags it, and his overall view is fantastic wet weather performance, not had enough warm days yet to form much else of an opinion.
I agree there are some peeps who may have their own prejudices, and who never actually try out a tyre (but that doesn't apply to me).
But one thing is absolutely certain, IF tyres like Kumhos or Eagle F1 Asymmetrics were as good as a few minor individuals 'claim' - then why are they not offered as standard OEM equipment on high performance cars such as the Bugatti Veyron, Audi RS models, or Porsches (which ALL have the PS2 as OEM standard fitments)? :rolleyes: Both Porsche and Audi RS cars make no compromises - particularly in 'handling' where tyres are without doubt THE most crucial component.
The only reason that Goodyears, and the majority of the other tyres mentioned in this thread are cheaper than the PS2s - is simply because they are not as good as the PS2. And I am not just talking about actual 'performance' of the tyre, but also about the 'aftercare' of the actual tyre companies. The 'customer service' from both Michelin and Continental is light-years better than other 'premium' brand companies, including Goodyear-Dunlop!
As always though, ETTO.
Didnt your RS4 come with pirelli p-zeros :huh: :huh: :rolleyes:
-
I agree with you TT. Kumho's are great tyres.
The worst brand of tyre is Michelin. Full of production faults.
What do you expect from the French?
-
Ok we get TT's drift, he's a Mich b!tch, but I'll take you to task here, the PS2 is past its sell by date, the F1 Assys is a better tyre, a lot of models were developed when the PS2 was king, and thats why manufacturers recommend them, then they do not change that through the life cycle, plus they are tied in with longterm contracts. Lets be honest, Porsche is up the a*se of Conti cos its a German company and they work hand in hand, and no one thinks the Sport Contact 2 or 3 is as good as a PS2, F1 Assy.
Also from product design to model run out covers anything upto 8-10 years, and no way on earth is tyre technology standing still, so although the manufacturers tweak the brew over the life cycle of the tyre, like most things, the game is moved on, and eventually better products come to market. The PS3 has gone very quiet, maybe the economic situation, maybe its not performing, so the old PS2 soldiers on, with large rim selection getting harder to find and more expensive.
On the Kumho front, yep would agree some of their stuff was weak, but I'd be surprised if your Polo was running KU31's, cos if it was then your findings are at odds with most high performance car drivers views who use them, to label all their tyres as dangerous was like Clarkson saying all lorry drivers are rapists, cheap laugh but ridiculous.
Lastly I stand corrected I did not mean bead, but carcass plies, well spotted. :wink:
-
wow just had a look on that camskill tyre link from earlier in this post page 1 i think and there prices are really good and postage costs are ok aswell, worth a look id say guys :grin:
-
I usually price them up at www.mytyres.co.uk
Very fresh tyres from Germany.
Often though our local chap near the station in Kendal is cheaper.
-
Until I bought the ED30 which came with Conti Sport Contact 2s, I have been running my VW's with Michelin Tyres for the last 14 years. Yup, thats 14 years of VW's and Michelins (apart from a short spell with a set of Yokohamas on the MKII GTI). I have been more than happy with Michelin. However, after reading the EVO 2007 tyre test I replaced the Contis with Goodyear F1 Asymmetrics. They have been quieter than the Contis, have improved wet weather grip and have lasted better as well. The only negative is the tread pattern on Conti's was nicer to look at......... :rolleyes:
The Goodyears came out top overall with the Vredesteins second (but top for feel) the Kumhos came 7th and Michelin 5th. With regards to wet weather braking, Goodyear 1st, Kumho 5th and Michelin 7th.
Without being a tyre snob, I choose the winning tyre. I don't want to pay my hard earned money and get some mediocre tyre or have the time to try a range of different tyres. ( I might get my rims damaged by the fitters again :sick:) Evo mag mag have the time and facilities to try a range of tyres and cut out the hard work for us drivers.
-
My 2.0TDI S-line A4 was delivered new with conti's. Swapping them round managed 14k for the set.
Fitted GY F1 Asseys on, same again managed 16k.
Last June put 4 Kumho Ecsta KU31's, done 12.5k on the fronts alone and no where near the blocks yet.
Performance..................on par with conti's & asseys in dry, but a tad skittier in the wet, but nothing mad.
Tyres are really a model type thing IMO, some perform better than others on certain cars & power deliveries.
KU31's work well on an oil-burning A4, not sure what they will be like on the wifes Ed30, but I will give them ago.
I do agree with the brand snobbery on tyres though, lots of money does not=best tyres.
ta
-
The only really significant thing to out of the EVO tyre test was the difference between 17" and 18" wheels.
The 17" went round the test track 2.5 seconds faster than the 18". Both with the same tyre and oem wheels.
Kumho for me next time. I hate following the herd.
-
I have vredestein sessantas on mine and think they are great. Fantastic grip and quiet.
-
Just had some GY asymmetrics fitted. Too early to comment on grip, but happy to report that:
1) Tread wear rating is 240, compared to the old Bridgestones 140, which means they should last 70% longer :cool:.
2) Traction rating AA, rather than A. Only the top 3% of tyres have AA rating. More wet grip :smiley:.
3) Made in Germany :cool:. My hubby's GSD3s were made in China :sick:as he was told that production had just moved there from Germany. He can't wait to wear his out now.
-
Popped back down to tyre place and was told that the ones they had lined up were the GY Excellence which apparently are assymetric... :huh:
But told them I wanted the F1 assyms... so they will be fitted tomorrow :grin: :cool:
Looking forward to having 4 new boots without the sportmaxx stepping out at the back every now and then... proper pooop your pants moment :evil:
-
TBH never really noticed much on my run down south on the A1 Friday evening... but didnt really venture over 70-80 (well ok maybe just for a short blast :evil:) So didnt notice much. Spent nearly all day Saturday driving round N.London which was stop start at best so didnt notice anything either.
Did spot the bluge on Sunday morning, drove round N.London again and didnt really notice anything. However I did decide to play it safe on my journey up the M1, sticking to 70mpg (with a great 32mpg average too :grin:). This is where it felt very slightly shaky compared to normal... it was only then thinking back that it was probably the same on the way down where the car felt a little unstable but I put it down to probably the incorrect tyre pressure which I was meant to check (but was running slightly late as usual :rolleyes:)
Was told by tyre guy it could pop at anytime!! He was supposed to pick up the car this morning... but forgot :undecided: Not sure what to make of the GSD2's now as he told me they were the newer version of the F1's.... Is he telling porkies??? :undecided:
Like I said earlier these must be very VERY old stock, because they were discontinued light-years ago. Avoid.
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
Not really heard much about the kumhos tbh.. would be interesting to have a read if you have a link.
Good to know that its not just the assyms that have a problem with the side wall. Would definately agree with the fact that the assyms seem to last alot longer than the PS2's which seem to be a softer compound. Will just have to remember that the Assyms seem to take a few thousand miles to wear in :grin:
Who says PS2s have a softer compound than the F1 Asymmetrics? :huh:
ME!! :tongue: Well by my own experience anyway. PS2 as good as they are, seem to wear much quicker than the F1's.... not by much but a noticeable amount.
Ahh, OK. So you have actually used PS2s before? :huh:
Anyhow, when you get a mo, look on the sidewall of your Eagle F1s, and write down and post the following three readings - 'treadwear', 'traction' and 'temperature'. I'll try and do the same with the PS2s and we can compare. :wink:
-
The doubters and 'will not touch with a barge pole brigade' are often flushed out, when they admit to never trying a tyre, rather they just go on brand snobbery and price, but those who have treid the tyres, I have seen a very high satisfaction level, 9 out of 10 saying they are very happy, and this mirrors my findings, I got my friend to switch from PS2's to Kumhos on his M3 before Christmas, and he is very pleased, and he really rags it, and his overall view is fantastic wet weather performance, not had enough warm days yet to form much else of an opinion.
I agree there are some peeps who may have their own prejudices, and who never actually try out a tyre (but that doesn't apply to me).
But one thing is absolutely certain, IF tyres like Kumhos or Eagle F1 Asymmetrics were as good as a few minor individuals 'claim' - then why are they not offered as standard OEM equipment on high performance cars such as the Bugatti Veyron, Audi RS models, or Porsches (which ALL have the PS2 as OEM standard fitments)? :rolleyes: Both Porsche and Audi RS cars make no compromises - particularly in 'handling' where tyres are without doubt THE most crucial component.
The only reason that Goodyears, and the majority of the other tyres mentioned in this thread are cheaper than the PS2s - is simply because they are not as good as the PS2. And I am not just talking about actual 'performance' of the tyre, but also about the 'aftercare' of the actual tyre companies. The 'customer service' from both Michelin and Continental is light-years better than other 'premium' brand companies, including Goodyear-Dunlop!
As always though, ETTO.
Didnt your RS4 come with pirelli p-zeros :huh: :huh: :rolleyes:
Yes, it did have the Sh!trelli P-Zero Rossos - but the PS2 and CSC3 were also standard OEM fit too - but no Goodyears on the list. Just (bad) luck of the draw that I got those crap! :rolleyes:
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t108/Teutonic_Tamer/my%20B7%20RS4%20saloon/B7RS4tyresOEM.jpg)
-
Ok we get TT's drift, he's a Mich b!tch,
LOL.
but I'll take you to task here, the PS2 is past its sell by date,
You have got to be joking - seriously! The PS2 has only been out about 5/6 years, and is still up there with current technology. In fact, the PS2 technology is still so good - that Goodyear had to copy its fundamentals for its own Eagle F1 Asymmetric! :rolleyes:
the F1 Assys is a better tyre,
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. And so do Porsche and quattro GmbH.
ETTO though.
a lot of models were developed when the PS2 was king, and thats why manufacturers recommend them, then they do not change that through the life cycle, plus they are tied in with longterm contracts.
Wrong. The vast majority of car makers, including all mainstream VAG marques and Porsche, do NOT have a single contract for tyre suppliers. It would breach EU anti-competition laws! :rolleyes: Look at my previous post - and the OEM tyre suppliers just for the B7 RS4 include Pirelli, Michelin, Continental and Dunlop - quite a variety of makes - yet no Goodyear!
Lets be honest, Porsche is up the a*se of Conti cos its a German company and they work hand in hand, and no one thinks the Sport Contact 2 or 3 is as good as a PS2, F1 Assy.
Huh, wtf are you on about? OEM tyres on Porkers include Dunlop, Michelin and Continental - so how can you state they just use a 'German' company? :huh: And for the record, the CSC3 (and the older CSC2) are excellent tyres - though they do perform differently compared to the PS2.
Also from product design to model run out covers anything upto 8-10 years, and no way on earth is tyre technology standing still, so although the manufacturers tweak the brew over the life cycle of the tyre, like most things, the game is moved on, and eventually better products come to market. The PS3 has gone very quiet, maybe the economic situation, maybe its not performing, so the old PS2 soldiers on, with large rim selection getting harder to find and more expensive.
Huh - been fiddling with your playstation? :lipsrsealed:
And '8-10' years is way off the mark - both for cars and tyres! :rolleyes:
On the Kumho front, yep would agree some of their stuff was weak, but I'd be surprised if your Polo was running KU31's, cos if it was then your findings are at odds with most high performance car drivers views who use them, to label all their tyres as dangerous was like Clarkson saying all lorry drivers are rapists, cheap laugh but ridiculous.
I really don't know which Kumhos were on the Polo - they had big 'fuel saver' lettering (or sommat like that) round the sidewalls. But the Tiguan had different non-fuel saver tyres. But these were both lethal - IMVHO.
I can't really comment on their 'high performance' tyres - however, what concerns me is that some kumhos most definataly are fookin shyte - whereas with Michelin, their entire range are truely superb.
Lastly I stand corrected I did not mean bead, but carcass plies, well spotted. :wink:
:afro:
-
Until I bought the ED30 which came with Conti Sport Contact 2s, I have been running my VW's with Michelin Tyres for the last 14 years. Yup, thats 14 years of VW's and Michelins (apart from a short spell with a set of Yokohamas on the MKII GTI). I have been more than happy with Michelin. However, after reading the EVO 2007 tyre test I replaced the Contis with Goodyear F1 Asymmetrics. They have been quieter than the Contis, have improved wet weather grip and have lasted better as well. The only negative is the tread pattern on Conti's was nicer to look at......... :rolleyes:
The Goodyears came out top overall with the Vredesteins second (but top for feel) the Kumhos came 7th and Michelin 5th. With regards to wet weather braking, Goodyear 1st, Kumho 5th and Michelin 7th.
Without being a tyre snob, I choose the winning tyre. I don't want to pay my hard earned money and get some mediocre tyre or have the time to try a range of different tyres. ( I might get my rims damaged by the fitters again :sick:) Evo mag mag have the time and facilities to try a range of tyres and cut out the hard work for us drivers.
But as I have repeatedly pointed out - that Evo tyre test was blatantly biased against the Michelins. I'm sure that most of us on this forum, who take the slightest interest in tyres for the GTI (and the Ed30 and R32 :wink:) categorically know that the GTI must have 'eXtra Load' tyres. Yet in that Evo tyre test, which used a Mk5 GTI - the vast majority of tyres they tested correctly had the XL rating - but the PS2 and one other make did NOT have the XL rated tyres. Did Evo drop the pressures in the other XL tyres by about 10psi to counteract the non-XL PS2s? Nope. A clear bias, and clearly disadvantage against the PS2s. :rolleyes:
-
My 2.0TDI S-line A4 was delivered new with conti's. Swapping them round managed 14k for the set.
Fitted GY F1 Asseys on, same again managed 16k.
Last June put 4 Kumho Ecsta KU31's, done 12.5k on the fronts alone and no where near the blocks yet.
Performance..................on par with conti's & asseys in dry, but a tad skittier in the wet, but nothing mad.
But imagine that on an RS4, with the massive extra loads and demands it places on its tyres. 1.8 tonnnes, 420 ponies, 8-pot Brembos or ceramic anchors. It would rip the Kumhos to shreds, and probably trash a very expensive car in the process. And all for saving a few quid on cheap crap tyres.
Tyres are really a model type thing IMO, some perform better than others on certain cars & power deliveries.
To a certain extent, I agree. However, a shyte tyre will be a shyte tyre - irrespective of weather it is fitted to a Perodua Kelisa or a Bugatti Veyron!
I do agree with the brand snobbery on tyres though, lots of money does not=best tyres.
Yes, there is 'brand snobbery' with tyres, but that is no difference to brand snobbery between makes of cars. I'm sure we'd all agree that Audi make far better cars than say sh!troen. With cars and tyres, you generally do have to pay for better performance, and better quality. Though expensive doesn't always mean best - particularly if you have been ripped off. :wink:
-
I have vredestein sessantas on mine and think they are great. Fantastic grip and quiet.
I think you will be disapointed in them when the tread wears down. Vredestein construct their tyres in an opposite 'ethos' to say Michelin or Continental. Vredestein tend to use weaker more flexible carcasses, but with harder rubber compounds. Their grip is developed due to the heat generated during the 'flexing' of the tread plies - but when the tread wears down, they actually become quite a handful. You will probably find they start 'tramlineing' like crazy when they wear.
-
I don't overinflate my tyres and bounce all over the road, I've a space hopper for that.
Kumhos for me, that's because I have fitted them before to a supercharged V8 (400 bhp, rwd) and they were better than the Pirellis fitted as standard.
-
My 2.0TDI S-line A4 was delivered new with conti's. Swapping them round managed 14k for the set.
Fitted GY F1 Asseys on, same again managed 16k.
Last June put 4 Kumho Ecsta KU31's, done 12.5k on the fronts alone and no where near the blocks yet.
Performance..................on par with conti's & asseys in dry, but a tad skittier in the wet, but nothing mad.
But imagine that on an RS4, with the massive extra loads and demands it places on its tyres. 1.8 tonnnes, 420 ponies, 8-pot Brembos or ceramic anchors. It would rip the Kumhos to shreds, and probably trash a very expensive car in the process. And all for saving a few quid on cheap crap tyres.
ummmmm....noted = must be expensive to be good.
Tyres are really a model type thing IMO, some perform better than others on certain cars & power deliveries.
To a certain extent, I agree. However, a shyte tyre will be a shyte tyre - irrespective of weather it is fitted to a Perodua Kelisa or a Bugatti Veyron!
To a certain extent we will agree to disagree
I do agree with the brand snobbery on tyres though, lots of money does not=best tyres.
Yes, there is 'brand snobbery' with tyres, but that is no difference to brand snobbery between makes of cars. I'm sure we'd all agree that Audi make far better cars than say sh!troen. With cars and tyres, you generally do have to pay for better performance, and better quality. Though expensive doesn't always mean best - particularly if you have been ripped off. :wink:
Fair comments matey, bring out the finest bangers over the blue & white stripey ones any day......& 1 series over a golf....quality. :drool:
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
Not really heard much about the kumhos tbh.. would be interesting to have a read if you have a link.
Good to know that its not just the assyms that have a problem with the side wall. Would definately agree with the fact that the assyms seem to last alot longer than the PS2's which seem to be a softer compound. Will just have to remember that the Assyms seem to take a few thousand miles to wear in :grin:
Who says PS2s have a softer compound than the F1 Asymmetrics? :huh:
ME!! :tongue: Well by my own experience anyway. PS2 as good as they are, seem to wear much quicker than the F1's.... not by much but a noticeable amount.
Ahh, OK. So you have actually used PS2s before? :huh:
Anyhow, when you get a mo, look on the sidewall of your Eagle F1s, and write down and post the following three readings - 'treadwear', 'traction' and 'temperature'. I'll try and do the same with the PS2s and we can compare. :wink:
Here we go,
Mich PS2 220 AA A
Goodie Assy 240 AA A
Kumho KU31 320 AA A
I know cos I have the Assys on the car and the other 2 are mounted on sets of wheels in the garage, hence it has allowed me to really back to back the 3 tyre types.
Taking away any price consideration or perceived advantage due to name,
in terms of wear best to worst:
Kumho, Goodyear, Michelin
Dry grip
Goodyear, 2= Kumho,Michelin
Wet grip
Kumho, Goodyear, Michelin
Now I know I only have the benefit, of actually using all these tyres on my car, rather than making an untested opinion, and I appreciate unlike the mighty RS4's 420HP, I only have a weedy 350HP, but it is only going through 2 wheels, so thay are taking a lot of the strain here, to put the wear rate into context, the PS2's go down to 3mm (I junk tyres then) at 6k miles, the Kumhos have covered 8K and have 6mm left and the Assys have covered 7k and have 5.5mm left.
Now interms of price 4 PS2's in my size of 235/35/19 and 275/30/19 cost £1010, the Assys £628, and the Kumhos £390, these are mail ordered prices, thats how I buy them.
Now, as I said, all my findings are subjective, and are my own opinions, has I have found them in real world driving actually using the tyres on my car, hence that is how I come to the original conclusions that I posted.
Members can draw there own conclusions, but I know what I'll open my wallet for.
Fortunately, I can afford to run any of these tyres, but I ain't going to burn cash on a product that does not perform even if its got the fat guy stamped on the side.
-
Good review that kent :grin: :grin: :grin:
Always nice no know someones opinion who has actually tried all the tires, and the fact its the same car obviously helps! I did have the PS2's but that was on my old C2, and at the time didnt really give a hoot about tyres.
The change from sportmaxx to f1's was a huge difference, but they do seem to take their time to bed in. Still havent had them changed :undecided: back end is all over the place and traction light belongs blackpool.... but its good to know that come monday I should have 4 of the best boots available. Never skimp on footwear is what I say :grin:
-
Used both the Assys and PS2's. I feel from my experience that the Assy is a better wet tyre without doubt, equal dry tyre and longer treadlife.
Had 3 PS2's suffer sidewall damage in the form of cuts from potholes, particularly when it was wet, and for this reason I would not purchase again.
So my vote is with the Assys.
For those who are sick and tired (no pun) at premium brand tyre prices, the Kumho Ecsta KU31's are worth looking at. I have run them on my M3, along with PS1 and PS2 and now Assys, and without doubt the only thing budget about them is the price, they display better wet grip than both the Mich and Goodyears, similar dry grip and good treadlife, most people just will not try becuase of the name. But loads of EVO/Scooby/M3 drivers have switched and rave over them.
Not really heard much about the kumhos tbh.. would be interesting to have a read if you have a link.
Good to know that its not just the assyms that have a problem with the side wall. Would definately agree with the fact that the assyms seem to last alot longer than the PS2's which seem to be a softer compound. Will just have to remember that the Assyms seem to take a few thousand miles to wear in :grin:
Who says PS2s have a softer compound than the F1 Asymmetrics? :huh:
ME!! :tongue: Well by my own experience anyway. PS2 as good as they are, seem to wear much quicker than the F1's.... not by much but a noticeable amount.
Ahh, OK. So you have actually used PS2s before? :huh:
Anyhow, when you get a mo, look on the sidewall of your Eagle F1s, and write down and post the following three readings - 'treadwear', 'traction' and 'temperature'. I'll try and do the same with the PS2s and we can compare. :wink:
Here we go,
Mich PS2 220 AA A
Goodie Assy 240 AA A
Kumho KU31 320 AA A
I know cos I have the Assys on the car and the other 2 are mounted on sets of wheels in the garage, hence it has allowed me to really back to back the 3 tyre types.
Taking away any price consideration or perceived advantage due to name,
in terms of wear best to worst:
Kumho, Goodyear, Michelin
Dry grip
Goodyear, 2= Kumho,Michelin
Wet grip
Kumho, Goodyear, Michelin
Now I know I only have the benefit, of actually using all these tyres on my car, rather than making an untested opinion, and I appreciate unlike the mighty RS4's 420HP, I only have a weedy 350HP, but it is only going through 2 wheels, so thay are taking a lot of the strain here, to put the wear rate into context, the PS2's go down to 3mm (I junk tyres then) at 6k miles, the Kumhos have covered 8K and have 6mm left and the Assys have covered 7k and have 5.5mm left.
Now interms of price 4 PS2's in my size of 235/35/19 and 275/30/19 cost £1010, the Assys £628, and the Kumhos £390, these are mail ordered prices, thats how I buy them.
Now, as I said, all my findings are subjective, and are my own opinions, has I have found them in real world driving actually using the tyres on my car, hence that is how I come to the original conclusions that I posted.
Members can draw there own conclusions, but I know what I'll open my wallet for.
Fortunately, I can afford to run any of these tyres, but I ain't going to burn cash on a product that does not perform even if its got the fat guy stamped on the side.
super write up :smiley:
-
Kumhos, the thinking mans tyre.
-
Kumhos, the thinking mans tyre.
With my experience of GY Assyes, conti's & Kumho's on an oil burning A4 S-Line (235x40x18"), I would have to agree.
......i'll get my coat.........................................
-
Just got the car dropped off! 4 brand spanking new F1 assyms :evil: :evil: :evil:
Only 6000miles to wear them out :evil: Its going to be a exciting next 6months :grin: :grin:
-
Just got the car dropped off! 4 brand spanking new F1 assyms :evil: :evil: :evil:
Only 6000miles to wear them out :evil: Its going to be a exciting next 6months :grin: :grin:
Are they any good? ie. the back-end does not break away at awkward and unpredictable moments
-
Just got the car dropped off! 4 brand spanking new F1 assyms :evil: :evil: :evil:
Only 6000miles to wear them out :evil: Its going to be a exciting next 6months :grin: :grin:
Are they any good? ie. the back-end does not break away at awkward and unpredictable moments
Not sure yet as last pair of F1's were only on the front. Havent had a chance to drive her yet. They do seem to take a good 1000miles to wear in properly though I would say. Wil report back any findings, but Im quite sure they will be positive as the rears were previously dunflops :lipsrsealed:
-
Now I know I only have the benefit, of actually using all these tyres on my car, rather than making an untested opinion, and I appreciate unlike the mighty RS4's 420HP, I only have a weedy 350HP, but it is only going through 2 wheels, so thay are taking a lot of the strain here
But not in the same league as an RS4. It is all down to weight, when it comes down to things like 'stresses on tyres'. It is a well-known fact that if you double the mass (weight) of an object, then the increase in forces is actually the 'square' of that double. :nerd:
Secondly, you wrongly seem to be stating that it is traction which puts the greatest 'strain' on tyres. This is categorically wrong. Braking puts far greater stresses on tyres. As simple proof, try a 0-60mph acceleration test, noting both the time, and the elapsed distance. Then try a braking test from 60mph to zero. The braking will always be far shorter that the acceleration, even on 4wd cars. :smug:
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
What - an RS4 - any good????? Just slightly good! :lipsrsealed:
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
-
Dunlop Sportmaxx are pretty cack, they seem to be very keen to wear prematurely on the inside edge (had my alignment checked so not that) and average handling wise in the wet and dry.
Falken FK452 FTW. Amazing tyre for the price. Highly rated by most who use them.
I have also heard some very impressive reviews of the FK452's. I have not tried them myself, but I have heard they are extremely good value for money.
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
I disagree. With an extra 100bhp and someone who knows what they are doing I would put my money on the M5 to easily beat the rs4. Sorry but its true because I say so :grin:
In fact if I remember correctly... the RS4 got its a$$ posted to it by the M3 :lipsrsealed: so would be little match for an M5 :smug:
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
I disagree. With an extra 100bhp and someone who knows what they are doing I would put my money on the M5 to easily beat the rs4. Sorry but its true because I say so :grin:
The old old saying, power is nothing without traction - and even the best drivers can NOT overcome the laws of physics.
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
I disagree. With an extra 100bhp and someone who knows what they are doing I would put my money on the M5 to easily beat the rs4. Sorry but its true because I say so :grin:
The old old saying, power is nothing without traction - and even the best drivers can NOT overcome the laws of physics.
I think that you will find that some of the fastest track cars are actually 2wd. Not that this is what the discussion is about. I would just rather have the M5 than an RS4 thats all. :wink:
-
Both are too bulky and heavy for me out in the sticks on C roads. Roll on the new lightweight Mk7. lol
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
I disagree. With an extra 100bhp and someone who knows what they are doing I would put my money on the M5 to easily beat the rs4. Sorry but its true because I say so :grin:
The old old saying, power is nothing without traction - and even the best drivers can NOT overcome the laws of physics.
I think that you will find that some of the fastest track cars are actually 2wd. Not that this is what the discussion is about. I would just rather have the M5 than an RS4 thats all. :wink:
Why is four wheel drive banned in Formula 1.
Why is four wheel drive banned in the BTCC?
Why is four wheel drive banned in the DTM?
. . . . .
Think I am going somewhere! :wink: The ONLY reason that some of these 'track cars' happen to be rear wheel drive is simply because 4wd is banned. Look what happened when Audi entered all the domestic Touring Car Championships with their quattro Audi A4 race car - it literally thrashed every single championship, including the (then) very highly rated rear wheel drive BMWs - and then the following season, 4wd was banned! :smug:
-
Both are too bulky and heavy for me out in the sticks on C roads. Roll on the new lightweight Mk7. lol
Erm, the RS4 certainly aint bulky, and it absolutly holds its own against much lighter stuff, even on the tightest of 'C' roads.
-
I think that you will find that some of the fastest track cars are actually 2wd. Not that this is what the discussion is about. I would just rather have the M5 than an RS4 thats all. :wink:
Why is four wheel drive banned in Formula 1.
Why is four wheel drive banned in the BTCC?
Why is four wheel drive banned in the DTM?
. . . . .
Think I am going somewhere! :wink: The ONLY reason that some of these 'track cars' happen to be rear wheel drive is simply because 4wd is banned. Look what happened when Audi entered all the domestic Touring Car Championships with their quattro Audi A4 race car - it literally thrashed every single championship, including the (then) very highly rated rear wheel drive BMWs - and then the following season, 4wd was banned! :smug:
[/quote]
I think we are drifting off topic here slightly.... the M5 would still hand the RS4 its a$$ on a plate. 500bhp isnt exactly alot to put through a RWD.
-
snipage
I think we are drifting off topic here slightly.... the M5 would still hand the RS4 its a$$ on a plate. 500bhp isnt exactly alot to put through a RWD.
Sorry, but you are dreaming. The M5 'only' has an extra 80 horses over the RS4, but weighs a lot more, and has a shyte gearbox, and its power to weight ratio is actually worse than the RS4. :tongue:
-
snipage
I think we are drifting off topic here slightly.... the M5 would still hand the RS4 its a$$ on a plate. 500bhp isnt exactly alot to put through a RWD.
Sorry, but you are dreaming. The M5 'only' has an extra 80 horses over the RS4, but weighs a lot more, and has a shyte gearbox, and its power to weight ratio is actually worse than the RS4. :tongue:
Only one way to settle this...... :evil: :evil:
I will be giving you a call when I get mine MR T_T :grin: :grin: :wink:
Till then we will leave it as a BMW win :tongue:
-
snipage
I think we are drifting off topic here slightly.... the M5 would still hand the RS4 its a$$ on a plate. 500bhp isnt exactly alot to put through a RWD.
Sorry, but you are dreaming. The M5 'only' has an extra 80 horses over the RS4, but weighs a lot more, and has a shyte gearbox, and its power to weight ratio is actually worse than the RS4. :tongue:
Only one way to settle this...... :evil: :evil:
I will be giving you a call when I get mine MR T_T :grin: :grin: :wink:
Till then we will leave it as a BMW win :tongue:
We need to meet up somewhere around Donginton Park, then I will show you what the RS4 can do - and on Michelins too (drags thread back on topic <whistles> :evil:)
-
Rototest only obtained 328 bhp from the RS4, only 79% of the power claimed by Audi.
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=769
(The GTI got 97% of the claimed power and 103% of the claimed torque)
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=605
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
If you want to spend 25K, and go very quick around possibly the most demanding track on the planet ie The Ring, then buy a M3 CSL, yep its got the same SMG gearbox (yes Shyte Manual Gearbox as above), only 2 wheel drive, obviously a big disadvantage over 4 wheel drive.................oh and by the way, its only 19 secs a lap faster then a RS4....probably just as well its got a crap gearbox, with a standard manual it could have been seriously fast I guess, nearly forgot , plenty of twists and turns on the ring too, I'd have thought the 4WD would have pis*ed it on there.
But getting back to the OP, it was all about tyres, so would be nice to hear from someone else who has backed to back tested some different brands and got some concrete conclusions of their own.
Oh by the way, I'm now bored with this thread :grin:
-
Kumho's all the way............that should do it
-
Ha ha, interesting thread. Tyres are such an emotive subject aren't they?
Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks they are right, but the reality is that one make is good for one, and not for another. It all comes down to what you expect from a tyre and how you drive.
Falkens are good - Dunlops are crap? Dunlop make Falken, part of the Sumitomo Rubber Industry.
Dunlop Sportmaxx TT, had em on a Mondeo (235/45zr17), they rocked. Absolutely rubbish in the wet, and lethal in the cold!
Don't always believe what you read on the internet, trust TUV ratings, and the factory test drivers, these guys know what's good and what's rubbish, but as i said, it's all personal opinion.
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
If you want to spend 25K, and go very quick around possibly the most demanding track on the planet ie The Ring, then buy a M3 CSL, yep its got the same SMG gearbox (yes Shyte Manual Gearbox as above), only 2 wheel drive, obviously a big disadvantage over 4 wheel drive.................oh and by the way, its only 19 secs a lap faster then a RS4....probably just as well its got a crap gearbox, with a standard manual it could have been seriously fast I guess, nearly forgot , plenty of twists and turns on the ring too, I'd have thought the 4WD would have pis*ed it on there.
But getting back to the OP, it was all about tyres, so would be nice to hear from someone else who has backed to back tested some different brands and got some concrete conclusions of their own.
Oh by the way, I'm now bored with this thread :grin:
The M3 CSL is a stripped out track car. I thought this was a pissing contest between the RS4 and the M5.
Since you mentioned it, the RS4 is four seconds quicker around the 'ring' than the M5. So conclusive proof then that the Audi RS4>BMW M5. :wink:
-
Kumhos, the thinking mans tyre.
Well I have a set of 4 brand new Kumho Ecsta 18" 225/40 for £180 if anyone is interested... they are still bolund together and have the stickers on...
-
Kumhos, the thinking mans tyre.
Well I have a set of 4 brand new Kumho Ecsta 18" 225/40 for £180 if anyone is interested... they are still bolund together and have the stickers on...
NOw that is CHEAP!!! Considering I just shelled out over £500 for the F1's...... which feel terrific I have to say. Almost drives like a new car, as I hadnt noticed how badly the old tyres were affecting the ride and handling. Will be looking after this set with regular checks for any damage and of course pressure checks on a monthly basis. :nerd:
-
Kumhos, the thinking mans tyre.
Well I have a set of 4 brand new Kumho Ecsta 18" 225/40 for £180 if anyone is interested... they are still bolund together and have the stickers on...
NOw that is CHEAP!!! Considering I just shelled out over £500 for the F1's...... which feel terrific I have to say. Almost drives like a new car, as I hadnt noticed how badly the old tyres were affecting the ride and handling. Will be looking after this set with regular checks for any damage and of course pressure checks on a monthly basis. :nerd:
Yes it is cheap... I bought them 4-5 months back, but then decided on the Michelins before my current ones ran out... of course, the Michelins are better - I think - but then I'm not sure you can even get 1 Michelin for £180! From what I have read, the Kumhos punch well above their price point and are probably one of the best value tyres you can buy, but with decent performance to boot.
-
And it is these two reasons why I bought my RS4 into the melting pot. :rolleyes:
Are they any good?
£25,000 should buy me one.
They are very good! but for 25k.... this is what I would buy :evil: :evil: :evil:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/911910.htm
Yawn. HTF can a rear wheel drive BMW with a SMG (Shyte Manual Gearbox :sick:), and complete lack of traction in anything but perfectly dry tarmac - and in a straight line - ever compare with the awesome 4wd of the RS4. In everyday real world driving, none of the BMW M cars, nor the AMG Mercs, nor the Lexus IS-F can even come close to the traction of any of the Torsen 4wd Audis.
But if you like to get your Rse out on every corner, then by all means go for the M5. But just dont think it could ever keep up with an RS4 in the twisties. :wink:
I disagree. With an extra 100bhp and someone who knows what they are doing I would put my money on the M5 to easily beat the rs4. Sorry but its true because I say so :grin:
The old old saying, power is nothing without traction - and even the best drivers can NOT overcome the laws of physics.
Although apparently you can.....
But not in the same league as an RS4. It is all down to weight, when it comes down to things like 'stresses on tyres'. It is a well-known fact that if you double the mass (weight) of an object, then the increase in forces is actually the 'square' of that double.
I think you'll find that F=ma
-
But not in the same league as an RS4. It is all down to weight, when it comes down to things like 'stresses on tyres'. It is a well-known fact that if you double the mass (weight) of an object, then the increase in forces is actually the 'square' of that double.
I think you'll find that F=ma
Ahahaha nice one smoothcall!
To understand the above equation, if you doubled the mass then the force would have to also double to give the same acceleration.
the mass (weight) of an object
Also, mass does not = weight, weight is a measurement of force. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. So you cannot just weight something and then use it in the F=ma equation.
-
That's in our universe smoothcall.
In the strange world of TT anything can happen.
-
This thread's gonna run and run :grin:
Cass
-
This thread's gonna run and run :grin:
Cass
naaaaahhhhhh, I think it will end soon.....
Kumho's all the way............................... :laugh:
-
Sunny SN3800's are popular with the 4wd subaru wrx crowd.
Should be OK for a GTI (but not mine, I'm going upmarket and splashing out on some Kumho's)
-
Rototest only obtained 328 bhp from the RS4, only 79% of the power claimed by Audi.
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=769
(The GTI got 97% of the claimed power and 103% of the claimed torque)
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=605
Ohhhhhh dear . . . do Rototest have more knowledge and expertise, and more importantly, have a higher standard of peer review accreditation than say the "Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V." - commonly known as "DIN"? I personally doubt it. I also doubt that Rototest removes all engines from the car, and tests them on an engine dynomometer, under strict laboratory conditions! :rolleyes: Another question, what result did they get from the Audi R8?
Finally, Audi, just like ALL German car makers, do NOT declare power outputs in 'bhp' - they actually measure it in 'kilowatts' as per the DIN engine testing standard. :smug:
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
:rolleyes: And the 0-60 times for the above mentioned cars are????? :tongue:
-
Ha ha, interesting thread. Tyres are such an emotive subject aren't they?
Yup, but then tyres really are such a crucial component on a car - and the more a car relies on its 'handling', the more importance the tyres have. And on the Mk5 GTI, crap tyres really can mess up the handling.
Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks they are right, but the reality is that one make is good for one, and not for another. It all comes down to what you expect from a tyre and how you drive.
Agreed, and some tyre brands can be a bit like 'Marmite'.
At the end of the day though, most of the premium brand tyres are more than adequate (but when seeking out the very limits, or very extremes of tyre performance, then some tyres excel in certain areas, whilst others may excel in other areas). And some of the lesser, 'mid-range' tyres can also be good.
But the big problem with the mid-range tyres is that they are very inconsistent. Take Kumho - OK, their 'top of the range' high-performance tyre might well be very good (as seems to be the case from testimonies here :smiley:) - but the rest of their tyres in the Kumho range are fookin shyte, with some (particularly their fuel-saving 'energy' tyre) being lethal. :angry: But with say Michelin, ALL of the tyres in their range, from their fuel saving Energy Saver at one end - all the way through to their super-sports tyre the Pilot Sport PS2 - are all superb tyres. At the end of the day, you can drive any kind of car, and if it is wearing Michelins, you know their tyres will perform, and not let you down. That is why they are used as OEM factory fits by so many manufacturers. But unfortunately, Michelin seem to suffer from not being 'cool' or trendy - many peeps think that Yokohama are a 'cool' tyre brand - but they have produced some truely shocking tyres over the years - but because they are 'marketed' in a certain way, to a certain demographic - they keep selling. Bridgestone are another brand seen as cool, probably due to their involvement in F1 - and whilst they have made some very good high performance road tyres, in all honesty, there are much better boots than what Bridgestone offer
Don't always believe what you read on the internet, trust TUV ratings, and the factory test drivers, these guys know what's good and what's rubbish, but as i said, it's all personal opinion.
I sort of agree. But like any kind of 'test' - if you design the test in a specific way, you can actually 'target' the results to favour one particular attribute. For example - when Which test tyres, they place a heavy emphasis on tyre price, another heavy emphasis on availability, and so on. Yet the real important tests such as wet cornering grip, wet braking, and the likes - they give less emphasis too. So with Which, you could have a tyre that is tops in wet grip, tops in dry grip - but just because it costs £20 more, and is only available from one tyre chain (or internet only) - then it will come below a banana-skin Trayall, which costs 20 pence per tyre, and is available at every single outlet. :sick: Just consider what Mark Twain wrote. :wink:
-
The M3 CSL is a stripped out track car. I thought this was a pissing contest between the RS4 and the M5.
Since you mentioned it, the RS4 is four seconds quicker around the 'ring' than the M5. So conclusive proof then that the Audi RS4>BMW M5. :wink:
Max, you are my new 'best mate'. :kiss: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:
But seriously, again with the M3, can it really carry 5 people in comfort and luxury like the RS4 can? Can the rear seat passengers get out of their own doors? :tongue: And can an M3 carry even 2/3rds of the luggage capacity of the RS4? Nope to all three. :smug:
-
But not in the same league as an RS4. It is all down to weight, when it comes down to things like 'stresses on tyres'. It is a well-known fact that if you double the mass (weight) of an object, then the increase in forces is actually the 'square' of that double.
I think you'll find that F=ma
Ahahaha nice one smoothcall!
To understand the above equation, if you doubled the mass then the force would have to also double to give the same acceleration.
the mass (weight) of an object
Also, mass does not = weight, weight is a measurement of force. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. So you cannot just weight something and then use it in the F=ma equation.
Mass DOES equal weight. OK, I accept that 'technically' weight is a measurement of force - but that is simply the actuall mass of an object, multiplied by the force of gravity. So if you can give me examples of Richard Branson taking an RS4 into outer space, then we have to conceed that here on earth, gravity is a constant.
And I don't really agree with that formula. I can't specifically back up my concern. However, it is categorically well-known, and actually taken as fact - in all areas of motor vehicle engineering, including motorsports engineering - that if you double the mass/weight of something, then you need to square the forces (to accelerate, brake, corner, etc). Why do you think that Formula 1 cars, and racing bikes - even racing bicycles are so light, and if no minimum weight regulations were in force, then F1 cars would probably end up weighing 2/3rds, maybe even half what they currently weigh.
And to confirm this, some research done in the early 1990s by the governments TRL - they tested negative acceleration forces from vehicles of different weights - and the results were truely shocking. They crashed a 38tonne truck into a wall and measured the forces - and when the truck was travelling at the (supposedly :rolleyes:) governed 56mph - the force it hit the wall was compared with an average family car (I think they used a Moandeo) - and they proved that the car would need to be travelling at 200 mph to reach the same forces as the 38tonne truck at 56mph!!!!! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: Naturally, this report wasn't seen to be in the best interests of 'fair enforcement' of speeding vehicles - because motorcyclists 'latched on' to this, citing they were unfairly being targeted, when the damage they do when hitting another object was relatively negligable compared to even a car, nevermind fookin gerrt juganaughts !
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
:rolleyes: And the 0-60 times for the above mentioned cars are????? :tongue:
I don't know, and to be honest, I don't really care. What I DO care about is that in 'every day', 'real world' motoring, including the stuff we get a fair bit of (rain), then the RS4 is a way better car. I can use 100% of my RS4s abilities 365 days a year, come rain or shine, including snow (well not quite 100% of the RS4 in the snow - but 100% more than the M5 could).
-
laws of physics > crash tests :tongue:
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
:rolleyes: And the 0-60 times for the above mentioned cars are????? :tongue:
I don't know, and to be honest, I don't really care. What I DO care about is that in 'every day', 'real world' motoring, including the stuff we get a fair bit of (rain), then the RS4 is a way better car. I can use 100% of my RS4s abilities 365 days a year, come rain or shine, including snow (well not quite 100% of the RS4 in the snow - but 100% more than the M5 could).
I same the same about the R32 to the GTI brigrade every other day :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
:rolleyes: And the 0-60 times for the above mentioned cars are????? :tongue:
I don't know, and to be honest, I don't really care. What I DO care about is that in 'every day', 'real world' motoring, including the stuff we get a fair bit of (rain), then the RS4 is a way better car. I can use 100% of my RS4s abilities 365 days a year, come rain or shine, including snow (well not quite 100% of the RS4 in the snow - but 100% more than the M5 could).
I same the same about the R32 to the GTI brigrade every other day :grin: :grin: :grin:
Yebut - your four wheel drive is like my employment status - part-time! :tongue: :grin:
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
:rolleyes: And the 0-60 times for the above mentioned cars are????? :tongue:
I don't know, and to be honest, I don't really care. What I DO care about is that in 'every day', 'real world' motoring, including the stuff we get a fair bit of (rain), then the RS4 is a way better car. I can use 100% of my RS4s abilities 365 days a year, come rain or shine, including snow (well not quite 100% of the RS4 in the snow - but 100% more than the M5 could).
I same the same about the R32 to the GTI brigrade every other day :grin: :grin: :grin:
Yebut - your four wheel drive is like my employment status - part-time! :tongue: :grin:
I prefer to think of it as "when needed" rather than hangin around without reason. :wink: :grin:
-
According to Wikipedia (usual health warning), the RS4 was quicker around the Top Gear test track than the M5.
M5 did it in 126.2
and if you look in the notes down the bottom it says:
Top Gear Series 7, Episode 2 2005.11.20 – Jeremy Clarkson: "You know we put it around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something." – Actual lap not shown. Also Clarkson said that the RS4 is "more than a second quicker than the Cayman", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.7 around the track.
My money would be on the RS4 any day. 4WD>80 extra bhp.
Yup. I really don't know why anyone would think that the BMW M5 lard barge is going to be quicker than an RS4.
Maybe R32UK also thinks that John Prescott is quicker over the 110 metres hurdles than Iwan Thomas! OK, granted, Prezzer may be quicker with his right hook though! :wink: :evil:
:rolleyes: And the 0-60 times for the above mentioned cars are????? :tongue:
I don't know, and to be honest, I don't really care. What I DO care about is that in 'every day', 'real world' motoring, including the stuff we get a fair bit of (rain), then the RS4 is a way better car. I can use 100% of my RS4s abilities 365 days a year, come rain or shine, including snow (well not quite 100% of the RS4 in the snow - but 100% more than the M5 could).
I same the same about the R32 to the GTI brigrade every other day :grin: :grin: :grin:
Yebut - your four wheel drive is like my employment status - part-time! :tongue: :grin:
I prefer to think of it as "when needed" rather than hangin around without reason. :wink: :grin:
Ahh, but all four of mine are always fully utilised! :tongue:
<fx/on> angelic expression <fx/off>
:evil: :evil:
-
Dunlop Sportmaxx are pretty cack, they seem to be very keen to wear prematurely on the inside edge (had my alignment checked so not that) and average handling wise in the wet and dry.
Falken FK452 FTW. Amazing tyre for the price. Highly rated by most who use them.
I have also heard some very impressive reviews of the FK452's. I have not tried them myself, but I have heard they are extremely good value for money.
Back on topic for a moment..... having worn these in now I can say that they are simply fantastic. Forget any snobbery about names, these are awesome and the comparision between them and sh!temax is night and day.
-
Dunlop Sportmaxx are pretty cack, they seem to be very keen to wear prematurely on the inside edge (had my alignment checked so not that) and average handling wise in the wet and dry.
Falken FK452 FTW. Amazing tyre for the price. Highly rated by most who use them.
I have also heard some very impressive reviews of the FK452's. I have not tried them myself, but I have heard they are extremely good value for money.
Back on topic for a moment..... having worn these in now I can say that they are simply fantastic. Forget any snobbery about names, these are awesome and the comparision between them and sh!temax is night and day.
But ANYTHING is better than ShyteMaxx!
-
But at £61.50 a tyre, you can afford to change them frequently (aslong as you have a wheel shop who takes care when fitting etc).
-
Shytemax were better than the michelins I had on my mk 4 though :lipsrsealed: