GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk5 => Topic started by: DOTE on 08 March 2009, 16:21
-
Hi all, Have just been reading the huge thread about the various new tyre options, and noticed that the Dunlop Sportmaxx tyres are acknowledged to be pants. Interesting, as I have 4 of these bad boys on my GTI and I can't say I'm particularly impressed with how quickly they give up grip, especially away from the line, but this could of course be down to lack of driver talent and a heavy right foot so I'd be interested in others opinion on them. It seems like the F1 Asymmetrics and the more expensive PS2's are universally applauded, my question is under normal spirited road driving would the average driver notice the difference between the Dunlops and the superior Asymmetrics or PS2s? Anybody made the change and care to comment? The reason for the question is I've owned the car from 9000 miles, and its now done 13000 and, despite my best efforts, the tyres appear to have LOADS of tread left, hence I'm wondering if its worth the expense of replacing them early; if there's not much difference then I'll leave it, if changing the tyres makes a huge difference then I might as well do it now as these Dunlops appear indestructable and capable of lasting forever (or maybe I need to try harder...)
ATB
-
I had the dunlops on mine from new and like you said they do seem indestructable! However I did notice excessive wearing on one side of the tyre. From what I can remember I wasnt the only one with that problem.
I found them quite decent in the wet, but as soon as the front 2 looked to be going I switch the the eagle F1's and noticed the difference sraight away. Bearing in mind that the F1's seem to take about a 1000miles to bed in.... they are excellent once they are!!
No point throwing away money and getting your current ones changed.... but once they are ready to go the F1's or PS2's are two of the best and the difference between them and the sportmaxx is night and day :wink: :smiley:
-
Always have Dunlop sportmax's on 2 of my 3 Mk5's , other having bridgestones which were sh!te!.
Ive bought dunlops for the simple reason, they are not always as bad as some people make them out to be, the are fit for purpose, ok may suffer a touch of road noise, but dont wear out as fast as others which is good considering the type of car it is. Never had uneven tread issues as some people are saying, and recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,and seem imo the best to get bargain price's on them. (in my experiance anyway)
You either buy better softer more expensive rubber for some extra grip/quieter on the road, on the down side they also tend to wear out faster.
F1 Asymmetrics seem to get the most praise, but if you do change make of rubber insure you change as an axel pair and but the new boots to the rear first.
If your an out and out racer/track day or find those dunlops too noisey then yes change brand, but if you tend to use the car in a sort of normal mode, i find them fine.
-
I had the sportmaxx and in all fairness they are not terrible tyres. My main complaint with them is that I had to replace them slightly prematurely as the insides wore away to nothing when there was still 3-4mm across the rest of the tyre. This wasn't an illegal tyre, but the effect on traction was quite noticeable.
If you want a good, cheap tyre I would strongly recommend Falken FK452. I paid £101 a corner fitted and tbh I think i could have got this cheaper by buying online. The cornering grip wet and dry is simply phenomenal after coming from the sportmaxx.
In addition there was a droning / bearing sort of noise from the sportmaxx's which has now gone :smiley:
Can't comment on the wear of the falkens as I've not had them that long.
All considered Id say the dunlops were more averagemaxx than shytemaxx as I may have previously called em.
-
Just to give you some idea I paid £112 fitted for the goodyear eagle F1 assyms. Not alot in it cost wise imo
-
Interesting posts guys, thanks for the info. Its tough to know whether to change tyres without trying them out (which is of course impossible!), would be a tough break to change all the tyres for around the £500 mark and then not be able to tell any difference! :grin: Mind you I have wasted loads of money on cars and it's all been massively enjoyable, if not sensible. I just wonder if these Dunlops will ever wear out, I mean I didn't own the car for the first 9000 miles and maybe its done a lot of motorway miles, I certainly do my fair share of motorway driving now, but the rears look almost perfect, and the fronts are even with tons of wear remaining! Road noise is an interesting point, not having anything to compare with I've never noticed it before - but now its been mentioned on here of course it was the 1st thing I noticed when I went out in the car earlier!! :grin:
-
The Dunlops I have had on my cars have all without exception been shyte and ruined the experience... and I have tried many others. Not for nothing have they earned the alias 'Shyte Max' by many disgruntled owners.
-
illyun, don't sit on the fence mate! :grin:
So, seriously, in my position would you bin 4 part worn Dunlops (that seem to have infinite life!) for 4 F1s, or PS2s or whatever tyre floats your boat and you're telling me that the next time I drive down a fine A road I'll notice the improvement in handling, grip etc etc. Because if thats the case I'll happily do it, what I don't want to do is spend the cash to find that, in reality, as a normal driver I can't actually tell any difference between the Dunlops and anything else.
ATB
-
I reckon most drivers would notice the difference between tyres.
It was suprising to me just how much extra grip I had when I changed from Conti's to Ultrac's .....and Conti's are generally considered good tyres. :shocked:
I've recently swapped to 19" alloys from lightweight 18" alloy and straight away I could feel the difference. I have slightly more mechanical grip, but at the expense of feel (which is strange as I thought I'd get more feel with less rubber depth!).
-
Got these from new on my GTI and after doing only 15k in 2 1/2 years I guess I'm keeping them until they wear out. 18" rims and after about 500 miles they became very noisy, but I ain't heavy on my tyres (never have been) and they do the job, so I ain't throwing away good tread for the sake of more grip and (probably) more wear :undecided:
Cass
-
Got these from new on my GTI and after doing only 15k in 2 1/2 years I guess I'm keeping them until they wear out. 18" rims and after about 500 miles they became very noisy, but I ain't heavy on my tyres (never have been) and they do the job, so I ain't throwing away good tread for the sake of more grip and (probably) more wear :undecided:
Cass
You're not driving that thing hard enough Cass :grin:
-
Got these from new on my GTI and after doing only 15k in 2 1/2 years I guess I'm keeping them until they wear out. 18" rims and after about 500 miles they became very noisy, but I ain't heavy on my tyres (never have been) and they do the job, so I ain't throwing away good tread for the sake of more grip and (probably) more wear :undecided:
Cass
You're not driving that thing hard enough Cass :grin:
exactly, depends on the type or agressive your driver style is, i know hurdy and Illyan are both fanatical shall we say behind the wheel :wink:
-
Always have Dunlop sportmax's on 2 of my 3 Mk5's , other having bridgestones which were sh!te!.
Ive bought dunlops for the simple reason, they are not always as bad as some people make them out to be, the are fit for purpose, ok may suffer a touch of road noise, but dont wear out as fast as others which is good considering the type of car it is. Never had uneven tread issues as some people are saying, and recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,and seem imo the best to get bargain price's on them. (in my experiance anyway)
You either buy better softer more expensive rubber for some extra grip/quieter on the road, on the down side they also tend to wear out faster.
F1 Asymmetrics seem to get the most praise, but if you do change make of rubber insure you change as an axel pair and but the new boots to the rear first.
If your an out and out racer/track day or find those dunlops too noisey then yes change brand, but if you tend to use the car in a sort of normal mode, i find them fine.
Phil
Can you explain this theory to me....
To be honest I want the best tyres where they are going to be of most benefit to me. On a GTI that means the tyres that have to put down the power, do the steering and do most of the braking.
The only thing I can think of would be handling balance if you are worried about a lack of grip inducing oversteer. But that's not really something the GTI is know for.
-
You are right most tyre places had a change of policy in recent years and fit new rubber on the rear now to avoid inducing oversteer on the average punters car.
I tend to swap mine F>R R>F when the fronts are 2 thirds gone to even it all out. Then all 4 tyres get replaced at the same time.
-
Got these from new on my GTI and after doing only 15k in 2 1/2 years I guess I'm keeping them until they wear out. 18" rims and after about 500 miles they became very noisy, but I ain't heavy on my tyres (never have been) and they do the job, so I ain't throwing away good tread for the sake of more grip and (probably) more wear :undecided:
Cass
You're not driving that thing hard enough Cass :grin:
Yep, need to get out more :laugh:
Cass
-
Always have Dunlop sportmax's on 2 of my 3 Mk5's , other having bridgestones which were sh!te!.
Ive bought dunlops for the simple reason, they are not always as bad as some people make them out to be, the are fit for purpose, ok may suffer a touch of road noise, but dont wear out as fast as others which is good considering the type of car it is. Never had uneven tread issues as some people are saying, and recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,and seem imo the best to get bargain price's on them. (in my experiance anyway)
You either buy better softer more expensive rubber for some extra grip/quieter on the road, on the down side they also tend to wear out faster.
F1 Asymmetrics seem to get the most praise, but if you do change make of rubber insure you change as an axel pair and but the new boots to the rear first.
If your an out and out racer/track day or find those dunlops too noisey then yes change brand, but if you tend to use the car in a sort of normal mode, i find them fine.
Phil
Can you explain this theory to me....
To be honest I want the best tyres where they are going to be of most benefit to me. On a GTI that means the tyres that have to put down the power, do the steering and do most of the braking.
The only thing I can think of would be handling balance if you are worried about a lack of grip inducing oversteer. But that's not really something the GTI is know for.
With FWD car it is generally recognised that the wheels with the most grip should go to the rear. This is simply because the nature of a FWD is to understeer and putting the better grip to the rear will keep this effect and so the driver will still know what to expect at the limit ie understeer. If the grip is predominantly to the front of the car then the car will grip more on the front, but is more liable to snap oversteer which can be really hard to come back from. Lift-off oversteer will also happen more readily with the better tyres on the front.
HTH
-
illyun, don't sit on the fence mate! :grin:
So, seriously, in my position would you bin 4 part worn Dunlops (that seem to have infinite life!) for 4 F1s, or PS2s or whatever tyre floats your boat and you're telling me that the next time I drive down a fine A road I'll notice the improvement in handling, grip etc etc. Because if thats the case I'll happily do it, what I don't want to do is spend the cash to find that, in reality, as a normal driver I can't actually tell any difference between the Dunlops and anything else.
ATB
I certainly noticed the difference although given my finances, I would either keep the Dunlops until they wore out - like I am doing on my wife's R32 because she won't notice the difference the way she drives :grin: :grin: :grin: - or replace them with some decent tyres Michelin PS2's and keep the Dunlops aside should I ever need them. I wrote a summary of my experiences with various tyres in another thread which I have pasted below.
My 06 GTI came with Contis, my 07 Ed30 came with Dunlop ShyteMax, can't remember what the 56 plate R32 came with, my present Ed30 came with Michelin Pilot Exaltos and my wife's 08 R32 has Dunlop ShyteMax. In order of preference...
1. Contis - superb grip and the best tyre out of the lot, although they wear fast. Mine lasted 13k miles on a standard GTI, while the Michelins lasted 28k miles on my present Ed30
2. Michelin Exaltos - excellent grip, but not as good as the Contis. Last forever.
3. Dunlop ShyteMax - why do they put this tyre on GTI/R32s?! As the name suggests, its a seriously shyte tyre from my experience and I am sure a lot of you will agree. It was so bad that when I got my first Ed30, it was under-steering like a pig and finding it hard to keep traction. I thought it was the Ed30, but it was the Dunlops. Even my wife's R32 loses a bit of traction going round corners when slightly pushes which is ridiculous. Truly rubbish tyres.
I currently have Michelin Pilot Sports on my Ed30 and they are the dogs danglies Way better than all the above. Bye bye wheel spin...
-
exactly, depends on the type or agressive your driver style is, i know hurdy and Illyan are both fanatical shall we say behind the wheel :wink:
You've never sat with me Phil... I fanatically adhere to the law and all speed limits :rolleyes: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: BTW I just found out that the Isle of Man has unrestricted roads with no speed limits - have to get myself there this summer :cool:
-
exactly, depends on the type or agressive your driver style is, i know hurdy and Illyan are both fanatical shall we say behind the wheel :wink:
You've never sat with me Phil... I fanatically adhere to the law and all speed limits :rolleyes: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: BTW I just found out that the Isle of Man has unrestricted roads with no speed limits - have to get myself there this summer :cool:
Of course you do nadeem, how silly of me :laugh: :lipsrsealed:
-
Hi all, Have just been reading the huge thread about the various new tyre options, and noticed that the Dunlop Sportmaxx tyres are acknowledged to be pants. Interesting, as I have 4 of these bad boys on my GTI and I can't say I'm particularly impressed with how quickly they give up grip, especially away from the line, but this could of course be down to lack of driver talent and a heavy right foot so I'd be interested in others opinion on them.
That is just one of their problems!
They also have quite a harsh ride, but also suffer from static deformation too (which indicates weaknesses in the actual carcass).
It seems like the F1 Asymmetrics and the more expensive PS2's are universally applauded,
I personally disagree that PS2s are more expensive than the Goodyears. OK, the 'advertised' prices for Michelins are usually £10-15 higher than their rivals, but with some hard haggling, then PS2s can be had for much cheaper prices than advertised. And don't forget - Goodyears are made by the same company as Dunlops! :wink:
my question is under normal spirited road driving would the average driver notice the difference between the Dunlops and the superior Asymmetrics or PS2s?
Absolutey. Even under remotely hard cornering, the deficiencies of the ShyteMaxx are clearly shown compared to PS2s. Same for traction and hard braking. Try very hard braking on a dry road with the ShyteMaxx, and the ABS will be working overtime. Do the same with PS2s, and you will have to press the brake pedal MUCH harder to activate the ABS.
There really is a huge difference in grip. Which might explain why Porsche fit PS2s as standard, but refuse to supply any kind of Dunflop. :smug:
Anybody made the change and care to comment?
Yup. Gone from ShyteMaxx to PS2 (in axle pairs) on the GTI - where you can unequivically compare the differences. And also gone from Pirelli P-Zero Rosso to PS2 on my RS4, and Continental SportContact2 to PS2 on my last S4. And before that, gone from Yokohama AVS Sport to PS2 on a previous car. On every occasion, the PS2s were a massive increase in performance over what they replaced. And before the PS2 came out, I went from a truely dangerous Yokohama AVS S1Z (asymmetrics) to the original Mich Pilot Sport - again, a massive improvement.
The reason for the question is I've owned the car from 9000 miles, and its now done 13000 and, despite my best efforts, the tyres appear to have LOADS of tread left, hence I'm wondering if its worth the expense of replacing them early; if there's not much difference then I'll leave it, if changing the tyres makes a huge difference then I might as well do it now as these Dunlops appear indestructable and capable of lasting forever (or maybe I need to try harder...)
I think I wore the original ShyteMaxxes down on the front of the GTI in about 8k miles. That was on a brand new car (with the first 1800miles running in), and also with sharing the driving with my SWMBO. And to be honest, the PS2s last roughly the same - maybe 1k miles less - but the level of grip improvement (and therefore safety) from the PS2s is surely worth the loss of 1k miles. :nerd:
Maybe you ought to turn off your traction control, and just 'try harder' wearing them out if you are worried about sending them to landfill before they are due. :wink:
EDIT: just checked my records, and the PS2s lasted about 10k - so they lasted LONGER than the ShyteMaxx
-
No point throwing away money and getting your current ones changed....
I disagree. What if the ShyteMaxxes break grip, and send you sideways into a wall or hedge, or oncoming traffic. The 'apparent' cost of wasting money on buying new tyres will long be forgotten when you have to cough up an insurance excess, and the subsequent increase in premiums.
-
recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,
Which test was that? The highly biased (biased against Michelin, by NOT using 'extra load' tyres, which we all know the GTI must have, by law) Evo test?
-
If you want a good, cheap tyre I would strongly recommend Falken FK452. I paid £101 a corner fitted and tbh I think i could have got this cheaper by buying online.
But you can get PS2s for about £130 each - so why scrimp and save £30 - especially when tyres are so 'safety critical'?
-
I just wonder if these Dunlops will ever wear out, I mean I didn't own the car for the first 9000 miles and maybe its done a lot of motorway miles, I certainly do my fair share of motorway driving now, but the rears look almost perfect, and the fronts are even with tons of wear remaining!
Maybe the stealer slapped on a new pair on the front before you bought it? :undecided:
But yes, the rears will last ages if not rotated.
-
I reckon most drivers would notice the difference between tyres.
Agreed. :afro:
It was suprising to me just how much extra grip I had when I changed from Conti's to Ultrac's .....and Conti's are generally considered good tyres. :shocked:
Hmmmm. I personally don't think that Contis are considered as an 'out and out' sports tyre like the PS2 is. Contis are more considered for their structural stability, and ability to carry high loads at v-max - which is why they are used on big heavy German cars which blast up and down the Autobahns on their speed limiters. :wink:
I think in purely 'grip stakes', Conti SportContacts have always come below Michelin Pilot Sports (both the orginal directional, and the current asymmetric PS2s).
I've recently swapped to 19" alloys from lightweight 18" alloy and straight away I could feel the difference. I have slightly more mechanical grip, but at the expense of feel (which is strange as I thought I'd get more feel with less rubber depth!).
The lack of 'feel' is simply down to the smaller sidewall height (or lower profile). The lower the profile, the less the sidewalls flex, and therefore they transmit less 'feel' back to the driver. This sometimes explains why GTIs on the standard 17" rims can 'appear' to be faster round a track - but if the test drivers had big enough cahonies to actually push the 18"s to the limit - then they would always be faster than 17"s.
-
You either buy better softer more expensive rubber for some extra grip/quieter on the road, on the down side they also tend to wear out faster.
F1 Asymmetrics seem to get the most praise, but if you do change make of rubber insure you change as an axel pair and but the new boots to the rear first.
Phil
Can you explain this theory to me....
To be honest I want the best tyres where they are going to be of most benefit to me. On a GTI that means the tyres that have to put down the power, do the steering and do most of the braking.
Not necessarily. Vehicle 'stabilty' should surely be the most important. If you have boots up front with say 6mm of tread, whilst boots at rear have only 3mm, then you are seriously compromising stability - especially in the wet.
And by using your scenario of traction, steering and braking - but with new boots at the rear, and part-worn at the front - then the tyres should still be able to cope. However, IF at 3mm, they are not able to cope on the front end (due to aquaplaning or whatever), then they are NOT fit to be on the car at all - be that front or rear. :wink:
The only thing I can think of would be handling balance if you are worried about a lack of grip inducing oversteer. But that's not really something the GTI is know for.
But it would happen, even on the GTI with shyte boots on the rear - trust me on that one.
-
No point throwing away money and getting your current ones changed....
I disagree. What if the ShyteMaxxes break grip, and send you sideways into a wall or hedge, or oncoming traffic. The 'apparent' cost of wasting money on buying new tyres will long be forgotten when you have to cough up an insurance excess, and the subsequent increase in premiums.
I think you're getting a little carried away here, though they may not be the best tyre they are not dangerous either. If you drive like a moron you will end up in a wall or hedge regardless of tyres. If you drive with any tyre thats too worn for what you are asking it to do you will end up in a wall or a hedge. The trick is to know your limits and the cars (tyres) limits. Sportmaxxes are not so bad that this limit will come out of nowhere and surprise you....
If you want a good, cheap tyre I would strongly recommend Falken FK452. I paid £101 a corner fitted and tbh I think i could have got this cheaper by buying online.
But you can get PS2s for about £130 each - so why scrimp and save £30 - especially when tyres are so 'safety critical'?
Most people will save £60 - £120, not insignificant :huh:
I got a local mobile tyre fitter to supply and fit, but they can be got as cheap as £76ish plus post + fitting so depending where you live you could get them for about £90 a corner. Saving £80-160 :laugh:
I haven't tried PS2's or the favourite eagle F1 assym, so I'm not able to compare them, however I'm the stereotypical Scot and hate paying over the odds for anything, if its worth it I'll pay it, if i'm just paying for a name - forget it. I did a lot of research before I replaced my sportmaxxes and found that the Falkens had rave reviews and they were cheaper than almost every other tyre that gave the same level of performance. I agree scrimping on tyres is a bad idea - if that means you are getting an inferior product. With the Falkens this is definately not the case, you are simply paying less for an outstanding product. (I'm not on commission honestly :smiley:)
-
No point throwing away money and getting your current ones changed....
I disagree. What if the ShyteMaxxes break grip, and send you sideways into a wall or hedge, or oncoming traffic. The 'apparent' cost of wasting money on buying new tyres will long be forgotten when you have to cough up an insurance excess, and the subsequent increase in premiums.
Well then you might want to slow down a little and adjust your driving according to the conditions. :grin: :tongue:
-
Well DOTE, I think you've heard a lot of opinions there but if I were you, I'd take into consideration my finances, my style of driving and the opinions of those who have had first hand experience of the ShyteMax's and other tyres.
-
No point throwing away money and getting your current ones changed....
I disagree. What if the ShyteMaxxes break grip, and send you sideways into a wall or hedge, or oncoming traffic. The 'apparent' cost of wasting money on buying new tyres will long be forgotten when you have to cough up an insurance excess, and the subsequent increase in premiums.
I think you're getting a little carried away here, though they may not be the best tyre they are not dangerous either.
Then we had best agree to disagree. :smiley:
If you drive like a moron you will end up in a wall or hedge regardless of tyres.
Agreed. But the big problem with the ShyteMaxes is that they brake away without ANY warning when cornering. Virtually every other decent tyre will give the driver some feedback, and therefore warning when the limits of grip are being neared.
And another big problem - when the GTI was first launched, and given to all the press hacks - it was unanimously touted as being superb in its handling, and also giving good feedback on the limit too. But when Wolfsburg started to fit the ShyteMaxxes, they really spoiled the handling. :sick:
Finally, there are many 'safe' places to drive on the limit - including race tracks and private airfields. :wink:
If you drive with any tyre thats too worn for what you are asking it to do you will end up in a wall or a hedge.
Huh - who said anything about driving on a tyre 'too worn'?
The trick is to know your limits and the cars (tyres) limits.
Agreed. :afro:
Sportmaxxes are not so bad that this limit will come out of nowhere and surprise you....
Sorry, but I strongly disagree, and my POV also seems to be supported by others here.
ETTO though.
If you want a good, cheap tyre I would strongly recommend Falken FK452. I paid £101 a corner fitted and tbh I think i could have got this cheaper by buying online.
But you can get PS2s for about £130 each - so why scrimp and save £30 - especially when tyres are so 'safety critical'?
Most people will save £60 - £120, not insignificant :huh:
So how much is your insurance excess? :smug: Or how much does it cost to get a kerbed Monza 2 repaired?
-
So how much is your insurance excess? :smug: Or how much does it cost to get a kerbed Monza 2 repaired?
My insurance excess is about £250. No idea on the monza's - about £100? Are you suggesting that unless I pay £30 more for my tyres I will prang my car and scrape my wheels? LMAO :grin: nah mate, I know how to drive.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are great tyres, I got rid of mine, but lets not blow things out of proportion either. They are not so bad that their use will result in a greater likelyhood of ending up in a wall or hedge. How many GTI's have ended up in either wall or hedge as a direct result of the use of Dunlop Sportmaxx?
-
Thanks for all the replies guys, they've been very interesting reading and really helpful. If my tyres were at the end of their life it would be a no-brainer for me to go with the F1s or the PS2s, the decision is hard because there's so much tread left on them, and it seems such a waste to bin tyres with so many miles left in them. Although I do note how poor some of you with direct experience think they are. I know its been suggested I could keep them in the garage as a spare set but, in all honesty, they'll just clog up the garage with all the other stuff I leave in there, "just in case I need it". Despite feeling they lack a bit of grip, and are perhaps a bit noisy, I havn't found them dangerous in any way, I just don't drive quick enough on public roads for that - you can be the best driver in the world on the best rubber in the best car, but they're still public roads with cyclists, pedestrians etc. and I save that kind of stuff for the racetrack (although not in the GTI). I'm still undecided, if I find myself flush with cash (I wish!!!) I'll get them changed, otherwise I'll hang on to them for a bit longer, and look forward to seeing for myself how much better the F1s and PS2s are when it gets time to change.
ATB and ta for all the info
-
Thanks for all the replies guys, they've been very interesting reading and really helpful. If my tyres were at the end of their life it would be a no-brainer for me to go with the F1s or the PS2s, the decision is hard because there's so much tread left on them, and it seems such a waste to bin tyres with so many miles left in them. Although I do note how poor some of you with direct experience think they are. I know its been suggested I could keep them in the garage as a spare set but, in all honesty, they'll just clog up the garage with all the other stuff I leave in there, "just in case I need it". Despite feeling they lack a bit of grip, and are perhaps a bit noisy, I havn't found them dangerous in any way, I just don't drive quick enough on public roads for that - you can be the best driver in the world on the best rubber in the best car, but they're still public roads with cyclists, pedestrians etc. and I save that kind of stuff for the racetrack (although not in the GTI). I'm still undecided, if I find myself flush with cash (I wish!!!) I'll get them changed, otherwise I'll hang on to them for a bit longer, and look forward to seeing for myself how much better the F1s and PS2s are when it gets time to change.
ATB and ta for all the info
I think thats probably the best way to go for you then... I'd do the same - in fact I am doing the same with the wife's R32. Drive carefully :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
ive had 3 Mk5's and safely say, ive not been in a hedge.
Dunlops are a safe tyre, if they are not, then they wouldnt be on sale and approved testing.
Its the Moron behind the wheel that determins whether the cars able to go round a corner!.
Im hunting for the tyre review for T_T......... give me a few mins.
-
heres a review on Dunlop tyres.
Cant find where i posted the tyre link before on here, but this shows some good reviews.
http://www.ctyres.co.uk/tyres/dunlop.php
-
Could I just slightly thread hi-jack here and ask: how come my gti (not an ed30) came with pilot exalto's and not these much maligned Dunlop's? Also, what is the general feedback on the Exalto's? As far as I know they are a pretty basic tyre that are put on because they are at the correct standard to do a decent, safe job on a Gti but are just that, nothing more. Then again, i'm probably wrong! :huh:
-
ive had 3 Mk5's and safely say, ive not been in a hedge.
Dunlops are a safe tyre, if they are not, then they wouldnt be on sale and approved testing.
Oh, I'm not doubting they are not a 'safe' tyre. And they certainly 'perform' under most scenarios (because as you correctly point out, they have all the relevent aprovals, including the DOT and 'E' aprovals) - but in all honesty, if you do drive the GTI like Clarkson did when he first tested on TopGear (on private facilities, m'lud :wink:), then the Dunlops do mar the handling, whereas similar 'premium brand', and even some 'budget' tyres can put the Dunlops to shame.
A classic example of wear the Dunlops fail compared to other tyres. Say you are going round a fairly fast bend - but in full control, within the speed limit, and without any kind of danger to other road users. Now if there are any 'defects' in the road surface - such as overbanding, manhole covers or pot holes - then the car on Dunlops will 'jump' sideways without warning, then slide. But with say the PS2s, they don't jump or slide. And I confirmed this on the GTI - because when the front pair wore out, I got just one axle set of PS2s. Once the PS2s were scrubbed in, if the Dunlops were on the rear, then the rear end would step out and slide - and when I swapped them to the front, the front woul jump and slide.
Its the Moron behind the wheel that determins whether the cars able to go round a corner!.
Hmmmmm - yes and no. Not even the best tyre in the world can make up for a muppet driver's mistakes. However, a good, quality tyre can improve overall vehicle safety - not just in cornering, but also in other safety critical areas such as braking in a straight line.
Im hunting for the tyre review for T_T......... give me a few mins.
:afro:
-
heres a review on Dunlop tyres.
Cant find where i posted the tyre link before on here, but this shows some good reviews.
http://www.ctyres.co.uk/tyres/dunlop.php
OK, thanks for the link.
There doesn't seem to be a test for the SportMaxx, although the SP Sport 01 is basically the same tyre - and comes out with an overall result of 4 out of 5. However, if you look at the Michelin page - http://www.ctyres.co.uk/tyres/michelin.php - again they don't have the PS2, but they do have the much older (it is actually obsolete) Pilot Sport (directional) and that gets 4½ out of 5. :wink:
-
Could I just slightly thread hi-jack here and ask: how come my gti (not an ed30) came with pilot exalto's and not these much maligned Dunlop's?
The GTI had a standard factory fit of four different types of tyre: ContiSportContact2, Dunlop SportMaxx, Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2 and Bridgestone RE050. It is just luck of the draw which boots you get on your car.
Also, what is the general feedback on the Exalto's? As far as I know they are a pretty basic tyre that are put on because they are at the correct standard to do a decent, safe job on a Gti but are just that, nothing more. Then again, i'm probably wrong! :huh:
The Exaltos are far from being a 'basic' tyre! They are actually very good - although on the GTI, there are better. But the Exalto is a tyre specifically designed for the 'hot hatch' sector - so that means they are not an 'out and out' sports high performance tyre like the PS2 - but are actually what could best be described as a 'sport/comfort' tyre. I would actually say the Exaltos are 'best' suited to the lighter hot hatches, such as the Polo GTI, or Corsa VXR - or the mid-sized 'mildy-warm hatches' like the Golf GT or the Astra SRI.
-
The Exaltos are far from being a 'basic' tyre! They are actually very good - although on the GTI, there are better. But the Exalto is a tyre specifically designed for the 'hot hatch' sector - so that means they are not an 'out and out' sports high performance tyre like the PS2 - but are actually what could best be described as a 'sport/comfort' tyre. I would actually say the Exaltos are 'best' suited to the lighter hot hatches, such as the Polo GTI, or Corsa VXR - or the mid-sized 'mildy-warm hatches' like the Golf GT or the Astra SRI.
Ok thanks, guess i'll stick with these for a while then as they seem to be wearing very slowly!
-
recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,
Which test was that? The highly biased (biased against Michelin, by NOT using 'extra load' tyres, which we all know the GTI must have, by law) Evo test?
Are you sure about this?
I’ve just checked my 17†OEM CS2s and they are the same 91 load rating as the PS2s they tested. Are they illegal too?
The PS2 does not come with a higher load rating in the 17†wheel size for 225/45. Given that is the size they were testing it is hardly bias is it? They used the best Michelin available.
BTW the F1 Asyms only come in a 94 load rating in that size, so they hardly had a choice there either.
-
recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,
Which test was that? The highly biased (biased against Michelin, by NOT using 'extra load' tyres, which we all know the GTI must have, by law) Evo test?
Are you sure about this?
yes very , perfomance tests with all leading brands of tyres was carried out and i posted a link to it a while back on this very site as this has as you can imagine been covered a few times.
Perhaps try the Search tab for "Best tyres for mk5 GTi" or something along those lines and im sure your find my link to these results.
Vw ARE NOT going to fit sub standard tyres to their own product!!.Order a new GTi from the factory, and you have 1 in 3 chance of getting one with them fitted!.
They are fit for purpose and are not as good as others but are fit for using on the GTi.
-
:smiley:
-
recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,
Which test was that? The highly biased (biased against Michelin, by NOT using 'extra load' tyres, which we all know the GTI must have, by law) Evo test?
Are you sure about this?
I’ve just checked my 17†OEM CS2s and they are the same 91 load rating as the PS2s they tested. Are they illegal too?
The PS2 does not come with a higher load rating in the 17†wheel size for 225/45. Given that is the size they were testing it is hardly bias is it? They used the best Michelin available.
BTW the F1 Asyms only come in a 94 load rating in that size, so they hardly had a choice there either.
yes very , perfomance tests with all leading brands of tyres was carried out and i posted a link to it a while back on this very site as this has as you can imagine been covered a few times.
Perhaps try the Search tab for "Best tyres for mk5 GTi" or something along those lines and im sure your find my link to these results.
Vw ARE NOT going to fit sub standard tyres to their own product!!.Order a new GTi from the factory, and you have 1 in 3 chance of getting one with them fitted!.
They are fit for purpose and are not as good as others but are fit for using on the GTi.
Sorry may not have been clear.
I was questioning why someone would say the test was biased against Michelin.
If anything it was biased towards Bridgestone as it was done at their own testing facility.....
-
recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,
Which test was that? The highly biased (biased against Michelin, by NOT using 'extra load' tyres, which we all know the GTI must have, by law) Evo test?
Are you sure about this?
Yup. The load carrying capacity of the car (the 'plated' axle weights and gross vehicle weights) are categorically defined by the load carrying capacity of the tyres. This 'plated' load then forms the 'Type Approval' for that particular model of car, and the Type Approval, together with the ex-works regulatory tests will generate a 'European Certificate of Conformity'. All this means that a car must have tyres equal to or higher than the specfied load index
I’ve just checked my 17†OEM CS2s and they are the same 91 load rating as the PS2s they tested. Are they illegal too?
Are you sure they are OEM? :huh: :undecided: Maybe the 17" tyres have a 'standard' load index which is good enough. Now I am confused! :undecided:
The PS2 does not come with a higher load rating in the 17†wheel size for 225/45.
Are you sure? I have looked on the Michelin site, but they are known to have a few errors regarding tyre sizes on their interweb site. For a while, they completely took off all tyre sizes, because they got so messed up.
Given that is the size they were testing it is hardly bias is it? They used the best Michelin available.
But it IS a bias. They chose to use some tyres with standard load and others with extra load ratings. This one differance can make a crucial effect in how a tyre performs, particularly under 'stress' related tests, such as heavy braking, and hard cornering.
They should only have used all standard load tyres, OR all extra load tyres, not a mish mash of both. And where they couldn't, then they should have completely excluded those tyres from the results, or alternatively, clearly highlighted this crucial difference, and clearly indicated what effect non-XL tyres would have. But instead, Evo being the typical journos they are (and NOT vehicle dynamics engineers) chose to ignore the facts, and didn't want to let inaccuracies mar a good money grabbing headline.
BTW the F1 Asyms only come in a 94 load rating in that size, so they hardly had a choice there either.
But they did have a choice. If it is so difficult in getting consistent load rated tyres in the 17" rim, WTF did they not use the 18"s - which are without doubt the most popular on the Mk5 GTI. Evo did have pleanty of choice, but chose not to bother - probably because the test was actually orgainsed by the corrupt Italians! :rolleyes:
-
Sorry may not have been clear.
I was questioning why someone would say the test was biased against Michelin.
The facts are simple. The Michelin tyres they used had a lower load carrying capacity - that is a point of fact!
Evidence for the prosecution, m'lud:
(Image copyright Evo mag)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t108/Teutonic_Tamer/Golf%20V/EvotyretestNov07.jpg)
If anything it was biased towards Bridgestone as it was done at their own testing facility.....
Erm, Bridgestone did not organise or arrange the test. They just recieved a big fat pay cheque whilst a bunch of muppet journos had a thrash around, whilst their Iti workers turned on an off a few garden sprinklers. But the actual day-2-day managers at the site probably couldn't give a toss which tyre came tops, maybe apart from the Italian Pirelli. :rolleyes:
-
recent tests put Dunlops 4th overall in performance testing,
Which test was that? The highly biased (biased against Michelin, by NOT using 'extra load' tyres, which we all know the GTI must have, by law) Evo test?
Are you sure about this?
Yup. The load carrying capacity of the car (the 'plated' axle weights and gross vehicle weights) are categorically defined by the load carrying capacity of the tyres. This 'plated' load then forms the 'Type Approval' for that particular model of car, and the Type Approval, together with the ex-works regulatory tests will generate a 'European Certificate of Conformity'. All this means that a car must have tyres equal to or higher than the specfied load index
I’ve just checked my 17†OEM CS2s and they are the same 91 load rating as the PS2s they tested. Are they illegal too?
Are you sure they are OEM? :huh: :undecided: Maybe the 17" tyres have a 'standard' load index which is good enough. Now I am confused! :undecided:
The PS2 does not come with a higher load rating in the 17†wheel size for 225/45.
Are you sure? I have looked on the Michelin site, but they are known to have a few errors regarding tyre sizes on their interweb site. For a while, they completely took off all tyre sizes, because they got so messed up.
Given that is the size they were testing it is hardly bias is it? They used the best Michelin available.
But it IS a bias. They chose to use some tyres with standard load and others with extra load ratings. This one differance can make a crucial effect in how a tyre performs, particularly under 'stress' related tests, such as heavy braking, and hard cornering.
They should only have used all standard load tyres, OR all extra load tyres, not a mish mash of both. And where they couldn't, then they should have completely excluded those tyres from the results, or alternatively, clearly highlighted this crucial difference, and clearly indicated what effect non-XL tyres would have. But instead, Evo being the typical journos they are (and NOT vehicle dynamics engineers) chose to ignore the facts, and didn't want to let inaccuracies mar a good money grabbing headline.
BTW the F1 Asyms only come in a 94 load rating in that size, so they hardly had a choice there either.
But they did have a choice. If it is so difficult in getting consistent load rated tyres in the 17" rim, WTF did they not use the 18"s - which are without doubt the most popular on the Mk5 GTI. Evo did have pleanty of choice, but chose not to bother - probably because the test was actually orgainsed by the corrupt Italians! :rolleyes:
I think we the consumer would have been worse off if they had limited the test to one of the load ratings.
As I have pointed out, some are only available in the high rating and some only in the low rating.
If it does make such a difference then good on the companies for supplying we the consumer with that product.
They chose the 17"s because of their general popularity - remember this is not a test just for GTI owners. We're just lucky they chose to do it with our car. I dare say the next one they do in a few years time will be on 18"s
-
Sorry may not have been clear.
I was questioning why someone would say the test was biased against Michelin.
The facts are simple. The Michelin tyres they used had a lower load carrying capacity - that is a point of fact!
Evidence for the prosecution, m'lud:
(Image copyright Evo mag)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t108/Teutonic_Tamer/Golf%20V/EvotyretestNov07.jpg)
If anything it was biased towards Bridgestone as it was done at their own testing facility.....
Erm, Bridgestone did not organise or arrange the test. They just recieved a big fat pay cheque whilst a bunch of muppet journos had a thrash around, whilst their Iti workers turned on an off a few garden sprinklers. But the actual day-2-day managers at the site probably couldn't give a toss which tyre came tops, maybe apart from the Italian Pirelli. :rolleyes:
It's reasonable to expect that a tyre will perform better at the testing facility it was designed on.
I'm not familiar with the Bridgestone development methodology so I don't know how much impact the new facility had in the development. It may or may not have affected the results. Given they mags are always going to have to use someone else's facilities then there's probably not much we can do there.
Does remind me of the time Car magazine ran an article on the quality of Rovers. They compared a model (might have been a 416??) to its competitors and were happy to report that quality wasn’t as bad as the public perceived it to be. They funny thing was that they used Rover’s own QA methodology to measure quality, so it was hardly surprising the Rover did ok as they were being build to pass that particular standard.
-
snippage
I think we the consumer would have been worse off if they had limited the test to one of the load ratings.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. I bet 99.9 % of car owners would NOT have the foggiest about the load index rating on tyres. So how can you expect the average consumer to deciper this highly crucial fact regarding load indexes. My Mrs is an ethusiastic driver, and has a fundamental basic mechanical knowledge (she can check all the fluids, tyre pressues, and tyre wear patterns, and can change a wheel) - yet she would openly admit to knowing fcuk all about load indexes. Many, MANY of my collegues in the trade also know fcuk all (yes, they all know you should have the same load index - but they don't actually know what the load index stands for). And many tyre depots, such as ATS, Thik-Fit, STS - and the national chains like Halfrauds, Nationwide Autocentres, etc rarely know about tyre load indexes.
So I just can not see how you think that mixing load indexes on a 'tyre test' in a magazine is going to honestly help the consumer with crucial facts. The average consumer will just see which came top of the list, and pick that one. End of.
As I have pointed out, some are only available in the high rating and some only in the low rating.
We have already agreed on that point. But just because some specific types are not supplied - that somehow makes it alright! :rolleyes:
You certainly wouldn't expect your Doctor to prescribe sommat - "which is sort of correct, but not really correct, but you aint getting the really correct one, because I don't like that particular drug company, but this other drug company looks after me with free samples" ? ? ? ? Because that is the sort of ethos you are trying to impart with your own logic on this point!
If it does make such a difference then good on the companies for supplying we the consumer with that product.
What ARE you talking about? The tyre companies, BY LAW, have to provide tyres which comply with EITHER the standard load index for that particular size, OR the extra load, OR both load indexes. These tyre companies are NOT somehow doing us 'a favour' !!!!
They chose the 17"s because of their general popularity - remember this is not a test just for GTI owners. We're just lucky they chose to do it with our car.
I am not really questioning the reasons why they chose the 17"s (although I do strongly dispute that 17" are the most popular in the ultra high performance tyre sector - as proven by audited sales figures published in a trade only magazine).
However, the crux of my complaint on this particular issue is that they DID use a GTI. And ONLY a GTI (and not a mixed fleet of similar cars, such as a Megan R36, Focus ST, Astra VXR, BMW 1-series, Civic Type-R). Furthermore, in the article, they repeatedly referred specifically to the capabilites of the GTI. So in all honesty, whilst the article is simply listed as a 'tyre test', I can be absolutely certain that any GTI owner who reads that article WILL consider that Evo tyre test as the DEFINATIVE tyre test specifically for the GTI. But, like I said, most GTIs (and ALL Pirellis/Ed30s and all R32s) had 18" rimmage - yet again, there is a clear inconsistency between the actual cars on the road, and the way they conducted their test.
I dare say the next one they do in a few years time will be on 18"s
But will they still get it correct? And won't 19"s be the then standard on the GTI?
-
If anything it was biased towards Bridgestone as it was done at their own testing facility.....
Erm, Bridgestone did not organise or arrange the test. They just recieved a big fat pay cheque whilst a bunch of muppet journos had a thrash around, whilst their Iti workers turned on an off a few garden sprinklers. But the actual day-2-day managers at the site probably couldn't give a toss which tyre came tops, maybe apart from the Italian Pirelli. :rolleyes:
It's reasonable to expect that a tyre will perform better at the testing facility it was designed on.
Rubbish. That Bridgestone testing ground in Italy is brand new. The actual testing of those particular Bridgestones will have been done somwhere in Japan! :rolleyes:
Given they mags are always going to have to use someone else's facilities then there's probably not much we can do there.
With that point, I agree with you entirely. :afro:
But it is still a shame that a UK magazine can not use a UK testing facility. Millbrook also have such similar facilites, and their ambient environmental conditions would have been perfect for the UK motorist. :wink:
Does remind me of the time Car magazine ran an article on the quality of Rovers. They compared a model (might have been a 416??) to its competitors and were happy to report that quality wasn’t as bad as the public perceived it to be. They funny thing was that they used Rover’s own QA methodology to measure quality, so it was hardly surprising the Rover did ok as they were being build to pass that particular standard.
And to be fair, most car manufacturers will work like that. The Euro NCAP crash tests are a classic example - all the manufacturers now build their cars so that they stand the best chance of getting five stars - yet many of them still omit vital safety aids such as ESP - with Ford being the worst offenders.
Anyway, getting a little off-topic for a tyre thread. :wink:
-
From that Mag T_T, do you have the page of results to see how the Dunlops performed just outa interest :wink:
-
snippage
If it does make such a difference then good on the companies for supplying we the consumer with that product.
What ARE you talking about? The tyre companies, BY LAW, have to provide tyres which comply with EITHER the standard load index for that particular size, OR the extra load, OR both load indexes. These tyre companies are NOT somehow doing us 'a favour' !!!!
Thanks for the detailed response TT. Won't go through it all as we are starting to repeat ourselves (and aren't going to agree on some things).
Just on this one though as I'm not sure I understand your point...
The 91 load rating for the 17"s is legal (as shown by the fact that OEM tyres have that rating). That is the tyre Michelin have chosen to make in this size. Fair enough too.
Some other brands have chosen make a 94 rating instead of or in addition to. Also fair enough. All are legal on the GTI.
If a 94 rating brand A tyre performs better on the GTI than a brand B tyre that only comes in a 91 rating (FOR THIS SIZE) then what should I do?
Buy the brand B even though it has been outperformed? Could do as I'm sure they are a good tyre that I'll be happy with
Upgrade to an 18" wheel just so I can buy the brand B in a higher rating? Sounds a bit expensive when we don't know for sure how the brands compare in this size (and personally I want to keep 45 series tyres as they offer just that little bit more sidewall to cope with the terrible roads here in OZ)
or...
just buy the brand A tyre?
I do agree with you that people on 18"s shouldn't assume the results will follow exactly the same.
-
You lot moanin about the dunlops don't know your born, Try driving a mk1 RS1600 escort and it had cross ply tyres on the rear and radial on the front (only temporary) lol. Only older members remember the advert :smiley: