Not to hijack the thread or anything, but I gotta agree with the Car & Driver analysis here. I've been reading the magazine for 20 years, and while they provide good info, they also seems to pick winners of tests almost at whim. They somehow subjectively change the criteria for any given test to suit whatever car/product they want to win that particular test. I remember a test back in 1993 where the Ford Probe GT finished ahead of the new Honda Prelude (which I had just bought)in a comparison test. Later that year, the Prelude was on the 10 best list for that class of car, and the Probe wasn't. Happens all the time. Use C&D for info, but don't put too much faith in their comparisons.

 

Apparently I wasnt very clear. From tirerack the KD is a Max Performance tire the KDW-2 isnt. Thats why the KD was tested and not the KDW-2.


What I meant is from the highest tier, because you cant really seperate them out past that. Sorry for any confusion, my point was that the KDW-2 is not a Max Performance tire and the KD is, hence why one was tested and not the other.

 

Decided to give the CONTINENTALS a try! They should be here and mounted by Tuesday.

 

Wonder why they didn't include the Falken RT-615? Grass Roots Motorsport ranked them #1. And I do believe SCC was impressed with them too. I am enjoying mine.

Oh, Tire Rack doesn't sell them............

And, Tire Rack told me that the Goodyear's wouldn't hold up to track use.

 

Tire Rack doesnt sell toyos either. I am suprised the toyos tested so poorly.

 

Sometimes i am very skeptical about these Car and Driver testers. They seem to not know to drive for ****, they are picky, and there reviews make absolutely NO sense to me.

The ContiSports ended up second yet their impressions about the tire were not great whatsoever?

"When we tabulated the results and found the Continental in second place, we went back and checked our math. During three days of testing, our subjective impressions didn't lead us to believe that the Continental was a second-place tire, but when we added the scores, that's where it landed."

"It simply didn't feel as sporty as some of the other performers—"

"On dry surfaces, the Conti never rose above third from last among 11 tires. It felt soft and imprecise, two qualities not in the vocabularies of performance tires. Geswein grouped it with the other "dull and disconnected" tires."

Did i mention these came in second place?

I don't even know if i would use these reviews as an important source for my decision. They also include price factor in the ratings! Since when did "budget" and "performance" mix? Alot of the factors these guys include in the mix don't even belong in the mix.

Don't let these reviews change your initial impressions. I honestly would rather hear consumer reviews on the product then some guys in a magazine. Plus you never know when conflict of interest or bias will come into play when these folks conduct the tests. They get paid for this.

 

I agree with ya Zexy... Some of their verbage was contradicting of themselves. And I seriously doubt the TOYO'S should be anywhere under Top 5. I guess my real reason for trying the CONTI'S is that I have ran Toyo for like 6 straight sets (previous car as well) and I have always liked the look of the Conti's. I guess I will see if they are as good as they appear. I will say that my beef with the Toyos has always been quick outside wear.

 

I know they are not big name but I would have liked to see some test results for Falken tires...

Either way it was a good article.

 

These Falkens look and from what I just read VERY interesting! Unfortunately, I personally need a "everyday tire" and these appear to be very performance driven and have a modest at best tire wear at 200.

 

Well, last track season I used the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 and they did not hold up on the track. I recently put on the Faulken RT615 and they are sooo much better for the track. The Goodyears are still a great street tire, especially when wet.

 

I have also been very pleased with my falkens. They are a little louder than the Goodyear F1's that I had on there before but they ride much better and seem to grip just as well if not better than the F1's. Take into consideration that the falkens were much cheaper and all of a sudden you begin to develope a real appreciation for them. As far as the looks go I have no complaints there either. All in all if you in the market for new tires anytime soon take a look at what falken has to offer. I doubt you will regret it.

 

I agree with you.

What surprises me is that no one in this thread pointed out that the handling characteristics of the 350Z are totally different from the BMW they used to test these tires.

I am sure that the wet characteristics as well as wet/dry stopping are very comparable so that part was useful but I don't drive hard on wet roads - I drive slow and I just want to get home without doing donuts.


On the other hand, the dry road is where these tires belong and that is where you will push them to their limit so I don't see how a car with a staggered tire layout to help overcome it's tendency to break loose can posibbly perform the same as the BMW.


So, I guess if I owned a BMW 325, I would have paid more attention to their comments but I don't.

To paraphrase the poster I quoted: "take C&D's test with a grain of salt' considering the dry handling test is an apples to oranges comparision - In my humble opinion.

Joe

 

nailed it on the head...Whoever sponsors these tests and gives away the most crap seems to always get better scores..... I want to know if there is a private company that monitors these type of tests....

 

I got the Kuhmo MX.... Havn't driven on them yet, but they look pretty.

 

I don't think the article was testing low profile tires that our Z's wear. Hard to tell then which one is best.